Blood Donation in the South Caucasus: Refill, Please!

With the upcoming World Blood Donor Day on June, 14, the question about current attitudes towards blood donation in the South Caucasus is worth examining. While there are considerable efforts in all three countries to increase donation rates and improve blood screening, donation rates remain below 1%, according to WHO data for Armenia and Georgia, and thereby stand at the lower end in international comparison. Increasing the availability of safe blood is of tremendous importance to guarantee the minimum needs for patients. Here we summarize some of the main information provided by the WHO, as it relates to the South Caucasus.

Armenia has registered a growing amount of blood collection over the last few years. In 2009, 54.6% of the donations came from paid donors (US$ 30 per donation), 40.4% from family/ replacement donors and 5% from voluntary non-remunerated donors. The financial incentives for blood donation are strongly anchored, and groups advocating unpaid donation have to compete against remunerated donation offered by the pharma industry. While blood donation is currently financed through the national budget, it is envisaged to shift responsibility to private initiatives. There are already several organisations that advocate for non-remunerated blood donation, mainly Club 25 or the Fund for Armenian Relief.

In Azerbaijan, blood collection figures more than doubled between 2003 and 2006. In 2008, a law was passed by which only non-paid donors are admitted. There is no remuneration for donors with the exception of reimbursement for travel expenses in some cases. Islamic religious groups in Azerbaijan have participated in efforts to increase blood donation. Last year, a campaign was held at mosques and places of pilgrimage during the religious holiday of Ashura. The blood donation system in Azerbaijan is funded by the government and overviewed by the Research Institute on Haematology and Transfusiology, which includes the central blood bank. Apparently the main problems relate to supplies of consumables, which are not always available (e.g. blood bags, tubes etc).

In Georgia, the donation rate would need to increase by some 60% in order to cover the needs of Georgian patients. The transfusion system is privately managed, although there is government funding for blood donation and tests. The system suffers from a lack of quality control of blood donations, which is especially critical as the rate of Hepatitis C carriers is as high as 6%. Like in Armenia, the expectation for re-numeration for blood donation is deeply rooted. Currently, 95% of blood donations come from paid donors. There are two blood banks promoting voluntary non-remunerated blood donation in Georgia: the Jo Ann Medical Centre blood bank and the Gudushauri Hospital Blood Bank, both of which only work with volunteer donors. In 2009, the First Lady of Georgia started regular volunteer blood donation campaigns.

Sources and further information are available here.

If You Were Asked What Everyone Else Thought of Your Country...

By Sarrah Bechor

CRRC recently completed its 8th annual Caucasus Barometer survey, gathering data about perceptions of trust, livelihood and social realities during face-to-face interviews in Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia. Some of the results from these countries have been compared to results from 22 other countries that were surveyed as part of the 2010 Pew Global Attitudes Project Survey.

One question asked members of these 25 countries whether or not they believed their countries were generally liked or disliked. Results show that well over half of the population of the South Caucasus countries believed that their respective countries are generally liked: 76% of Armenians, 68% of Georgians and 52% of Azerbaijan agreed with the statement.

The percentages of don’t know/refuse to answer (DK/RA) responses are also quite interesting. Nineteen percent of Georgians, 25% of Azerbaijanis and 10% of Armenians responded that people did not know about their respective countries. It might be interesting to understand why certain populations such as Pakistanis, Azerbaijanis or Russians have a rather large percentage (10% or more) of people who say they don’t know what others think of their country, as opposed to other populations such as the French, Indians or Americans who have very little percentages of don’t know responses. We can identify a few patterns by breaking up the list of 25 countries into different groups:

Western Europe: Britain, France, Germany and Spain

Hubs of Tourism/History of Interaction: Indonesia, India, Jordan, Egypt, Argentina, Japan, Kenya, Mexico, Nigeria, Brazil, US and Turkey

Politically Contentious: China, Lebanon, Pakistan, Russia

Isolated South Caucasus: Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan (These countries could also fall under the politically contentious category due to the presence of frozen, past or potential conflicts)

Many of the Western European countries on the list are either hubs of tourism or have a history of international interaction (e.g., history of colonial, economic or political prominence). These countries have lower percentages of DK/RA responses. Politically-contentious states such as Russia and China are either overshadowed by regional conflict such as in the case of Lebanon in the Middle East, South Korea which is often related to issues involving North Korea, or China, Russia and Pakistan. The South Caucasus region could also fall into the politically contentious category and they are relatively isolated from the international arena.

