Green transition like washing socks here but pouring dirty water into neighbor's yard

Economist Triinu Tapver tells Vikerraadio in an interview that while Europe strives to continuously reduce CO2 emissions, giving the impression that pollution is minimized here, the reality is quite different. According to her, Europe contributes to pollution indirectly by sourcing solar panels primarily from China, the world's largest emitter of greenhouse gases.
How does addressing economic topics in the academic world differ from doing so as an analyst at a commercial bank, where your texts and commentary are read and listened to not only by financial experts but also by teachers, taxi drivers and possibly even superficial journalists?
In fact, there is quite a lot of overlap — such as seeing the broader picture and identifying connections. However, compared to academia, my work at LHV involves more specific analyses. I am a frequent visitor to the Statistics Estonia website — whenever new data is released, I download it immediately, check for any notable developments and examine the latest trends. In the academic world, I focused more on understanding the bigger picture and overarching connections rather than concentrating on what, for example, happened in the past month.
What led you to move from the academic world at Tallinn University of Technology (TalTech) to working at a commercial bank?
I am actually still at Tallinn University of Technology, where I hold a position as a senior lecturer and engage in research. So, I haven't left academia; I'm now involved in both fields.
What brought me to LHV or a commercial bank in general is quite an interesting turn — becoming a full-time analyst at a commercial bank wasn't something I actively sought. It sort of came to me by chance, but it seemed like I was at a stage in my life where I was ready for a change. And it appears that this change has been very diverse and dynamic.
Did you already address banking-related topics in your doctoral dissertation?
That's true; I did examine banking-related topics in my doctoral dissertation and I've also supervised many master's and bachelor's theses on the subject. However, in my dissertation, I focused on a very specific area, primarily related to green reporting, rather than aspects like the bank's own risk or profitability, which are things I now deal with on a daily basis.
Two weeks ago, together with your colleague Heido Vitsur, you published LHV's latest economic forecast, from which I'd like to highlight a few points: for 2025, you forecast Estonia's real GDP growth at 1.4 percent, consumer price index growth at 4.5 percent, average gross monthly wage growth at 4 percent (which would lag behind the rise in the cost of living), unemployment at 7.2 percent and a decline in the six-month Euribor (affecting almost all home loan and car lease holders) from today's 2.6 percent to 1.7 percent by year-end.
Does this mean that LHV's analysts see light at the end of the tunnel?
I'd like to clarify that this specific forecast was made as of mid-December. Since then, some additional factors have emerged in terms of global geopolitics and the world economy, particularly Donald Trump with his well-known statements, threats and promises, which could certainly impact our forecast.
That said, it does seem that there is a glimmer of light at the end of the tunnel and I believe it's the lowering of interest rates, particularly the decline in the Euribor. When we look at the numbers — 1.4 percent economic growth this year — our underlying assumption is that the economy is essentially driven by domestic consumption (purchasing), exports, imports, government consumption and investments.
What we see as the potential driver of positive economic growth is exports, provided that our export markets in Scandinavia begin to recover or at least emerge from their lowest point. However, the bad news is that Scandinavian countries, especially Sweden and Finland, have recently downgraded their economic growth forecasts and much of this originates from Germany. Germany is performing worse than initially expected.
Since our forecast was made in mid-December and these updated projections were released afterward, I would revise our economic growth forecast downward.

For several years now, economic forecasters at both the Bank of Estonia and commercial banks have been criticized for being overly optimistic. Why are forecasters and analysts in commercial banks too optimistic?
It's difficult for me to comment on why analysts at other commercial banks have been overly optimistic — they would know that best themselves. However, I can explain why people at the Bank of Estonia, whom I know professionally and through academic connections, have been optimistic. It largely stems from the fact that their work is based on models. While models are connected to reality, they represent an idealized version of it. But ideal situations never occur in practice.
These models are also based on certain assumptions, with current forecasts being heavily influenced by geopolitics, which has fluctuated significantly in recent years. For example, recent developments in Gaza and the Red Sea, which were not anticipated earlier, have also affected forecasts.
