Web Hosting by Netfirms | Free Domain Names by Netfirms

QUALITY OF LIFE AND SOCIAL ASSISTANCE IN BULGARIA:PUBLIC PERCEPTIONS, ATTITUDES AND EXPECTATIONS

(Main results of the second phase from a targeted social research, conducted by the Agency for Social Analyses in 2000)

Prof.Dr. Lilia Dimova

I. THE QUALITY OF LIFE

1. General evaluations

2. Satisfaction with the quality of life

3. The comparisons

4. The self-assessment of poverty

II. The key ISSUES FOR THE PEOPLE

III. PERSPECTIVES AND STRATEGIES

1. Public evaluations of the life horizons

2. The individual strategies

IV. Attitudes towards reforms and government

1.Satisfaction with the changes in the last three years

2. The real and the desirable governmental priorities

3. Trust in the institutions

V. Attitudes towards social assistance

1. Social assistance in public perceptions

2. Public opinion about the criteria for social assistance

3. The clients of social assistance and their needs

4. Public views about obstacles for the social assistance

5. Public recommendations for improvement the social assistance

VI. Public opinion about child allowances

VII. INFORMATION AND INFORMATIONAL CHANNELS

GENERAL CONCLUSIONS

Under the IDF grant for strengthening policy making and analyses, the Agency for Social Analyses (ASA) has realised the final second phase of the social marketing research program - the quantitative research on social issues. The global purpose of the whole research component is through a two-phase research program (qualitative and quantitative) to analyse public awareness about social assistance system in Bulgaria in order to develop and implement a comprehensive two-way communicational strategy for improving public information about the programs and services of the National Social Assistance Service.

The research was designed and developed by an international team including the following names who are mainly responsible for its completion:

• Ms. Varshava Maximova - Head of the Presscentre of the MLSP
• Ms. Sharon Felzer - international research consultant
• Prof., Dr. Lilia Dimova - Bulgarian research consultant

All steps and details of the research development were discussed and approved by a broad team of experts, including Ms. Ann Walsh and Ms. Dena Ringold (World Bank), Dr. Tatyana Vasileva (Deputy Minister of the Bulgarian MLSP), Prof., Dr. Atanas Atanasov and Dr. Nikolay Tilkidjiev (Bulgarian Academy of Sciences), and Dr. Mihail Mirchev (University of National and World Economy).

The preliminary defined objectives of the social research component are the following:

1. To determinate public perceptions of the changes in social policy in terms of their expectations and concerns about the pending reforms;

2. To assess the perceptions of the consequent risk of the implementation of the new legislation on social assistance and the law of family allowances;

3. To ascertain issues that may provoke social tension and the most vulnerable groups in this regard and what might mitigate these concerns;

4. To determinate why many households eligible for benefits do not receive them;

5. To test possible solutions to the concerns raised.

The first phase of the research was conducted in 1999 and its results were presented to the MOLSP, to the World Bank and experts from other interested in the topic bodies and institutions. The data and the analyses are available in Bulgarian and in English in the MOLSP.

The quantitative research was conducted in the mid 2000 under the following methodology:

Sample type – two-stage random sample, representative for the whole Bulgarian population aged 18 or older. At the first stage randomly were selected 120 district units from all over the country. At the second stage, using Leslie Kish key method, were selected 10 respondents from each unit.

Sample size – 1144.

Response rate – 95,3 %

Standard error - + 2,5 %

Fieldwork method – face-to-face interview carried out by purposely trained high qualified interviewers of the ASA.

Contexts of the questionnaire – the research module was designed to measure the public attitudes and concerns about quality of life and social assistance reforms. The questionnaire consists of the following general sections:

• Quality of life at dynamic perspectives – 49 items;
• Attitudes towards the government – 28 items;
• Attitudes toward reforms – 19 items;
• Impressions of the social assistance – 33 items;
• Attitudes towards child-care allowances – 16 items;
• Information and informational channels – 17 items;
• Socio-demographics – 29 items. ( in total – 191 items)

The coming text presents the main results from the quantitative research phase, following the general logic of questionnaire.

1. THE QUALITY OF LIFE

First phase of the study, which was conducted in 1999, showed that ten years after start of the reforms the negative opinions prevail in the judgements regarding country’s development. They vary from ultimate negation, i.e. from “everything is very bad and becomes increasingly worse” to “the things move towards improvement, even though very slowly”. However, a popular explanatory scheme of the “Today better than tomorrow and worse than yesterday” type had outlined, constructed on the basis of comparisons both with respect to other countries and with regard to the life in Bulgaria before the start of reforms.

This critical attitude towards direction of the reforms and the specific changes called for reliable measuring of its social scope and its carriers, which was effected through the quantitative phase of the survey programme. As a result, the conclusions made one year ago, were reconfirmed and got their quantitative dimensions, which is evident from the analysis below.

1. General evaluations

Does Bulgaria move in the right or wrong direction? Who takes what view in the country and why? This was the initial range of questions included in the national representative survey. Data are shown on the Figure 1.

Figure 1

How are the things going in Bulgaria?

Relatively small portion of Bulgarians (12.5 per cent) feels that the things in Bulgaria are moving towards improvement. These are mainly people living in the capital, at working age, with relatively high personal and family income, with higher than secondary education, people who have jobs and place themselves between the middle and the top of national social pyramid. In this group fall 42 per cent of the supporters of the Union of Democratic Forces (UDF), while the share of upholders of other political biases is insignificant – 2 per cent of the sympathizers of the Bulgarian Socialist Party (BSP), none from the Rights and Freedoms Movement (RFM) and 6 per cent of the politically neutral). As a matter of fact, it was observed that the judgements about the situation in the country and the direction of changes are strongly influenced by the political preferences of people(K=0.24). In particular, the respondents in this group stated that, regardless of today’s difficulties for the country, the direction is right and in general it leads towards improving the life of people. Yet, such responses are rare to influence notably the overall picture of mass negative attitudes.

Far more are those (47.2 %), according to whom Bulgaria is moving towards worse, and who explain the changes under the scheme “Today better than tomorrow”. Representatives of all socio-demographic and professional categories in the Bulgarian society sustain such an opinion. However, dominating is the share of people who live with a feeling of poverty, whose families survive with less than BGN 200 a month, who have lower than secondary education, the retired and the unemployed, as well as the population of villages and small towns. Two thirds of Bulgarian Turks and 57 per cent of the Romanies in the country, along with 45 per cent of the native Bulgarians fall in this group. Every second individual above the age of 60 and 42 per cent of the young people share the feeling that life in the country worsens. This opinion is maintained also by one third of the university graduates and the same portion of the employed. Out of the “blue” sympathizers they are 22 per cent, and of the “red” – three times more (65 per cent). Likewise thinks every second of the politically neutral and 83 per cent of the supporters of the Rights and Freedoms Movement. Their judgements are based mainly on the personal difficulties and on comparisons with their social circle.

That Bulgaria is going nowhere is judged by 35 per cent of the Bulgarians. These are mainly the people with university diploma, the employed, those who live in the bigger cities around the country, the young people and those who get comparatively high income, but also those who are at the brim of poverty and non-poverty. In other words, those who, by presumption should be better informed about the direction and philosophy of the changes, turn out to be relatively most confused. It is interesting to note that no distinct political nuances were noticed in this group – in here go supporters of the UDF, BSP and politically neutral, with equal shares (one third).

Hence comes one of the key conclusions of the survey – more people in the country tend to have negative than positive views about the direction Bulgaria goes.

An exception to that is some portion of the hard “blue” electorate. However, representatives of all groups view over everything happening in the country and in the social life through the prism of their own standard of living, social security and stability and ultimately – from the point of view of the quality of their own life. At that – on a comparative basis, putting together their life today with their life before the start of reforms and comparing the situation here with what they have heard about life in other countries. The survey shows strong inclination towards making such comparisons, outlining a pressing need for development and application of an efficient communication strategy aiming at continuous dissemination of the logic of any actions undertaken and changes happening in the country. Ignoring or postponing this need carries serious risks of increasing the social tension and strengthening the negativism towards ongoing reforms. At least, because the reforms, initially defined as “unpopular”, practically turn out to be too strongly unpopular and the restrictive direction of changes in the social field provokes socially unacceptable compensatory mechanisms and forms of reaction – deviant behaviour, shadow business, tendency for leaving the country. The social depression, however, as showed by the survey, outlines as one of the most typical features of life in Bulgaria in the beginning of 2000.

2. Satisfaction with the quality of life

Two thirds of Bulgarians are not satisfied by their quality of life. Just 11 per cent stand on the pole of the satisfied. The remaining 20 per cent are in the middle – neither satisfied, nor dissatisfied. A picture, which is far too serious taken alone and visually outlined on the following Figure 2.

Who are the satisfied? Except for being insignificant in terms of relative share, no striking findings have been observed in the social profile of this group. It is composed of people with family income over BGN 500, people identifying themselves as “rather rich, than poor”, some of every fifth person living in Sofia, one quarter of the political supporters of the UDF. The prevailing and statistically significant portion, however, falls in the remaining two groups and, most of all, in the group of the non-satisfied.

