SECURITY IN LATVIA IN THE BEGINNING OF THE 21 ST CENTURY: SOCIOLOGICAL ASPECTS Vladimir Menshikov, Faculty of Social Sciences, Institute of Sociological Investigations, Daugavpils University, Latvia The primary aim of the article is to evaluate the level of human security in the fast and complicated circumstances of Latvian society in the beginning of the 21 st century. In this connection the project of the UNO representatives in Latvia Human Security, the main aim of which was the sociological analysis of the theme, is cited. In the author s opinion the task of sociologists is the elaboration of the methodology, methods and instruments of the investigation of human security problems, the ability to link these problems both with the fast and wide changes in human existence and with the changes on macro and micro levels, including both deep and complicated mental disorders and an attitude to the surroundings and the I. It has been found out, that the attitude is influenced by such social characteristics of the respondents as gender, age, place of residence, level of family s well-being etc. This approach allows sociologists to work out a great many of more concrete and wellgrounded recommendations. Key words: human security, threats, fear, realms of human security, measurement of security, groups of risk, social relations Well-being + security = peace this motto was heard in last forum in Davos. Let us assume if the actuality of well-being cannot be felt by the well-todo and millionaires, then the problem of security concerns every person irrespectively of the level of his/her wealth. Sending a child to school, crossing a street, boarding a plane, even going to a concert or to any entertainment, we come across the problems of security. It is naturally that the problems of human security are in the centre of the attention of many social thinkers (Beck 1986; Buzan 1991; Bauman 2001; Kuznecov 2001, 2002). For the first time the concept of human security was fully analyzed in the Human Development Report, in 1994, the subtitle of which was New Dimensions of Human development (Human Development Report 1994). An idea that human security has 2 basic aspects is stressed here: 1) freedom from chronic threats, for example, from starvation, illness and oppression; 2) protection against sudden and painful changes in everyday life, place of work, home and environment. The seven realms of human security are listed in this report (see Box 1). 1
Realms of human security Box 1 Economic security Health security Personal security Environmental security Seven realms of human security Food security Community security Political security In 2002 2003 to the order, made by the UNO representation in Latvia, Latvian experts realized the Human Security project (Latvia. Human Development Report 2002/2003. Human Security). The author took part in the project s realization, first of all paying attention to the sociological aspects of human security and to the problems of the methodology and methods of empirical investigation. A similar project was realized in December 2003, in Daugavpils. As early as the 90ies, Daugavpils University and the Institute of Philosophy and Sociology of Lithuanian Academy of Sciences carried out an investigation, which was devoted to one of the seven human security dimensions to ecological security (Meņšikovs and Peipiņa, 1999). It was discovered in the research that the ecological problems, which are connected with the work of Ignalina Nuclear Power Station (NPS), are understood by the inhabitants of Daugavpils region on the level of personal senses and observations. It was concluded that the biggest number of the inhabitants could not define their social behaviour and specify adequately the real ecological situation in the region. The intuitive level of ecological awareness is based on objective information, and the local inhabitants idea about the ecological situation in the NPS area is formed on not numerous 2