Still, when making the forecast I quoted, it was already known that the car tax would come into effect, other taxes would rise, Estonian consumers were uncertain, savings had decreased and people were spending less in stores. Why, in light of this, did you and your colleague Heido Vitsur forecast a positive trend at all? If you listen to radio opinion programs, the sentiment is that things cannot possibly get better.
If we look specifically at people, one segment of the economy, which accounts for about a third of the economy in general terms, we actually forecast stagnation in that area — we don't see any growth there. In terms of those who predict otherwise, I would also question why they see a positive trend, as the numbers simply don't add up when calculated based on the model.
However, our assumption is that Scandinavian export markets will recover, which would help our manufacturing industry, for example, by enabling more goods to be exported there compared to last year. And since the baseline is already relatively low, that's how those numbers ended up as they did.
Ordinary people are very interested in things like energy prices — things that affert them directly. LHV forecasted that the price of 95-octane gasoline in Estonia could average €1.579 per liter over the year. I emphasize, as an annual average! How is that possible, given that fuel excise duties and VAT will increase this year?
That's true, taxes are increasing — these things have already been written into law and there's an additional hike coming on July 1. However, expectations on the global market suggest that oil prices will actually decrease. Our assumption is based on the idea that the decline on the global market will be significant enough that, even when we factor in the excise tax increase, we should still see a slight decrease in fuel prices.
Of course, this depends on how our fuel retailers handle the decline in global oil prices — whether they pass the savings on to consumers and lower prices. If they are unwilling to reduce prices, then our forecast would be incorrect. However, this would contradict expectations, as global market prices should decline.
Or let's talk about electricity. On December 30, Climate Minister Yoko Alender (Reform) said that changes in the electricity market provide grounds to expect more favorable electricity prices in 2025 compared to 2024. However, at LHV, you forecast an increase in the average annual electricity exchange price to €97 per megawatt-hour, compared to last year's €91 level. Why don't you share the minister's optimism about a drop in electricity prices?
We would also like to know where the minister's optimism comes from. If we look at Finland, which provides a significant portion of our energy and with which we are closely connected, it's true that forecasts for Finland suggest that electricity futures contracts — used to gauge expectations for future electricity prices — indicate a potential drop in electricity prices in 2025.
However, several factors need to be considered. First, there's the disconnection from the Russian electricity grid, which creates uncertainty. None of us can accurately predict how this will affect us — whether and from where we can replace that capacity and at what cost.
Second, we're already facing issues with EstLink 2, which could also drive up our energy prices.
At the time of the analysis, had the EstLink 2 [submarine power cable] issue already occurred?
At that time, the issue hadn't occurred yet. If we look at our forecast, the situation with EstLink 2 could push prices even higher than the 10 percent increase we projected. Our analysis was based on the disconnection from Russia, as well as Norway's stated intention to secure higher electricity prices by supplying energy to Europe and potentially disconnecting itself from mainland Europe.
Norway is a major energy producer and supplier and if this disconnection happens, one significant source of energy will be removed from the equation, while demand remains just as high. It's logical that prices would then increase further.
Ruling politicians have criticized economic analysts, forecasters and commentators for being overly negative or pessimistic. For instance, Peeter Raudsepp, the head of the Estonian Institute of Economic Research, has been accused of portraying the economy as weaker and life as more uncertain.
How do you see it? Is it within the power of analysts, including yourself, to "talk down" the Estonian economy, discourage investors and reduce consumer confidence?
Would an analyst be one in earnest if they intentionally portrayed the economy as either negative or positive? That raises the question of whose interests they are serving. I would argue that an analyst's goal is to speak about the real situation — what is actually happening.
Regarding the criticism that we "talk down" the economy — I wouldn't say anyone does so intentionally. Rather, it's about describing the reality as it is. The current situation is negative; it's not positive yet. We can't claim that everything in the economy is going well, that people are doing great and that it's all celebration and abundance. It simply isn't.

Can the opposite be done? Can politicians talk the economic situation up to encourage consumers to shop and businesses to invest?
