Dokumentumok
Nyomtatóbarát változat
Cím:
Ukrainen Evaluation
Szerző:
Ország:
A kiadás helye:
A kiadás éve:
Kiadó:
Terjedelem:
Nyelv:
Tárgyszavak:
network, community development, Central and Eastern Europe, Measuring Social Capital, Ukraine
Állomány:
Community Development Network Building in Central and Eastern Europe, Közösségfejlesztési hálózatépítés Kelet-Közép Európában
Forditas:
Megjegyzés:
Annotáció:
Leltár:
Raktári jelzet:
E

SOCIAL CAPITAL
People, families and communities
Based on the questionnaire for the Home Office Citizenship Survey, U. K.
Survey conducted in Ukrainian communities by the Institute of Public Administration and Regional Development (Uzhgorod)
___________________________________________________________________________

Social_capital_text-Ukr.doc

SUMMARY

This social capital survey was conducted in three Ukrainian communities of Transcarpathian region that is located in the west of the country on the borders with four countries: Poland, Slovakia, Hungary and Romania. One of the communities – Onokivci – is a village just near Uzhgorod which is administrative center of Transcarpathia that makes its specifics in the context of the social relations. Most of inhabitants migrated to the village from other part of the region after the World War II and even later, many people are working and spending most of their time in Uzhgorod, and, on the other side, some persons from the city during the last year built their cottages in Onokivci having tension to live in some kind of rural area. Other community Smerekova is a small village situated far from any urban center in Carpathian mountains and is characterized by the stable quality of the population, some kind of patriarchal relations between people. The last example is one of the districts of the town Tyachevo and the results of the survey here can demonstrate the difference in social networks and norms between rural and urban communities. The survey included 154 respondents: 52 – from Onokivci, 52 – from Smerekova, 50 – from Tyachevo. The survey is not representative because no accurate data on the demographic characteristics of the population of either community was available in advanc.

The survey demonstrates that people in all three Transcarpathian communities know each other well and tend to visit their neighbors or welcome them at their households. At the same time the level of trust to other representatives of the communities is not such high and that means that people are not ready to include themselves in the wider networks operating in their neighbourhoods. The fact that the percentage of distrust in the rural communities is evidently low demonstrates that in closed village environment people are traditionally keeping on each other help.

Civic activity depends from the chance to influence the positive decision on the behalf of the inhabitants. That’s why people in all communities trust besides their employers the local governments and tend to communicate with local councilors and officials to solve their problems. They do not believe in importance in their life of the “high” national politics and the efficiency of the taking part in demonstrations and other protest actions.

Communication

In all three communities people tend to know each other. Near 60, 4 % of all respondents answered that they know many people in their neighborhood, and only 1,3 % chose the variant “do not know any people”. It is interesting that the highest rate of persons who know many people in their neighbourhood is in urban community of Tyachevo - 70 %. This phenomena can be explained by the relative closed location of the community from the other part of the town and the stable content of the population that doesn’t include newcomers.

Other questions related to the communication issue in the communities are about going round to the houses of friends and neighbors. Results are demonstrating that people are tending to interact with each other quite intensively: only 3,9 % of all respondents are never welcoming friends or neighbors, and only 5,2 % of them are never visiting their community counterparts. Again in Tyachevo the first signs of the presence of social network are the most evident: 46 % of respondents are welcoming visitors each day, and, at the same time, 32 % of persons taking part in the survey are making visits each day. The lowest indicators of communication are present in Onokivci community where 11,5 % of respondents never are granted by the visits, and, simultaneously, 15,4 % are never tended to visit friends or neighbors.

Interpersonal Trust

The percentage of the positive answers on the issues connecting with “knowing” and “visiting” each other does not overlap the percentage of answers on the question connected with the level of trust in communities. Only 5,2 % of communities representatives stated that they can trust many people in their communities and, thus, that they are included in the community networks that can initiate some common undertakings. On the other side, only 16, 9 % of the surveyed persons are sure that they can’t trust anybody in their neighbourhood. The lowest percentage of negative answers is in Smerekova village (3,8 %) and this fact can be explained by the small size of this community and its closed character to the “external world” that mean the necessity to overcome the life problems by the common will and energy of their community inhabitants. The highest rate of distrust is present in urban Tyachevo (30 %), and this is nice illustration of reality that knowing each other in community (the percentage of knowing was the highest in Tyachevo) does not often lead to the positive results of this communication.