information materials, which appear in mass media, or on the rumours from the neighbour regions of Lithuania. In the Latvia Human Development Report 2002/2003 human security is evaluated in all seven realms, basing both on objective and subjective indices of human security. For instance, economic security is evaluated at the following indices: Sufficient, predictable income Predictable employment Social insurance coverage Satisfaction with one s level of income Income disparity Competitiveness Measurement of sense of security The subjective side of the most important security problem of a person can be characterized with the help of the following measurement: a) the attitude of the respondents to real or possible threats, evaluating them from the position of person s outer threats D (a) the coefficient of the sense of security at social level; b) the evaluation of the personal fears of the respondents makes it possible to define the security coefficient from the position of personal sense and emotional experience D (sd) the coefficient of the sense of security at personal level; The coefficients are calculated in the following way: D (a) = 4 an average level of the sense of the threat at social level by average of all reasons of anxiety (possible threats) (see table 1); D (S) = 4 an average level of the sense of the threat at personal level by average of all reasons of anxiety (possible threats) (see table 2). The analysis of sociological data shows that the average level of the sense of security at personal level is characteristic of all the respondents in Latvia (see Box 2): the coefficient of the sense of security at personal level D (sd) = 1.48 (on the scale, where 0 is sense of absolute insecurity and 3 is sense of absolute security). It is significant that the coefficient of the sense of security at social level D (a) = 1.12 is lower than the average one is. One can see that the coefficient of personal level D (sd) in all significant statistical groups, to a certain extent degree, is higher than the coefficient of social level D (a). 3
The lowest coefficient of security D (a) is characteristic of women (1.01), a group of the lowest family income (1.03), and the respondents of Latgale (1.04). Box 2 Coefficient of security in Latvia in September, 2002 D (a) D(sd) 0 1 1.12 1.48 2 3 (Sense of absolute insecurity) (Sense of absolute security) The investigation of the security coefficient makes it possible: a) to find out both the level of the coefficient of security of all state inhabitants at any time and the structure of the coefficient; b) if it is necessary, to find out the dynamics of the coefficient (the level of security in a year time, 5 year time etc.); c) to find out the most significant factors, which influence both the sense of security of the inhabitants and the characterization of the inhabitants, which essentially influence their sense of security. It is clear that, basing on these coefficients, it is hardly possible to compare the level of the sense of human security in the countries of different cultural and social-economic development, first of all in those, where there are civil wars, immense nature disasters etc. However, in a middle-termed prospect in the countries or the groups of countries, where comparatively gradual changes are happening, these coefficients can be very useful. Economic security If a passer-by were approached on the street and asked what creates a sense of insecurity for him or her, there is a strong probability that the answer would be related to personal financial considerations. For example, a 43-year old teacher, when asked what makes her feel insecure, replied: The last days before the payment of my monthly salary, when I have no money left. In Latvia, where politicians often point to the rapid growth of Latvia s GDP as evidence of the country s development, economic security is the most pervasive human security concern. The individual s economic status directly determines his or her ability to obtain adequate food, shelter, health care and education. The reduction of unemployment, the creation of new employment 4
opportunities, and the need to increase income levels are matters of ongoing concern for 42% of Survey respondents. When asked to reveal the three issues that they worry about most, Survey respondents overwhelmingly cited personal economic considerations, especially the fear of losing their jobs, insufficient income, and the lack of a secure economic base during their old age. Economic issues were followed by health issues, while risks related to social ills (drug abuse, alcoholism, and prostitution) grouped third. Human security usually increases along with one s standard of living. Individuals with higher standards of living generally feel more in control of their lives and place more trust in the future. Latvia has experienced steady GDP growth during the last few years. Latvia s GDP grew by 6.6% in 2002 and by 5.7% in 2001. GDP growth, however, reflects more the potential for economic security than the actual security of each individual. A better measure of economic security is a combination of GDP per capita and income distribution. Unfortunately, Latvia s performance according to this indicator is not as strong as that of other Central and Eastern European