There would certainly be some effect if a particular topic is repeatedly emphasized. Yes, politicians have the ability to do this, but from an analyst's perspective, it would seem very strange if they did. It raises the question of whether an analyst can still be considered independent in such a scenario.
If I really wanted to, I could paint the situation in an overly positive light — for example, why we have a 1.4 percent economic growth forecast, claiming everything is going wonderfully. But by nature, I'm more of a realist. I look at the challenges we have and focus on what could be improved to overcome those challenges.
One more aspect that likely concerns many readers — the second and third pension pillars or financial resources from the perspective of pension savers. What will happen with global stock markets this year? You have forecast 15 percent annual growth for the Nasdaq Tallinn index. But what will happen globally, since the assets of Estonian pension savers are not solely tied to the Tallinn exchange? Last year saw a very strong increase. Is that a warning sign?
The Tallinn and Baltic stock exchanges were more or less stagnant, with Nasdaq Tallinn showing slight negative performance for two consecutive years, which explains our optimism. Stock markets move like roller coasters — sometimes they're down, sometimes they're up and at some point, growth is expected.
That said, it's true that global stock markets, particularly in the U.S., were very strong last year. An interesting aspect is that gold outperformed even the U.S. stock market last year, which signals a small warning sign: investors and central banks have started accumulating more gold.
The reason for this could be that a potential bubble is being anticipated, for example, in global stock markets, especially in the U.S.
As for what to expect this year — if we consider Donald Trump, who has promised significant deregulation for businesses, tax cuts for companies and investments in the U.S., particularly in artificial intelligence and technology, we might see these sectors benefit. Growth is likely, but it won't be as high as it was last year.
Speaking of the economic measures promised by Donald Trump, it seems to me that he is, figuratively speaking, pressing the gas and brake pedals simultaneously — on the one hand, cutting taxes, reducing regulations, increasing fossil fuel production to lower energy prices, but on the other hand, closing borders to cheap labor, promising high tariffs on Chinese goods and threatening Europe with tariffs. If all of this were implemented at once, what impact would it have?
Theoretically, the result could be a zero sum game. However, considering Donald Trump's statements, we still don't know exactly what he will actually implement. His first days in office were quite productive in the sense that he, figuratively speaking, already signed some notable acts.
If we think about Europe, yes, he threatened a 10 percent tariff on European goods exported to the U.S., but this could simply be a pressure tactic.
What bothers Trump most about Europe is that we buy more goods from China than from the U.S. He wants this to be the other way around. Additionally, he is troubled by the fact that Europe exports more goods to the U.S. than the U.S. exports to Europe. Trump's goal is for the U.S. to dominate global trade markets. By threatening Europe with tariffs, he's essentially using the argument that Europe might avoid those tariffs if it starts purchasing more U.S. natural gas.
If Europe does not go along with this and tariffs are imposed, it would undoubtedly make things more challenging for sectors heavily tied to the U.S., such as the automotive, pharmaceutical and medical equipment industries. Looking at Germany's economy, for example, the automotive industry is already struggling. Adding tariffs on top of that would likely make survival in these sectors significantly harder.

Allowing or prohibiting oil drilling in nature reserves, subsidizing or not subsidizing electric cars or wind farms, imposing or removing regulations affecting economic activity, setting tariffs or removing them — these are all political decisions. How do they impact the economy?
Politics has always influenced the economy. Someone once said that if the economy were shaped solely by economists and analysts, it would look very different than it does today, where decisions are made by politicians with specific political agendas.
In this context, we can say that the measures opposing the green transition, as promised by Donald Trump, would undoubtedly have a wide-ranging impact. In Europe, we've taken a full-speed approach to the green transition, although in the past couple of years, that pace has slowed somewhat.
If the U.S., under Trump, significantly pulls back on green initiatives and increases oil drilling, it would likely impact oil prices, potentially driving them lower.
This could also lead to more investments moving from Europe to the U.S. due to the fact that green investments are inherently more expensive than non-green ones. Green investments require greater initial capital, involve underdeveloped technologies still in their early stages and therefore have longer payback periods.