In this way, citizens who said that they didn't know or refused to answer have also provided interesting information just as those who said that they perceived their country to be generally liked or disliked.

Please visit CRRC’s webpage for the 2010 CRRC Caucasus Barometer and the webpage for the Pew Global Attitudes Project to get more information about the surveys, or to access the original questionnaires and datasets.

We would love to hear your thoughts on this theme as well!

Follow-Up Media Landscape Survey

By Tamar Zurabishvili

In September 2009, CRRC conducted a baseline survey on the Georgian media landscape within the scope of an EU-funded project entitled, “Strengthening the Media's Role as a Watchdog Institution in Georgia”, implemented by the Eurasia Partnership Foundation. The results of the study have informed a far-reaching public debate on the state of media, attitudes of the Georgian population toward the media, and perceptions of its independence and professionalism. The survey continues to be a point of reference, as this recent article illustrates. The ongoing debate suggests that there is considerable demand for fact-based research about the Georgian media.

The follow-up Media Landscape survey, conducted by CRRC in April-May 2011 with funding from the Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs provides a unique opportunity to analyze attitudes of the Georgian population towards the media, as well as to monitor changes in media consumption. Among the findings, our preliminary analysis shows that the number of internet users has increased two-fold since September 2009. Internet as the primary source of information is still limited, but with now 5% it has nearly doubled in the last 18 months. At the same time, respondents say that most Georgians use the internet as a tool for social networking. There thus are new opportunities for Georgian media outlets that may seek to reach out to internet users more proactively and to develop more attractive internet media products.

These are only the first snapshots. More data and analysis will be available soon. For now, the questionnaire and dataset for the 2009 survey can be downloaded in SPSS and STATA formats from CRRC’s website. We welcome your visit!

ODA – CRRC Data Analysis Online

CRRC is happy to announce its new Online Data Analysis (ODA) program! Crunching numbers from CRRC surveys is now easier than ever.

The CRRC Georgia office has initiated and created this special program with the help of Irakli Naskidashvili. The ODA provides users with the opportunity to access survey data and analyze data online without having to use any special statistical program, such as SPSS or STATA.

The ODA is extremely user-friendly. With one click you can choose a survey question of interest and receive a chart and a table in Excel online. Charts and tables can be exported and downloaded in accessible formats.

Currently we have available on the ODA both the 2009 and 2010 Caucasus Barometer surveys, which includes data on all the three South Caucasus countries. The ODA will be periodically updated with new data gathered by CRRC.

An example of a slide on ODA:

An example of a table on ODA:

Interested? Check out ODA now!

Public Attitudes in Georgia: CRRC Polling Results

CRRC conducted a survey on political and economic attitudes in Georgia for the National Democratic Institute (NDI), funded by the Swedish International development Cooperation Agency (SIDA). The fieldwork of the survey took place in March, 2011 and surveyed 2,893 respondents in Georgia. The survey covered the issues of public importance, perceptions and attitudes toward democracy and ongoing reforms, as well as various domestic and foreign affairs.

According to the survey results, economic and social problems such as jobs and rising prices are major source of concerns for the majority of the population: 46% of respondents said that situation has worsened in respect of jobs since January 2008 (37% said it was the same).

Beyond that, the survey highlights many nuances that often are disregarded when just looking at the headlines. Below, for example, you see that there is a fair amount of appetite for discussion on specific policies.

The survey results were presented by NDI at a press conference on April 6, 2011 and other presentations followed, throughout Georgia.This included public meetings in Batumi, Gori, Kutaisi, Rustavi, and a number of other cities.

The survey results were widely covered by many media sources, such as Civil.ge, the Messenger, 24 hours, Rezonansi, as well as through the TV channels, such as Rustavi2 and Imedi. The results are accessible from the NDI website.

