WwA : Worldwide Attitudes

ISSN 1323-9589

Volume 1997-12-28. Pages 1-15.

Date: December, 1997

© Copyright 1997 by Mikk Titma, Jonathan Kelley, Nancy Brandon Tuma, Sergei Sivuha, and M.D.R. Evans. All rights reserved.

SUBJECTIVE WELL-BEING IN POST-COMMUNIST SOCIETY:
DATA FROM NINE NATIONS*

Mikk Titma, Jonathan Kelley, Nancy Brandon Tuma, Sergei Sivuha, and M.D.R. Evans

December, 1996

* Revised version of a paper presented to a seminar in the Department of Sociology, Institute of Advanced Studies, the Australian National University.

In the past in Central and East Europe, the state and the Communist Party commanded not only the economy and the usual range of public-sector activities (eg., education), but also controlled almost all other group activities outside the family (Kornai 1980; Nove 1986). After the Soviet collapse, individuals have begun to emerge as basic actors, as in Western market democracies, and the state has begun to be controlled by people rather than controlling them. This lengthy and difficult transformation has proceeded unevenly across the 15 Soviet successor states (Oberschall 1966; Szelenyi and Kostello 1996; Walder 1966; Rona-Tas 1994).

Abundant contemporary research is assessing objective changes in post-Communist countries (World Bank 1996; Belarus 1996; Commonwealth of Independent States 1996; Estonia 1995; Lativia 1996; Lithuania 1996). In most of the Soviet successor states, the collapse of the command economy led to a large drop in GNP and the demise of many enterprises. Guaranteed employment, once universal, has vanished (Connor 1991). The market economy has begun to offer attractive opportunities for some, but more so in some industries, and in some of the successor states, than in others (Gellner 1991). As a result, inequality has grown rapidly (World Bank 1996; Kelley and Zagorski 1995), as it generally does after radical revolutions (Kelley and Klein 1982). Thus the differentiation of opportunity is an important feature of the emerging societies.

By contrast, little is yet known about ordinary people's perceptions of their life chances in post-Communist societies (for the Soviet period, see Titma 1979, 1984; Titma, Rutkevich, & Fillipov 1986). Which groups believe their opportunities are better than their peers, and which worse? Do the well-educated believe that the emerging market economy offers them new opportunities for a better life while the poorly educated mourn the loss of guaranteed work? Do those in public sector jobs, which once offered a secure and comfortable life, now see these jobs as dead-ends? How do residents of small towns and rural areas perceive their chances compared to residents of the once privileged capital cities? How has the Russian heartland fared, compared to the residents of the new nations formed out of the once peripheral regions of the Soviet empire?

The answers to these questions are important for understanding the nature and politics of post-Communist societies, and more generally for understanding the differences between market and command economies.

We address these questions with new data on perceived access to three scarce rewards: material comforts, good jobs, and personal autonomy. These are among the most important benefits provided by society and also afford interesting comparisons with the West. (1) As in Central Europe (Treiman 1977), the social organization of work and the prestige hierarchy of occupations in the former Soviet Union are similar to the West (Titma and Taljunaite 1984). But production processes and output targets were usually set by central agencies far from the workplace; individual efforts received little reward; promotion usually followed a lock-step pattern based on seniority; pay was poor and varied little across occupations. On the other hand, jobs were secure and fringe benefits were substantial. Whether jobs in the socialist economy -- still predominant in all 9 countries at the time of our survey -- are better or worse from the jobholder's point of view is an open and interesting question. (2) Affluence is a normatively endorsed pleasure in the West, but Communist Party governments consistently denounced inequalities in material goods. Official opposition, together with the 20th century's egalitarian zeitgeist, inculcated strongly egalitarian values in communist countries (Kelley & Evans 1993; Evans, Kelley, & Kolosi 1992:470-471). Moreover, the government's pervasive control of the economy allowed most material inequalities to be stamped out in fact and in people's minds (Connor 1979; Evans, Kelley, & Kolosi 1992: 475). (3) In communist party-states, individual initiative and activity were restricted; there was relentless surveillance of conformity and suppression of deviance at school, work, and home. In this social environment, personal autonomy was a major concern.