Contacts with Institutions and Civic Activity

Contacts with institutions depends from the proximity and level of their authority, though we can state that people do not have big trust in the institutions in general (24, 8 % of all respondents did not undertake any civic activity during the last year, in urban Tyachevo this figure is 54,9 %). Near all third of all respondents (32, 9 %) have contacted public official of the local council and the positive result is highest in the smallest community of Smerekova – 43, 6 % - where people tended to decide with local council land issues which are crucial for their well-being. The figure – 0,5 % - of inhabitants having contacted a MP means not only distrust in the efficiency of the central institutions but also absence of access to the politicians of the national significance. People in all communities are not intended to mobilize themselves to take part in a public demonstration or protest (1,3 %), and only 11, 7 % of them chose the chance to demonstrate their civic activity by attending public meeting or rally.

Trust in Institutions

People in all three communities have the highest trust in their employers: only 5.8 of respondents do not rely on them at all. Local councils are also regarded to be the institutions which are responsive to the needs and hopes of communities inhabitants: 11.7 of respondents trust them a lot and 42.2 % - a fair amount. This positive stand can be explained by the belief of the people of Transcarpathian communities that they can influence the decisions affecting their local area. Definitely agree with this statement 12.3 % of persons taking part in the survey; tend to agree 36.4 % of all respondents. As in other cases, people in the villages (Onokivci and Smerekova) rely on their influence on the fate of their area more than in urban Tyachevo where only 22 % of inhabitants chose positive answers.

Voluntary Help

People in all surveyed communities are rather positively positioned regarding voluntary unpaid help to people who are not their relatives. Only 5.3 % of all respondents do not initiated any help their community counterparts during the last 12 months. This percentage is highest in town of Tyachevo (16 %) and lowest in small mountain Smerekova (0 %). In rural communities people tend to volunteer in looking for the property, doing shopping, collecting pension or paying bills for other people, or doing household work; in Tyachevo – household jobs are on the first place and caring for the children – on the second.

TABLES WITH PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION


I. Active Community and Social Capital Module
1.Would you say that you know … READ OUT
Many of the people in your neighbourhood
60.4
Some of the people in your neighbourhood
29.9
A few of the people in your neighbourhood
4.5
Or that you do not know people in your neighbourhood?
1.3
DK
3.9
2. Would you say that … READ OUT
Many of the people in your neighbourhood can be trusted
5.2
Some of the people in your neighbourhood can be trusted
35.7
A few of the people in your neighbourhood can be trusted
40.9
Or that none of the people in your neighbourhood can be trusted?
16.9
DK
1.3
3. Would you say this neighbourhood is a place where neighbours look out for each other?
Yes, definitely
3.8
Yes, to some extent
46.1
No
20.1
DK
2.0
4. How often do you have friends or neighbours round to your house?
Every day
16.9
Several times a week
19.5
At least once a week
20.8
At least once a fortnight
24.7
At least once a month
7.1
Less than once a month
7.1
Never
3.9
5.And how often do you go round to other people’s houses? That is friends or neighbours.
Every day
11.7
Several times a week
13.6
At least once a week
24.7
At least once a fortnight
21.4
At least once a month
13.0
Less than once a month
10.4
Never
5.2