C-R Policy Brief on IDP Attitudes to Conflict, Return, Justice

In March, Conciliation Resources (C-R) has published a report on IDP attitudes to conflict, return and justice, which we have already highlighted in a previous blog-post. As you may recall, this report was based on a survey of IDPs which CRRC undertook for C-R in the summer of 2010.

Now, C-R has published a policy brief on the same issue.

This is a short crisp summary of some of the main findings, also with C-R's policy recommendations.

C-R highlights five main suggestions:

1. focus on IDP's welfare and integration;
2. giving the displaced a voice;
3. facilitating information exchange and a broad public discussion on return;
4. utilizing IDPs as a resource for peace, bridging between different groups;
5. responding to the demand for justice.

If you are interested in the raw data, this is also accessible from C-R's website. For now, find the link to the highly readable report here.

Internet Penetration in Armenia

Scholar Katy Pearce recently published an article on Epress News (http://www.epress.am/) revealing some interesting points about internet penetration in Armenia. Using information from CRRC's 2010 Caucasus Barometer, Pearce writes that internet penetration tripled from 2009 to 2010 within Armenia. According to Pearce, the most likely reason for this is increased access to mobile internet.



The article reveals that new internet adoption is regionally diverse in Armenia and that men and women make up an equal number of early adopters (new users). Pearce places specific emphasis on the fact that the average age of the mobile internet user is older than would be expected (41).

Pearce posits that the Armenian government's 'Computers for All' Program may have influenced such a sharp increase this past year. The program, which was launched in September 2009, allows Armenian citizens to rent desktop and laptop computers at a low price (11,400-18,300 drams/month and 11,200 drams/month, respectively).

Although the program does account for some of the usage increase, Pearce points out that the program has failed to increase computer literacy in Armenia. According to her, data from the Caucasus Barometer shows that self-reported computer skills have not increased since 2007. Also, Pearce concludes that, while the program has resulted in an increase in the use of computers among the Armenian population, personal computers are still 'prohibitively expensive for most Armenians.'

- 'Internet Penetration in Armenia Tripled in Past 2 Years: Caucasus Barometer', Epress News, 4/12/2011. < http://www.epress.am/en/2011/04/12/internet-penetration-in-armenia-tripled-in-past-2-years-caucasus-barometer/ >

The Caucasus Barometer 2010 Dataset Is Available!

What are the social, political and economic attitudes of people in Armenia, Georgia and Azerbaijan? Do Georgians, Armenians and Azerbaijanis think employment or territorial integrity is the most important issue facing their respective countries? How do they judge the fairness of elections or media independence? How trusting or supportive are they of the European Union, NATO membership or local institutions? You can find the answer to these questions and many more in CRRC’s 2010 Caucasus Barometer survey dataset which is now available on the CRRC website.

The Caucasus Barometer is CRRC’s annual and nationwide household survey conducted in Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia and is in its eight year. The survey covers a wide range of attitudes and opinions on economic, social and political issues. The 2010 survey also includes many new questions on gender issues, employment, internet and cell phone usage, as well as questions on Armenia-Turkey and Georgia-Abkhazia relations.

For example, here is a slide from the CB 2010 survey which shows that 70% of the Georgian population supports Georgia’s membership in NATO, while 44% of Azerbaijanis and 37% of Armenians support their respective countries' membership in the organization.

The next slide on emigration shows that Armenians are more inclined to emigrate from Armenia (both permanently and temporarily) than Georgians and Azerbaijanis are from Georgia and Azerbaijan, respectively.

These are two examples of the fascinating kinds of data available from the survey. The questionnaire and dataset in SPSS or STATA are available on CRRC’s website. We welcome your visit!

Caucasus Barometer 2010 reveals Georgian attitudes towards Indians

A recent article in Georgia Today entitled “India through the eyes of Georgian children” described an exhibition, which was hosted by Bharatma, a Georgian-Indian cultural organization established 20 years ago, in which young Georgian public school students displayed artwork portraying their visions of Indian culture. This organization receives funding from the Indian Embassy to Armenia and Georgia (located in Yerevan) and seeks to foster mutual Georgian-Indian understanding. The exhibition sparks further interest in Georgians' perceptions not only of distant, far-away India, but also on the growing minority of Indians in Tbilisi.