 

Figure 2

Satisfaction with the quality of life (%)

 

Strongly dominating majority are those who are not satisfied with the quality of their life – 69 per cent. Almost no distinct social profile could be observed for this group – i.e. it is formed by representatives of all social, professional and demographic categories, at that, with the most massive social representation from each of the groups. On a comparative level, however, the older age sections dominate over the younger ones, unemployed over employed, poor over non-poor, the people living in the villages and smaller towns over those from bigger cities, ethnic minorities over native Bulgarians, families with two and more children over the families with one child, the political followers of RFM and BSP over the followers of UDF. Such massiveness is an indication of the broad social expansion of dissatisfaction and of the social depression spreading over two thirds of the nation. This conclusion was confirmed by the results of the entire survey.

The medium of “somewhat satisfied” is occupied by one fifth of the Bulgarians (21 per cent). It is composed mostly of those with higher educational level, with relatively higher income, with one or two children, aged from 18 to 35, employed, as well as by 29 per cent of the defendants of the “blue” idea.

The derived conclusion is that more than two thirds of the nation, from all social and demographic categories, live with constant feeling of dissatisfaction by the style of their living and measure both the advantages and disadvantages of the reforms through this prism.

The minuses are less for the supporters of the governing political power than they are for the opposition, but nonetheless the share of dissatisfied amongst this group is far too large to be underestimated. The more so as the strongest statistical dependence has been registered specifically of the attitude towards changes and reforms on the political preferences (K = 0.165). This massive dissatisfaction inevitably provokes multidirectional comparisons, which intensify discontent by the current state.

3. The comparisons

Some indicators were included in the survey to measure people’s self-assessment of the quality of their life “now compared to the period before November 1989” (i.e. before the start of the global transformations in all aspects of Bulgaria’s social life), “standard of life of the family compared to that of other Bulgarian families” and “compared to that of the parents”. The results indicate that by time directions of comparison the popular judgements pertain to the “Here and now is worse than before” scheme.

The first series of arguments could be found in the answers to the question “How do you live today compared to the period before November 1989”. For adult Bulgarians this date fixes the fundamental boundary between “before” and “today”, data are indicated in the Table 1.

Table 1

How do you live today, compared to the period before November 1989? (%)

Now I live much better	1,8
Now I live better	8,0
Without changes	12,0
Now I live worse	44,5
Now I live much worse	29,7
Can not estimate	4,1

One tenth of the Bulgarians state that today they live better, than under the former totalitarian regime. In spite of, but probably just because of its relatively small range, this group has a distinct social profile. It is composed by the relatively largest share of young people between the age of 18 and 35, with university education, employed, from Sofia, with higher income and identifying themselves as “rather rich, than poor”. Here are 30 per cent of the UDF supporters, along with 1 per cent of the BSP electorate, 7 per cent of the RFM follower and 5 per cent of those who do not sympathize to any political power.

Without change lives a small portion of Bulgarians – 12 per cent. They are representatives of the same social groups as those composing the profile of people living “better” – they are with higher income and education, having jobs, of younger age. Yet, here widely represented are the people around the middle of the social pyramid, not above it, as the case was for the group above. Here are 23 per cent of the UDF supporters, and 3 per cent of the supporters of each of the two political powers – BSP and RFM. Every tenth of the politically neutral Bulgarians does not see any change, comparing life before and today.

The most massive representation has the group, which states that “today lives worse than before” – 74 per cent. Although dominating from each social sub-group, the relative shares of those represented here have an arrangement opposite to the previous ones. In other words, this group consists mainly of representatives of the older age generations, people with lower education and income, retired and unemployed, identifying themselves as poor or at the brim of poverty, living in villages, Romanies and Bulgarian Turks. It is indicative that 44 per cent of the UDF supporters also state that transition had worsened their life compared to the period before its beginning.

The general conclusion is that dominating majority of Bulgarians, at that, from all social categories, find their life today worse than before. Apparently, the social cost of transformations is too high for the nation and the lack of information about the goals and their duration complicate the situation additionally.

Similar dependence is observed also in the analysis of comparisons between standard of living of respondents and the one of their parents. Of course, made by the respondents themselves, i.e. as an answer to the question “Compared to your parents when they were at your age, what is your standard of living – higher or lower than it had been for your parents”. Allocation of responses is shown on the Figure 4.

Figure 3

Standard of living of respondents compared to the standard of their parents (%)

Data show that every second of the Bulgarians assesses the standard of living today as lower than the standard of his/her parents when they were his/her age. Taken alone, this finding is a powerful indicator about the trust in the changes in general. And what is more, already at the time of analyzing the results from the qualitative phase of the survey and from the target groups in particular, it was found that, amongst others, one of the reasons for today’s feeling of poverty is the impossibility to even reach the standard of the parents and the reproduction of that quality of life, with which half of the today’s generation of Bulgarians had been brought up. In the social indicators of this groups prevail people with lower education, the rural population, the poor, the Romanies, the politically neutral, along with 35 per cent of the UDF supporters.

Higher standard compared to the one of the parents is reported mainly by university graduates, identifying themselves as “rather rich, than poor”, living in Sofia, gaining family incomes over BGN 500, 44 per cent of the sympathizers of the UDF. However, in this group there are just 7 per cent of the Bulgarian Turks and not any Romanies.

Standard similar to that of the parents is reported by just about 13 per cent of the adult population and this category does not have distinct social face. Here it is possible to find, with equal shares, representation of all social and demographic sections.

The general conclusion is that in the middle of 2000 the prevailing number of Bulgarians not just assess the quality of life as low, but also think that today they live worse compared both to the times before start of reforms and to the previous generation of their parents.

However, when it comes to making comparisons between “us” and “others”, the responses tend not to be in the direction of “our standard of living – lower than that of the most Bulgarian families”, but towards “shared difficulties”. Prevail the views that the low quality of life applies to the majority of Bulgarians. Nearly every second Bulgarian (49 per cent) judges that his/her family standard is similar to the others.

Not a minor portion of Bulgarian families state that they live worse than the others – 40 per cent do. Such feeling is reported mostly by old aged and the unemployed, by those with lower education, the people with family income below BGN 100 a month, families with more than two children, the Romanies, the widowed, the rural population. In other words, people who are more or less objectively different from the others, assess their life too as worse than that of the mass.

Just around 8 per cent of the people in the country assess their standard of living as higher. They are mainly amongst the university graduates, those living in Sofia, amongst the ones with family income over BGN 500 a month, those who identify themselves as rich. This too has its logical explanation – on a comparative level they actually stand above the rest. However, the fact that their number is so small reconfirms the key conclusion that the low standard of living is typical for the prevailing portion of the adult population of Bulgaria.

The outlining conclusion is that the low quality of life is a typical feature of the country’s current transformations to a market economy.

The public opinion is uniform in its negative judgements and in the comparisons too. The life today is difficult, at that massively difficult and even more difficult that it had been both prior to the start of changes and for the previous generation. The reasons have various aspects, but people being inadequately informed facilitate the expansion of such a massive feeling of collapse.

The statements about the actual status of life in the country however, are based primarily on the personal direct and indirect impressions of the respondents. For example, 85 per cent of the adults state that “most people in Bulgaria do not have sufficient means for a normal life”. The public opinion is similarly unanimous and similarly negative also with respect to the issue about the opportunities of the labour market. According to 88 per cent of the respondents “most people in Bulgaria do not have opportunity to find good job” – i.e. inadequate are both the incomes and the possibilities for their provision. The feeling of dead-lock, seen through the results of the entire survey, is one of the most typical indicators for the existence of social depression and formation of a culture of poverty in the country.

There is something else. According to 85 per cent – “the differences in income in the country are too high”. In other words, even though shared, the difficulties of the reforms still differentiate part of the people, making them “winners”. This division, into “winners” and “losers” had outlined already in the first years of staring the transformations. Throughout the whole period of transition the group of “losers” had become lastingly and massively dominating in the Bulgarian social spectrum. In the beginning of the transition the “winners” were associated mainly with the accruals of the former nomenclature, whereas in the middle of 2000 accusations are observed too towards the today’s governing power. As it will be discussed in the analysis that follows, formation of another type of division is observed – into “WE” and “THEY”, which was founded in the end of 80-es. The major division however remains the splitting into “Rich-Poor”, which was typical for the entire period of transition.

4. The self-assessment of poverty

The survey instruments included the “scalemetre” of the International Social Surveys Programme (ISSP) and of the Agency for Social Analyses. My means of the meter, using a ten-point scale from “1 – Rich” to “10 – Poor” the respondents themselves identified where they are, from 1 to 10. The same scale was applied also to identify the forecasts, which the Bulgarians make for their children.

The results showed that 10 years after the start of changes the mass concentration is between the middle (positions 5 and 6) and the bottom of the social pyramid (positions 9 and 10). See the Table 2.

One third of the adult Bulgarians stand at the very bottom, with strong feeling of poverty and “life in misery”.

Only just one per cent is at the top. In general, the grouping on the basis of self-assessment of poverty shapes the Bulgarian society as a pyramid, with only minor proportion at the top, i.e. “rich”, some more in the middle – 19 out of hundred, and the largest number of people towards and close to the bottom.

This mass of people living in poverty makes it difficult to clarify their social portrait. However, it would be interesting to follow, at least, the basic typologies of the specific groups.

Table 2

Self-estimation of poverty and non-poverty (%)

Position	Respondents status 1993	Respondents status 2000	Expected status of respondent’s children
Rich	0,0	0,6	7,7
Rather rich	3,7	5,1	20,6
Neither rich, nor poor	29,9	19,2	25,5
Rather poor	36,1	38,0	20,5
Poor	25,5	36,1	14,7
No answer	4,8	1,0	12,0

The group of “rich” is so insignificant, that it remains within the statistical error and therefore analyzing it would be statistically incorrect.