DATA

Our data come from the third wave of a large longitudinal project, the Paths of a Generation surveys conducted 1983-1994 in three waves in the ex-USSR and its successor states (Titma 1985; Titma and Tuma 1996). We use data from three Baltic countries (Estonia, Lithuania, and Lativia); the Russian Republic (with data from two large typical regions, Krasnodar and Sverdlovsk, and from Moscow); Belarus; Moldovia; two states in Kazakhstan, one with a large ethnic Russian presence (Karaganda); and Tajikistan. Areas (capital city, cities over 100,000, smaller cities, towns, villages) were chosen with a probability proportional to size. The samples were selected to be representative of 1983-1985 secondary school graduates; they are stratified according to type of secondary school (vocational, general, specialized), with each type sampled proportional to size. Secondary school drop-outs -- officially only 2% of the cohort but actually 5 to 15% (Titma and Saar 1995) -- were not included. Fieldwork was in 1993 and 1994. Completion rates ranged from a low of 70% in Lithuania to a high of 97% in Karaganda (more sampling details: Tuma, Yakubovich and Titma 1996). There are 17,712 cases.

Measurement

The questions, which followed other subjective questions on living conditions and work, were (Titma 1992: 48, question 323):

"Now more precisely:  On what basis would you say your life as a whole was successful, or not successful?  Please compare your life with the life of most other people your age.  How are your chances compared with your age-peers':
        A) To have interesting work?
           My chances are significantly better than my age-peers' [100 points]
              My chances are somewhat better [75 points]
              Basically the same  [50 points]
              My chances are somewhat worse than my age-peers'  [25 points]
              My chances are significantly worse  [0 points]
        
        B) To have expensive things? 
            (answer categories as above)
        
        C) To live as you think best, according to your own judgment?
            (answer categories as above)
        
        E) To buy fashionable clothing?
            (answer categories as above)
        
        F) To be promoted at work?
             (answer categories as above)
        

We score these items from 0 (much worse), through 25 (somewhat worse), 50 (same), 75 (somewhat better), to 100 (much better), as indicated above [in square brackets]. These questions tap three separate aspects of life: work, standard of living, and autonomy.

Work Opportunity Scale: Two items ("interesting work", "chance to be promoted"). They were combined in a simple additive scale by averaging answers to the two questions. The scale ranges from a low of 0 ("much worse" on both items) to a high of 100 ("much better" on both items). Respondents who answered only one question were scored according to that; those who answered neither were treated as missing data.

Standard of Living Scale: Two valued types of goods: "expensive things" and "fashionable clothing". To reduce random measurement error, the two items were combined into an additive scale in the same way as for the work opportunity scale.

Autonomy: A single item ("live according to your own judgment").

The correlations among items in each scale are high and very similar across countries (table 1), suggesting that the scales are reliable and justifying the use of the same scales in all 9 nations.

DESCRIPTION

Work Opportunities. Few despair of the opportunity to undertake interesting work, just 4% of the pooled sample chose "significantly worse" and another 11% said "worse" (table 2, panel 1, last column). 61% felt that they had the same opportunities to engage in interesting work as did other members of their cohort. And there were some optimists: 18% rated their opportunities for interesting work as "better" than average for their cohort, and 5% chose "significantly better". By contrast, people take a dimmer view of their promotion opportunities: 14% say "significantly worse" and another 20% say "worse" (table 2, panel 2). Just 52% think their promotion chances are average for their cohort. 13% see their promotion chances as "better" and a tiny few, 2%, think their promotion chances are "significantly better". All nine nations show much the same pattern. On the combined scale, people rate their work opportunities as nearly typical of their cohort -- at 48 points out of 100, on average.

Standard of Living. Relatively few, roughly 15%, believe their chances to have expensive things and fashionable clothing are much better than their peers'. About a third think their chances are poorer than their peers'. The remaining half judge their standard of living to be about the same as their peers (table 2, panels 3 and 4). Fewer feel worse off than their peers in Tajikistan and Kazakhstan -- about a quarter -- than in the Baltic and Slavic countries, where it ranges from 31% to 39%. Objectively, the standard of living is much lower in the two central Asian nations than in the other 7 countries, but the process of differentiation of opportunity seems not to have proceeded so far. On the combined scale, people rate their access to up-market material goods as somewhat worse than typical for their cohort, at 43 points out of 100, on average.