The website for the Indian Embassy to Armenia and Georgia draws historical links between Georgia and India in a cursory summary of India-Georgia bilateral relations. This overview alludes to ties in literature and trade, as well as centuries-old connections dating back to the Mughal era during which Georgians were believed not only to have occupied rather high positions in the Courts but also to have married into the Mughal imperial family.

Currently, a number of Indians reside in Tbilisi as students at Tbilisi State Medical University as well as professionals working for Indian companies with office locations in Georgia. Although, there seem to be both historical and current close ties between Georgians and Indians, it would be interesting to explore specific attitudes of Georgians towards Indians. The recent 2010 Caucasus Barometer included two questions that provide some fascinating insights on Georgians’ approval on doing business with Indians and on Georgian women marrying Indians.

This first figure reveals some interesting findings, particularly that Georgians approve doing business with Ukrainians more than with other groups selected for comparison. While Georgians’ approval of doing business with Indians (60%) does not fare particularly well, it is also, rather strikingly, comparatively not that bad, with just 4% lower than Armenians. Perhaps these figures could reflect some historical ties or a familiarity with Indian culture through exposure to Bollywood films. That the approval percentage is not even higher for Indians could feasibly be a function of a variety of factors, including xenophobia and the fear of foreigners taking Georgians’ jobs.

The figure below presents a much more differentiated, stark picture. In this case, it is evident that a relatively low percentage of Georgians approve of Georgian women marrying Indians. However, data shows that Turks do not garner more approval, nor do the Chinese, who receive even less approval. There are many forces that could conceivably be at play here. For example, religion could be a major factor influencing approval rates, as could a common Soviet history. Geography could also be a viable explanation, as Georgians outside of Tbilisi or urban settlements might not have any interaction with local Indian and Chinese populations. This could potentially render them more foreign to Georgians. Then again, increased interaction might not necessarily be associated with higher approval ratings on doing business or Georgian women marrying Indians.

Understanding any effects of a burgeoning Indian community on Georgians’ approval for doing business or Georgian women marrying Indians would necessitate some kind of analysis over time. Without such, it is difficult to make any firm conclusions. However, upon first glance, this data shows some interesting overall, general attitudes. What could be some other speculations based on this data? We welcome your thoughts!

CRRC-Azerbaijan Junior Research Fellows Compete for the Best PowerPoint Presentation

On March 11, 2011, the participants of CRRC-Azerbaijan’s Junior Research Fellowship Program (JRFP) competed for the best PowerPoint presentations based on data from the 2009 Caucasus Barometer (CB). The event was their first time demonstrating their skills in organizing and presenting data. The fellowship selection committee and organizers were anxious to see what the fellows would present after many months of training in quantitative data analysis.

All of the presentations were interesting, vibrant and thoughtful. Some of the fellows provided deep insight into challenging social issues. The fellowship selection committee, represented by Leyla Karimli, Sabina Rustamova, Tamerlan Rajabov and CRRC program staff had a difficult time selecting the contest winners. Topical clarity, use of CB data, coherent information and presentation skills were all considered by the committee. The winners of the best three presentations were Aynur Ramazanova, Shahla Mammadova and Nargiz Mammadova.

Aynur Ramazanova examined the experiences of divorced women in Azerbaijan and showed that they are more likely than married women to experience feelings such as loneliness, emptiness and rejection. Shahla Mammadova also dealt with psychological issues arguing that people with a stronger psychological state are more likely to rate their health as ‘good’, get up early in the morning, have a job and generate more income. Nargiz Mammadova compared levels of trust and corruption in Georgia, Armenia and Azerbaijan.

The winners of the competition received external hard drives. The other presenters received USB flash drives as recognition gifts. Please see some photos from the presentations below!

Presentation Summary | Georgian-Abkhaz ‘Dialogue through Research’

On March, 30 2011 Archil Gegeshidze and Ivlian Haindrava presented findings on the politics of non-recognition as well as results from a forthcoming study on the de-isolation of Abkhazia. Abkhaz and Georgian researchers compiled their findings after conducting interviews and focus groups analyzing the perceptions of each side. The results revealed some interestingly ambivalent attitudes amongst respondents: Abkhazians expressed reluctant feelings towards the West through a rejection of democratic values. At the same time, there was a fear of being absorbed by Russia.