The next group, of those “rather rich” incorporates positions 3 + 4 and covers 5 per cent of the nation. These are mostly people in working age, with university education, from Sofia, with one child, having place at the labour market, with family income over BGN 500, supporters of the UDF, married. Although they consider themselves as relatively rich, 28 per cent of them judge that they live worse than before and one third states that Bulgaria is going nowhere.

The group in the middle, i.e. of those who, as per their own criteria, are “neither rich, nor poor”, incorporates 19 per cent of the adults. They are most strongly represented by the young people, with university education, employed, from the capital and bigger towns, with monthly family income over 300, with one child, politically supporting the UDF. These are people who are relatively more active and socially integrated.

The majority, or 38 per cent of the nation, identify themselves as “rather poor”. The most massive accumulation is in this area of the scale. The poverty for these people is “at the doorstep”; i.e. it can befall at anytime. Living at the edge makes them exceptionally sensitive towards everything that happens and is expected to happen in the country. These are the people who can be identified as potential clients of the social assistance system. In terms of social characteristics, they are from all social and demographic groups and therefore do not have unified social portrait. No doubt that in the middle of 2000 one of the most typical features of the Bulgarian society as a whole is the “life on the edge”.

Those who identify themselves as “poor” are 36 per cent of the Bulgarian population. The share of this group, compared to 1993 when it was measured with the same methodology, has increased by 10 points. Again, it is difficult to outline leading and specific social characteristics for this group, mainly because of its broad social spectrum. However, here prevail people above 60 and unemployed, yet also 18 per cent of the employed have the same “poor spirits”. Most of them are with low income and educational levels, yet there are 18 per cent of the university graduates who think they are poor too. Here are 83 per cent of the Romanies, but also every third Bulgarian. Also, three quarters of the RFM followers identify themselves as poor, but the same low self-confidence is typical too for 47 per cent of the supporters of BSP and 20 per cent of the sympathizers of the UDF.

In total, the people who had identified themselves as standing in the space from the middle to the bottom of the social pyramid are 74 per cent. In other words, in mid-2000, three quarters of adult Bulgarians live with the feeling of poverty, regardless of whether or to what extent does the suffered poverty fall within objectively accepted measurements.

The self-assessments of poverty result from subjective comparisons between needs and opportunities for meeting them, and from comparing the own standard of living now and before, the quality of own life with that of “others”.

The registered massive feeling of life in poverty inevitably results in a specific model of thinking and behaviour displayed by majority of Bulgarians. This model is characterized by the features of the so-called “culture of poverty”. According to Oscar Lewis, this culture of poverty is transferred from generation to generation. Its typical manifestations are the feeling of helplessness, dependency and outcast. The survey had registered such phenomena. It had detected also the fatalistic view of the future, which is typical for the mentality of the “poor”. Here the word is about forecasts made by today’s poor for their children. 70 per cent of the people, who consider themselves as poor today, do see their children in the same position, when the latter reach the same age. In other words, more or less they project today’s status into the next generation, regardless of the will and hopes of their children to live better than the previous generation.

This is a significant factor influencing the notion about the form of the social pyramid composed of the coming generation. The pyramid for the future generation is even more egalitarian than the one of today. The forecasts are that the children will live in a society with fewer people on the top and the bottom, but with majority concentrated at and around the middle. Besides, this is the notion of a perfect social model, according to the Bulgarians.

However, dimensions of the cultural model of poverty in Bulgaria have some country-specific features. For example, in the Bulgarian situation the classic manifestation in a direction of “strong feeling of marginalization” is not observed because most of the people consider themselves as poor, i.e. they fell as a part of the mass, not as outsiders. As it was already pointed out, almost every second thinks that his living standard dos not differ from that of the other Bulgarians. In other words, the problems of the transition bring about a feeling of “equality in poverty”, typical for most of the people and withstanding the status of the “winners”. Egalitarian attitudes of Bulgarians, being part of our national culture, are manifested, in this case, in the direction of “shared problems”. Consecutively, this intensifies strongly the sensitivity towards those who are “winners” and “successful” in the hard time of transition. It also aggravates the feeling of disappointment resulting from unmerited expectations for prosperity.

Also, mass attitudes are manifested in interpreting the causes of poverty in Bulgaria. The survey included special indicators for measuring the public opinion concerning why there are poor people in the country and what is the weight of each of the identified causes. The data show that on this matter there is a surprising unanimity among adult Bulgarians.

Over 90 per cent associate poverty with economic reasons – the unemployment, the poor status of the economy, the financial ransacking of the country. Accusations are both to the current government (76 per cent) and the former governments (68 per cent), as well as to the heritage of the former regime (49 per cent). Cause-and-effect connection between privatization and poverty is seen by 76 per cent, while 53 per cent charge their impoverishment to the military conflicts at the Balkans. The late start of the reforms (72 per cent), as well as the hyperinflation in 1996-97 (68 per cent) are also among the frequently stated generators of poverty in the country.

It is interesting to note that the reasons are sought rather in the managerial actions undertaken inside the country, than outside it.

And also, that the poverty is a result of wrong actions or lack of action of those with power, not of the ordinary people. Relatively smaller (36 per cent) are the opinions that the poverty is due to “the lack of efforts on behalf of the poor themselves”. Such transfer of the responsibility could be explained both with the strong culture of dependency, which is typical for the Bulgarians and forms an integral part of the nation’s mentality, and in the isolation of people from the processes of government. Therefore the forming division of the society into “THEM” – one should read those governing, no matter that they were elected with a democratic vote, and of “US” – i.e. the voters, but sufferers from the actions of those already elected. Such withdrawal from power and government of the country results from both the felt “dual standard” and the privations that Bulgarians from all social groups and strata are forced to bear, not knowing why and how long.

The conclusion, which comes along, is that the registered massive sense of poverty exceeds the scope of a purely social issue and transforms into a national problem.

Not only the unemployed and the retired in Bulgaria feel poor, but also the people with jobs, yet living in privations, not able to reach even the standard of their parents. At hand are also clear symptoms of social depression, of a consolidating cultural model of poverty, of alienation from government and power, of stratification into “US” and “THEM”, mainly as a result of isolation from information. In such situation the social assistance has a key role to play, but it hardly can cope alone with the task to decrease the growing social tension. As the survey showed, the problems faced both by the country in general and by the individual people, have much greater scope and go beyond the framework of authority of the MLSP.

2. The key ISSUES FOR THE PEOPLE

All in-depth social surveys carried out in Bulgaria since the start of transformations, inevitably place unemployment, crime and poverty on top of the scale of focal point issues. The present study simply revalidated this tendency which had gained strength throughout the 10 years of transition. Furthermore, it did something else too – it measured the intensity and social scope of the issues, which were outlined in the qualitative phase of the survey as most serious both for the country and for the individual respondents in particular. This was achieved through input of a battery of variables, to each of which a 5-point scale of possible responses was applied, varying from “1 – very serious” to “5 – not at all serious”. In order to ensure greater purity of the gathered information the option “can not say” was foreseen too. The obtained data are in the Table 3.

 

Table 3

The most serious issues for the Bulgarian citizens (% “very serious” + “serious”)

Significantly large proportion (97 per cent) of Bulgarians place unemployment and poverty on top of the list of key issues existing in today’s Bulgarian society. In the massive perceptions the two phenomena go together in a cause-and-effect connection. The fact that they have been pointed out by such an impressive relative share is an evidence for the exceptional seriousness of the tension, which goes along with the life in the country. This explains also the massive discontent by the transformations performed, by their direction and by the goals not known by the people. Apparently, the burden of social cost for the society is expressed mainly in the standard of living and quality of life. Both of them are poor therefore it is not surprising that unemployment and poverty are outlined as a problem number one for the country.

Also, for a high relative share of people in the country, more than 90 per cent, the problems of crime and status of the economy come up as the most important ones. Already at the time of the qualitative survey it had outlined that the people massively link the poor status of the economy with the increasing unemployment, which on its part leads to spreading of poverty. And the ways of escaping the poverty trap are often through deviant behaviour. Therefore in the explanatory schemes of the people these go along together, putting Bulgarians in a situation of social insecurity and instability.

The other group of issues faced by the Bulgarian society today relate to the prospects for improving the quality of life and with corruption (as one of the ways of improving the standard of living, but accessible just by those with power). These were stated by more than 80 per cent of the people. Their great share shows that a new value, which has occurred in the last two years, consolidates in the public opinion,. The word is about the prospects that Bulgarians see for themselves. As the survey showed, for 82 per cent of the people in the country they are strongly limited and this strengthens additionally the mass feeling of deadlock and of the tough clutch at the poverty trap.

Emigration and “brain drain” is stated as a serious issue of the country by 78 per cent of the population. As the data showed, for most people emigration is a solution, which becomes all the more popular. If it is not clear what is going on in Bulgaria, why and how long will it take, but it is a public secret that the political elite is gaining benefits on the account of deterioration of life of the ordinary people, those without power seek variants for improving the quality of their life, seeing horizons outside country’s boundaries. At that to an extent making this a serious problem for the society in general.

Once again this survey proved that ethnic differences in Bulgaria are not among the most serious issues for the country. In spite of some political efforts, at the background of other, much more serious and much more massively suffered issues, the ethnic relations are relatively less important. Hardly just 11 per cent have identified them as “very serious” and 13 per cent – as “serious” today.