It's often said that an ideal situation would be a free market and an "invisible hand" that would sort everything out, with no need for the state to intervene in the economy. Economic commentators frequently idealize such a scenario. But such a thing doesn't actually exist, does it? Or is there an "invisible hand"?
I think it's a combination. In theory, there is an economic concept of the "invisible hand," suggesting that the state doesn't need to intervene, impose regulations or manage anything because the market will organize itself. Everything produced would meet someone's needs and the materials used would, in turn, be provided by someone else etc.
When we think about the real economy, however, such a scenario isn't feasible because the "invisible hand" rests on three assumptions: 1) Perfect competition: Markets everywhere in the world would need to be fully open, with free movement of goods and no tariffs or transportation costs. 2) Full information: All information would need to be accessible to everyone at all times. 3) No externalities: No activity should have side effects, such as producing paper without creating environmental emissions — those emissions shouldn't exist.
Such conditions simply don't exist in reality. Moreover, beyond these three assumptions, the "invisible hand" doesn't account for social aspects, such as social welfare systems, which are integral to modern economies.
Has the "invisible hand" economic model, a completely free market, ever existed at any point in history or in any economic bubble?
No, it hasn't. It might have functioned to some extent during periods when countries were more isolated, but a pure "invisible hand" system has never existed.
We already mentioned the U.S. retreating from green goals under Donald Trump's leadership, a shift joined by major U.S. banks and asset management firms like BlackRock, which has announced it is abandoning sustainability goals and has withdrawn from the Net-Zero Asset Managers coalition. What does this mean? How would you explain this, and in what ways could it affect us in the European Union?
In the U.S., major banks, particularly BlackRock, J.P. Morgan and Goldman Sachs, have indeed withdrawn from this agreement. The agreement stipulated that by 2030, carbon emissions should be fully offset, meaning no more carbon should be emitted than can be absorbed. Withdrawing from the agreement means these institutions no longer have this formal goal. However, some banks still maintain personal sustainability objectives — for instance, J.P. Morgan has its own green goals. If they deviate from these, it wouldn't cause major issues as they could simply adjust their targets.
In Europe, this likely means, and we're already hearing, that some of the larger banks are starting to consider withdrawing from the agreement as well. The impact could go in two directions: on one hand, European banks might follow suit and exit, while on the other hand, new banks might step in to replace those leaving the coalition. There has been speculation, for instance, about Japanese banks potentially filling the void left by U.S. banks. However, this remains speculation and we don't yet know how it will play out.
President Trump even attacked U.S. banks in a speech delivered via video link at the Davos Economic Forum. He criticized it as unfair for a bank to refuse financing for fossil energy projects or to deny account services to certain business sectors on sustainability grounds. So, political pressure is clearly very significant.
Political pressure is indeed present in Europe as well. The European Union has set the goal of a green transition, which is being implemented through various sectors — banks being a prime example. When a bank faces regulations that specifically encourage the financing of cleaner green energy projects, it is naturally, to some extent, compelled to follow that path.
If this regulatory framework were loosened, capital would likely shift more heavily into polluting industries.
What are these sustainability goals, anyway? I think when the term "sustainability goals" is mentioned in radio news, listeners let it go in one ear and out the other without even thinking about it. Could you try to explain them in a few sentences? You've also addressed these goals in your doctoral dissertation.
Generally, sustainability is discussed in terms of three broad pillars. The first is environment, meaning nature and the planet. The second is the social aspect, which involves people and societal well-being. The third is corporate governance, referring to how well a company is managed, including its relationships with stakeholders like shareholders and society at large.
In the European Union, the focus is predominantly on the environmental pillar. I'm personally critical of this emphasis because, while environmental goals are important, the current focus is almost exclusively on CO2 emissions and, to some extent, other emissions. We don't give enough attention to the broader natural environment. For example, young forests absorb CO2 most effectively, but that doesn't mean we should cut down all old forests to achieve our CO2 targets quickly. Old forests are essential for preserving biodiversity and the broader ecosystem. This is an area where the current approach tends to fall short.
As for the goals themselves, there's now a regulation requiring large companies to document their environmental impact, primarily focusing on CO2 emissions. This creates a framework for assessing how their activities align with sustainability objectives.