Both scholars concluded that the current Georgian ‘Law on the Occupied Territories’ is a counterproductive policy approach towards the breakaway regions – even in light of Georgian national interests. The current situation carries a danger of further alienation that might cross the threshold of non-reconciliation. Georgia, however, faces a serious trade-off in tailoring its strategy adequately; while the necessity to engage with Abkhazia eventually is acknowledged, engagement would somewhat dilute the ultimate goal of reintegration. Hence, both scholars emphasized the mediating role of the European Union. The EU, while being engaged in the process, follows no clear strategy yet. In contrast, the US has a strategy but refrains from engagement. Such sluggish policies by the West are further alienating Abkhazia and leave the breakaway province with no alternative to closer cooperation with Russia. The possibility of rapprochement is thereby increasingly jeopardized.

Conflict mitigation is the path to take instead of conflict resolution. This means providing the conditions for the de-isolation of Abkhazia and stimulating political debate in the breakaway province. Working successfully with Abkhazia could provide an opportunity for the EU to exemplify its protection of minorities. However, for now Abkhazia is left with few options other than further cooperating with Russia all while fearing its loss of sovereignty, self-preservation and distinctiveness.

Ask CRRC | Sampling Weights II

Now, let’s move from this simple example to the Caucasus Barometer. When selecting respondents for the CB, CRRC first divides the country into nine geographic divisions: the capital, urban-northeast, urban-northwest, urban-southeast, urban-southwest, rural-northeast, rural-northwest, rural-southeast and rural-southwest. Within each of these nine groups, nine separate samples of voting precincts are randomly selected. Households are randomly selected within each selected voting precinct. Then, a single adult respondent is randomly selected within each selected household.


How do we calculate the sampling weight of a CB respondent? First we calculate the probability that the respondent was in our sample. There are three steps to this process since there are three stages of random selection. Suppose that a respondent is a woman who lives with her husband, her husband’s mother and father, and her two young children in an apartment in voting precinct #2 of district #3 in Saburtalo. Voting precinct #2 of district #3 has 624 households and 18 interviews will be completed there. Tbilisi has 712 voting precincts in total, of which 50 are selected for sampling.

The first step is to calculate the chance that the woman’s voting precinct was selected for sampling, which is 50 in 712. The second step is to calculate the chance that her household was selected once her voting precinct had already been selected, which is 18 in 624. The third step is to calculate the chance that the woman herself was selected once her voting precinct and household had been selected, which is one in four—the four being the four adult members of her family. We can put those three selection probabilities together by multiplying them. This gives us the chance of this woman being interviewed:


The number of adult Georgians that she represents can be calculated as


Individuals living in different regions of the country, in different voting precincts, and in different size families have different probabilities of being selected for the sample. Thus, they have different sampling weights. Therefore, it is important to use an appropriate data analysis program and to use the sampling weights when making estimates about the greater Georgian population from the CB sample.

Ask CRRC | Sampling Weights I

Q: In the posting on representativeness, you said that every member of the population must have some chance of being selected for the sample. In the next posting about sample size, your Rustavi example had every member of the population with an equal chance of being selected. What if everyone has a chance, but not an equal chance? In this case, is it possible to make a sample be representative of the population?

A: This is very important question! The short answer is yes—the sample can be representative of the population, but you need to do a little extra work. Let’s use a simple example:

Suppose we are interested in comparing the experiences of male and female students in an engineering program. The program has 800 men and 200 women. If we randomly select a sample of 200 students (20% of the total student population in the engineering program), then we should expect only about 40 women in our sample. Suppose we randomly select 100 men and then randomly select 100 women. This means that every man has an equal chance of being selected for the sample and every woman has an equal chance of being selected, but every student did not. If we want to use the responses of the men to say something only about male students or the responses of women to say something only about female students, then we can do this using some simple formulas from statistics. However, what if we want to use of all of the information that we have to say something about the entire population of students?