Similar picture is observed also with the most serious issues of the respondents themselves and their families. For nearly two thirds of them (64 per cent) these are the poverty and low income. “The limited opportunities for improvement of the standard of living” are also a serious problem, stated by 52 per cent. The unemployment “torments” 39 per cent of the people in the country, causing difficulties to them in person or to members of their families.

In general, the results outlined that public opinion in Bulgaria displays surprising unanimity on the issue about the issues that Bulgarian society is facing. Almost the same unanimity, as displayed on the issue about quality of life and causes for poverty in the country. A tendency rarely observed in the in-depth social surveys. Taken alone, this fact speaks of massiveness and broad social scope both of the problems and those affected by them, and of the applied explanatory schemes. This massiveness on its hand, apart from being an indicator about existence of social tension in the country, requires urgent measures for decreasing this tension. The risks of escalation, as well as of unforeseen reactions, are not at all impossible. The social assistance however is important, but just one of the possible mechanisms for solution.

In summary, the survey registered mass feeling of poverty and manifestations of a cultural model of poverty. It also registers low quality of life, accompanied with dissatisfaction by the standard of living and negative attitude towards the direction in which the country moves.

The mass accusations are towards the government and those governing the country, which generates alienation from power, regardless of the democratic principles of its sanctioning.

 

1. PERSPECTIVES AND STRATEGIES

Considering the massively reported low quality of life, it is naturally interesting to analyze public assessment of prospects seen by people themselves and the strategies they tend to follow towards improving their life. A special battery of variables was included in the survey focusing on this.

Survey registered a strong “pessimistic” consensus among Bulgarian public related to the opportunities for improving their quality of life. Data discovered a division of Bulgarian population into “optimists” and “pessimists”, but the correlation between them is 1:12 – i.e. “pessimists” are 12 times more than “optimists” are. Only 9 per cent believe that “in a way the thing in Bulgaria goes, people like them and their families have good opportunities to improve their standard of living”. They are mostly from the groups of employees, Sofia citizens, UDF supporters.

1. Public evaluations of the life horizons

The majority of adult Bulgarians, from all social groups and social strata, do not see particular prospects for improving their lives, neither the life of their children. More than 80 per cent consider that “most people in Bulgaria do not have possibility to improve the quality of their life”.

Special attention deserves the statement concerning the horizons before young people. Here again the public opinion is unanimous. The great part (84 per cent) of all surveyed state, that “young people do not have good prospects in Bulgaria”. Amongst them are representatives of all social groups and strata of the society. However, predominate the people with lower educational levels and lower income, those identifying themselves as “poor” and “rather poor, than rich”, the ethnic minorities, families with more than two children. It is indicative that this is the opinion stated by 64 per cent of the supporters of the governing party and 94 per cent of the sympathizers of the Bulgarian Socialist Party. Such widely spread unanimity in the assessments reasonably leads to the conclusion that the prospects for Bulgaria’s youth should become one of the priorities of the government policy – both for broadening those prospects and their public announcement.

What are the main factors for success in the current situation according to the people and what are their weight in public opinion – that was the other aspect of the research, related to the mass evaluations of perspectives for improving the quality of life. The findings showed three groups of factors: 1/ background (education, skills, family’s origin), 2/ personal efforts and abilities (hard work, ambition, entrepreneurship), and 3/ social network. For the majority of Bulgarians life’s success depends mostly on the “instrumental relationships”. For example, according to 86 per cent of the respondents, if one has to accomplish success in the life, he/she “has to know the right people”, i.e. to have the right contacts. Other 76 per cent believe that success could be achieved mostly if the person “come from a wealthy family”. According to others (59 per cent of the surveyed), “in order to be on the top of the society, one should be corrupt”.

Personal qualities and personal efforts as a key factor for the success in life also have many supporters, but they are significantly less important than the factor “connections”. Entrepreneurship is a guarantee for prosperity according to 79 per cent of the respondents. Professionalism and ambition is stated by 77 per cent, respectively for each factor. Comparatively, even less are those supporting the opinion that good education and hard work could lead to accomplishment of life success – 69 per cent and 68 per cent respectively for each of the factors.

In sum, the external conditions and prerequisites play important roles, even in some cases are dominant. Most people believe that it is possible to accomplish success in the country, but upon quite complicated and sometimes unexpected combination of circumstances, where connections and “instrument acquaintances” play major role. For comparison, in 1993 the defenders of this opinion, measured with the same methodology, were 41 per cent and those of the rich family as a factor for success – 39 per cent. In 2000 their number has doubled. This tendency could be explained with the hopes, which in 1993 have accompanied the start of changes in the public system. Apparently, most of the people have expected that the “connections” factor, which accompanied the totalitarian government and in the course of many years had given rise of alienation and discontent by the regime and authoritarian power, was on the way of being surmounted. Instead, seven years later they again come up on the agenda. At the same time, the “rich family” factor was something unfamiliar and strangely sounding in the period immediately after the time of broadly proclaimed “socialist equality”. At that time, the inertia of ideological and propaganda heritage was yet too strong and the personal memories – just too fresh. Today’s assessments are based mainly on today’s reality, in which the difficulties of the crisis interlace with traditional values of our national culture such as education and industriousness. However, as the survey indicated, just hard work and good education are not sufficient to achieve success under conditions of global transformations and in an environment with completely new requirements.

2. The individual strategies

What could be the strategies then and what are the most popular for the Bulgarians? Survey discovered two general individual and family’s strategies for coping with the crisis and for improving living standard and quality of life. The first one could be called “passive” and means orientation toward deeper deprivation. A big part of Bulgarians (43 per cent) economize and chose the strategy of “fasten belts”. They are mostly pensioners, people with low education, village’s citizens, ethnic minorities. They are also potential clients of social assistance.

The second type of strategies is so called “active” strategies. They are connected mostly with seeking for additional sources of income (37 per cent) or with establishment of own business (6 per cent). Survey indicated that active strategies are more popular among young and better educated people, and those at the labour market. It is interesting that people who have jobs are more likely to seek for additional income and are less willing to “fasten their belts” then unemployed.

Findings discovered one more aspect of “active” strategies what appears crucial for the Bulgarian current and future transformations. Word is about geographical mobility and in particular for potential “brain drain”. In the questionnaire was included a battery of variables for measuring the willingness for inside- and outside-country mobility. Data show broad willingness for mobility and for leaving the country. (See the Table 4) It is mostly because the feeling of lack of prospects, identified in several directions, induces seeking of such variants of solution, which could counterbalance the limited opportunities for prosperity. Amongst others, the mobility attitudes appear ones of the variant solutions.

It should be considered, however, that tendency for leaving the home places to look for subsistence and better life opportunities elsewhere is not part of the mentality of the Bulgarian nation. Far more typical for the Bulgarians are traditionalism, conservatism and localism. That is why the massively stated emigration attitudes, identified by the survey, do deserve special attention. They were surveyed bi-directionally. Once – with respect to the surveyed individuals themselves – whether, to what extent and where do they tend to migrate, if they have an opportunity to live and work under better conditions. And secondly – whether and to what extent do they tend to advise a young person to do so. The initial hypothesis of the survey was that mobility attitudes could hardly be registered with sufficient accuracy by asking just direct questions, having in mind that one third of Bulgarians are aged above 60.

Table 4

If you find opportunity to live and work in better conditions are you willing to move to… (%)

Destination	Very willing	Willing	Neither willing nor not	Not willing	Not willing at all	Can not estimate
…another town/village	17,8	18,9	8,0	26,0	25,3	4,0
…another European country	27,3	16,7	6,9	23,2	23,3	2,6
… outside Europe	23,3	14,9	5,9	25,5	26,0	4,4

The survey identified that regardless of the traditionally strong localism, more than one third of Bulgarians tend to be willing to leave their current place of residence driven by the perspective for jobs and better life.

It is indicative that, comparatively the smallest part of the population tends to be willing to move within the country (i.e. to move from one to another place of residence). Every third (37 per cent) of the respondents is willing to move him/herself, but every second would advise the young to undertake such a step. The social profile of surveyed from that category includes mainly people who live in the villages and small towns (i.e. the potential mobility is towards bigger settlements), people with lower income and lower educational, unemployed and youths. Young people display stronger mobility attitudes, compared to the people at a mature age, and this is valid for all directions of changing place of residence.

Bigger proportion of Bulgarians (44 per cent) tends to be willing to immigrate to another European country seeking better life and prospects for advancement. These are mainly people with higher education, living in Sofia and bigger cities, getting relatively higher income than the average for the country. Of the young people aged between 18 and 35, 71 per cent tend to be willing to move themselves or advise other people of the same age to do so. This tendency could be explained both with the formation of cosmopolitan consciousness in the young Bulgarian generation, and also with the widely spread attitude that “there are no good prospects for the young people in Bulgaria”.

Significant proportion of Bulgarians – 38 per cent, tend to be willing to move out of Europe. These are mostly amongst representatives of the better-educated and financially well-secured categories, amongst the inhabitants of bigger cities and of the capital city.

Almost two third (64 per cent) of young Bulgarians tend to be willing to move out of Europe.

Grouping by political preferences shows that 45 per cent of the supporters of the UDF, 16 per cent – of the BSP and 17 per cent of the RFM display mobility attitudes of moving outside the country and out of Europe.

As it could have been expected, the people who tend to be willing to advise young persons to change their place of residence are more than those ready to do so themselves. Data are in Table 5.

