Introduction

Latvia's national human development reports (NHDRs) have had a significant impact on policy-making, particularly on issues pertaining to social integration. Before examining that impact in greater detail, I would like to make a few introductory remarks on the role of the reports in Latvia more generally. Sadly, the NHDRs have no competition - they are virtually the only public policy oriented analyses of Latvia's major development challenges. The universities and social science departments in particular are experiencing a deep crisis, one manifestation of which is the extreme dearth of published research. The NHDRs thus fill an important academic gap, but they do so in a non-academic manner. By Latvian standards, they are very hard-hitting and open about problems and challenges. As a result, the educated public has come to see the NHDRs as a major source for learning about itself and the changes under way in society.

The impact of the NHDRs on policy is difficult to measure, because it is more frequently indirect than direct. For example, the reports have generated significant public debate in the media, which then often feeds back into the policy process. While some issues analysed in the NHDR are already being broadly discussed, often, the NHDR is a voice in the wilderness, slowly raising the awareness of the policy-making community (e.g. regarding poverty). The NHDRs are widely used as educational tools in universities and within the civil service, thereby directly influencing the thinking of current and future opinion-makers. Moreover, recently, the University of Latvia initiated a course in human development studies, which should further strengthen the impact of the NHDRs. The NHDRs often promote social dialogue by bringing together academics, activists from nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), representatives of the private sector, and state officials. The NHDRs are also among the only current analyses of Latvia available in English. Consequently, they are widely used by the international diplomatic, aid and media communities. As anyone living in a small country can attest, what the international community says and does is often critical in domestic politics.

The NHDRs and Social Integration

The NHDRs have devoted considerable attention to issues of social integration, examining the status of marginalized/vulnerable groups and women, analysing patterns of poverty and social exclusion, and investigating inter-ethnic relations. Indeed, until recently, integration in Latvia was understood almost solely in terms of inter-ethnic relations. However, partially as a result of the NHDRs, the early focus on inter-ethnic relations has broadened to include socio-economic dimensions, such as poverty and regional development. Moreover, now experts and officials have come to view strengthening participation by all members of Latvian society in social and political life as a central element of social integration. I would like to trace this evolution in thinking and policy and link it to the Latvia Human Development Reports, for which I was the national co-ordinator for three years, from 1995 through 1997.

The Latvian Context

First, however, a little context is needed. Latvia was an independent country between the two world wars, was forcibly annexed by the Soviet Union at the close of World War II, and regained independence in 1991. Since the restoration of independence, inter-ethnic relations - particularly citizenship and language policy - have been at the core of Latvian politics. In large part, this stems from the demographic, linguistic and political changes that took place in Latvia during 50 years of Soviet rule.

As a result of war, deportations, flight to the West and large-scale immigration, ethnic Latvians went from being 77% of the population in 1935 to 52% of the population in 1989. Even today, Latvians are a minority in all the major cities: in the capital Riga, for example, Latvians constitute about 39% of the population. In Daugavpils, the second largest city, Latvians account for about 15% of the population. At the same time, Soviet rule led to a massive increase in the size of what is now termed the Russianspeaking population - Russians, Belarussians, and Ukrainians who have Russian as a mother tongue. Demographic change was accompanied by a transformation of the linguistic environment. While almost all Latvians acquired the Russian language, very few post-war Russian-speaking settlers acquired the Latvian language, resulting in highly asymmetric bilingualism. Ethnic and linguistic differences partially overlapped with political cleavages during the independence struggle in the late 1980s and early l990s, with the independence movement being heavily Latvian and the far smaller anti-independence movement primarily Russian-speaking in orientation. This is not say that all minorities opposed independence, but only to note that the anti-independence forces had a minority mien and that cast a long shadow on subsequent ethnic relations.