countries. Income sufficiency Sufficient income, complemented by predictable employment for those of working age, forms the foundation of economic security. Moreover, the perception of sufficiency is important and varies among social environments. Although the trend has been for reported salaries to increase in Latvia compared with previous years, it is still premature to speak of a real increase in prosperity for the population as a whole. In 2001 the net income for the employed increased by 6.1%, but the annual rate of inflation was 3.5%. Many people still feel unable to adequately support themselves on their income. According to Central Statistical Bureau calculations, the minimum required subsistence income in 2002 was 88.70 lats per person per month. According to this criterion, 83% of the Latvian population lived below the subsistence level. In 2002 the average disposable income per family member was 74.60 lats. The minimum wage in 2002 was 70 lats, while the average old age pension was 62 lats. One continuing and pervasive problem is that of the shadow economy in Latvia, which is estimated at 18-20% of the country s GDP. According to the Working Life Barometer of the Baltic Countries 2002 (Ministry of Labour of the Republic of Finland, 2003), a large number of employers do not sign formal 5
employment contracts with their employees in order to avoid paying taxes. About 10% of the Barometer s respondents said that they had not signed any documents establishing the terms of their employment, and only one-third had signed employment contracts listing a defined period of employment. Over onefifth of employed respondents indicated that they receive some form of payment under the table. In the short term, the reception of untaxed income increases people s ability to cover their immediate expenses and to satisfy their basic needs a prerequisite for a sense of security in other realms. However, in the long term those who have not paid taxes receive less and fewer social guarantees from the State, as well as smaller old-age pensions. Moreover, tax evasion undermines the government s ability to finance social expenditures. The fear of living in poverty on meagre retirement pensions is the fourth most cited personal concern in the Survey. To increase long-term economic human security, Latvia must move quickly and reduce the proportion of hidden income. According to the Working Life Barometer, the proportion of hidden income in Latvia is double that of hidden income in Estonia and Lithuania (Ministry of Labour of the Republic of Finland, 2003). If perceptions of threats are compared by regions in Latvia and regional economic indicators (income per capita, unemployment) are also considered, then there is a correlation (albeit not particularly strong) between economic development and people s sense of insecurity. Box 3 shows that the perception of insecurity is strongest in Latgale, the region in Latvia with the lowest income per capita and highest rate of unemployment. However, economic polarization is growing not only between Latgale and other regions in Latvia, but all across the nation. Most of Latvia s economic growth is occurring within its main urban centres, and the income gap between the cities and the countryside is increasing. Box 3 Economic development and sense of insecurity GDP per capita Unemployment rate Sense of insecurity (EU 15=100 in (% of economically Average value 2001) active population in General risks Personal risks 2001) Riga 37.3 6.8 1.11 1.46 Kurzeme 27.7 9.7 1.18 1.52 Zemgale 16.4 10.8 1.16 1.49 Vidzeme 16.2 9.2 1.15 1.50 6
Latgale 14.6 19.4 1.04 1.46 The average value scale ranges from 0 (insecurity) to 3 (security) The source: the project of the UNO representatives in Latvia Human Security, 2002. Since people s sense of economic security is based more on their personal experience than on macroeconomics, an assessment of the level of economic security in Latvia must include an overview of individual income levels, as well as the rate of regular and predictable employment, the rate of reduction (or lack thereof) in income disparities, and people s sense of satisfaction with their income. People s sense of insecurity grows when they fear receiving insufficient income, i.e. living below the subsistence level, being unable to pay their household bills, and not receiving an adequate old-age pension. These are some of the most significant worries cited by Survey respondents. Income disparities are steadily rising in Latvia. In 2002, the top 20% of the country s inhabitants reported earning an average of 157.70 lats per month after taxes. The