Table 5

Are willing are to advise a young person to move to… (%)

Destination	Very willing	Willing	Neither willing nor not	Not willing	Not willing at all	Can not estimate
…another town/village	25,0	25,3	8,9	18,5	14,5	7,8
…another European country	37,8	24,1	7,9	13,8	9,6	6,8
… outside Europe	34,2	23,1	8,3	15,6	10,5	8,3

Every second Bulgarian is more or less ready to give such an advice, when it is about moving from one place of residence to another within the country. Their proportion, however, increases when it is about immigrating into another country within Europe – 62 per cent. But not that much when it is about leaving the territory of Europe – 57 per cent.

The summarized conclusion is that migration tendency is massive and powerful.

The reasons lay in the massive perceptions that here and today there are no good prospects for increasing the quality of life and accomplishing success. Neither for the young, nor for the people at a mature age. The emigration is perceived as one of the reliable options for solving the personal problems, but hardly could the same be said also with regard to the future of country. The fact that such a great proportion of young and educated Bulgarians wants to leave the country is a sufficiently serious signal about the need for fast and efficient changes in the mechanisms of government. In the mechanisms of transparency of the government too.

In sum, most people in Bulgaria do see good perspectives for improvement neither their life, nor the life of their children. The vague horizon creates pessimism and form willingness for leaving the country. Because of that could be expected a continued wave of “brain drain”.

1. Attitudes towards reforms and government

A battery of variables including the following items measured the attitudes: satisfaction with the reforms and the changes during the last three years, actual and preferred policy priorities, trust in the institutions and main political actors, expectations for governmental responsibilities.

The survey discovered massive discontent not just by the quality of life in the country, but also by the reforms and the government. In the questionnaire were included 5-point scale indicators showing the satisfaction with the reforms, confidence people have in the government, in the parliament, in the presidential institution and judge system, and trust in some key social and political actors, along with the public attitudes about the actual and desired priorities of the government policy.

1.Satisfaction with the changes in the last three years

The three-year period was deliberately included in the instruments of survey. This period not just matches the mandate of the last elected government, but also covers the period of the most intensive reforms in economic and social field. The most intensive privatization was also carried out during the last three years. That is why people’s opinion about the achievements is crucial for the further steps of the reforms.

The survey showed massive dissatisfaction with the changes in the last three years.

As a whole, those who are not satisfied (65 per cent) are four times more than those satisfied (16 per cent) and this is not surprising. Data are presented in the following Figure 4.

Figure 4

Satisfaction by the changes in the last three years (%)

The social cost of changing the system appears too high. This explains why the previously elected government teams postponed start of reforms in the country. The courage of the present Government to undertake the pressing “unpopular actions” naturally triggered the public discontent. However, the key issue at government level is not whether to carry out reforms, but how to reduce their social cost and what buffers to set in order to soften the negative social consequences. Obviously, the social protection networks had not been adequately effective in the last three years. Because the value of reforms for the people is measured with the changes in the standard and quality of life here and now and, as the survey showed, these changes had not brought improvements in the standard of living.

Relatively highest presence among those who are satisfied by the changes in the last years is that of people with higher education, higher income, younger, those who identify themselves as “rich” and “rather rich, than poor”. The greatest correlation is observed with political preferences. In the group of those supporting the governing majority the largest share (48 per cent) is of the satisfied by the effected changes. In the group of sympathizers to the largest party in opposition the share of satisfied is minor – 2 per cent. It is indicative that the group of supporters of the RFM does not have any representatives in the group of satisfied.

Those not satisfied are the dominating majority of Bulgarians (65 per cent). Relatively largest representation in this group have those in a more mature age, unemployed and retired, people with lower income and education, sympathizers of the BSP and politically neutral. However, not satisfied by the effected changes is also every third of the UDF supporters.

The share of people stating that they are not familiar with the changes is minor – just 3 per cent. And this is easily explainable, insofar as the changes, no matter what they are and under what logic effected, do have their tangible dimensions in the lives of people. Yet, this is not the case when public assessments are sought with respect to specific reforms in given fields. Those not familiar with the concrete reforms (which are implemented in the systems of pension insurance, social assistance, education, health care) are between 15 and 33 per cent. That indicates that people have general perceptions about the changes the reforms when they feel their consequences for their own life.

However, they do not know much about the reforms themselves. Usually they build their satisfaction or dissatisfaction on the basis of the changes in their quality of life. Following that scheme, the majority of Bulgarians are not satisfied neither by the changes, nor by the concrete reforms in economy and social area.

Similar is the situation related to the privatization in the country. At the end of the privatization processes, 50 per cent of Bulgarians think “the privatized enterprises work now worse than before”. Only 9 per cent evaluate them positively and 27 per cent do not have opinion. Findings show that the results of the privatization in the country do not have public support. Negative attitudes could be found mainly among women, people from towns, aged 30 – 49 years of old, secondary educated, employees. People who have life experience and direct impressions about privatized enterprises are tend to give more negative assessments about their work than the others. However, it is difficult to make general conclusions about public attitudes to privatization on the basis of only one research item. The topic needs a purposeful research because it is far too serious and important for the country, and because of the discovered negativism to the way privatized enterprises work.

The conclusion derived from the comparative analysis is that the changes in the last three years have negative effect on people’s daily life and perspectives.

In addition, the language of politicians and relevant experts is far away from the language of ordinary people. On one hand, even terms, so broadly publicized by the mass media, such as “reforms”, “transition”, “change of the system”, “privatization”, do not reach the minds of ordinary people and remain at the level of abstract concepts. On the other hand, the multidirectional aspects of changes bring about additional confusion. Changes are so many and so directly affecting the life of people, that it becomes increasingly difficult to track them. What people feel is the actual change in their lifestyle and daily round. The rest is clearly a matter of better communications and information strategy.

In general, the survey showed lack of synchrony between what is undertaken at government level and what reaches the people – both in the form of information and motives for changes undertaken, and as prospects in the time. People feel deterioration of their life without clear prospects of changing the tendency. This lack of clarity naturally causes their discontent and puts them in constant stress and insecurity. That is why it is so important to have efficient communication strategy “with human face”.

2. The real and the desirable governmental priorities

Quality of life appears again the foundation, over which people build up their views - now about policy priorities. Both real and desirable. Matching the actual and desired priorities of the state policy is an important factor and at the same time an indicator for the general public attitudes toward the policy direction and the governance of the country.

The survey found that one fourth of people (25,8) do not know what are the policy priorities,

i.e. a not small part of the population is not familiar with the general political orientation of the country. Another important conclusion come from the data is that in the public perceptions there is a difference as to what people consider as important and what is incorporated as priority in the state policy.

The differences in respondents’ answers (without “Do not know” option) could be seen in the following Table 5.

The most massive are the statements outlining the European integration (according to 54 per cent of the respondents), the economy (49 per cent), the financial stabilization (36 per cent), the health care (28 per cent) as actual key priorities of the state policy. Relatively small proportion of people (14 per cent) perceives the standard of living as a real government priority, and the problems of youths – just 5 per cent.

Table 5

Public perceptions about real and desirable policy priorities (%)

Priorities of the governmental policy	Actual priorities	Preferred priorities
Economy	48,7	63,6
Living standard of people	14,4	43,8
Employment	14,9	42,7
Financial stabilization	36,3	36,4
Health care	28,2	31,6
Children and youths	5,4	13,6
Euro-integration	54,0	11,6

 

Grouping the desired priorities, i.e. what should they be according to the public opinion, has varying sequence and accruals. According to nearly two thirds of the respondents (64 per cent), economy should take a leading place in the priorities of the state policy. As priority actions people see also employment (43 per cent), the standard of living (40 per cent), the financial stabilization (36 per cent), the health care (31 per cent).

The greatest gap between the public expectations and the actual state policy has outlined in the fields of Euro-integration and living standard.

Just 12 per cent are of the opinion that associating Bulgaria to the European structures should be a priority, against 54 pre cent who see the Euro-integration as minor concern of the state. Euro-integration is one of the most broadly discussed topics in Bulgarian reality and that is why every second of surveyed people identifying it as a governmental priority. However, people are not well familiar what it means in reality, and the most important – how the integration will positively affect their life. Again we face the problem of differences in languages and of the level of understanding between politicians and ordinary people. For Bulgarians Euro-integration is rather abstract as a term and content and that is why only 12 per cent of them see it as a desirable priority.

For the majority of Bulgarians much more important are the issues of the standard of living, of the employment, of the economic stabilization. Serious disunity between public and state evaluations of those issues is observed by the survey in that direction. For the ordinary Bulgarians there is nothing more important and more primary than the quality of life. That is why, according to them, as a matter of priority the state policy should be focused on solving the internal problems – economic stabilization, employment, standard of living, health care – in order to improve the life of Bulgarians. Only just after that, according to the public opinion, should the state think about processes of integration. Here the inadequate awareness of the people is demonstrated ones more. Even with respect to the massively propagated political orientation of Bulgarian government towards Euro-integration. The gap between expectations and reality, being the major factor for increasing the distrust in the government of the country and for alienation from power, is demonstrated too.

3. Trust in the institutions

The survey discovered dominating mistrust in the institutions and the key social actors. It is shown on the next Figure 5. With exception of the attitude towards the Presidency, where the public trust and mistrust overlap as social parameters, people tend rather not to trust, than trust the institutions.

The most massive and strong is the mistrust, displayed by the people, in the three forms of government power – legislative, executive and judiciary. The Bulgarian Parliament has a negative rating among 78 per cent of the voters, and enjoys the trust of only 18 per cent. With respect to the attitude towards the Government the proportion is the shaped under the same scheme – 73 per cent trust against 22 per cent mistrust. Similar is the picture with the judiciary system too – 72 per cent mistrust to 18 per cent trust. In general, more than 70 per cent of Bulgarians do not trust the actions of government institutions and treat their representatives with suspicion.