Autonomy. About a fourth believe that they have more autonomy than do their peers and about a fifth think they have less; somewhat more than half see themselves in the middle (Table 1, Panel 5). Tajikistan and Kazakhstan again stand out, with about two thirds seeing themselves as average in autonomy. Views in the other countries are more differentiated.

ANALYSIS: BASIC PATTERNS

Taking all nine countries together, we find marked, stratification-related differentiation of work opportunities (table 3). There is less such differentiation with respect to standard of living, and least for autonomy.

• Women find their work opportunities worse than men's by about 5 points out of 100. Their standard of living is also lower, but only by 3 points out of 100. Autonomy is also a little less, 3 points.
• Rural residents feel a very small deficit (1 point out of 100) in job opportunities. But they and city folk rate equally their standard of living and opportunities to exercise autonomy.
• Education has a direct impact on work opportunities, even net of its indirect impact through occupational status. The impact is substantial, with the most educated rating their job opportunities 6 points (out of 100) higher than do the least educated. Education's effect on standard of living is smaller (4 points), as is its effect on autonomy (3 points).
• Those not currently working -- in the age cohort covered by our data, that mostly means women on maternity leave who are entitled to return to their former jobs later -- left behind jobs somewhat worse than average (by 4 points). But their standard of living is no worse (not significantly different from those actively working). Autonomy is a little lower (3 points).
• Under the former communist regime, there was little or no overt unemployment, but by the time of our survey unemployment was about 5 to 10% even in this prime working age cohort (varying considerably from nation to nation: 6% in Russia and the Ukraine, less in Belarus; 8 to 12% in the Baltic nations; 3% in Kazakstan but 18% in Tajikistan). The unemployed rate their job opportunities 8 points lower than do working people. But unemployment makes little difference to perceived standard of living: The unemployed are only 4 points worse off than working people. This may be because unemployment is transient for these prime-age adults, or because so many goods and services are still provided by non-monetary means. The unemployed's feelings of autonomy are neither higher nor lower than other people's.
• At the time of these surveys, the private sector was just beginning to sprout: of our sample, just 5% were in the private sector in Tajikistan, 7% in Belarus, 8% in Kazakstan and Lithuania, 12% in Ukraine, 14% in Moldova, 15% in Lativia, 19% in Russia, and 23% in Estonia. Private sector workers perceive themselves as having slightly greater opportunities than public sector workers. The private sector advantage in work opportunities is about 4 points out of 100, in standard of living about 5 points, and in autonomy about 3 points. These differences are real but not (yet?) as great as stereotypes of market and command economies suggest.
• In the West, occupational position dominates social stratification, but in Central and Eastern Europe government policies have long sought to suppress occupational inequality in job conditions, housing, material goods, pay, and fringe benefits. Already by 1993-94, we find that occupational status is the most important source of perceived work opportunities, with a standardized regression coefficient of 0.20. The difference between those at the bottom and top of the occupational hierarchy amounts to 12 points out of 100. But occupational status still matters only slightly to standard of living, with a 3 point difference between the very bottom and the very top of the hierarchy. Finally, occupations at the top of the hierarchy afford, on average, about 4 points more autonomy than do the lowest status occupations.
• Workers' paradise, or still a bureaucrats' Eden? Even aside from their high occupational status, administrators and managers enjoy extra access to all these resources. They rate their job opportunities 8 points higher than do non-managers of equally high status. Their access to material goods is especially marked, 7 points out of 100; indeed managerial status ties with private sector employment as the most important influence on standard of living (standardized regression coefficients of 0.08). Managers are also more autonomous, by 5 points.

DIFFERENCES AMONG NATIONS

Differences among countries, net of the social structural features just described, are mostly small.

Taking the pooled analysis first, after adjusting by regression for individual differences in education, occupational status, administrative position, and the like (table 3), the most systematic difference is between the more prosperous nations (like Russia, Belarus or Estonia, with GNP per capita around 17% or 18% of the USA's, evaluated at parity purchasing power: World Bank 1996: 189) and the poorer nations like Lativia (12% of USA), Kazakstan (11%) or Tajikistan (4%). Other things equal, people in the more prosperous nations find it slightly harder to get good jobs (beta = -.03) -- suggesting that entry requirements for jobs are a little tougher in more prosperous nations. They are also rather less happy with their standard of living (beta = -.07), possibly because they more often compare themselves to Western European standards. There are no differences in autonomy.