In 2023, you wrote an opinion piece for the ERR portal in which you argued that the European Union's Sustainability Reporting Directive risks becoming a major greenwashing machine that could even spin oil into beetroot. Could you elaborate on that?
I did indeed, and I still hold the same opinion. Looking at what has happened a few years later, it seems to me that what I said back then appears to be coming true. The principle could be summed up as, "We wash our socks clean here in Europe, but pour the dirty water into our neighbor's yard."
What are we doing? In Europe, we are focusing narrowly on reducing CO2 emissions, cutting and cutting them further. Yes, I agree that we must protect the environment — we can't do without it. But is CO2 the only focus we should have?
Take solar panels as an example. They don't emit any CO2 here in Europe, but most of them are produced in China, which is by far the world's largest emitter of greenhouse gases. This means that while we appear to avoid pollution here, we are effectively outsourcing it elsewhere, contributing to global emissions indirectly.
It's often said that Estonian companies that don't follow or adopt sustainability principles won't be able to sell their products on the European Union market, particularly in Nordic countries. What is your take on this claim? For example, is it impossible for U.S. or Chinese companies to sell their products, such as consumer goods, in Finland or Sweden?
That claim isn't entirely accurate. We see more and more Chinese goods in Europe, even though they are produced using non-green technologies. Speaking of the U.S., a good example is Finland, whose largest import from the U.S. is natural gas, alongside other products. This shows that it's not true that we can't buy Chinese or U.S. goods in Europe or that all products on store shelves are produced using green energy or exclusively within the EU. The claim doesn't hold up.
Looking to the future, it's clear that many things produced in Europe rely on components or materials made in China, where non-green energy is used. So, the idea that only sustainable products dominate the market isn't reflective of reality.
Let's take BlackRock as an example; in the past, it has also invested in our region. If BlackRock announced that it would no longer follow sustainability or green goals, what does that mean? Does it imply that BlackRock can no longer buy stocks or companies or invest in Finland or Sweden?
Yes, BlackRock can still invest. Not following sustainability goals doesn't mean they are prohibited from investing in Finland, Sweden or elsewhere — they absolutely can. From the perspective of U.S. companies, especially considering the backdrop of Donald Trump's policies, the weakening euro against the U.S. dollar already makes European investments more attractive. If this trend continues — which we at LHV also forecast — it means that U.S. investors might find European investments increasingly valuable simply due to currency changes.
Leaving the currency aspect aside, Donald Trump's statements don't prevent U.S. firms from investing in Europe. However, I do think more capital will start flowing into the U.S. because it's more advantageous for investors. Investments in the U.S. are less expensive, have fewer green requirements and are accompanied by significantly less bureaucracy than in Europe, where strict sustainability regulations increase costs and administrative complexity.
How does the implementation of sustainability goals affect a company's or bank's profitability?
If we look at scientific studies, we find mixed results. The beauty of research lies in the fact that it offers diverse and competing perspectives, so there's no single consensus. Some studies show profitability increases, while others do not.
Bank profitability, for example, rose during the early stages of the green transition when it was still ramping up. At that time, there was a competitive advantage, as resources were heavily directed toward sustainability efforts. There was significant growth potential and companies, particularly banks, that managed to capitalize on it benefited greatly.
However, we have now reached a stage where the initial momentum has waned, along with the competitive edge. Those who acted early have, so to speak, already reaped the rewards and it's becoming increasingly difficult to generate additional profit. The impact now is either negligible or has returned to a more normalized state.
Since Donald Trump took office, signals have also emerged from major European countries. For example, the French government spokesperson told journalists after a cabinet meeting that sustainability rules are a "hell for companies." Additionally, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen said in November that she seeks to review parts of the sustainability regulations. What is your sense — are European Union sustainability rules being eased and is this a result of Trump coming to power in the U.S., or would there have been pressure to relax the rules anyway?
At present, it's clear that companies are actively working within the framework of existing sustainability requirements. Reporting is becoming a standard expectation and obtaining financing from banks increasingly requires providing evidence of how a company is meeting green criteria and what sustainability activities it is pursuing. From this perspective, I don't see significant easing happening just yet.