The most massive and strong separation from the power and those with power is displayed in the public attitude towards politicians. Just 12 per cent of the people in the country treat them more or less with trust. The dominating majority (81 per cent) declares that they do not trust politicians. It is the politicians, in particular, that cause the ultimately negative attitudes and cause the strongest alienation from power.

Figure 5

Public confidence in the institutions (%)

 

The summary conclusion is that majority of the Bulgarians does not trust the government, those governing and the parliament members. Alienation from them is widely spread and strong, at that to a degree that

Bulgarian society is stratified under the model “THEM” and “US”.

The negative assessments for what was done by “THEM” predominate, at that, they are much more than the positive opinions. The reasons for that are rooted both in the difficulties of transition and intensifying social depression, and in the insufficient transparency of the actions of the central government. Bulgarians, insofar as they are also voters for those governing, need more information and more sincerity in the dialogue with the governing power. They need also more careful attention to their problems, assessments and expectations.

In sum, strongly dominate negative over positive attitudes towards the reforms, the government and the governance of the country. People evaluate the reforms and the transformations on the basis of the changes in their own quality of life, i.e. on the basis of the consequences of the reforms. Most people are not satisfied by the changes in the last three years because they feel their life deteriorating than improving. The ranging of governmental priorities is different from public expectations. For Bulgarians top priorities should cover standard of living, economic stabilization and employment. There is strong alienation from the politicians and from the governance of the country, and indicators for a subjective social stratification into “THEY” and “WE”.

2. Attitudes towards social assistance

Survey module was purposefully designed to discover public perceptions about social policy and social assistance. In the research questionnaire were included variables in the following spheres: goals, fairness and justice of social assistance; real and preferred institutions defining eligibility for social assistance; needs, eligibility and access to social assistance services; real and preferred forms for receiving social assistance; obstacles and recommendations for improving social assistance system in the country.

1. Social assistance in public perceptions

The findings discovered that for every second Bulgarian the main goal of social assistance in the country is to “help the poorest to survive”. According to 15 per cent, the social assistance targets most of all to “prevent the social tension”, and according to 9 per cent – to “help the poorest to help themselves”. In general, for most Bulgarians social assistance has rather “adoptive”, than “socially protective” functions.

For them it represents a form of “salary for poor”, sort of a due compensation to be paid by the state. Behind the mass perceptions stays the consideration, that thanks to government they have been driven to this poor status. Three fourths of Bulgarian citizens consider that it is a fault of the current government that there are poor people in the country. And also, that “it is a governmental responsibility to provide a decent standard of living for all Bulgarian citizens”. The last statement is supported by an impressive part of people (84 per cent) and illustrates the strong culture of dependency what is a significant element of Bulgarian national culture.

Findings from both the qualitative and the quantitative surveys discovered that people perceive the social assistance system as an institution with a task to guarantee survival to the poorest social strata.

The quantitative survey disclosed that a big number of people inside the country do need assistance, according to their own judgements. Ones, because they feel poor, and secondly, because they feel that the government owes them that. General attitudes toward social assistance might be seen in the Table 6.

According to the public opinion, “in Bulgaria there are a lot of people, who actually need social assistance”. An impressing share, accounting for 93 per cent of the people in the country, supports this opinion and this is understandable considering the low quality of life and vague prospects for its improvement. However, there are also “many people who apply unjustifiably for social benefits”, as stated by 59 per cent of the respondents. In other words, the public opinion reflects both actual and alleged needs for assistance.

The disclosed contradiction has its both real and subjective grounds. The real ones are in the fact that majority of Bulgarians, as it was already mentioned in the previous chapters, experience great difficulties with their standards of living. The crisis and the high social cost of transition makes them highly sensitive on the subject of responsibility for their status and the way out of it. In turn, the subjective grounds are based on the lack of understanding about the objectives and role of the social assistance. It is and must be an obligation of the state, which must ensure proper standard of living to its people – this is the line of public attitudes.

Table 6

General attitudes toward social assistance (%)

Statement	Strongly agree	Agree	Neither agree, nor disagree	Disagree	Strongly disagree	Can’t choose
There are many people in Bulgaria who actually need social assistance	58,4	34,2	2,6	1,0	0,5	3,3
There are many people who apply unjustifiably for social benefits	25,9	33,4	14,9	8,0	5,8	12,0
Government tend to support all needy	5,3	9,7	18,9	32,9	21,3	11,9
Unemployment benefits make people not to look for a job	8,0	14,2	20,5	26,0	21,2	10,1
Better to be provided jobs than to be supported people in active age	70,3	21,5	3,6	1,0	0,9	2,7
Social assistance should be for the most needy people	50,0	30,5	8,9	4,4	1,8	4,4

Distrust in politicians and government, discovered by the survey, inevitably transfers at the plane of the social assistance too. Social workers, being representatives of the executive power, enjoy the trust of 31 per cent of Bulgarians, yet 50 per cent do have serious reserves towards them. The distrust comes, to a greater extent, as a result of the increasing alienation from government institutions and services. It comes also as a result of the insufficient knowledge about their work. But also, from some people’s experience, regardless of whether it is based on personal impressions or on statements from relatives and friends.

Such an explanatory framework could be applied also to the statements of 64 per cent of the respondents, that the “state does not allocate adequate resources for social needs”. Here one can add the argument about the mismatch between actual and desired priorities of the government policy. Leading for the people should be the issues about the standard of living and about the social security, but they are not in reality.

The public opinion is not that unanimous, as it was with respect to the quality of life in the country, in the responses to the question where should the resources for social assistance come from and on the account of what. The survey showed that majority of the people is not aware where do the resources for social needs come from. In the course of the last few years there was broad media coverage of numerous humanitarian initiatives of international institutions and therefore often the social assistance is perceived as a synonym of humanitarian aid. This conclusion was made on the basis of the results from the qualitative survey. The present survey provided more specific evidence that no particular clarity has been accomplished in the public perceptions on this issue. For example, according to 60 per cent of the people ”the government should reduce the tax rates, even if this means less funds for social needs”. Just the opposite is the opinion of 40 per cent, according to whom it is important to “allocate more funds for social needs, even at the cost of higher tax rates”.

2. Public opinion about the criteria for social assistance

Who sets the conditions and criteria for social assistance and who should be responsible for setting them. This was another range of questions, to which the survey sought an answer. Findings are presented in the Table 7.

Table 7

Public perceptions about the setting criteria for social assistance (%)

Authorities	Who actually sets the criteria	Who should set the criteria
Government	37,2	30,6
National Office for Soc. Assist.	23,0	25,3
Local offices for Soc. Assist	10,4	16,4
Social workers	3,3	4,4
Major/Local government	6,9	7,5
Can not estimate	19,2	15,8

According to the obtained data, the practice is for centralized setting of the criteria and conditions for access to social assistance. The local bodies, regardless of whether it is about the local social services or the local governments, have relatively small presence. As per the public opinion however, the role of the local structures should be strengthened, but without displacing the central ones. For Bulgarians the “CENTER” continues to inspire respect, regardless of the contradictory attitude towards actions of the central government and in spite of the alienation from it.

3. The clients of social assistance and their needs

What is the proportion of social assistance’s clients? It could be seen in the following Figure 6.

Figure 6

Has ever you or your family member received social assistance?

 

The survey showed that 35 per cent of Bulgarians have never received benefits and do not need social assistance.

Clients of the social services today are 6 per cent of the adult population.

Another 14 per cent had received social benefits, but are not getting them any more. Cross tabling, the most massive representation in client’s category is that of the Romanies - 60 per cent of them are amongst former or current clients of the Social Services.

As for the needs of social assistance, the potential clients of the Social Assistance Services account for 45 per cent – an impressive share, which requires more detailed description. Need of social assistance is experienced mostly by people above the age of 60, people living in villages and small towns, families with more than two children, people with lower education (but also every third of the university graduates!), unemployed and retired. Out of the employed also not a minor share (42 per cent) state that they need assistance, having in mind their low and irregularly received incomes. Besides, some of the social workers themselves, as the survey in 1999 showed, do need assistance too. They confessed that their own standard of living does not differ significantly from that of the contingent, which they support and just “moral reasons stop them from applying for social assistance”. Because they meet the criteria…

The conclusion is that a significant part of the people in the country, facing the problems of their poor standard of living, expects help from the state.

Including, in the form of social assistance. The risks however of collapse of the social assistance system, if all needs are satisfied, are rather real. There comes also the line of further improvement of the social assistance – not by enlarging the contingent, but by decreasing the number of those in need of assistance. And this is tendency, which is supported by the public opinion too.

According to 80 per cent of the country’s adult population, the “social assistance should be focused on those most in need, who are not able to make their own living”. Here comes again the observed paradox in the public attitudes – “the social assistance should be for those most in need, but we are amongst them too”. As a matter of fact, the paradox is just on the surface. Analyzing the standard of living and the quality of life of Bulgarians, it becomes evident that majority of them actually fall in the group of those in need. And to some extent, it is the poor knowledge of the conditions and criteria for social assistance that prevents excessive expansion of the assisted contingent. And this already shifts the objectives of the communication strategy of the Ministry of Labour and Social Policy and the priorities for improving the entire system for social assistance.