Detailed country-by-country analyses show striking similarity among these nations, with only a few systematic differences, and even those are small (table 4).

• Differences between men and women in work opportunities and in autonomy are just a shade larger in more prosperous nations.
• Surprisingly, rural-urban differences are a fraction larger in more prosperous nations in work opportunities, standard of living, and autonomy.
• Educational differences in work opportunities are also a little larger in more prosperous nations.
• Occupational status matters less in relatively prosperous nations than in poor ones -- in work opportunities, standard of living, and autonomy.

The rather low level of differentiation among the countries suggests the continuing importance of the Communist legacy (which they shared) rather than the re-emergence of previously suppressed cultural differences (which divided them) or the newly emerging differences associated with marketization (which are beginning to divide them).

CONCLUSION

Emerging socioeconomic differentiation in the ex-Soviet Union seems to have had only limited impact on people's perceptions of their opportunities. At least when these data were collected in 1993, worries about emerging labor market competition and the possibility of unemployment were not strongly concentrated in any particular segments of society. Only women, the unemployed, and those in low status jobs were predicably pessimistic about work opportunities, while administrators and others in high status jobs were optimistic.

Differences within these societies in standard of living are still small. Most respondents evaluated themselves as equally poor as everyone else, all sharing more or less alike in the grim circumstances created by the collapse of the command economy. Men, the well-educated, administrators, and others in high status occupations thought themselves better off, but only by very small margins.

Differences in autonomy were small.

Despite the earlier and more extensive introduction of market reforms in the Baltic countries, these patterns held in all nine nations, with only few and small differences between countries. In relatively prosperous nations, differences between men and women, between rural and urban, and between well and poorly educated were generally a little larger. In contrast, occupational differences were rather smaller in prosperous nations.

This general picture of relatively modest class and socio-economic differentiation in job opportunities and standard of living suggests that the familiar pattern of class based politics, particularly prominent in Britain and other Anglo-Celtic societies (Kelley and Evans 1995), is not likely to emerge in these nations in the near future. Class is not, as yet, a major basis of differentiation, much less one that could push ethnic, nationalistic and other emotive cleavages into the background.

These subjective assessments of work opportunities, standard of living and autonomy date from the early days of the transition in post-Soviet countries. Marketization, although new and shocking to some, was limited, and the differentiation of opportunity just beginning. Future research will be needed to reveal the long-term impact of market reforms on people's subjective wellbeing, the emergence of socio-economic and gender cleavages in wellbeing, and whatever effects these may have for politics.

References

Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS). 1996. Statistical Yearbook, 1995. Moscow, 1996

Connor, Walter D. 1979. Socialism, Politics, and Equality: Hierarchy and Change in Eastern Europe and the USSR. New York: Columbia University Press.

Connor, Walter D. 1988. Socialism's Dilemmas: State and Society in the Soviet Bloc. New York: Columbia University Press.

Connor, Walter D. 1991. Accidental Proletariat: Workers, Politics, and Crisis in Gorbachev's Russia. PUP

Statistical Office of Estonia (ESA). 1996. Statistical Yearbook 1995, Tallinn, Statistical Office of Estonia.

Gellner, Ernest. 1991. ``Civil Society in a Historical Context,'' International Social Science Journal.

Government of Belarus. 1966. Narodnoje Hozjaistvo Respubliki Belarus v 1995 (National Economy of Belarus in 1995), Minsk .

Government of Estonia. 1966. Estonian Human Development Report 1996, Tallinn.

Government of Lativia. 1966. Statistical Yearbook of Lativia 1995, Riga

Government of Lithuania. 1966. Lithuania's Statistical Yearbook 1995, Vilnius.

Kelley, Jonathan And M.D.R. Evans . 1993. "The Legitimation of Inequality: Norms on Occupational Earnings in Nine Nations". American Journal of Sociology, 99: 75-125.