Because of this shadow, the sheer size of the Russian-speaking community, its shallow roots in the country, and its frequent lack of Latvian language skills, the Latvian political class was very wary of granting automatic citizenship to all post-war settlers. What happened was that in 1991 citizenship was restored to all former citizens of the interwar republic and their direct descendants. Post-war settlers and their descendants must undergo naturalization, which requires passing Latvian language examinations and tests on the history and constitution of Latvia. The upshot is that only 40% of Russians in Latvia are citizens. A small number have taken out Russian Federation citizenship, but most are non-citizens -permanent resident aliens who have yet to undergo naturalization.

Controversy over Latvia's citizenship policy has been a critical element in the rise and fall of several administrations and the one issue over which Latvia has conducted a referendum since independence. Moreover, the citizenship issue has been the object of sustained interest by Russia and international organizations, which have urged liberalization of the law. Until recently, public debate on the citizenship issue has been very emotional and based on stereotypes, rather than any research or analysis.

The Latvia NHDR and the Citizenship Issue

Indeed, after passage of the Law on Citizenship in 1994 the issue was so controversial that the 1995 and 1996 NHDRs addressed it only in the most tentative manner. In 1997, however, the NHDR tackled the citizenship issue head on, linking it to participation and disparities in social, economic, and political rights. The 1997 NHDR provided the first detailed analysis of non-citizens as a group, the naturalization process, and the legal and social status of non-citizens in Latvia. Core policy recommendations included liberalization of the law to allow stateless children born in Latvia since independence to acquire citizenship automatically and abolition of a timetable that had prevented many qualified applicants from naturalizing. Most importantly, the NHDR provided a detailed rationale for liberalization, citing humanitarian considerations, Latvia's international human rights obligations, sociological evidence of growing alienation among non-citizens and the requirements of membership in the European Union.

One year after publication of Latvia's 1997 NHDR, Latvia was engulfed in a huge debate on amending the law, prompted by an inter-state crisis with Russia, the danger of isolation from the West and a stagnating naturalization process. In this debate, all of the reasoning contained in the NHDR was invoked. In a referendum on 3 October 1998, a majority of the Latvian electorate approved liberalization of the law. This is not to attribute a direct influence to the NHDR for the policy change, but only to note that the NHDR was on the cutting edge, laying the groundwork for the subsequent policy debates and providing ammunition for reformers.

The 1997 NHDR also called for in-depth research on ethnopolitical issues, as the dearth of data and analysis in this realm hindered the formulation of public policy. In late 1997 and early 1998, several months after publication of the NHDR, this recommendation bore fruit, as a working group under the auspices of the government's Naturalization Board initiated an enormous research project on the attitudes and values of citizens and noncitizens, a content analysis of Russian and Latvian-language print media, expert interviews and more. This research project, entitled "On the Way to a Civil Society," subsequently served as the foundation for the creation of a major governmental "Integration Program," to which I will return in a moment.

The Latvia NHDR and Language Policy

First, however, I would like to address another core aspect of social integration in Latvia - language policy. I already noted the Soviet legacy of asymmetric bilingualism. Indeed, the challenge of promoting knowledge of the Latvian language was and is enormous: in 1989, when the last Soviet census was conducted, of Latvia's 2.6 million inhabitants 1 million did not speak Latvian. Thus, it is not surprising that the post-Soviet era witnessed efforts to strengthen the role of Latvian in public life, the education system and elsewhere in society.

In the early and mid-199Os, the government relied heavily on punitive measures to promote Latvian, including attempts to regulate language use through administrative means, testing employees, levying fines and so forth. While the government relied on the stick, the NHDRs made a strong case for using the carrot: providing opportunities to non-speakers to learn the language, making Latvian attractive and interesting, providing positive incentives and stressing the important role and responsibilities Latvians themselves had in the process.