average reported earnings of the lowest 20% amounted to only 28.10 lats, which is about one-third of the minimum required subsistence income. Household income levels vary among different socio-economic groups. Entrepreneurs and the self-employed are generally better off. Those engaged in salaried work receive close to average incomes, but incomes in farming households, for senior citizens and those without a regular source of income are for the most part below average. Demographic factors also affect household income levels. Married couples without children have the highest income levels, while single-parent households with children under 16 have the lowest. The sources of the sense of security The question on how to make oneself secure against any possible misfortune is always urgent, because security has become one of the highest values. The sense of absolute security is not possible; therefore, the eternal question will be how secure is secure enough? It seems that it is not possible to answer this question. However, while the answers are being searched and the mechanisms of the sense of security creation/maintenance are being improved, man has to live and to create the secure environment as far as possible, because the necessity of security is the nature of every person. One of the ways to create a secure environment around oneself is to found different social networks. The sense of community and membership in various communes is one of the main sources of the sense of security. Self-reliance, confidence in the near relation, confidence in the understanding and support from other people, membership in 7
different organizations all together create individual security. The opinion of the Latvian inhabitants make it possible to conclude that the sense of security is increased and provided mainly by family relations (29%), material well-being (29%) and activities and sources of individual security (13%). The support of relatives, friends, neighbours, stable family relations and love are in the base of the sense of security. Political security Political security addresses issues concerning human rights and freedoms, as well as the role of a civil society and individual participation in democratic processes. It is rooted in trust in one s government and in the conviction that one s government is capable of carrying out its assigned priorities. The most significant human rights issues in Latvia in 2002 dealt with socio-economic questions personal rights to housing and social security, as well as the right to due process in the court system and the right to be treated with respect. Altogether the National Human Rights Office received 1151 written complaints about alleged human rights violations and provided advice on 4150 cases. Complaints point to economic and social security issues, as well as problems in the justice system and different government institutions. Further information about human rights in Latvia can he obtained from the Internet home page of the National Human Rights Office (http://www.vcb.lv). Few people in Latvia express complete trust in their political institutions, which include the Saeima (or parliament), the Cabinet, and political parties. Fully one-half of Latvia s inhabitants view the Saeima as untrustworthy, while nearly as many (45%) think the same of the Cabinet of Ministers. The high rate of MPs who were voted out of office in the 2002 elections bears witness to public dissatisfaction with the activities of Latvian politicians. The divide between society and its power structures remains strong. People continue to feel alienated from political decision-makers and there is a noticeable lack of civic participation. According to sociologist Ulrich Beck, participation is a prerequisite for the demystification of politics (Beck, 1986). Communication between the Latvian political elite and its electorate must be improved. A survey carried out in 2001 by the Institute of Philosophy and Sociology at the University of Latvia indicates that only about 1% of respondents are 8