In this case, different members of the population have different chances of being selected. Every man has a 1 in 8 chance of being selected, while every woman has a 1 in 2 chance. We can turn this around and say that every man who is interviewed represents 8 people including himself and every woman who is interviewed represents 2 people including herself. This is what is known as a sampling weight – every man in the sample has a sampling weight of 8, while every woman in the sample has a sampling weight of 2:

We need to utilize sampling weights when making estimates about an entire population. This means that we need to use different statistical formulas than the simple ones used above. We also need to use a computer program that has built-in functions to make estimates about populations using data with sampling weights (e.g., SPSS for estimates or STATA for estimates and associated margins of error). As long as we do that, then our sample is still representative of our population even though every member of the population did not have the same chance of being selected for an interview.

Data on access to justice in Central Asia now available

Last month we published a blog post with findings from CRRC’s first research project in Central Asia. An extensive analytical report, datasets and frequency tables are now available on the CRRC website. The research focused on how citizens in Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan experience access to justice.

What do people consider to be the main problems in their communities? Where do people go to solve different legal issues? How do people assess the legal system in their country? How much do people actually know about their legal rights? These are some of the questions the research has sought to answer.

A huge amount of data is waiting to be explored so check out the CRRC website to get direct access to previously non-existing data on access to justice in Central Asia.

Conference Summary | "Building Turkish Awareness of Armenian Genocide"

By Ben Bronstein

On March 15th 2011, the ‘Yerkir’ Union and the Caucasus Institute held an international conference on Building Awareness of Turkish Society Regarding the Armenian Genocide. Speakers included Armenian experts as well as Cengiz Aktar and Ali Bayramoğlu, two Turkish experts who initiated the ‘I Apologize’ campaign in Turkey. The ‘I Apologize’ campaign was launched in 2008 by a group of Turkish intellectuals, allowing Turks the opportunity to personally apologize for the Armenian Genocide by signing an online petition. At present, approximately 70,000 people have signed the petition.

The first talk overviewed the history of denial of the genocide by the Turkish government and society as a whole. Despite the many years of negative attitudes towards recognition of the genocide, the speaker, David Hovhannisyan, felt reason for optimism after his time with the Turkish-Armenian Reconciliation Commission because of the understanding and compassion he and his Turkish colleagues eventually came to share.

In his talk ‘Developing a Policy of Memory in Turkey’, Cengiz Aktar addressed various kinds of memory – academic, cultural, personal and public. In each case, Mr. Aktar stressed that, while developing a widespread policy of memory in Turkey will take time, there has been progress. Mr. Aktar pointed to the influence of Hrant Dink, the impact of Armenian film and music, the restoration of Armenian churches and the growing public discourse surrounding Armenia and Armenians.

Ruben Melkonyan, in his talk entitled ‘The Turkish Government Policy Toward the Armenian Community in Turkey’, described the history of the Turkish government’s discriminatory treatment of Armenians (as well as towards Kurds, Greeks and Jews) during the 20th century following the genocide. In closing, Mr. Melkonyan addressed the issue of how the Armenian community in Turkey has been pressured to oppose recognition of the genocide.

Anush Hovannisyan addressed the history of Turkish attitudes towards recognition of the genocide. Her talk pointed to the changes that have taken place over time in Turkey and the various positions held by Turks today, from the extreme to the pragmatic.

During his talk on the ‘I Apologize’ campaign, Ali Bayramoğlu stressed that recognition of the genocide is not enough; relationships must be repaired and the political and cultural connections between Turks and Armenians must be mended.

The final talk, by Richard Giragosian, focused on the need for both Turks and Armenians to make efforts to repair the damaged relationship between the two peoples. For Turkey, Mr. Giragosian emphasized the need not only for recognition of the genocide, but an overall revolution in thinking about history. For Armenia, Mr. Giragosian accentuated the negative effects of constantly defining ones’ self with victimhood, and the detrimental effect of using the genocide as a test of ‘good or bad Turks’. Finally, Mr. Giragosian underlined the fact that complete reconciliation will not be possible until both Armenia and Turkey make serious progress in democratization. Because of this, he emphasized the importance of normalizing relations between the two countries – including opening the border – as a first step. Mr. Giragosian’s final words were that ‘neither country can go back and the only way is forward’.

