Lithuanian Political Elite Survey, May - June 2014

The purpose of the study: to identify political, economic and institutional changes that have taken place since Lithuania's accession to the European Union, and to explore the attitudes of Lithuania's political elite towards the future prospects of the EU.
Major investigated questions: respondents were asked how often they had come into contact with people from the EU institutions or active organisations and companies, as well as with contributors and institutions from the EU's Eastern Partnership countries (Ukraine, Belarus, Moldova, Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan) in their professional activities over the last 3 months. The aim was to find out how often they use Western European or US media sources (not in the Lithuanian language) to obtain information in their professional activities. Given the block of questions, respondents were asked to assess the changes in various areas after Lithuania joined the EU in 2004 (balance of powers [president, parliament and government]; equal application of laws - 10 choices in total). The survey also went on to assess changes in the public policy sectors (environmental protection; energy - 28 choices in total) and the public administration sectors (implementation of strategic plans; budget programmes - 5 choices in total). After providing a list of contributors (European Union institutions; leaders of the parliamentary majority political parties - 13 choices in total), the survey went on to assess to what extent they have been responsible for the changes in Lithuania since joining the EU, and to what extent and how did the contributors’ influence for the changes in Lithuania from 2004 to 2014 have changed. Next, people were asked to assess the influence of different individuals concerning important national issues (ordinary citizen; member of the European Parliament - 11 choices in total). The overall change in levels of political corruption after Lithuania joined the EU, as well as levels of political corruption in different state institutions (Seimas, government - 5 choices in total) from 2004 to 2014, was assessed. The survey further went on to analyse the opinions on whether the state should actively defend the Lithuanian identity and the Lithuanian language, and whether the Soviet period was more beneficial than detrimental for Lithuania. Respondents were asked whether people can be trusted in general or caution should be exercised and whether people should orientate towards the Nordic welfare state model. Respondents had the opportunity to answer whether it is more important to grow a competitive European economy within global markets or to ensure better social protection for all its citizens. They were also asked about how a welfare state model in Lithuania would have to be designed. Given the list of welfare policy areas (6 in total), people were asked which ones should maintain a central role for the public sector and which ones should maintain a central role for the private sector. Respondents were asked whether they personally supported the introduction of the euro in Lithuania in 2015 and whether due to Russia's actions in Ukraine in 2014 the approach to the introduction of the euro in Lithuania from 2015 had changed. Given the block of statements (5 in total), people had to assess the most important reasons for Lithuania's introduction of the euro in 2015. Next, they were asked whether the Lithuanian budget should be balanced (i.e., without a deficit) and whether wage growth should not exceed labour productivity growth. They were asked whether austerity policies (cuts in budget spending, wage cuts) were crucial in Lithuania in the wake of the 2008 crisis, and were asked to assess the government's policy to deal with the 2008 crisis. Later, respondents were asked whether they would be in favour of euro area countries coordinating direct taxes (i.e., a minimum corporate tax rate) and having their own separate, direct budget collection to support countries in financial difficulties. There was also a question on whether the (common) EU budget should be bigger than it is now (2014). They were asked whether politicians in the Parliament and the government should have the right to replace public officials and senior civil servants once the governing majority in Lithuania changes. Given the block of statements, the survey analysed the opinions on public administration institutions in Lithuania (Lithuania needs to reduce the number of public administration institutions - 4 choices in total). Given the list of the ministers of the 16th Government of the Republic of Lithuania, respondents were asked to assess the degree of politicisation of civil servants and heads of public administration institutions and public bodies in the ministries under the authority of these ministers. They were further asked to reveal the extent to which they associate themselves with their region, their country or Europe (EU). Given the list of threats, they were asked to rate the risk those threats pose to the EU (non-EU immigrants; EU expansion by including Turkey - 6 choices in total). Political views on a left-right scale as well as the extent of European unification were assessed. Then, trust in the EU and in the ability of Lithuanian institutions to take the right decisions was assessed. The aim was to find out whether respondents felt that decision-makers at the EU level did not take Lithuania's interests into account sufficiently, and whether the interests of some EU Member States were given too much weight. The survey went on to analyse whether different policy areas should be dealt with at the national level or EU level (fight against unemployment; immigration policy [from non-EU countries] - 8 choices in total). Given the next set of questions, respondents were asked what the EU will look like in 10 years (unified EU tax system; mutual social security system - 5 choices in total). Next, they were asked how satisfied they are with the way democracy works in the EU and Lithuania. Given another block of statements, they were asked whether or not EU policies pose a risk to Lithuania (5 choices in total). Next, the survey went on to assess whether the redistribution of resources between EU Member States to protect the single currency is fair. While having the future of the EU in mind, respondents were asked what the EU economy, the economic disparities between EU member states, the social disparities between EU citizens, the importance of the EU as a geopolitical power in the world and what the EU politically will be like in 10 years. The survey was concluded by asking whether or not Lithuania has benefited from EU membership.
Socio-demographic characteristics: education, field of education, experience of studying abroad, place of study, what kind of job and where did they work before they took up their current position, what sector did they work in before they took up their current position, religion, how often do they attend religious services, member of the Seimas, term of office in the Seimas, political sphere, political party, member of the government.