involved in political parties. Three-quarters believe that they have no ability to influence government activities. A disturbingly large number of people (73%) also rate their ability to affect politics at the municipal level as low, confirming a sense of political powerlessness (Institute of Philosophy and Sociology, Social Relations and Support Systems, 2001). Political participation in Latvia has decreased since the early 1990s. In 1993, 89% of citizens look part in the election of the 5 th Saeima, compared to 72.5% in the 2002 elections of the 8 th Saeima. This level of participation is still high compared to other Western democracies, and indicates that the people of Latvia have not entirely lost faith in their ability to affect political processes. Participation translates as the ability of civil society to take part in decision-making processes at both the local and national levels. The government is currently elaborating procedures for increasing public input in government policy making such as in agenda setting, programme-planning, and the formulation of draft legislation as well as policy implementation and assessment. NGOs are slowly becoming cooperation partners in policy planning, but most people are still passive about participating in them. People in Latvia also hesitate to use such existing participative options as open forums, discussions of draft legislation and other avenues for expressing their opinions, affecting decision-making and reducing their sense of alienation. One reason for the low level of trust in Latvia s political elite is the pervasive perception of it as corruption-ridden. The Face of Corruption Study carried out by Delna in 1999, the Latvian branch of Transparency International, indicated that more than half of those surveyed believe that the government has no interest in fighting corruption. Three-quarters thought that Latvia has too many bureaucrats, of whom most use their positions for personal gain. The UNDP Survey also revealed that 42% of respondents are concerned about the necessity to give bribes in order to have their problems dealt with properly. In 2002 Transparency International gave Latvia a rating of 3.7 out of 10, where 0 designates a general perception of unbridled and widespread corruption, while 10 indicates a complete lack thereof. Latvia placed 52 nd among 102 countries studied. Both of Latvia s Baltic neighbours had better ratings. Estonia ranked 29 th with a rating of 5.6, while Lithuania ranked 46 th with a rating of 4.8. It remains to be seen whether the establishment of Latvia s 9
Bureau for the Prevention and Fight Against Corruption in 2002 will reduce both the public perception and actual occurrence of corruption in the country. Different people, different issues Although the people of Latvia generally recognize the same issues as being problematic the spread of drugs, household income, crime, health, etc., certain risks are felt more intensely by specific groups of people. According to the Survey, there are no significant differences in the perception of general risks and personal threats among citizens and non-citizens. However, there are structural differences in the way some risks are perceived. For example, citizens are more likely to fear organized crime (59%) than noncitizens (51%). Non-citizens tend to be more concerned about inadequate social safeguards, including not being able to afford medical care if taken ill, and not being able to pay their rent and other household bills. There are differences in the perception of national threats. For example, 46% of Latvia s citizens still fear the potential reoccupation of the country by a foreign power (namely Russia). Eighteen percent said they hold this fear strongly. Only about half as many non-citizens (24%) fear such an eventuality, and only 10% of them hold this fear strongly (see Box 4). Concern about specific risks among citizens and non-citizens (%) 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 26 21 34 29 Citizens 37 15 Citizens 23 9 28 18 Citizens 14 10 Noncitizens Noncitizens Noncitizens Slightly afraid Very afraid Nuclear threats Partial loss of Latvia s sovereignty Occupation of Latvia The source: the project of the UNO representatives in Latvia Human Security, 2002. Both citizens (60%) and non-citizens (50%) are afraid of nuclear threats (the study did not differentiate between the use of nuclear weapons and nuclear reactor accidents). As reflected in the article, the nuclear reactor in Ignalina, Lithuania is a source of anxiety to many living in the surrounding area. 10