E-transparency in Georgia: A key to faith in democracy?

Can more available public information on Georgian governmental websites promote institutional trust and enhance faith in democracy in Georgia? This is the topic of a recent book called “Electronic Transparency in Georgia” by the Institute for Freedom of Information (IDFI). The book presents findings on the accuracy and relevance of information provided on various Georgian governmental websites. The relevant research was carried out in Georgia between August and December 2010 and was within the wider framework of IDFI’s aim to promote access to public information, including budgets, staff salaries in different ministries, among other types of information.

Electronic transparency is becoming more of an issue as internet usage gradually increases in Georgia. The figure below shows that according to the Caucasus Barometer (CB), 18% of Georgians used the internet every day in 2010, whereas 13% used the internet every day in 2009. Data from the CB also consistently shows that those who more frequently use the internet are younger Georgians with more education and live in the capital.

IDFI observes some positive improvements to e-transparency such as the introduction of an online system in October 2010 by the State Procurement Agency. This online system will publish details about tenders and increase transparency in procurement procedures. However, according to IDFI, most governmental websites in Georgia do not display information about their functions, budgets or details about the implementation of state-funded projects. Some sites also do not feature a postal or email address. Subscriptions to news bulletins are rare, as are open platforms where people could express their opinions through forums, polls or blogs.

Can a lack of public information online influence faith in democracy in Georgia? This is especially relevant when bearing in mind the results of the survey,“Public Attitudes Towards Elections in Georgia”conducted by CRRC in April 2010, where 48% of Georgians said they did not believe that Georgia was a developed democracy at that moment (36% said yes, 17% said don’t know and 1% refused to answer).

The findings of the IDFI suggest that Georgia has quite a way to go to achieve governmental openness. According to IDFI, a more open and interactive approach to public information on governmental websites may increase institutional trust, promote active citizenry as well as a belief in democratic government. In addition, a stronger desire for such information from the population and an interest in government activities may encourage more open government. What do you think?

Transparency International Georgia launches platform to fix your street

According to a poll CRRC conducted for the National Democratic Institute (NDI), 38% of the Georgian population says roads is the most important local issue for them. Sewage, streetlights and trash collection are other issues that the population finds important.

These are a findings that Transparency International Georgia (TIG) cites in a recent press release to announce the launch of the online platform FixMyStreet.ge (in Georgian chemikucha.ge). The idea is that when a problem is spotted on Tbilisi's streets, such as potholes in the sidewalk, you go to the website FixMyStreet.ge and report the problem. After you have filed a report of a problem, it is highlighted on an online map and the Tbilisi City Hall is automatically informed about the issue.

Online platforms to report issues in your community to get the authorities to quickly respond to them have previously been implemented in Western Europe and Canada. TIG's initiative now allows also Tbilisi residents to directly communicate problems on their streets with the Tbilisi administration, and monitor the authorities' response to the reported issues.

You will find all the information you need to start contributing to making Tbilisi a safer and more pleasant city at the FixMyStreet website.

Georgians on Abkhazia: What Is to Be Done?

By Sonya Kleshik

One of the previous CRRC blogs discussed some results from CRRC’s recent survey called “IDPs in Georgia” which gauged the opinions and attitudes of IDPs displaced from Abkhazia during the 1992-1993 conflict towards return, conflict resolution and justice. CRRC’s annual survey, the Caucasus Barometer (2010) also included a series of questions on Georgia-Abkhazia relations asked to the non-IDP population of Georgia. The results show that Georgians are divided on issues regarding justice and territory in the Georgian-Abkhaz conflict. Over half of Georgians either agree and very strongly agree that past injustices from the Georgian-Abkhaz conflict need to be addressed in order to resolve the conflict, while over a third either agree and very strongly agree that the injustices of the past should be left behind. This reveals a division among Georgians in what they feel is the best way forward regarding conflict resolution. This also indicates the difficulties that policymakers face in representing the interests of the population on the issue.

A closer look at the divide among settlement type reveals an interesting picture about differing attitudes between Georgians from the capital and rural areas, specifically. While the highest percentage of those who strongly agree that past injustices should be left alone are rural residents (50%), the largest percentage of those who strongly agree think that past injustices should be addressed live in the capital (47%).

