The fieldwork and interviewing for this project were for the most part carried out between 2 February and 11 February 2000. The aim was to interview informants who from different angles and perspective, deal with Latvian social policies in their professional life. We deliberately chose a wide selection of informants with experiences from different aspects of policy formulation and implementation. In this way we wanted to secure that we would obtain information from people with different perspectives and possibly different views on the more disputed issues. A common interview guide was compiled and used for the interviews so that the same topics were covered for all informants.
In addition to interviews, we also used the opportunity to collect public documents, brochures and other information material about Latvian social policy and living conditions.
Interviews were carried out with people from the following organisations or institutions:
- Ministry of Welfare, Department of Social Policy Development
- Ministry of Welfare, Department of Pension Issues
- Ministry of Regional Development, Council for Municipality Issues
- State Social Insurance Agency
- Saiema, Commision on Social Issues and Employment
- Political Parties (one in government and one in opposition)
- Balta Insurance Company
- Employers’ Federation
- Association of Free Trade Unions
- Associaton of Professional Social Workers
- Union of Municipalities
- NGOs
Altogether 22 persons were interviewed.
When we had finished the interviewing we also attended a two-day conference organised by the UNDP on the issue “Poverty Reduction In the Baltic States.”
The following framework of question were used during the interviews.
Name……………………………………
Institution……………………………….
1. We want to focus on attitudes and political discussions, and to know your view on the social insurance system.
1.1 The role of the state, the municipalities, the private sector and the market. What are the roles of these agencies? What do you think ideally should be the division of responsibilities between them?
1.2 Labour market connection
1.2.1 How are the benefits a result of your labour market position?
1.2.2 Active measures/workfare?
1.2.3 Should there be a minimum level wage for all? Incitements?
1.3 What is the impact on distribution/redistribution?
1.3.1 Rich/poor
1.3.2 Gender
1.3.3 Age
1.3.4 Centre – periphery
1.4 Accountability
1.4.1 Do you think people trust the system?
1.4.2 Do you think they have good reasons for trusting the system?
1.4.3 Are the benefits sufficient to uphold an acceptable standard of living?
1.5 Additional questions
1.5.1 Is the social insurance system in any way related to the WB idees of a three pillar system?
2. We want to focus on attitudes and political discussions, and to know your view on the social insurance system.
2.1 The role of the state, the municipalities, the private sector and the market. What are the roles of these agencies? What do you think ideally should be the division of responsibilities between them?
2.2 Labour market connection
2.2.1 How are the benefits a result of your labour market position?
2.2.2 Active measures/workfare?
2.2.3 Should there be a minimum level wage for all? Incitements?
2.3 What is the impact on distribution/redistribution?
2.3.1 Rich/poor
2.3.2 Gender
2.3.3 Age
2.3.4 Centre – periphery
2.4 Accountability
2.4.1 Do you think people trust the system?
2.4.2 Do you think they have good reasons for trusting the system?
2.4.3 Are the benefits sufficient to uphold an acceptable standard of living?
2.5 Additional questions
2.5.1 The relation between the subsistence level and what people really need for a living
2.5.2 What do you know about the IMF policy on means tested subsistence level support?
3. Family support aims at compensating for extra costs in a phase of live, and to protect children and families from poverty. We want to focus on attitudes and political discussions, and to know your view on the system of family support.
3.1 The role of the state, the municipalities and the private sector
3.2 What is the impact on distribution/redistribution?
3.2.1 Rich/poor
3.2.2
Gender
Is this related to views on women’s liberation?