Women in Latgale are more likely to be concerned about becoming seriously ill and about losing their income than those living elsewhere. However, the fear of not receiving an adequate standard of medical care was ranked only fourth in Latgale, whereas it was concern #2 countrywide. As it follows from the analysis of the health security problems, economic status and health are closely linked. Those who experience the highest rates of anxiety about their health are usually those who lack regular or sufficient income, i.e. the unemployed, homemakers, and low-paid salaried workers. The economically disadvantaged segments of the population are likely to continue to avoid using the country s health care system, even if the costs to them are kept to a minimum. A different view presents itself when perceptions of risk are analysed across age groups. Those under the age of 29 are more likely to fear becoming infected with HIV/AIDS and losing their savings. They also fear such physical threats as street crime, sexual assault, and terrorist attacks. Those in their thirties are most afraid of receiving inadequate medical care in the case of illness, and being unable to afford a proper education for themselves and their children. The middle-aged and the elderly tended to be more worried about paying their bills, avoiding financial difficulties, securing sufficient old-age pensions and maintaining their health. Marital status also affects perceptions of security. According to the Survey, those who are divorced, married but not living with their partners or widowed are more worried about financial problems, most likely due to an absence of family support. The unmarried worry more frequently about contracting HIV/AIDS. Married individuals worry less about becoming infected with HIV/AIDS than those in common-law relationships. Married women living separately from their husbands are the most likely to fear assault. Married women living together with their husbands are less likely to fear physical violence at home, or at least admit to it. The results obtained from the Survey show that people s sense of security is mostly undermined by general risk factors that are associated with current social, economic and environmental problems, including problems of access to quality food. People in Latvia are least worried about issues of national security. The prospects of Latvia being occupied by a foreign country, of ethnic or military conflict, or of civil unrest were rated as among the least likely in the category of general risks. 11
Table 1 Perception of threats at the social level: the urgency of 31 possible threats in September, 2002 Existing and potential threats capable of contributing to feelings of insecurity Degree of concern Percentage expressing concern, % All Men Women All Men Women coefficients coefficients coefficients % % % The spread of narcotics 3.55 3.46 3.63 91 88 93 Organized crime in Latvia 3.44 3.34 3.52 88 84 91 The spread of HIV/AIDS in Latvia 3.40 3.30 3.49 88 85 90 Rapid price increases 3.32 3.20 3.43 84 80 88 Hazardous waste dumps in Latvia 3.31 3.22 3.40 87 84 90 Clear-cutting of forests in Latvia 3.27 3.21 3.32 86 83 88 Environmental pollution in Latvia 3.26 3.13 3.37 87 82 91 The spread of HIV/ AIDS worldwide 3.24 3.12 3.35 82 78 85 High amount of preservatives in food 3.17 3.02 3.30 81 73 87 Food poisoning 3.14 3.00 3.25 78 72 53 Environmental pollution worldwide 3.05 2.94 3.14 79 74 83 The abandonment of farmland in Latvia 3.03 2.97 3.08 76 73 79 An environmental disaster in Latvia 2.99 2.79 3.17 73 64 81 Foreign producers forcing local producers 2.92 2.79 3.04 70 64 76 out of the Latvian market Foreigners buying up land in Latvia 2.87 2.76 2.97 67 62 72 The devaluation of the lat 2,86 2.75 2.96 65 61 69 Exodus from rural areas 2.82 2.72 2.91 67 62 71 Global warming 2.77 2.59 2.93 66 56 75 Latvian producers losing their market share 2.76 2.70 2.81 64 61 67 in other countries Nuclear threats 2.71 2.48 2.91 58 50 65 Threats to the survival of one s 2.66 2.55 2.76 59 54 63 own language and culture Population decline 2.65 2.53 2.75 59 53 65 Influx of refugees in Latvia 2.61 2.53 2.69 58 54 61 Terrorism in Latvia 2.50 2.24 2.72 51 41 60 Limitations on democracy and freedom of 2.48 2.35 2.59 50 43 56 speech in Latvia Manifestations of international terrorism in 2.47 2.23 2.67 50 40 58 Latvia Partial loss of Latvia s sovereignty 2.40 2.27 2.52 48 42 54 Internal unrest 2.39 2.17 2.58 47 38 55 Armed conflict in Latvia 2.38 2.14 2.59 47 37 56 Ethnic conflict in Latvia 2.33 2.18 2.46 44 37 50 The occupation of Latvia 2.29 2.10 2.45 41 34 47 Average degree of concern about 2.88 2.74 2.99 all perceived threats Average coefficient of the sense of security D (a) 1.12 1.26 1.01 * Respondents were asked to rate their level of concern about each threat as follows: 1 not at all afraid, 2 mostly not afraid; 3 slightly afraid; 4 very afraid. An average level of concern rated at all answers (all, men, women). On the contrary, the perception of threats among the respondents is shown in the part of %, where the respondents evaluated the threats at the level of 3 4 slightly afraid or very afraid The source: the project of the UNO representatives in Latvia Human Security, 2002. 12