With view of people’s needs for social assistance an open ended question (i.e. without initially formulated answers) was included in the survey: “If you are granted cash benefit, what would you use it for, what would you buy first of all?”. One fifth of the respondents did not answer at all or stated that they do not need such help, but the replays of the others drown an interesting picture. Data are in the Figure 7.

Figure 7

What would you buy first if you receive cash social benefit

Over one third (35 per cent) of respondents who answered to that question stated that first of all they will buy food. They are follow by 33 per cent, who will pay their bills for electricity, heating, water and other household expenses. Next are 28 per cent who will use the money for daily expenses (”something for the house”, “for living”, “for reconstruction of the house”), 11 per cent will purchase clothes and 11 per cent will spend them for medical treatment and medicines. 10 per cent of those who answered the question will use such social assistance for education (their own or of their children). In general, the predominant part of the people need assistance to meet their basic needs and living expenses

– food, clothing, home, health. All this suggests that poverty in Bulgaria is not imaginary, but it actually exists in the reality. And that the very same poverty, along with the deteriorated quality of life, changes both the scale of values and the perception about the world of the people in the country. Obviously this is a serious situation, if Bulgarians put as priorities the material before the post-material needs and values. At that, on a very basic level – food and shelter.

4. Public views about obstacles for the social assistance

The most serious obstacles for the social assistance in order to reach better efficiency are the conditions and criteria for entitlement to benefits. This is stated by every third of the respondents and all data are presented in the Table 8.

Table 8

Public perceptions about the most serious obstacles for increasing fairness and justice of social assistance in Bulgaria (%)

1.	Criteria for eligibility	33,1
2.	Corruption	24,3
3.	Currency Board	4,2
4.	International financial institutions	1,8
5.	Other	1,4
6.	Social assistance is enough fair and just	3,7
7.	Can not estimate	31,5

Apparently, not a minor part of the people believes that the social assistance should help all in need to overcome the crisis, and in fact they are much more than those who are supported today. Here come also the suspicions about corruption that 24 per cent of the people experience towards the social assistance system. These suspicions could easily be dissolved through a greater transparency about those covered by the social assistance. A thing, for which the Bulgarian public opinion insists. For example, 88 per cent of the people in the country believe that should the social assistance system be more efficient, it is necessary to “improve the public control in granting social benefits” – an area, where the NGOs could play a leading role.

5. Public recommendations for improvement the social assistance

Survey gave an opportunity to the respondents to express their views about ways and mechanisms for improving social assistance in the country. They could be grouping in several sections.

The first group of recommendations covers the goals and philosophy of the social assistance. The public opinion in Bulgaria (92 per cent of the adult population in the country) supports the opinion that it is “better to provide jobs, than to support people capable to work”. This is a strong empirical confirmation of the conclusion made in 1999 that

it is preferred to have a job, rather than get social benefits.

Moreover, according to the opinion of 22 per cent of the people, even the unemployment benefits are de-motivating, i.e. they “make the unemployed not seek for jobs”. In this context is the opinion of 43 per cent of the respondents, who think that it is necessary “to reduce the benefits provided to the people of working age, in order to facilitate active seeking for jobs”. Many support the thesis that “in order to get social benefit, those in need should take over certain social obligations” – 72 per cent.

Insofar as the obligations of the state policy in this field are concerned, and in particular for improving the social policy, 91 per cent of the Bulgarians think, “conditions and criteria for social assistance should correspond to the actual needs of the people”. The conclusion is that, according to Bulgarians, the social assistance should be focused towards soothing the real difficulties of the people and that people prefer to have jobs, rather than get a “salary for poor”. This outlines the need for better synchrony between the policy in the field of employment and the social assistance policy.

The second group of proposals focuses on the forms of social assistance. In the qualitative survey conducted in 1999 in was shown that reactions with respect to the in-kind benefits are rather negative than supportive. The reasons were basically in the change of the stereotype of the forms of assistance used before (granted till then only in cash), and in the lack of understanding about introduction of in-kind assistance. The present survey showed a better understanding of functions of the benefits provided in-kind to those in need. A strong empirical argument in favor of this conclusion is the opinion of nearly two thirds (62 per cent) of the people in the country, that it is good to “provide both cash and in-kind benefits, in order to support Bulgarian economy”.

And one more – 15 per cent of those in need prefer to get energy support in-kind too. In general, the cash benefits have more supporters than the in-kind ones. Yet, the opinion of every fifth Bulgarian should not be neglected, in particular that “in the long run, this must be a matter of personal choice”. In other words,people tend to accept, at least with understanding, the new aspects of the social policy and new forms of social assistance, if they are informed about the effects of their introduction.

The extensive information supported by publicity on the reasons for undertaking one or another step will definitely increase the public commitment.

The third group of recommendations refers to improving the people’s awareness about their rights and about the conditions for access to social assistance. As it was already mentioned, as per their own statements, many Bulgarians do not have enough information about the reforms which are carried out, neither about the conditions for access to social assistance. Therefore, 87 per cent of the respondents believe that in order to improve the efficiency of the social assistance system, it is important to “increase the awareness of the people about their rights to social assistance”. Upon assessment of likewise impressive relative share of the people (81 per cent), it is of importance also “to increase the awareness of the people about the reforms in the social assistance system”. The conclusion is that majority of Bulgarians need more information and better knowledge about the changes in the social assistance and the specific conditions for access to it.

The fourth group of proposals for improvement of the system for social assistance is focused on the quality of the social workers and their work. For many of the respondents (62 per cent), an important element of the efficiency of the social assistance is the education and training of the social workers. Therefore, according to them, it has to be continuously improved. But it is necessary to “increase also the remuneration of the social workers” (46 per cent), in order to increase their motivation.

In a general, the conclusion is that people in Bulgaria are interested in the social assistance, and not a minor part rely on it in order to be able to cope with the crisis and their personal difficulties. The goals of the social assistance however, its philosophy and functions, are not well understood. In the common case it is perceived as a government commitment for “paying the poor”, who are quite numerous. A massive need is outlined for efficient communication strategy, which should reach the people, explaining to them not just their rights, but also the goals that the social assistance in the country pursues. Also, the need for differentiation of such a strategy is outlined, with special focus on the people from the villages and small towns, on those with lower education and those at a more mature age. The survey showed that mainly the people with these social characteristics are the current and potential clients of the social services, but again they experience greatest difficulties to obtain clarity on their rights and on the criteria for assistance.

3. public opinion about child allowances

The new legislation concerning family assistance and child allowances imposed the need of including in the instruments of the survey a special block focused on this problem area. In incorporated variables for measuring the interest towards child allowances and the assessments about the level, type and forms of their payment. Measured was also the level of willingness of Bulgarians to become “foster family” – a new challenge to childcare in the country provided for in the legislation.

The results show that more than half of the Bulgarians are more or less concerned about the child allowances.

At that, in a situation where 61 per cent of the respondents state that they do not have children under the age of 16. And also, where every fourth Bulgarian declares that he/she does not rely on the child allowances, “because they are inadequate”. However, only a minor portion –just 4 per cent and partial – 9 per cent, declares total dependence on the child allowance.

The highest interest in child allowances is displayed by the unemployed and ethnic minorities (usually in the context of their cultural models the families have more than two children), the population living in the towns (mainly because population in the villages is mostly in a more mature age), the young people. The survey shows that the family income does not affect significantly the sensitivity of the people with respect to receiving child allowances for bringing up the children.

For example, 52 per cent of the people who live with relatively high monthly budgets (above BGN 500) are also concerned. On one hand, the interest in child allowances is triggered by the poor standard of living, in which case every supplementation to the family budget, even the very minor one, is welcomed. On the other hand, it is influenced by the inertia of the former practice for granting child allowances to everybody, regardless of the families’ financial status and independently of the numbers of children in the family.

Furthermore, this inertia is projected in the assessments as to whom should be granted child allowances and for how long. Here the data indicate a tendency for standardization, rather than differentiation.

Regardless of the statements that the allowances are “worthless”, 77 per cent of the respondents think that all families with children under the age of 16 should get allowances regardless of their financial status. According to 40 per cent, allowances should be granted to wealthy parents too. It is interesting that this opinion is supported by 47 per cent of the families with relatively high income and by 50 per cent of the employed. The model of their contention is that they would not like to loose something they are accustomed to and which belongs to them by definition. No matter that it is minor, no matter that they do not depend on it. The opinion of the retired is different. Of them, one third stands “FOR” and one-third “AGAINST” provision of child allowances to wealthy parents. Same proportion can not say. The explanation is that they themselves do not need such allowances, yet possible egoistic reasons could not be neglected too. In the long run, according to them, both child allowances and pensions come from the state budget …

The survey indicated that 56 per cent of Bulgarians insist that child allowances be paid until children study i.e. till they are at school or at the university.

The presumption is that those who study, need financial resources in the course of the studies, regardless of what age they are. This again is part of mentality of the Bulgarian nation, but its today’s manifestation is affected by purely objective factors – unemployment, narrowed labour market.

The survey included also a question asking whether child allowances should be paid for children who are under the age of 18, but actually do not attend school. During the last few years the problem of children leaving school turns to be of exceptional importance for the country. And because one of the most frequently stated reasons - the lack of sufficient funds - it was interesting to track the public attitudes towards this phenomenon. Every second of the respondents is categorical – child allowances should be paid for all children at school age, regardless of whether they attend school or not.