The idea of relaxing regulations may exist in the minds of decision-makers, but determining how much of this stems from Trump's influence versus internal European pressures is hard to quantify. I believe it's a combination of both. We also see growing criticism of the green transition in the media, particularly concerning the increased bureaucracy it brings.
As a lighthearted remark, we have a saying at the bank: "Has the European Commission designed the green transition to ensure that banks and businesses keep expanding their workforce?" After all, everyone now needs a sustainability specialist to compile reports.
Do I understand correctly that, as forecasters, you cannot yet factor in the possibility that sustainability regulations might be eased?
Yes, we can take that into account, but only as one possible scenario. When we make forecasts, we have a baseline scenario, which assumes the status quo — nothing changes. In addition, we also create negative and positive scenarios. It's within these alternative scenarios that we can account for potential regulatory easing.
In forecasting, we base the baseline scenario on what has already been legislated. However, in the side scenarios, we can consider potential developments and their implications.
As an economic evaluator, analyst and commentator, are you a pessimist or an optimist?
I try to walk on the sunnier side of the street — I strive to be an optimist. Of course, lately, it's been difficult to maintain that optimistic outlook when looking at the numbers, as the situation tends to favor pessimism. Still, it's important to approach life positively, because if you constantly complain and say everything is bad, you can't expect things to improve.

At the same time, pessimists, as well as pessimistic views or articles, tend to be more intriguing to the public — stories predicting disaster seem to attract more readers. That's the impression I have. Feel free to disagree if you have a different perspective.
I think that's just human nature. If we were to say that everything is always going great, we wouldn't know what's wrong. While it's important to identify what's not going well, it's equally crucial to offer solutions for turning those negatives into positives. Simply pointing out problems without providing ways to improve doesn't take us forward.
In any case, those who speak about the economy in Estonia have been in the spotlight of the media and their statements have garnered public interest. Names like Hardo Pajula, who is no longer as active in this field, Peeter Koppel and the late Marje Josing and Ruta Arumäe come to mind. Their views and interpretations of the economy have varied somewhat.
How does the assessment of the economy depend on who is discussing it and how they interpret the situation? How do factors like the person's background, education and ideological stance influence their analysis?
It absolutely has a significant impact, starting from childhood — how and where we've grown up shapes us. Whether someone comes from the heart of Tallinn or the forests of Põlva County, it influences how they develop as an analyst. Our upbringing, environment and early experiences form the foundation of how we perceive the world and, later, the economy. These factors shape not only our analytical approach but also the nuances in how we interpret and explain economic situations.
Where are you from?
I'm more from the countryside, not quite Põlva County, but a bit closer to Tallinn. I could say I'm "forest-minded," as every Estonian seems to be to some extent.
As for how background and education influence perspectives — I come from an academic background, so I naturally tend to delve deeply into broader topics, often examining where problems originate and trying to propose long-term solutions or changes.
For someone without as strong an academic background, the focus might be more on day-to-day analysis, such as tracking short-term changes in purchasing power or market trends.
Of course, I must emphasize that we are all human. The idea that an analyst is purely rational and completely unaffected by personal factors is unrealistic. We all have our backgrounds, beliefs and ideologies, which inevitably influence what we write or say, even if they ideally shouldn't.
Let me test a theory on you, one that occasionally sparks debates in the media. What do you think about the principles of degrowth? Environmentalists often propose it as a future economic model, which then triggers lively discussions. What is your stance on this vision?
On one hand, the vision of degrowth is appealing — protecting the environment is undeniably important and I fully agree that we must take care of our planet. However, from an economic perspective, the theory presents several contradictions. For instance, the idea of sustainable degrowth, where consumption and the economy are gradually scaled down to conserve nature, seems well-intentioned. But expecting consumption to decline universally is unrealistic. In some areas, consumption might decrease, but in others, it will rebound dynamically.
As consumers, we can't always discern in stores which products are truly "green" and which aren't. While labeling is possible, whether those products are genuinely sustainable is debatable — I'm skeptical.