Kelley, Jonathan and Herbert S. Klein. 1982. Revolution And The Rebirth Of Inequality: A Theory Applied To The National Revolution In Bolivia. Berkeley And Los Angeles: University Of California Press.

Kornai, Janos. 1980. Economics of Shortage. Amsterdam: North­Holland.

Kornai, Janos. 1982. Growth, Shortage and Efficiency. University of California Press.

Lane, David S. 1982. The End of Social Inequality? Status and Power under State Socialism. London: Allen and Unwin.

Nove, Alec. 1986. The Soviet Economic System, 3rd ed. Boston: Allen and Unwin.

Oberschall, A. 1996. "The Great Transition: China, Hungary, and Sociology Exit Socialism into the Market", American Journal of Sociology 101 (4): 1029-1041.

Rona-Tas A. 1994. "The First Shall Be Last? Entrepreneurship and Communist Cadres in the Transition from Socialism", American Journal of Sociology 100: 40-69.

Szelenyi S., I. Szelenyi, and W. R. Poster. 1996. "Interests and Symbols in Post-Communist Political Culture: The Case of Hungary", American Sociological Review 61: 466-477.

Szelenyi, I., and E. Kostello. 1996. "The Market Transition Debate: Toward a Synthesis", American Journal of Sociology 101 (4): 1082-1097.

Titma, Mikk. 1975. Vibor Professii kak Sotsial'naya Problema (Occupational Choice as a Social Problem) Moscow: Mysl.

Titma, Mikk. 1979. "Forming Youth Work Orientations." Acta Sociologica 22(4): 345­359.

Titma, Mikk. 1982. ``Sotsialno­professionalnaya orientatsiya ushashtsheisya molodyozhi'' (Social­professional Orientation of Studying Youth). Tallinn: Institute of History, Estonian Academy of Sciences.

Titma, Mikk. 1984. "Life Orientation as a Phenomena of Consciousness." Pp. 9-18 in Psychological Problems of the Way of Life and the Life Course of Personality. Helsinki.

Titma, Mikk. 1985. Zhiznennyi Put Pokoleniva: Ego Vybor I Utzerzhdenie (Life Path of a Generation: Its Choice and Outcome). Tallin: Eesti Raamat. Pps 1-370.

Titma, Mikk. 1992. The 1992 Pathways of a Generation Questionnaire. Stanford: Department of Sociology.

Titma, Mikk, M. Rutkevich, and F. Filippov. 1986. "The Changing Social Composition and Professional Orientation of the Student Body in the USSR." Pp. 215-253 in Murray Yanowitch (ed.), The Social Structure of the USSR: Recent Soviet Studies. New York: Sharpe. (from Soviet Sociology 24, #1­2­3).

Titma, Mikk, and E. Saar. 1995. "Regional Differences in the Secondary Education of the Former Soviet Union," European Sociological Review 11(1): 37-58.

Titma Mikk, B. D. Silver, and B. A. Anderson. 1996. "Estonia's Transition from State Socialism: Nationalities and Society on the Eve of Independence," in International Journal of Sociology (special issue) Chs. 5 and 9.

Titma, Mikk and M. Taljunaite. 1984. Prestizh Professii (Occupational Prestige). Vilnius, Mintis.

Titma, Mikk., and Nancy Brandon Tuma. 1993. "Stratification Research in a Changing World." Pp. 225-254 in Z. Mach, J. Mucha, and J. Szmatka (eds.), Eastern European Societies on the Threshold of Change. Lewiston: Edwin Mellen.

Titma, Mikk, and Nancy Brandon Tuma. 1995 " Path of A Generation: A Comparative Longitudinal Study of Young Adults in the Former Soviet Union" Stanford, Tallinn. Pp.67

Titma, Mikk, and Nancy Brandon Tuma. 1993. ``Stratification Research in a Changing World,'' Pp. 225­­254 in J. Szmatka, Z. Mach, J. Mucha Eastern European Societies at the Threshold of Change, Lewiston: Edwin Mellen Press, 1993.

Titma, Mikk, and Nancy Brandon Tuma. 1996. "Pathways Of A Generation: 1992 Wave: Codebook And Machine-Readable Data File. Stanford, California: Department of Sociology.

Treiman, Donald J. 1977. Occupational Prestige in Comparative Perspective. New York: Academic Press.

