Contacts with parents and family members
One indicator of social integration is the individual’s frequency of contacts with other persons; family members, friends, neighbours and work colleagues. In this chapter we will present some results from the NORBALT survey where we have comparable data for at least some of these forms of contacts. First we will look at the frequency of contact with close relatives.
Latvia has a larger proportion of people living with their parents than is the case in the other two countries as shown in Figure 7.1. As a rule, contacts with brothers or sisters tend to be more rare than those with parents (Figure 7.2). The most striking difference between the Baltic countries is that in Estonia and Latvia the proportion who see their parents and siblings less than once every year is considerably larger than in Lithuania. One of the reasons for this is probably the fact that Estonia and Latvia have large Russian-speaking populations, many of whom have close relatives living in other parts of the former Soviet Union, who can not be reached very frequently.
Figure 7.1 Frequency of contacts with parents. Per cent of individuals 18 and more years with at least one parent alive
Daily Every week Every month A few times a year Not every year Estonia Latvia Lithuania Estonia Latvia Lithuania Estonia Latvia Lithuania Estonia Latvia Lithuania Estonia Latvia
Lithuania 15.2
20.0 20.0 13.8
3.3
15.1 18.8 12.9
13.6 7.1
14.8
20.3 15.8
14.1 8.9
Figure 7.2 Frequency of contacts with brothers/sisters. Per cent of individuals 18 and more years with at least one sibling. Per cent
Per cent 8.4 Live with brother/ sister
Daily Every week Every month A few times a year Not every year Estonia
That family encounters are more frequent in Lithuania than in Latvia and Estonia is confirmed by the next figure, showing the frequencies of contact with the respondent’s own children (Figure 7.3). In Lithuania only 3% of the parents do not see their children at least once every year, whereas in Estonia and Latvia the corresponding figure is 7%.
Figure 7.3 Frequency of contacts with children. Per cent of individuals 18 and more years with at least one child.
Per cent
Daily Every week Every month Few times a year Not every year Estonia
Contact with neighbours
While Lithuanians see their family members and relatives more often than Estonians and Latvians, in terms of the frequency of contacts with neighbours they are more in line with people in the other two countries. Figure 7.4 shows that the majority of the respondents socialise with their neighbours at least weekly. It is perhaps also worth noting that in Lithuania 7% of the respondents reported that they have no neighbours at all, while the corresponding figures in Estonia and Latvia were only 1% and 2%
respectively.
Figure 7.4 Frequency of contacts with neighbours. Per cent
Per cent Have no neighbours
Daily Every week Every month Few times a year Not every year Estonia Latvia Lithuania Estonia Latvia Lithuania Estonia Latvia Lithuania Estonia Latvia Lithuania Estonia Latvia Lithuania Estonia Latvia
Lithuania 7.4
39.6 20.5
8.8 6.1
17.7
2.3
37.8 23.2
9.8 8.7
18.2
0.9
37.9 28.2
11.0 5.6
16.4
10 20 30
0 40 50
Exchange of help and services
Respondents in the NORBALT surveys were asked whether, during the previous 12 months, they had received unpaid help from someone outside their household in connection with a list of eight tasks.
They were also asked whether they had given similar help to anyone. To give an impression of the frequencies of such help we present two figures which show the proportion of men and women who had given or received at least two different types of help from the prepared list (Figures 8.5 and 8.6).
Three observations are noteworthy: First, people in general report giving more help to others than they receive themselves (!). Second, women are more likely to say that they receive help (except in Lithuania), while they are clearly underrepresented in terms of giving help to others. Whether it reflects the real situation or simply more modesty in responding is open to question. Third, Lithuanians report both giving and receiving help more often than people in the two other countries.
Figure 7.5 Proportion of individuals having given at least 2 forms of help during the past 12 months, by sex. Per cent
Per cent Women
EstoniaMen Latvia Lithuania
100 80
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 90
73.0 79.0 65.0
74.0 64.0
68.0
Estonia Latvia Lithuania
Figure 7.6 Proportion of individuals having received at least 2 forms of help during the past 12 months, by sex.
Per cent
Per cent Women
EstoniaMen Latvia Lithuania Estonia Latvia Lithuania
100 80
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 90
69.0 49.0
44.0 53.0 48.0
66.0
Next we look at the types of help that are given and received. Figure 7.7 confirms that Lithuanians report receiving more help than people in Estonia and Latvia, and this applies to all types of help received.
Latvians are more likely to receive help with small services and shopping than Estonians, but Estonians are more frequently helped with car transport, house repair and gardening. Similar patterns, although with higher frequencies, are revealed when we look at types of help given (Figure 7.8).
Figure 7.7 Types of unpaid help received from any person not belonging to household. Per cent
22.1
Estonia 22.1 Latvia Small services Shopping Personal services
Car transport House repair Gardening
Per cent 40
10 20
0 30
Figure 7.8 Types of unpaid help given to any person not belonging to household. Per cent Small services Shopping Personal services
Car transport House repair Gardening
Per cent 50
Let us now see from whom and to whom Baltic people normally receive and give help. Figure 7.9 and Figure 7.10 show similar trends in all the three countries, with neighbours, friends and close rel-atives dominating the exchange of help and services. In all countries people least frequently receive help from and give help to work colleagues. Friends are more involved in this type of exchange in Estonia than in Latvia and Lithuania, although there is more exchange going on between neighbours in Lithuania than in the other two countries.
Figure 7.9 Proportion of respondents who had received help from different types of people. Per cent
24.4
Per cent 50
10 20
0 30 40 60
Grandparents, parents, parents-in-law Grandchildren, children, children-in-law Brothers/sisters Other relatives Neighbours
Figure 7.10 Proportion of respondents who had given help to different types of people. Per cent
Per cent 50
Grandparents, parents, parents-in-law Grandchildren, children, children-in-law Brothers/sisters Other relatives Neighbours
Social participation
If membership in different types of organisations is an indication of the state of the civil society in a country, Estonia takes the lead among the Baltic states. While in Estonia 32% of respondents reported that they participate in at least one organisation, association or committee, this was the case of 19% in Latvia and only 9% in Lithuania. Figure 7.11 shows the distribution of memberships in different types of organisations. Most frequent in all countries is membership in a trade union. However, only 2% of the Lithuanian respondents reported being trade union members.
Figure 7.11 Proportion of respondents in different types of organisations. Per cent Type of
organizations
Per cent 0.3 Trade union Latvia Estonia Lithuania Work committee Latvia Estonia Lithuania Political party Latvia Estonia Lithuania Religious org.
Latvia Estonia Lithuania Sports org.
Latvia Health org.
Latvia Estonia Lithuania Youth org.
Latvia Estonia Lithuania Music org.
Latvia Estonia Lithuania Housing org.
Latvia Estonia Lithuania Resident’s org.
Latvia Estonia Lithuania Local org.