6. In the last 12 months have you done any of the things?
Contacted a local councillor
10.4
Contacted a Member of Parliament (MP)
0.5
Contacted a public official working for your local council
32.9
Contacted a public official working for part of Central Government
10.4
Attended a public meeting or rally
11.7
Taken part in a public demonstration or protest
1.3
Signed a petition
8.1
Non of these
24.8
DK
0
7. Do you agree or disagree that you can influence decisions affecting your local area?
Definitely agree
12.3
Tend to agree
36.4
Tend to disagree
30.5
Definitely disagree
20.1
DK
0.7
8. How much do you trust
the police
1. A lot
2. A fair amount
3. Not very much
4. Not at all
5. DK
2.6
22.1
47.4
27.9
0
the courts
1. A lot
2. A fair amount
3. Not very much
4. Not at all
5. DK
10.4
46.7
27.3
15.6
0
your employer
1. A lot
2. A fair amount
3. Not very much
4. Not at all
5. DK
19.5
39.0
28.6
5.8
7.1
Politicians
1. A lot
2. A fair amount
3. Not very much
4. Not at all
5. DK
0
2.6
38.3
59.1
0
Parliament
1. A lot
2. A fair amount
3. Not very much
4. Not at all
5. DK
0
3.9
27.9
68.2
0
Your local council
1. A lot
2. A fair amount
3. Not very much
4. Not at all
5. DK
11.7
42.2
27.9
18.2
0
9. Have you been involved with (all) these groups, clubs or organisations in the last 12 months?
Children’s education/schools
19.1
Youth/children’s activities (outside school)
3.9
Education for adults
1.3
Sports/exercise (taking part, coaching or going to watch)
5.9
Religion
30.3
Politics
2.6
Health, Disability and Social welfare
7.3
The elderly
0
Safety, First Aid
3.3
The environment, animals
2.6
Justice and Human Rights
0
Local community or neighbourhood groups
13.8
Citizen’s Groups
0.7
Hobbies/Recreation/Arts/Social clubs
5.9
Trade union activity
2.6
None of these
0
10.Do you ever feel that you would like to spend any (irregular volunteers/unknown frequency: more) time helping groups, clubs or organisations, or not?
Yes
77.9
No ( move to question 12)
21.5
DK ( move to question № 12)
0.6
11.There are various reasons why people don’t give unpaid help to groups, clubs or organisations, even when they feel they might like to. Why do you not give this sort of help more regularly?
12. Which, if any of these, might make you likely to get involved in future?
If someone asked me directly to get involved
12.8
If my friends or family got involved with me
24.1
If someone who was already involved was there to help get me started
18.8
If more information about the things I could do was available
9.1
If I knew I could get my expenses paid
1.3
If someone could provide transport when I needed it
4
If I could do it from home
6.8
If I knew it would help me improve my skills or get qualifications
10.9
If I knew it would benefit me in my career or improve my job prospects
11.9
Other
0.3
13.In the last 12 months, have you done any of these things, unpaid, for someone who is not a relative? This might be for a friend, neighbour or someone else.
Keeping in touch with someone who has difficulty getting out and about (visiting in person, telephoning or e-mailing)
1
Doing shopping, collecting pension or paying bills for someone
10.9
Cooking, cleaning, laundry, gardening or other routine household jobs for someone
18.7
Decorating, or doing any kind of home or car repairs for someone
8.2
Baby sitting or caring for children
9.5
Sitting with or providing personal care (e.g. washing, dressing) for someone who is sick or frail
2.3
Looking after a property or a pet for someone who is away
21.0
Giving advice to someone
5.3
Writing letters or filling in forms for someone
3.9
Representing someone (for example in talking to a council official)
3.0
Transporting or escorting someone (for example to a hospital, on an outing or a school-run)
7.6
Anything else (specify)…………………………………………………….
3.3
No help given in last 12 months
5.3
DK
0

15.Have you yourself, in the last 12 months, benefited from unpaid help in any of these ways? Please exclude help from members of your family (that’s any relatives).
Keeping in touch with your (visiting in person, telephoning or e-mailing)
1.2
Doing shopping, collecting pension or paying bills for you
7.2
Cooking, cleaning, laundry, gardening or doing other routine household jobs for you
17.8
Decorating, or doing any kind of home or car repairs for you
10.6
Baby sitting or caring for your children
7.5
Sitting with or providing personal care (e.g. washing, dressing) for you
2.2
Looking after a property or a pet for you whilst you are away
21.5
Giving advice to you
4.4
Writing letters or filling in forms for you
3.1
Representing you (for example in talking to a council official)
0.9
Transporting or escorting you (for example to a hospital or on an outing)
6.2
Anything else (specify)
6.5
DK
0
No help received in last 12 months
10.9

Dokumentumok