The 1995 NHDR linked the acquisition of Latvian to the expansion of choices and opportunities to participate in social, economic and political life. While the 1995 NHDR was being drafted, a major policy initiative was born: the government turned to UNDP with a request for assistance in developing a Latvian Language Training Programme. Over the next several years, the initiative blossomed into a 10-year programme aimed at teaching Latvian to 180,000 schoolchildren and 180,000 adults. In 1995, policy evolved in parallel with the publication of the first NHDR, but soon, the NHDR regained the initiative, so to speak.

The carrot was making headway in 1996 and 1997, but many in Latvia remained wedded to the stick. Though the stick is not particularly effective, it is very familiar to those who have lived in authoritarian societies. The 1997 NHDR provided a critical analysis of the dual nature of language policy, calling for greater emphasis to be placed on training and less on punitive measures. The recommendations of the 1997 NHDR were prescient with regard to subsequent policy debates about a new draft language law. The NHDR criticised the desire to regulate language use in the private sphere and pointed to the incompatibility of such efforts with Latvia's international human rights obligations in the realm of freedom of expression.

As you may know, in June of this year, parliament adopted a flawed law that sought to extend government regulation of language use to most businesses and many non-governmental organizations. After minorities, human rights activists, and international organizations harshly criticised the law, the president sent it back to parliament for review. The reasons she cited for her step were precisely the considerations raised by the 1997 NHDR. Again, the NHDR was about a year ahead of its time.

The NHDR and Integration Policy

One of the core policy recommendations of the 1997 NHDR was for the government to draft and implement a coherent integration policy, including such elements as the naturalization of non-citizens, Latvian language training, support for public policy research on inter-ethnic relations and more. In mid- 1998, the government began to implement this recommendation by commissioning from experts a "Framework Document for a National Programme on the Integration of Society." The document, which some have called a mix of sociology, ideology and bureaucracy, is very ambitious. It includes sections on education, language, cultural policy, citizenship and naturalization, NGOs, regional development and scientific research. In early 1999 the government and UNDP funded a several month long public discussion of the document, including a series of seminars, media debates, conferences and so forth with the express aim of engaging NGOs and minorities in a process of dialogue.

Interestingly, the debate demonstrated that the early focus on interethnic relations needed to be transcended. It became apparent that not only non-citizens and minorities needed to be integrated, but that all segments of society were alienated from government. While important, divisive issues such as citizenship and language should not be allowed to overshadow the common social problems affecting all members of society and the shared desire to promote regional development. ~

The document is currently being revised and the understanding of integration is being broadened to include many of the core postulates of the human development paradigm. For example, there is no longer a section on citizenship and naturalization, but rather a focus on civic participation, the role of NGOs and the need to overcome alienation and mistrust of public institutions. Naturalization is but one small element of the broader imperative of deepening democracy. I am part of the team drafting this section and I must admit to having shamelessly plagiarized from the 1996 and 1998 NHDRs which contain detailed analyses on social and political participation, the role of local governments, alienation and the consequent need for greater transparency and increased access to information.

Another important addition is a section on social issues, including poverty reduction, combating social exclusion, and guaranteeing equal opportunities for all. Every NHDR has analysed these issues, and not surprisingly, the author of this new part of the integration document was a member of the NHDR team in 1996, 1997 and 1998. Needless to say, his work relies heavily on research sponsored by UNDP, such as a poverty assessment, a survey on reproductive health and more.

The revised Framework document is to form the basis for a National Integration Programme with funding allocated form the state budget and the creation of a new institution to co-ordinate integration policy. Even now, at the municipal level, several local governments have created integration commissions, initiated new social programmes, and solicited projects from the public, thereby moving rapidly ahead of the more cumbersome national policy process.

The NHDR played an important role throughout the process by serving as a key source of information and analysis, providing a rationale for reform, breaking taboos, and broadening the debate from inter-ethnic relations to that of increasing participation and addressing social inequality.

The analysts involved in drafting the NHDRs have been recruited by the government to draft a national programme. While the final document is still in the making, I expect that a lot of the wording and reasoning in the document will be precisely the same as in the NHDRs. It is difficult to imagine a more direct impact on the policy process.