Georgians were also asked about their opinion on the prospects of returning Abkhazia to Georgian control – whether they thought that the chances had increased, decreased, or stayed the same after the 2008 conflict. Forty-one percent of Georgians say that the prospects of return had decreased, while 35% said that prospects stayed the same.

Georgians, as divided as they are about how to deal with the past, seem to agree that the chances of returning Abkhazia are either the same or less than before 2008. What does this mean for Georgian-Abkhaz relations and for Georgian policymakers? How can these differences in opinion be reconciled? What makes the rural population more inclined to leave past injustices behind them and those in the capital to want injustices addressed?

Check out Caucasus Barometer 2010 for more data by clicking here.

Spreading the News: File Sharing through Mobile Phones in Armenia

How do multimedia phones affect the way media is consumed and circulated? Katy Pearce lays out interesting findings for the case of Armenia in the International Journal of Communication (5, 2011, pp. 511-528).

Amongst others, Pearce’s analysis relies on CRRC’s Caucasus Barometer (CB), illustrating the use of information and communication technology. The data indicates that Armenians are adapting to personal computers and the Internet more slowly than are individuals in neighboring and more economically developed countries. Only 14.7% of Armenian households own a personal computer, 77.4% of respondents report no basic computer skills, and 71% report no Internet skills. Web contents in the Armenian language are still limited.

The delay in some technological access also, paradoxically, fosters creativity: mobile phone usage is rapidly expanding and reached almost 81% in 2008. Especially the spread of multimedia phones since 2006 enables Armenians to substitute services that would be otherwise provided by personal computers. Pearce explores how Armenians share videos, pictures and audio files and in which way prevalent cultural norms foster social sharing. While most of the circulating files serve entertainment purposes, the author illustrates through selected cases how politically relevant contents play a role in population engagement – and are used within this realm by opposition activist groups.

For the full report, click here.

IDPs in Georgia – Attitudes towards return, conflict resolution and justice

Under which conditions would IDPs be willing to return to Abkhazia? Should past injustices be addressed or left alone? What do IDPs consider the main reasons for the outbreak of the war in the early 1990s? The research project “IDPs in Georgia”, conducted by CRRC for Conciliation Resource (CR) with the financial support of the European Commission’s Instrument for Stability, provide insight to these questions and many more.

The research targeted IDPs displaced from Abkhazia as a result of the 1992-1993 conflict and focused on attitudes towards return, conflict resolution and justice. It included a large representative survey of IDPs currently living in collective centers, and focus groups with IDPs in private accommodation.

On March 15, 2011, Magdalena Frichova from CR together with CRRC presented the results of the survey at the EU delegation in Georgia. In addition to EU representatives, the audience consisted of ambassadors, representatives of the Georgian government and several international NGOs. The presentation sparked a lively debate especially about the conditions under which IDPs would be able and willing to return to Abkhazia. The audience expressed interest in further analysis of the data that are now available for the public. The participants also pointed out the need for more evidence based research to serve as a basis for future policies on conflict resolution in Georgia.

The results were also presented to civil society representatives in Abkhazia. In particular, the Abkhaz audience was surprised to see that the percentage of IDPs who support the use of force to solve the Georgian-Abkhaz conflict is very small (6% say the conflict can be resolved by force, and an additional 20% say it can be resolved by force as a last resort). At a presentation for Georgian NGOs on March 14, the debate focused mainly on IDPs’ dwellings back in Abkhazia and the fact that the majority of IDPs would face problems with regard to housing if return were made possible today. This is because most IDP dwellings have either been destroyed or are now being occupied by others (approximately 75% in total).

The overall purpose of the project was to inform future policies on IDPs and displacement, as well as to specifically provide a starting-point for an objective debate. CR has produced an analytical report that is now available from their website, together with frequency tables and slides. The dataset and the methodology and fieldwork report are available upon request from CRRC - Georgia. Based on the survey results, CR will also produce a discussion package including policy recommendations that will be addressed to the international community and to the Georgian authorities. Keep your eyes open at the CR website and here at the blog – more material from the research coming soon!