Tuma, Nancy Brandon, Valery B. Yakubovich, And Mikk Titma. 1995. Sampling Design And Realization In Waves 1, 2 And 3 Of Paths Of A Generation. (Technical Report, National Science Foundation Grant Ses-9212936) Stanford, California: Department of Sociology.

Walder A. 1996. "Markets and Inequality in Transitional Economies: Toward Testable Theories," American Journal of Sociology 101 (4): 1061-1073.

World Bank. 1966. From Plan to Market, World Development Report 1996, Chs. 4 & 8. Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp. 66-84; 123-131.

Tables

Table 1. Measurement: Inter-item correlations separately
for nine post-communist societies, 1992-1993.
---------------------------------------------------------------
            Standard of living    Work opportunities   Autonomy
            ------------------    ------------------    -------
            Valuable  Fashonable  Interest  Promotion   Own pref- 
             goods     clothes              prospects   erences
--------------------------------------------------------------- 
1.  Estonia (N= 2122)
Val things     1.00        
Clothing        .71       1.00
Job: Interest   .36        .33       1.00 
Job: Promotn    .33        .35        .50       1.00
Own prefs       .40        .41        .34        .29       1.00 
2. Lativia (N=1500)
Val things     1.00       
Clothing        .69       1.00 
Job: Interest   .38        .37       1.00 
Job: Promotn    .34        .35        .44       1.00 
Own prefs       .33        .36        .30        .23       1.00 
3. Lithuania (N=1232)
Val things     1.00 
Clothing        .74       1.00 
Job: Interest   .35        .31       1.00 
Job: Promotn    .28        .30        .45       1.00 
Own prefs       .43        .47        .28        .22       1.00 
4. Russia (N=4134)
Val things     1.00 
Clothing        .69       1.00 
Job: Interest   .37        .35       1.00 
Job: Promotn    .33        .36        .48       1.00 
Own prefs       .36        .40        .32        .28       1.00 
5.   Ukraine (N=1198)
Val things     1.00 
Clothing        .73       1.00 
Job: Interest   .39        .30       1.00 
Job: Promotn    .31        .36        .45       1.00 
Own prefs       .44        .46        .32        .23       1.00 
6. Belarus (N=1667)
Val things     1.00 
Clothing        .67       1.00 
Job: Interest   .34        .33       1.00 
Job: Promotn    .35        .32        .40       1.00 
Own prefs       .40        .44        .29        .26       1.00 
7. Moldova (N=1141)
Val things     1.00 
Clothing        .73       1.00 
Job: Interest   .50        .49       1.00 
Job: Promotn    .42        .47        .48       1.00 
Own prefs       .53        .54        .45        .42       1.00 
8. Kazakstan (N=2841)
Val things     1.00 
Clothing        .67       1.00 
Job: Interest   .41        .39       1.00 
Job: Promotn    .36        .39        .50       1.00 
Own prefs       .47        .48        .38        .34       1.00 
9. Tajikistan (N=1509)
Val things     1.00 
Clothing        .60       1.00 
Job: Interest   .41        .40       1.00 
Job: Promotn    .41        .45        .49       1.00 
Own prefs       .48        .48        .39        .41       1.00 
--------------------------------------------------------------- 

Table 2. Frequencies on five subjective perception items. 
Nine post-communist nations, 1992-1993[a].
--------------------------------------------------------------

            Est  Lat  Lth  Rus  Ukr  Bel  Mld Kzak Tajk  Total
--------------------------------------------------------------

1. (Work opportunities) Chance to have interesting work
  Worse!!     2    4    5    3    3    3    4    4    4     4
  Worse      11    9   10   14   13   11   14    9   10    11
  Same       65   66   62   58   59   63   50   65   64    61
  Better     20   15   18   19   22   17   24   17   17    18
  Better!!    3    6    6    6    4    7    8    5    5     5
    Total  100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%  100%

2. (Work opportunities) Chance to be promoted at work
  Worse!!    13   15   20   13   12   13   14   12   16    14
  Worse      20   14   17   25   24   24   18   14   14    20
  Same       52   56   50   47   50   53   47   59   55    52
  Better     14   14   12   13   12   10   17   12   13    13
  Better!!    1    2    2    3    2    2    4    3    2     2
    Total  100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%  100%