When people argue that the economy doesn't need to grow constantly, that it could stabilize or even contract, I would point out that economic growth doesn't necessarily equate to a greater environmental impact. In theory, we could achieve growth by increasing the use of renewable energy or implementing practices that conserve nature — not just focusing on CO2 but addressing broader environmental concerns, which I believe is crucial.
For example, producing ten thousand pencils instead of one doesn't inherently mean a larger environmental footprint if the production process becomes more sustainable. Alternatively, if we shift to using something more innovative or valuable than a pencil, we could create economic growth without necessarily increasing the strain on the environment. Economic growth and environmental protection can, in principle, coexist, provided the focus is on smarter and greener approaches.
In a 2014 interview with Toivo Tänavsuu for Eesti Ekspress, the late SEB analyst Ruta Arumäe said she felt the need to assert herself daily in the masculine-dominated economic sector. Now, ten years later — Triinu Tapver, do you feel the same way? Do you still feel the need to assert yourself daily in this masculine world, such as within the walls of a bank? Or have things changed over the past decade?
If we look at this particular bank in Estonia [LHV], it's an interesting case because the majority of bank employees here are women. In that sense, we're somewhat different from, for example, Central European banks, which are often dominated by suit-and-tie men.
That said, it's true that as a woman — especially a younger woman who doesn't have a commanding physical presence — it can sometimes feel like you're not immediately taken seriously. For instance, when I find myself in a group of middle-aged gentlemen, there's occasionally a sense of, "What are you, this little person, trying to say?"
However, I think things have improved. You are taken seriously, but it might require a bit more effort to get there. The initial impression isn't always as strong as it might be for others, so you have to work harder to establish credibility.
In the year 2025, do you find yourself having to assert yourself daily in a masculine world?
I wouldn't say daily. Maybe every other day.
Reflecting on the late Ruta Arumäe, in the aforementioned article, she remarked that Estonia is already a very expensive country by European standards, having achieved European price levels, and that the time had come to focus on real economic work. She questioned what we would do when the easy inflow of money from Brussels dries up, predicting more modest economic growth — if any at all. Ten years ago, she also said, "You can't spend another ten years renovating roads or transporting Russian goods to the West — those business plans no longer work." How do her words resonate with you today?
She had an excellent ability to foresee what was coming. The Russia-Ukraine war has made it impossible to import cheap Russian goods across the border and re-export them. On the other hand, the easy flow of cheap European money — quickly earned and quickly spent — is gone. Let's say that the era of easy money inflows is behind us; we've moved on from that stage of development.
Thinking back to 1991, when Estonia regained independence, and comparing it to 2014, there was tremendous progress in that time. But now, ten more years have passed and we haven't really taken significant steps forward. We should already be taking action — rethinking what we can do differently for our businesses, how to develop their complexity further so they aren't reliant solely on, say, cutting down and burning timber or Russian transit.
These issues are now at our doorstep and the recent crises have highlighted them. We should reflect on what could have been done differently. Of course, it's never too late. The key is to act, not to throw in the towel and declare it's all over.
Over ten years ago, Arumäe, along with many others, said that it was time to start doing substantive work in the economy, but it seems that this wasn't done. Perhaps now, after the start of Russia's war of aggression, something is finally being moved forward in Estonia. Is there any point to the work of analysts if their insights seem to be ignored?
When we think about who makes the decisions, it's the politicians, led by the government. How much any given government listens to analysts is entirely up to them. An analyst cannot take the reins and dictate what must be done with a metaphorical stick in hand. The actual decisions are made elsewhere.
Do you have any final recommendations for decision-makers to improve the state of the Estonian economy?
Yes, Estonia's economic strategy should look further ahead than just one electoral cycle. It should focus on planning in terms of decades, not four years at a time. Estonia needs to seriously consider how to shift toward producing higher-value-added products that are more complex and innovative. Additionally, we should think strategically about where and to which markets we can sell these products. Long-term thinking and a focus on added value are key to building a sustainable and resilient economy.

--
Follow ERR News on Facebook and Twitter and never miss an update!
Editor: Marcus Turovski, Laura Raudnagel