REMEMBRANCE IN TIME - Index of

Rolf WINKELMANN: Economic transition in the Baltic States – On winners and losers 503
In general, women do not belong to the winner of the transition [15]. After the end of
propagated gender equality, their situation changed dramatically. Women are demote
to the „traditional“ role in the households and excluded from employment [16]. A
more conservative attitude about the place of women in the society, disguised in the
Soviet Union, comes to light again. The situation improves, also due to better
education of women, but the improvement is still small.[17] Until today, the gender
related wage gap is one of the characteristic of the situation. In Estonia, women earn
about 31 % less than men in similar professions, in Latvia 13 % and in Lithuania 21
%. The European average is about 17 %.[18] Even the educational status of women
improve, they still have difficulties to enter higher management positions. The
reduction of kindergartens does not help women to escape from their classical role as
mothers. Women were also not able to establish organisations with the power to
support their (economic) interests – not to mention the representation in the
parliaments, even in Latvia and Lithuania women entered positions as prime ministers
and head of state [19].
4. Territories and the economic transition
Not only individuals belong to the groups of winners and losers. Also towns and
regions can be judged this way. The region of Riga has a double high GDP-per head
share than the region of Latgale. The later one definitely suffers during the economic
transition.[20] In other words: The more distant the towns and regions are from the
capitals, the higher is the chance that they belong to the loser of the transition and the
higher the socio-economic differences are. Differences between urban and rural areas
are not unusual, but in transitional countries the results are migration and
unemployment. The transition of the agricultural sector is rather unsuccessful in
Central and Eastern Europe. In Lithuania the kolkhoz were splitted into farmings with
an average size of 3 hectares – this size is only usable for subsistence farming. Until
1995 the average size increases to 7 hectares. The weakness of farms in the Baltic
States becomes more obvious if we keep in mind, that at the end of the last century,
their productivity is 50 % below the level of 1989. The result is also a decrease of jobs
in this sector [21], without a redistribution of rural jobs and internal migration [22].
The lack of profits makes the workforce in rural areas losers of the economic
transition. Even after the EU-accession and promotion by the EU there are still huge
differences in this sector. Producers of milk and meat products are the gainer of the
new possibilities in the EU, while producers of pork do not belong to the winners. In
contrast to Estonia and Latvia, Lithuania has a different economic structure. In
Lithuania, agriculture is still an important sector of the economy [23].
To draw a conclusion, we can explain the reasons for the worse situation of rural areas.
After the transition, family farming is the main method of farming. They have to take
higher risks (workforce, investments, modernisation of farms) to prepare for the EUcommon
market and standards. On the other hand, they have to organise this with nearly
no capital. Another problem for the agricultural sector is, that through restitution, farms
get into the hands of people without any idea what to do with this. This increases the rural
problems. Many farms are inefficient and mainly subsistence farming [24]. This does not
mean rural areas are doomed for eternity. Also rural areas can prosper, but this will need
time and innovations.