3.2.3 Age
3.2.4 Centre – periphery
3.3 Accountability
3.3.1 Do you think people trust the system?
3.3.2 Do you think they have good reasons for trusting the system?
3.3.3 Are the benefits sufficient to uphold an acceptable standard of living?
4. Describe the change process that took place during the 1990s in social policy (income maintenance):
Focus on the four dimensions:
4.1 State/municipal/private
4.2 distribution/redistribution
4.3 labour market connection
4.4 accountability
5. Describe the expected changes in the near future in social policy (income maintenance):
5.1 Social insurance: first second and third pillar
5.2 Social assistance and the development of local/municipal services
5.3 Family support
5.4 Plans, existing proposals.
5.5 The relation between social insurance and social assistance
5.6 Relate this to the four dimensions: state/municipal/private, distribution/redistribution, labour market connection, accountability
5.7 Relate this to the general political trends
6. What kind of changes do you see as needed?
7. What are the main issues and arguments in the present public debates on social policy and income maintenance?
Is there a clear division of view e.g. along the right/left dimension?
8. How would you describe the influence of national actors in definition of social policy?
8.1 In what kind of issues are the different actors influential?
(Rate and comment)
· Political parties (in the parliament and outside parliamentary debates)
|
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
|
(Low) |
(Partially low) |
(Medium) |
(Partially high) |
(High) |
· The government
|
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
|
(Low) |
(Partially low) |
(Medium) |
(Partially high) |
(High) |
· Ministry officials
|
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
|
(Low) |
(Partially low) |
(Medium) |
(Partially high) |
(High) |
· Employers associations
|
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
|
(Low) |
(Partially low) |
(Medium) |
(Partially high) |
(High) |
· Trade Unions
|
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
|
(Low) |
(Partially low) |
(Medium) |
(Partially high) |
(High) |
· Health and social oriented NGOs
|
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
|
(Low) |
(Partially low) |
(Medium) |
(Partially high) |
(High) |
· Pressure and interest groups.
|
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
|
(Low) |
(Partially low) |
(Medium) |
(Partially high) |
(High) |
9. How would you describe the influence of international organisations and actors in definition of social policy?
9.1 In what kind of issues are the different actors influential?
(Rate and comment)
· IMF
|
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
|
(Low) |
(Partially low) |
(Medium) |
(Partially high) |
(High) |
· The World Bank
|
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
|
(Low) |
(Partially low) |
(Medium) |
(Partially high) |
(High) |
· EU
|
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
|
(Low) |
(Partially low) |
(Medium) |
(Partially high) |
(High) |
· Organisations linked to the UN (ILO, UNDP, UNICEF etc.)
|
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
|
(Low) |
(Partially low) |
(Medium) |
(Partially high) |
(High) |
· OECD
|
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
|
(Low) |
(Partially low) |
(Medium) |
(Partially high) |
(High) |
· CoE
|
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
|
(Low) |
(Partially low) |
(Medium) |
(Partially high) |
(High) |
· The Nordic countries
|
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
|
(Low) |
(Partially low) |
(Medium) |
(Partially high) |
(High) |
· Aid agencies and international NGOs.
|
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
|
(Low) |
(Partially low) |
(Medium) |
(Partially high) |
(High) |
10. What do you think is the ideal welfare system for Latvia?
Compare with Scandinavia and the rest of Europe. This question should be linked to the regime theories:
10.1 Liberal/market oriented (American)
10.2 Conservative/corporatist (German)
10.3 Social democratic/universalist (Scandinavian)
11. How do you evaluate the relation between rules/regulations/ideals and reality?
12. Ask for other possible written sources in English
13. Are there opinion polls, e.g. on attitudes, and what do they tell?
14. Is it OK to contact you again if there are further questions?
In the planning of the interviews we underestimated the time needed for interpretation. Due to time constraints all the questions were not asked of all informants. We cut some of the questions when they were not seen as relevant. In several cases we dropped the points 8 and 9 on change agent. This has the consequence that we got very limited information of change agents through the interviews.
The interview group consisted of three persons; Arne Grønningsæter, Aadne Aasland and Zane Loža. Two of the team speak three relevant languages; Latvian, English and Norwegian, while the third only speak English and Norwegian. This lead to that most of the interviews were done in Latvian with interpretation to English or Norwegian.