These are mainly representatives of the ethnic minorities, of the rural population, of the people with lower income. In other words, of the people whose children more or less fall under this category. However, there are defendants of the opposite opinion – that child allowances should not be paid for children who do not attend school. Their share is just 18 per cent, but is of importance to identify the differences in the public opinion. Especially, having in mind that another 17 per cent can not say. The conclusion is that the people start thinking on this issue as well.

The summarized conclusion is that Bulgarians are more or less concerned about the issue of child allowances and the majority of people having children want to be paid allowances for their upbringing. It is important for them to have this supplementation to the family budget, no matter that it is not big. There are certain symptoms of resistance and discontent when it comes to the debate about decreasing or withdrawing benefits that people are accustomed to, regardless of the fact that not all of them need such benefits. In this context, some paradoxes have been found as well – according to 44 per cent, the child allowances should vary depending on the family income, but 52 per cent of the parents with relatively high incomes insist that wealthy families get child allowances too. Bulgarians tend to support the uniformity, especially when their personal interests are affected in one way or another. Reasoning is “better we all get something, even if it is worthless, than me not getting anything, even if I do not need it”. Obviously, there is a need for increasing the awareness about the objectives and functions of the child allowances in a market environment.

Also, the foster family was subject to research. Even though with only one question, aiming at just getting some ideas rather than examining in details the public attitudes. The results show that nearly every sixth Bulgarian family tends to be willing to become a “foster family”, i.e. to care of a child that needs a home and parents. Obtained data are the follows.

Table 9

Are you willing to be a foster family? (%)

Definitely yes	7,3
Rather yes	10,4
Neither willing, nor not willing	12,2
Rather not	24,4
Definitely not	28,9
Can not estimate	16,8

The foster family idea is a challenge mostly for the younger generation, for people with higher education, for those living in Sofia, for those with jobs and stable (at least for the time being) income. The results obtained showed a tendency just opposite to the initial expectations, that willing to become “foster families” will be mainly the poorer families guided by purely pragmatic reasons. The majority of those willing to provide home and family care to children in need are amongst the group of those whose monthly family income exceeds BGN 500 and who identify themselves as “rich” and “relatively rich”. It should be noted however, that Bulgarians are still not well familiar with the “foster family” issue. At present, their willingness to become “foster family” is based mostly on compassionate motives and partly on incapability to raise their own children. In any case, drawing general conclusions in this direction on the basis of the answers to just one question could turn out to be unjustified and hasty. The conclusion however which could be drawn up for the time being is that the public opinion in Bulgaria starts to be concerned about the “foster family” issue, but the level of interest and the social profile could be clarified only through detailed targeted survey. No doubt, survey on this issue is needed.

In sum, child allowances provoke interest among the Bulgarian population. Following their life stile, they want to continue receiving support from the government, including child allowances. The culture of dependency is so strong and so massive in the country, that even wealthy families insist receiving such allowances.

4. INFORMATION AND INFORMATIONAL CHANNELS

Following the general aim of the research to support development and implementation a comprehensive two-way communicational strategy for improving public information about the programs and services of the National Social Assistance Service, an important part of the research was oriented to public awareness about social assistance programs. In the questionnaire was included a battery of variables about the main actual and preferred channels for obtaining information concerning the social assistance services.

Before that however, the survey showed that 17 per cent of the people in the country are familiar with the conditions for access to social assistance. They are mostly Romanies, from Sofia and small towns, unemployed and “poor”.

Not familiar are 56 per cent. They are mainly people above the age of 60, rural population, retired, again Romanies and people with low incomes.

There is another category of 27 per cent who declare that they are not interested in social assistance, and therefore they are not familiar with the condition for eligibility and for access to the services.

Looking at the distribution it could be said that 73 per cent of the people in the country are interested in social assistance.

The explanation for that comes from the data multi-variable and cross-analyses and could be discover in three main directions. The first reason for such big interest is the low quality of life of the majority of the population. The second is related to the opportunities for improvement what are defined as “not big”. The third reason is linked with the high culture of dependency and mass expectations that the government should be responsible for citizens’ living standard.

Finding showed that the people who, by definition, are most in need dominate in the both groups - familiar and not familiar with the conditions for access to social assistance. An efficient communication strategy would affect significantly this proportion in favor of those who are familiar, but it also would expand the contingent of the assisted, if it has to be judged by the self-assessments of the respondents about their own needs.

Data are presented in the following Table 10.

The most popular informational source is the Bulgarian national television (BTV)– 48 per cent of people get their information from there. The second place is for the informal contacts 26 per cent, the third – for the national newspapers (25 per cent), and the forth – for the Bulgarian national radio (BNR -18 per cent).

The list with the preferred sources starts again with the BNT. Every second wants to receive the information from the national TV. This is because the majority of people have access mostly to that informational channel, but also because they trust in it. There is another reason – people’s acceptance of BNT as a national institution, i.e. it is close to the “Center” what is important for the reliability of information.

Comparisons actual–preferred sources lead to some important conclusions. The first one is, that people need official and reliable information what could guarantee them reliability of their awareness. That is why twice less are those who prefer informal contacts for obtaining information in comparison with those for whom they are the main actual channel now. The majority of people wish to get information from legal sources – national TV, newspapers and radio, offices for social assistance, social workers.

The second conclusion is, that people need not only more, not only reliable, but also more detailed and concrete information, what could be received mainly from the social assistance offices. For example, 31 per cent wish to receive their information from the social assistance offices and from social workers. They are twice more than people who actually now do this. Social centers and social workers themselves occupy second position in the scale of preferences. Obviously people need information, given them by qualified persons who could not only inform, but also could give them necessity explanations and consultations. Almost one third of people expect from social assistance offices to be a reliable center for informational cervices, where they could improve their knowledge about their rights and eligibility for social assistance.

So far they could get written information mainly from newspapers and from posters. One fifth prefer newspapers, but another 10 per cent wish to be informed by brochures. And it is quite understandable. The most needy people are old and low educated. They need more time and more efforts to understand their right and possible eligibility. That is why posters and especially brochures appear the right informational sources for them. As for their best locations, they are presented in the following Figure 8.

Data stand out three main locations where people prefer to get written materials: 1/where they pay their bills for consumption (electricity, water, heating, etc.); 2/ social centers; 3/ post offices. Such ranging has quite logical explanation. All people pay their bills and therefore they visit the special places for that at least ones a month. So if the written brochures are available there it will be rather comfortable for 35 per cent of them. Social centers are preferred by the same number mostly because visiting them they expect also to get consultations and additional explanations by the social workers in there. Post-offices are the right places for 33 per cent (mainly pensioners) because they receive their pensions from there and monthly visit them.

1. Public trust in media

Survey discovered one more informational aspect – the trust in media. Data showed that people trust in different level different media. and the differences could be seen in the following Figure 9.

People tend to trust to national media more than local or private ones. National TV and radio are on the top of ranging. It is important, because that fact oriented which media should be given priority in the communicational strategy.

National newspapers are also among the media people trust. Among them are dailies “Trud”, “24 chasa”, “Sega”, “Standart”, “Monitor” and “Treta vazrast”. The last one is a newspaper for old people and because of its specific text and low price is popular for every forth person in the country. Keeping in mind that old people in Bulgaria are one of the biggest part of the real and potential clients of social assistance services, and that some people prefer written materials, that finding could be very useful for development the communicational strategy. In particular, for establishment a constant co-operation between the MOLSP and the media.

In sum, people in Bulgaria need more information about social assistance programs and about conditions for access to them. The best forms for improving their information are national media, social centers and social workers. People are also interested in written materials. The most comfortable places for their location are social assistance offices and buildings where people pay their taxes and bills, post-offices, shopping centers and policlinics.

Survey results and cross analyses lead to the following main conclusions:

• There is social tension in the country, provoked by the mass and increasing impoverishment of the population, low quality of life and serious issues face the country ten years after the beginning of the transformations.
• Half of Bulgarians evaluate the way Bulgaria goes as wrong. Majority of people are dissatisfied with the changes in the last three years, and with the economic and social reforms.
• Comparison between now and before in under the scheme “now is worse than before transformations”. Every second lives worse than her/his parents do.
• People do not feel good perspectives to improve their quality of life and blame for that government and governance - pessimists are eight times more than optimists.
• Evaluations of the current situation and the future prognoses strongly correlate with the political affiliations.
• The most serious issues for the country are unemployment, poverty, criminality, and perspectives for improving the quality of life. The most serious problems for surveyed people are poverty and low income, luck of perspectives for improving the standard of living, and unemployment.
• There are symptoms of a mass and strong culture of poverty. One third of the Bulgarian population is on the very bottom of the Rich-Poor social scale.
• The most affected by the crisis are old people, low educated, ethnic minorities, women, single people, people with more children, rural people.
• There is mass willingness for potential migration and “brain drain”.
• There is strong passing between actual and desired governmental policy priorities. For the Bulgarian government the top priority is Euro-integration while for the people it should be the economic stabilization.
• People tend to mistrust than to trust governmental institutions and political actors. There is strong alienation from the politicians and symptoms of social stratification of “THEY – WE” type.
• Social assistance is accepted as a “salary for the poor” what the government owes them. Culture of dependency is still far too strong and massive.
• More than a half of Bulgarian population needs social assistance, against six per cent who receive. Correlation needy to not-needy people is 1:1,6.
• People insist for improving their knowledge about social assistance criteria and for stronger public control in distribution assistance.
• Half of Bulgarian population is interested in child allowances.
• People tend to support equality than differentiation in distribution social benefits and child allowances. People are not willing to loose social benefits even when they do not really need them.
• People need more information about social assistance and social programs.

Back to the top