Since joining the European Union in 2004, Latvia has focused on security and economic development as two key issues. Relde Ruica Although the EU still has a strong positive image in Latvia, the country’s economic development has stagnated in recent years, he explains.
In 2003, just before Latvia’s referendum on EU membership, Latvia’s state broadcaster aired a news report about attitudes toward the EU in a small Latvian town called Zeltini. This year, to mark the 20th anniversary of Latvia’s EU accession, journalists returned to the town to find out what has changed since then.
Despite concerns about the rising cost of living and strict European laws, most villagers in Zeltiņi voted to join the EU in a referendum in 2003. By 2024, much of that initial scepticism had disappeared. People praised the public infrastructure, such as the road network renovated with EU money, and the possibility of traveling freely and feeling part of a larger European community.
But the big problem remained. Many residents had left for the capital, Riga, or elsewhere. Public schools and nearby family clinics had closed. Aside from some renovated public spaces, there were no other public development projects. But for the townspeople, this was seen as the fault of the national government, not the EU.
As one interviewee noted, Europe seemed to ignore traditional family values. But as one villager explained in 2003, ultimately it was better for the Danes to buy the land than for the Russian entrepreneurs to buy it. These sentiments resonate even more today following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. These news articles summarized the central stories and themes that, consciously or not, defined Latvia’s European integration since 2004.
Security and Economy
Security and economic development are the two main aspects that define Latvia’s EU membership and development for politicians and citizens alike. Security, understood as Latvia’s deeper integration into Western political structures, has always been a priority goal of the Latvian political elite.
This included economic policies such as the adoption of the euro immediately after Latvia’s harsh 2009 economic crisis. Latvia pursued painful reforms and austerity policies during this period, which resulted in significant population losses due to emigration. One of the main motivations for following this course was the perceived need of local politicians to show that Latvia belongs to the core of Europe. Russia’s recent actions demonstrate that these security concerns are warranted. Since then, the EU’s foreign policy has moved closer to the position of Latvia and the other Baltic states.
Economic development was less straightforward. After experiencing rapid growth during EU accession and recovery from the 2009 recession, Latvia’s economy stagnated. According to the OECD, the rise in living standards in Latvia since the crisis has been much slower than in neighboring Estonia and Lithuania.
According to both international and domestic experts, the main factors behind this delay are low levels of foreign and domestic investment, the decline in the share of Latvian manufacturing, and the lack of innovation and high value-added product development. Perhaps the most worrying aspect is the massive emigration that Latvia has experienced, which has led to a significant decline in the number of young and qualified workers. The concept of working abroad has become an established part of Latvian national identity.
At the same time, focusing on GDP can obscure low spending on social assistance, health and education and systemic problems in these sectors. Latvia has deeply embraced neoliberal thinking, even rejecting European Union recommendations to expand social protection. While the current situation may seem surprising to many, others take a longer-term view, with many trends, including migration and social policy, showing positive developments, albeit slower than expected at the outset of EU accession.
The Latvian Paradox
Latvians are largely grateful to the EU, regardless of their perception of the country’s progress, and unlike most Central and Eastern Europeans, their support for the EU has grown over time. Even though the country has conservative attitudes toward LGBTQ+ rights and immigration, this does not reflect that Europe is a powerful force for national identity. And while security is important, most citizens see economic gains and free movement as the biggest advantages of being in the EU.
The paradox of Latvia is that, despite being a committed and loyal party to the EU vision of modernization, the country’s situation is stagnant or worsening. Given the important role the EU has played in improving many sectors of society, it is impossible to simply blame the EU. However, it is also not helpful to place all the blame on the central government.
For Latvian citizens and experts, state policy is responsible for the country’s lack of development. Nevertheless, the current ruling party, New Unity, has been in power since 2009, except for a three-year period from 2016 to 2019. The anti-corruption spirit has remained intact. Especially after the economic crisis, Latvia’s political elite took the “European way” seriously.
The political imagination of Latvian society and politicians has always had a common goal of modernization, becoming richer and more like Western countries. However, discussions about what these vague formulas actually mean have been largely absent from the political space, reflecting the weak and almost nonexistent bond between voters and political representatives.
Latvian civil society is not passive, but rather moves around a variety of issues. However, it is rarely mediated by political institutions and actors. Instead, Latvian institutions mostly adopt EU directives into national law, creating a reference framework for decision-making.
The influence that Latvia has sought in the EU has rarely been expressed in furtherance of its own national interests. Instead, these concerns, such as ensuring greater security in neighboring regions, are positioned as advancing the EU’s goals. The EU’s approach to Russia has changed over the past two years, with Latvia becoming more assertive, calling for an EU-wide ban on agricultural imports from Russia. Whether this signals a change to previously largely asymmetrical modes of relationship remains to be seen.
In many ways, neoliberal mandates have derailed politics from its purpose as a space for expressing and forming identities and opinions, debating, making demands, and shaping decisions. Political elites understood and presented the neoliberal transition in the post-socialist context as a “no alternative” scenario. But in Latvia, that space has been particularly limited, aided by a spirit of self-sufficiency and personal success, deeply polarized ethnic divisions, and a cultural narrative that associates politics with luxury rather than public services.
The European Union, a distant and abstract actor, symbolizes the dream of economic and social modernization, while national leaders epitomize a failed reality. There are positive signs, such as a slow growth in trust in state institutions and the rise of center-left alternatives in Latvian politics, but to date the gap between them remains empty and shapeless.
Often, crises, such as the current regional instability, can also mean opportunities. A decisive outcome of the current crisis could be closer and more meaningful relationships between citizens and their political representatives. Latvia, a “model student,” has hardly been able to make its voice heard in broader EU politics.
As former Latvian President Egils Levits has argued, “Old Europe still suffers from an inability to recognize the merits of our position… This may also be partly due to our inability to break away from this ‘asymmetrical enthusiasm’.” The task for Latvian citizens and politicians is to work together to express Latvia’s voice, and the task for European partners is to listen to diverse voices and co-create a more balanced relationship.
This article is part of a series hosted by Eli Gateva. Rethinking Europe’s East-West divide – 20 years after the Big Bang expansion
Note: This article presents the views of the author and does not necessarily reflect the position of EUROPP (European Politics and Policy) or the London School of Economics. Featured image source: AUTHOR / Shutterstock.com