We use cookies to make your browsing experience better. Agree and share a cookie with us!
In relation to recent events and public views about the possibility of a second round of the global economic crisis, the latest DNB Latvian Barometer study has sought to learn the views of local residents about the past economic crisis and the lessons learned therein. Most respondents blamed government officials for the crisis, speaking of quarrels about politicians and their ambitions, foolishness and short-sightedness in failing to set aside budget resources and ignoring warnings about the crisis. Asked about what the people of Latvia need to learn from the economic crisis and its consequences, most respondents said that they must be thoughtful about their resources and not try to live beyond their means. Respondents also said that people must be prepared to depend only on themselves, as opposed to waiting for assistance from the state.
The monthly indicators of the DNB Latvian Barometer increased between the spring and the autumn of this year, but in October they ground to a halt or even worsened. The public mood index was down by 6 points in comparison to September, when it was higher than at any point over the past three years. The future evaluation index, which was positive for the first time in September during the aforementioned period of time, was now negative once again.
What is important is that in comparison to September, respondents in October were more likely to refrain from a specific evaluation of the way in which the overall situation is developing. Distinct scepticism was seen in terms of how people think about the economic situation in the country and how it is developing. The proportion of positive evaluations did not shrink much, but respondents were more likely to say that the economic situation is “very bad” (31% in October, 27% in September). Asked about the direction in which the economic situation might develop, increasing numbers of respondents said that the situation is worsening. Asked about the development of the economic situation during the next year, respondents were more likely to have critical views about the matter.
Because of the scepticism of respondents in relation to the economic situation, the second part of the DNB Latvian Barometer study was devoted to their views about the economic crisis, its reasons, its lessons, and the things that must be done to address it.
Asked about the main reasons why the recent economic crisis in Latvia was so harsh, respondents were most likely to say that the blame rests with quarrels and personal ambitions among politicians (51%), foolishness and short-sightedness among government officials (failing to set aside budget funds, ignoring warnings about the upcoming crisis; 46%), a lack of knowledge and incompetence (44%), and the indecisiveness, hesitations and inability of politicians to take immediate decisions (40%). True, 41% of respondents put the blame on the greed of people who wish to earn big profits too quickly – something which applies to the people of Latvia in general.
The results of the DNB Latvian Barometer study have long been dominated by the belief among respondents that the situation in the country is not developing in the right direction (depending on the economic situation and related events, this view has been expressed by 60-85% of respondents over the past three years). This time, respondents were asked why the country and its economic situation are developing in the wrong direction. More than one-third of respondents said that the problem is that the country does not have appropriate development goals. 28% of respondents said that the situation has to do with the process of the country’s development, while 23% attributed the “wrong direction” to the resources that have been chosen in pursuit of the relevant goals.
Asked what Latvia should learn from other countries so as to ensure more successful economic recovery and to avoid another serious decline, one-half of respondents said that there must be long-term economic planning, with priorities and relevant activities. Comparatively many (39%) respondents called for a stable social system, a careful study of the causes of the crisis and the shortcomings related to reforms so that these can be addressed (36%), as well as saving of state budget resources for more difficult periods (32%). Far fewer (16%) of respondents said that local residents and public organisations should be allowed to participate in the taking of decisions. True, even fewer respondents (4%) supported the idea that government officials should be given greater authority in this regard.
Respondents were also asked what the people of Latvia themselves should learn from the recent economic crisis and its consequences. Most respondents (54%) said that people must be more thoughtful about their resources and not live beyond their means (54%), while others said that people must rely entirely on themselves without waiting for state aid (48%). Only 19% of respondents said that people most learn to work with and help others, while another 19% said that people must become more active in politics so as to attempt to influence political decisions.
Asked about what might improve the economic situation in Latvia over the next year, respondents pointed to three major factors – lower taxes (50%), more active use of EU funding (38%), and more state aid for business (33%). It is important that the next factors on the list also have to do with the business environment – more active business operations (26%), as well as stricter state control over business (26%). Meanwhile, approximately one-fifth of respondents said that only a miracle could improve the economic situation in the country.
Finally, respondents were asked about positive changes in the governance system in relation to the exacerbated economic situation in Latvia. 44% of respondents said that there have been no positive changes at all, and more than one-tenth of respondents said that they could not answer the question. Those who did speak of positive changes mentioned reduced numbers of officials in government (18%) and government institutions (15%). 14% said that the crisis has provided them with more information about how the national budget is put together, not least in terms of budget revenues and expenditures. 13% said that they have learned more about the wages of government officials, and 14% said that a positive effect has been less waste of budget resources.
Interestingly, the same question was posed to residents in May 2009 in the DNB Latvian Barometer study. Where 44% of respondents said that there have been no positive changes in government because of the crisis this year, 35% said so in 2009, and if 13% could not answer the question this year, 7% could not do so in 2009.
The monthly DNB Latvian Barometer study has become a recognised sociological study of timely aspects of areas of public importance at a specific moment of time. Each month, people are also asked an ongoing series of questions so as to track changes in the mood of local residents over the course of time.