Societal Wellbeing I, January - February 2013

Respondents were asked to assess if Lithuania is a good place or not a good place to live for racial and ethnic minorities, gay or lesbian people and immigrants from other countries. It was questioned if respondents had the opportunity, would they like to move permanently to another country, or would they prefer not to move permanently to another country. Respondents were asked if most people can be trusted, or that they can’t be too careful in dealing with people and if most people would try to take advantage of respondents if they got the chance, or would they try to be fair.

It was questioned if most of the time people try to be helpful or that they are mostly looking out for themselves. Respondents attitude towards people who run the country and towards society was analysed. It was questioned if differences in income in Lithuania are too large.

Respondents were asked how important coming from a wealthy family is for getting ahead in life. It was analysed how much respondents trust in the Seimas, the legal system, the police, the press and political parties. It was questioned how efficient the system of health care and education in Lithuania is.

Respondents were asked if doctors and nurses, teachers and professors give special advantages to certain people. Tension between different social groups in Lithuania was assessed. It was questioned how satisfied respondents are with the kind of society we live in.

Respondents were asked how satisfied they are with the present state of the economy, work of present government and with the way democracy works in Lithuania. At the end, respondents were asked what they think about the state of education and health services, and state of pension provision in Lithuania nowadays. Socio-demographic characteristics: gender, age, duration of education, education, employment status of the respondent and his / her husband / wife / permanent partner, profession (occupation), respondent's trade union membership, religion, participation in religious rites, political views, political and social activism, voting in the last Seimas elections, nationality, household size, respondent's average and total average monthly household income, marital status, place of residence, satisfaction with quality of life, change in living conditions, received social benefits, received financial support from abroad living relatives.