3. (Standard of living) Chance to have expensive things
  Worse!!    12   13   12    9   11   11   12    8    9    10
  Worse      25   22   26   30   27   25   27   18   16    24
  Same       49   51   44   47   48   50   42   60   63    51
  Better     13   13   15   13   12   12   16   11   11    12
  Better!!    1    2    2    2    2    2    3    2    2     2
    Total  100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%  100%

4. (Standard of living) Chance to buy fashionable clothes
  Worse!!     9   12   11    8    9    8   11    7    7     9
  Worse      26   22   28   29   30   23   24   18   15    24
  Same       52   52   46   48   48   54   46   60   63    52
  Better     12   12   13   13   11   12   15   13   13    13
  Better!!    1    2    2    2    2    3    4    3    3     2
    Total  100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%  100%

5. (Autonomy) Chance to live according to your own preferences
  Worse!!     6    6    9    6    7    8    7    6    6     6
  Worse      17   12   18   18   17   15   18   11   11    15
  Same       51   56   48   50   55   54   48   63   65    54
  Better     22   19   19   19   17   17   19   15   15    18
  Better!!    5    7    6    7    3    6    8    6    3     6
    Total  100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%  100%

 Cases[b]  2042 1410 1171 4213 1171 1535 1049 2700 1416 16707
--------------------------------------------------------------
[a] The nations are: Estonia, Lativia, Lithuania, Russia, 
    Ukraine, Belarus, Moldova, Kazakstan, and Tajikistan.
[b] Varies slightly from item to item due to missing data;
    figures given are for the first item.

Table 3. Determinants of subjective perceptions of (1) standard 
of living, (2) work opportunities and (3) autonomy. Ordinary
least squares regression estimates.  Nine post-communist 
societies, 1992-1993. N = 17,712.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
1. Means and standard deviations
--------------------------------
          Mean  Std Dev    Subjective perceptions, you vs others:
STDLIVE#   43.30    20.21  ...Expensive things, good clothes
GOODJOB#   47.92    19.14  ...Interesting job, promotiomion prospects
OWNLIFE    50.50    22.63  ...Autonomy, control own life 
FEMALE       .54      .50  Female (=1), male (=0)
RURAL        .32      .47  Rural resident (=1)
EDUC         .50      .34  Education (uni=1, aca & gen 2nd=.5, voca
NOTWORK      .20      .40  NOT Actively in LF (maternity, ill, ed )
UNEMPL       .06      .23  Unemployed (among whole pop)
PRIVATE      .12      .32  Works in private sector (of whole pop)
ADMIN        .05      .23  Administrative, managerial (among all pe
OCCSTAT2     .51      .31  Occup status (0 to 1) ROUGH
GNP        13.45     4.28  National GNP per capita (USA=100)

2. Dependent GOODJOB#: Work opportunities (interest, promotion)
---------------------------------------------------------------
   Adjusted R Square .13;   Standard Error 17.86
Variable              B        SE B       Beta         T  
FEMALE            -4.85         .32       -.13    -15.23  
RURAL             -1.04         .31       -.03     -3.37  
EDUC               5.89         .52        .11     11.23  
NOTWORK           -4.15         .38       -.09    -10.88  
UNEMPL            -8.45         .61       -.10    -13.89  
PRIVATE            3.42         .46        .06      7.50  
ADMIN              7.82         .66        .09     11.91  
OCCSTAT2          12.09         .60        .20     20.15  
GNP                -.15         .03       -.03     -4.36  
(Constant)        44.22         .56                78.47  

3. Dependent STDLIVE#: Standard of living
-----------------------------------------
   Adjusted R Square .04;  Standard Error 19.84
Variable              B        SE B       Beta         T  
FEMALE            -3.28         .35       -.08     -9.34  
RURAL               .15         .34        .00       .44  
EDUC               3.54         .58        .06      6.12  
NOTWORK            -.62         .42       -.01     -1.48  
UNEMPL            -4.02         .67       -.05     -5.99  
PRIVATE            4.82         .50        .08      9.57  
ADMIN              7.12         .72        .08      9.83  
OCCSTAT2           2.50         .66        .04      3.78  
GNP                -.31         .04       -.07     -8.40  
(Constant)        45.55         .62                73.23  

