30
1926 ). As Parsons ( 1944 ) noted, these processes contributed in general to
the spread of the isolated nuclear family. The specificity of Lithuania was
the lack of housing, which incentivised many three-generation house-
holds in urban areas, whereas households in rural areas were often multi-
generational in the past and remained so.
In addition, during Soviet rule Lithuanians were frequently deported
to Siberia, sometimes for genuine reasons (for example, landowners
might be accused of being enemies of the people), at other times as a
result of denunciation to the authorities by members of the community
or even of the personal network. This environment fostered a long-lasting
sense of distrust and emotional distance among members of society and
in close personal networks.
Lithuania’s independence was restored in 1990, and radical political
and social-economic reforms and cultural changes began, including the
setting up of a free market economy. In the first decade after the restora-
tion of independence, hyperinflation, high levels of unemployment, new
sources of information about alternative ways of life, etc. became domi-
nant in the country. Under these conditions, family members often expe-
rienced uncertainty, anomie, conflicts in values, and the need to adapt to
changing social and economic conditions (Stankūnienė 1995 , 1997 ).
At the same time, a new social protection system was created. It was
based on four main principles: continuation, imitation, restitution, and
innovation (Šaulauskas 2000 ). Under the continuation principle, some
elements of the former welfare system were retained. Categorical benefits
paid from the state budget for large families are an example: it was enough
to have three or more children to be included in the list of state- supported
families, even under a limited state budget and with many large families.
The imitation principle meant drawing on elements implemented in the
welfare systems of other countries. For example, the State Social Insurance
System was created in imitation of Germany’s Corporate Conservative
welfare system. This system seeks to protect participants in the labour
market against social risks: unemployment, retirement, disability, sick-
ness, and maternity. However, factors such as increasing life expectancy, a
high rate of emigration, and the low level of earnings from which contri-
butions into the Social Insurance Fund are paid mean that employed
persons are not protected to a socially acceptable level.
V. Ramos et al.