Table 2 Perception of threats at the personal level: the urgency of 32 possible threats in September, 2002 Potential threats Degree of concern Percentage expressing concern, % All Men Women All Men Women Coefficients Coefficients Coefficient % % % Inability to pay for medical care in the case of 3.28 3.14 3.39 83 78 87 illness Not receiving an adequate standard of medical 3.27 3.15 3.37 83 80 86 care in the case of illness Becoming seriously ill 3.26 3.10 3.39 83 78 88 Not receiving a large enough retirement pension to live on 3.08 2.98 3.15 75 72 78 Being unable to support oneself 3.08 2.93 3.20 73 67 78 Being involved in an accident 3.08 2.95 3.19 77 72 82 Inability to pay one s rent or other household 3.03 2.87 3.17 72 65 79 bills Becoming the victim of aggressive and unsafe 3.01 2.84 3.15 77 71 83 driving practices Being attacked on the street 2.94 2.73 3.13 72 62 80 Being subject to theft 2.87 2.72 3.00 70 64 74 Contracting deer tick encephalitis 2.84 2.67 2.98 67 60 72 Losing one s job / being unable to find work 2.68 2.66 2.70 61 60 62 Inability to pay for one s children s or one s own education 2.68 2.64 2.71 58 55 61 Falling victim to organized crime 2.61 2.48 2.71 58 54 60 Not having a place to live 2.57 2.39 2.72 54 48 60 Contracting HIV/AIDS 2.55 2.46 2.64 54 51 56 Not having enough to eat / starving 2.53 2.37 2.68 52 45 58 Becoming a victim of a terrorist attack 2.52 2.36 2.65 50 42 57 Being left on one s own 2.49 2.40 2.57 51 48 54 Inability to compete in the job market 2.40 2.35 2.45 50 46 52 Being emotionally abused by civil servants 2.31 2.26 2.35 45 42 47 Needing to bride someone in order to obtain a 2.27 2.16 2.38 42 38 47 service Loosing the understanding and support of one s 2.25 2.16 2.33 42 36 46 family and friends Being left on one with dependent children 2.19 2.03 2.32 38 31 45 Being emotionally abused by police 2.17 2.19 2.16 37 38 37 officers Losing the understanding and support of one s colleagues 2.06 2.00 2.12 33 28 37 Being sexually assaulted 1.89 1.48 2.25 28 12 43 Being emotionally abused at work 1.84 1.73 1.94 24 16 30 Being in conflict with relatives or others 1.81 1.80 1.82 23 22 25 over property issues Losing one s savings in the bank 1.80 1.81 1.80 24 25 24 Being emotionally abused in the family 1.68 1.58 1.77 19 14 23 Being emotionally abused at home 1.53 1.42 1.62 14 11 18 Average degree of concern about all perceived threats 2.52 2.40 2.62 Average coefficient of the sense of 1.48 1.60 1.38 security D (a) 13
* See notes for Table 1 The source: the project of the UNO representatives in Latvia Human Security, 2002. Sources and Literature 1. Apvienoto Nāciju Attīstības programmas pētījums Cilvēka drošība Latvijā (2002). 2. Menšikovs, V. un O. Peipiņa, (1999) Atomenerģētika un cilvēka dzīves apstākļi (socioloģiskais aspekts). Daugavpils: Saule. 3. Baltijas Datu nams (1999) Eiropas Vērtību pētījums. Rīga. 4. Centrālās statistikas pārvalde, FAFO (Lietišķo sociālo pētījumu institūts) (2000) Dzīves apstākļu apsekojums Latvijā 1999. gadā. Rīga. 5. Tirgus un sabiedriskās domas pētījumu centrs (SKDS) (2002) Attieksme pret atsevišķiem ar integrāciju saistītiem jautājumiem. Latvijas iedzīvotāju aptauja. 2002. g. augusts. Tieslietu ministrijas pasūtīts pētījums. Rīga. 6. LU Filozofijas un socioloģijas institūts. International Social Survey Programme (2001) Social Relations and Social Support Systems. Latvijas iedzīvotāju aptauja. Rīga. 7. Ministry of Labour of the Republic of Finland. 2003. Working Life Barometer of the Baltic Countries 2002. Labour Policy Studies 247. 8. Bauman, Z. (1999) In search of Politics. Cambridge: Polity press. 9. Bauman, Z. (2001) The Individualized Society. London: Polity. 10. Beck, U. (1986) Risikogesellschaft. Auf dem Weg in eine andere Moderne. Frankfurt am Main: Suhramp. 11. Buzan, Z. (1991) People, States and Fear. Boulder, Colorado: Lynne Riener Publishers 12. Latvia. Human Development Report 2002/2003. Human Security. (2003) Rīga: UNDP. 13. Human Development Report. New Dimensions of Human Security. 1994 New York : Oxford. 14. Kuzņecov, V. (2001) Sociologija bezopasnosti. Moskva: Respublika. 15. Kuzņecov, V. (2002) Kultura bezopasnosti. Moskva: Nauka. 16. Menshikov, V. (2001) The Social Capital of Latvia: Its Conditions and the newest Tendencies: Transformation of Economic and Social Relations: Processes, Tendencies and Results. Riga: School of Busssines Administration Turiba. Pp. 258-264 17. Fukuda Parr, Sakiko. (2003) New Threats to Human Security in the Era of Globalization. Journal of Human Development, 4: 167 179. 14
18. Chen L. and Narasimhan V. (2003) Human Security and Global Health. Journal of Human Development, 4: 180 190. 15