4. Dependent OWNLIFE: Autonomy (control your own life)
------------------------------------------------------
   Adjusted R Square .02;  Standard Error 22.40
Variable              B        SE B       Beta         T  
FEMALE            -2.53         .40       -.06     -6.26  
RURAL              -.28         .39       -.01      -.71  
EDUC               2.74         .67        .04      4.11  
NOTWORK           -2.81         .49       -.05     -5.80  
UNEMPL            -1.04         .77       -.01     -1.34  
PRIVATE            3.14         .58        .04      5.41  
ADMIN              4.51         .83        .04      5.40  
OCCSTAT2           3.92         .76        .05      5.14  
GNP                -.01         .04       -.00      -.14  
(Constant)        48.68         .72                67.97  
---------------------------------------------------------------



Table 4. Determinants of subjective perceptions of (1) standard 
of living, (2) work opportunities and (3) autonomy. Metric 
OLS regression coeficients separtely for each of nine post-
communist societies, 1992-1993[a]. N = 17,712.
--------------------------------------------------------------

           Estn  Latv  Lith  Russ  Ukrn  Belr  Mldv  Kzak Tajk  
--------------------------------------------------------------

1. Dependent GOODJOB#: #: Work opportunities (interest, promotion)
------------------------------------------------------------------
FEMALE(-)   -5*   -5*   -8*   -6*   -4*   -5*   -4*   -4*   -3* 
RURAL(-)    -3*   -2    -3*   -2*    2    -1     2    -1     0  
EDUC(+)      9*    7*    8*    5*    6*    6*    4     7*    0  
NOTWORK     -5*   -6*   -2    -4*   -5*   -1    -4*   -3*   -5* 
UNEMPL      -5*  -10*   -8*  -10*  -10*  -13*  -12*   -6*   -7* 
PRIVATE      4*    1     4     3*    2     8*    4*    3*   -0  
ADMIN        9*    8*    5    10*    4     4    10*    8*    7  
OCCSTAT(-)   8*    6*   10*   14*   13*   12*   18*   12*   17* 


2. Dependent STDLIVE#: Standard of living
-----------------------------------------
FEMALE      -4*   -3*   -5*   -4*   -3*   -4*   -5*   -3*   -1 
RURAL(-)    -4*   -2     1    -1*    5*   -1     1     4*    0 
EDUC         5*    5*    2     2     6*    3    -1     6*   -0 
NOTWORK     -2    -0     3    -2*    1     0     1     0    -1 
UNEMPL(-)   -3    -6*    1    -5*   -3    -6    -6*   -4    -0 
PRIVATE      4*    5*    6*    6*    4     5*    0     7*    2 
ADMIN        9*    6*    5     9*    9*    7*    9*    3*    5 
OCCSTAT(-)   0     0     2     1     0     5*   10*    1    10*


3. Dependent OWNLIFE: Autonomy (control your own life)
------------------------------------------------------
FEMALE(-)   -2*   -1    -3*   -5*   -3*   -2    -1    -1     1 
RURAL(-)    -2     0    -1    -1     4*   -2     1    -0     1 
EDUC         5*    3     4     2     3     3     0     4*   -3 
NOTWORK(-)  -5*   -4*   -2    -4*   -2    -1    -2    -1    -1 
UNEMPL      -1    -5*    5    -1     3     2    -4    -3    -1 
PRIVATE(-)   1     5*    4     1     1    10*    2     7*    7*
ADMIN        7*    4     7     4*    5     4    10*    2     4 
OCCSTAT(-)   5*   -3     2     3     6*    3    10*    3    13*

---------------------------------------------------------------
[a] Variables defined in table 3. The nations are: Estonia, 
    Lativia, Lithuania, Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, Moldova, 
    Kazakstan, and Tajikistan.
(-) (+): Statistically significant linear interaction with GNP
    of nation, p<.05, two-tailed: (-) slope significantly lower 
    (more negative) or (+) slope significantly higher (more 
    positive) in high GNP nations.
* Significantly different from zero at p<.05, two-tailed.

 Visitors since 14 September 1998: