Diaspora Internet Presence | Switzerland and Germany

One way of tracking how organised migrants abroad are is simple -- just check the web. During a less exciting conference presentation, we browsed how the people from the Caucasus represent themselves -- checking Germany and Switzerland, since these are less likely to offer a plethora of sites. As you might have guessed, Armenia stands out with the most organised webpresence. Let's look at what they are up to.

Armenien.am is very active, with a forum, and many events, And once you see that there is a "flirt area", the Armenian-Rhenish boat party will not really surprise you.


Certainly an active community!

In Switzerland, Hayastan.ch stands out. This is a Zürich group, young, with soccer games, volleyball, singing, an Armenian Summer Camp in Tessino, and a weekly language school. Knowing Switzerland well, I couldn't help noticing some very Helvetian traits, and not just in the fondue evenings. The website symbol combines the Zurich Churchtowers with Armenian colours



And then there is another Swiss group, too: more francophone, more political, with a lobbying component, for example asking Swiss election candidates for a detailed response on Armenian issues. Surely a balancing act for politicians, since there are Turkish voter groups as well.

You find them here. And again, some peculiar components: their major support the homeland project is... solar electricity.

Last stop, Armenien.de. A neat, professional site, based in Cologne, referring to local communities around churches, structured as incorporated associations. According to that site, there are 40.000 Armenians in Germany.

This isn't even exhaustive, just some snapshots. Next post: Georgian groups. They certainly are less visible. A Google search for "Zentralrat der Georgier" (roughly: "association of Georgians") returns:


No such Georgian hits! We are right back with the Armenian Central Council in Germany. It appears that in migration, the two cultures take very different directions in the level of their organization.

Ideally we'd like to measure that. Any creative suggestions how? (Number of mobile entries in migrants' mobile phones? Internet/Skype usage?)

Parliamentary Elections in Georgia | ODIHR Observation

With today's elections in Georgia, various themes come to mind. Certainly, elections have come a long way: by now, the Georgian government employs a series of highly qualified consultants, including Greenberg Quinlan Rosner of Clinton-fame, plus a Brussels-based PR firm, as well as working with experienced teams from the Baltics. This, then, is no longer the game of the 1990s, or 2003. Election observers know that they in turn will be observed, and maybe that's how it should be.

Note, also, the use of the Internet: so the United National Movement today is employing 150 minibuses to ferry voters around. And: they decided to put the number plates of these buses online. That doesn't make the move more popular with the opposition, but it's no longer the early-morning hush-hush thing of the past.


We're also currently working on a short paper arguing that OSCE's classical method of election observation needs to be overhauled. ODIHR, as OSCE's election observation arm is called, has an approach that has the feel of an undergraduate research project, and there is fairly little systemic thinking on how to do an observation well. While observers are briefed (often in tedious detail), there is no applied training on the minutiae of election observation. While there are legal, media, gender, minority analysts, CEC liaison, and security people there is no training officer.

In a good mission, the Long Term Observers will actually compensate for the institutional shortcomings. With bad LTOs (and having been on a fair number myself, it's noticeable how some dunderheads get recycled from mission to mission) it can be a farcical exercise.

Ultimately, research methods really matter: ODIHR (as OSCE's election observation arm is called) makes assertions about empirically verifiable facts, and this is precisely where social science methodology has come a long way.

Take this example from OSCE's Final Report on the Georgian Presidential Elections
Now, given that there were so many election observers out there (495 observers, that means almost 250 teams) a casual reader may assume that this is broadly representative: the count will have been bad in roughly 23% of stations throughout the country, right? Even if you do not draw this conclusion, test it out on friends or colleagues, and this is the assumption many will walk away with.

Now, as it ends up, that assumption may very well be mistaken. A team of election observers typically is visiting up to 10 polling stations on their observation day. They normally are instructed to pick a polling station in which they think "things will be bad" (politicized/ incompetent chairperson, some irregularities such as irreconcilable numbers during the day). As a result, there will be tremendous selection bias.

In other words, 23% of observers, untrained but looking hard, managed to find precincts in which counts were bad or very bad. Unfortunately, that number says little about what the percentage of precincts in the country is in which the count really was bad. It could be half that number, or even less (or more, given the lack of observer training!). An easy mistake to make, and just one example of what would need to be fixed in the reporting.

Time for ODIHR to undergo a rigorous external evaluation.

Creative Commons for the Caucasus! | A real opportunity

Many readers will already be aware of the concept of Creative Commons. The basic idea is to facilitate collaboration, interaction and people adding value to each other's online work. Creative Commons provides licenses for sharing easily, without giving up some of the author's basic rights. A great exposition of this entire concept is given by the founder of the entire idea, Lawrence Lessig, in an engaging TED talk (you didn't think that intellectual property rights could be that entertaining, did you?). See below.

Now that larger idea is extremely important in the South Caucasus as well. There is a lack of ideas, there's a lack of great materials for people to use, to teach, to read, to share, especially in the local languages. And conversely, there's little respect for authorship, and for the people that have created valuable content.

Introducing Creative Commons in the South Caucasus could be one step to alleviate this: not just by providing the licenses along the "build it and they'll come" expectation, but using the very process to advocate ideas of online interaction and sharing, and recreation.

And: this is precisely what Eurasia Partnership Foundation is about to do. They invite applications until the end of the month, hoping that some qualified groups will apply to port the licenses, and to popularize the concept. Hopefully, this will help to start the debate.

So for anyone interested in the web, or in Intellectual Property issues this really is a unique opportunity. Find a gang of like-minded people, apply, and get paid to popularize what you care about. Check the website of Eurasia Partnership Foundation for more detail. (The project is running in all the three countries, but I'm just linking the Georgian site.)

Here is the talk:

Caucasus Migration | US Immigration Services Annual Report for 2007

The US Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) recently released its annual report for the fiscal year 2007 on immigrant and nonimmigrant visas issued by the US Foreign Service posts worldwide. The report also includes data for US visas issued under various categories for the years 2003-2007.

The report shows a general increase in the numbers of both US immigrant as well as non immigrant visas issued worldwide. Thus, from 2003-2007 the number of immigrant visas issued worldwide has increased by around 16% (from 364,768 in 2003 to 434,374 in 2007) and non-immigrant visas by 30.5% (from 4,481,632 in 2003 to 6,444,285 in 2007).

The picture is a bit different across the South Caucasus. Among the three South Caucasus countries Armenia has the highest number of US immigrant visas granted annually. Moreover, from 2003-2007 this number has increased by 35% (from 689 in 2003 to 1062 in 2007), reaching its peak in 2007. Azerbaijan, on the other hand, has the lowest and more or less consistent level of US immigrant visas granted every year, varying between 230 and 294.

According to the report all three South Caucasus countries are considered a source of immigrant orphans, with Armenia leading the chart. But ultimately, numbers are comparatively low: 4 in Georgia, 5 in Azerbaijan and 32 in Armenia. Curiously, 2003 saw many orphan adoptions: 128 in Georgia, 62 in Azerbaijan in and 43 in Armenia.

If you want to see the full report, check it out here.

Subjective Well-Being in South Caucasus

How do people in the South Caucasus assess their well-being? What specific factors influence subjective well-being (i.e. self-rating of well-being) in these countries? How similar are these factors across the three countries, and are there significant differences with other transitional societies?

Elvin Afandi (2007 Fellow, CRRC-Azerbaijan), examined these issues using data from CRRC's Data Initiative survey for the year 2006. DI's "How would you describe the current economic condition of your household?" question allowed assessing subjective well-being of respondents who had to choose from "very poor", "poor", "fair", "good" and "very good".

Overall in the region, responses were distributed almost equally between poor/very poor (47% of respondents) and fair (48% of respondents). Cross-country comparison, however, revealed that subjective well-being in Armenia was more positive with more respondents identifying their economic conditions as fair, good and very good and less people identifying their economic conditions as poor and very poor than in other countries of the region.

Elvin's study suggests that impact of consumption poverty, unemployment, and inefficiency of social protection system on subjective well-being is much stronger in South Caucasus than in other middle-income transitional countries such as Ukraine or Russia. This is explained by economic recession in South Caucasus being more prolonged and more dramatic than in other middle-income transitional countries.

Some correlations are similar across the region. For example, being divorced, separated, widowed, being unemployed, and working in agriculture correlates with low rate of subjective well-being. Elvin Afandi suggests paying special attention to the fact that low subjective well-being is strongly associated with having negative perception of the past and future welfare. This may imply low upward mobility and chronic poverty.

Some variables, however, are more significant in some countries than in others. For example, being migrant in Armenia and Georgia has more impact on subjective well-being than in Azerbaijan. Interestingly, the study finds no effect of ethnicity on subjective well-being. It means that low subjective well-being is related not to ethnicity but rather to the fact that person migrated from another place.

Living in urban and rural places is more significantly correlated with subjective well-being in Azerbaijan and Georgia than in Armenia. It might mean that more dramatic urban-rural gap exists in these countries compared to Armenia.

Interest in politics positively correlates with the increase in subjective well-being. Correlation between withdrawal from discussing politics and low subjective well-being is significant in Azerbaijan and not significant either in Georgia or in Armenia. This might suggest higher risks of social exclusion of the poor in Azerbaijan.

Contact CRRC if you want to get in touch with the Elvin Affandi.

Diversity Polling on the Caucasus | Ask500

Sometimes it's worth clicking on those Gmail links. "Ask 500" is a website in beta, the web version of a straw poll. Polling? Surveys? Obviously I wanted to know more. To say it up front: it's about as unrepresentative as you can get, since it assembles those that suffer from terminal curiosity.

Playing around with it and discovering that so far this still is a small community, I posted a question on people's feelings about the Caucasus. I wanted to know whether people have positive associations (mythical, attractive), or rather negative ones (messy, dangerous, uncomfortable). And then providing some options in between. I also wanted to see whether this question will go anywhere, or whether tabloid interests will prevail.

It certainly is an attractive interface for seeing where the votes are:


Also, the comments function is particularly useful, a sort of focus group of the electronically vociferous.

Ask500 could become incredibly powerful in doing a quick review of an idea, checking it for mistakes. Put more succinctly, where a diversity of viewpoints is more important than representativeness, this approach could be a BIG THING (maybe not THE, but certainly A). It's interesting to see how the founders explicitly invoke Surowiecki's The Wisdom of Crowds as a starting point for their work.

What never ceases to amaze me is how technology DOES flatten the world. An instrument can still be under development in the US, and as long as you have an Internet connection, you already can take part. (Obviously, turning electronic into economic opportunity to alleviate poverty is a very different challenge. Unless you are a programmer.)

In the meantime, check Ask500 to see how responses to the Caucasus develop while the poll is open. Note that the Vote button is quite small: top right.

Exit Polls | Take Two

Readers may recall that we voiced some concern with regards to exit polls. Here is a fascinating account, first-hand, by a reputed pollster having what they describe as an "Adventure in Baku". It is a salutary tale, and again shows that exit polls are not the quick fix they often are believed to be -- even when organisations such as Mitofsky International, bringing extraordinary experience get involved. As the authors conclude:

"One should never go through an experience like this without taking away something for the future. The number one lesson here is that public polling is difficult to do for organizations other than the media and for organizations that have a long history of publication of survey results, regardless of the direction of the findings. This criterion is met in the United States by foundations that sponsor polls, many government agencies, and private companies. However, if one chooses to work, as we did, for organizations with no known record for open availability of the survey findings, caveat emptor."

Well, OK. And who outside the US (and in a transition context) meets these criteria? At a very minimum, the old virtues of total transparency are critical for getting it right. But even then, huge challenges remain that cast serious doubts on the accuracy of any such enterprise, especially in a really competitive environment. Who in their right mind would have serious confidence in nuanced district level results, given the extensive problems described?

Highly recommended reading (it's entertaining, too), you find the article here.

Georgian Party Archive: extraordinary Soviet History

Quite some time ago, Georgia has opened up the party archive of the Soviet period to researchers. This is a pretty unique resource for researchers. Georgia deserves particular praise for making that history accessible. Few countries of the CIS have made this important step.

Yesterday, the relevant working group launched their first Archival Bulletin, in Georgian and English. The working group consists of some employees of the Archive Department of the Ministry of Interior, as well as some engaged enthusiasts that dedicate much of their spare time to making historical materials accessible.


The launch in the well-done Museum of the Soviet Occupation was attended by some historians, foreign scholars and representatives of the Ministry of Interior, including Minister Vano Merabishvili.

Sure, there are various challenges in Georgia, and lustration remains a contentious topic. But releasing this material marks an extraordinary achievement. Many topics could be of interest. How, for example, did officials look at de-Stalinization? How do documents reflect the stagnation in later periods of the Soviet Union? And, countless tidbits: what do the archives show about various international visitors, such as Fitzroy McLean or John Steinbeck?

Ideally, let many people know about this resource. Some background on the Georgian Freedom of Information is here, and here is the link to the actual archive (Georgian only, so far). We will keep you updated.

Book Review: Georgia Diary: A Chronicle of War and Political Chaos in the Post-Soviet Caucasus | Thomas Goltz

This reviewer is not the first to review Goltz’s Georgia Diary: A Chronicle of War and Political Chaos in the Post-Soviet Caucasus. Most notably the Wall Street Journal lauded the book and the hardcover published by M.E Sharpe gathers teasers from a wide variety of noteworthy folks on the back cover.

However, for those new to Goltz, Georgia Diary forms the third part of a trilogy of books about the Post-Soviet Caucasus, the first two covering the bad old times in the 1990s in Chechnya and Azerbaijan. This last addition to the trilogy differs from the other two in that it is written long after the events at the heart of the book took place. In that sense, it will not be quoted in the same way in academic circles as Goltz’s earlier books were. Though some take issue with the sometimes anecdotal style of Goltz’s accounts, his work is widely cited and he often speaks to academic audiences on the topic of Azerbaijan.

Though Georgia Diary, may be quoted by fewer academics, Goltz attempts to be much more academic than he was Azerbaijan Diary. But the academic part of the book is not the book’s strongest and seems to pale in comparison to Tony Anderson’s Bread and Ashes, where the academic background makes Anderson’s trek through the high Georgian Caucasus all the more delightful.

Nevertheless, Goltz’s unforgettable fast-paced writing returns when he recounts time spent in Sukhumi before and during and after the withdrawal of Georgian troops from Abkhazia. This is Goltz at his best and his work serves to highlight for many the multiple angles of the Georgian civil war and the difficulty in writing about it clearly or classifying well from an academic perspective what exactly was going on.

For instance, the fact the supporters of the first Georgian President Gamsakhurdia were based out of Sukhumi created a complexity for those, under the banner of Eduard Shevardanadze, who were allied against Gamsakhurdia and in control of the Georgian military. While Abkhaz aligned forces were attacking Sukhumi, there was still a battle for territory in Western Georgia going on between those allied with Gamsakhurdia and those with Shevardnadze. As Goltz regales, these sides were known as the Position and the Opposition, however, which was the Position and which was Opposition appears to depend on what side you were on, and caused never ending confusion to outsiders trying to figure out what the heck was going on in a land so few in the West had ever heard of.

To someone familiar with Georgia, some of the mistakes slightly grate. The Russian use of the ploshchad instead of the Georgian moedani when Goltz claims to be speaking Georgian, the referral to Mingrelian as a dialect of Georgian rather than a separate language, or the mistranscription of the Georgian name Avtandil as Artvandil highlight Goltz’s self-proclaimed lack of familiarity with Georgia.

Nevertheless, all in all, Goltz adds yet another readable volume, to what is now his trilogy on the Caucasus.

This post is also published in the Georgian Times.

Migration in Georgia: Launching the "Development on the Move" Project

ISET and CRRC today launched the Development on the Move (DOTM) Project. The aim of this project is to map how migration impacts development in multiple dimensions. DOTM is funded by the Global Development Network, and coordinated by the Institute for Public Policy Research in London. 250 proposals from throughout the world competed to participate in this project, and we were extremely happy to be selected as one of the six winning teams.

Various stakeholders from the Georgian Government including National Bank, international organizations (OSCE, ILO, IOM), embassies, NGOs and leading Georgian researchers participated. Danny Sriskandarajah represented IPPR.


After introducing the project to the audience, a very focused debate followed, highlighting various migration impacts. These include remittance impacts on labor and real estate markets, changing gender roles in families, drug abuse in the absence of social control, de-skilling through low-level exploitative employment abroad, as well as various potential positive impacts, such as attitudinal change, language learning, and exposure to specialized education. (More exhaustive minutes will be available on request.)

A second component was a review of the existing policy gaps. There continues to be a mismatch between EU and local expectations. Citizenship, taxation and custom laws may discourage return migration. Embassies do not really serve as points of contact, but often are avoided, especially by undocumented migrants. Coordination of agencies, systematic gathering of quality data, and data sharing were also highlighted as particular issues.

We encourage anyone interested in migration to get in touch with us if they want to find out more about this project. We're planning a specialized mailing list, and migration-specific website for Georgia will be launched in the next few weeks by the Danish Refugee Council. More details about the international projects are available here.

Ironies of Rural Development Intervention

A story told by a researcher recently returned from Afghanistan, working on a development program. Here he is asking people in a village:
"How often do you clean out your irrigation channel?"
"Every time the NGO pays us."
"Well, when did they last pay you?"
"Two years ago."
"How often did you clean the irrigation channel before the NGO arrived to work in the region?"
"Every year."
Apocryphal as the story may be, it still is a wonderful illustration of how interventions can change the local calculus, substituting for local effort and thereby leading to bizarre, unanticipated distortions. That theme is probably relevant to many rural development programs across the region. If you have any similar stories, let us know.

Counting People Makes them Count | Richard Rose

Richard Rose, a renowned specialists in the field of Social Capital, is currently visiting Georgia to deliver trainings at CRRC. He offered a public lecture setting out the case for conducting surveys, and entitled "Counting People Helps Make People Count". Not that we needed convincing, but we still enjoyed the way the argument was set out.

As Rose argued, surveys give a direct voice to people, show how they are living, what they are thinking, and identifies both what the problems are and who has them. He contrasted this bottom -up approach with a top-down approach to policy, and suggested that it has a special place between journalism, which tells one-off stories and ethnography or anthropology, which tell complex stories that become difficult to generalize. Data, in other words, are the plural of anecdotes. A concrete example he offered was a survey conducted in Latvia, designed to focus on poverty among female pensioners. As survey results showed, this was a relatively minor problem, compared to child poverty -- an insight that can help to direct scarce resources.

However, there also can be a catch, when data is turned into a league table, since only one can ever be on top. All others can see themselves as losers, relatively speaking. Yet this realization does not need to invoke the particularism of Johann Gottfried Herder, who had argued that basically all comparison is disastrous. Instead, making progress is the relevant category. As Rose put it: "if you talk about league tables, the conversation is pessimistic. If you talk about making progress, you can focus on making changes". Little happiness lies in comparing oneself to Sweden, but tracking progress in overcoming destitution charts a concrete path to where one wants to go.

Packaged into the talk were many engaging tidbits: admonishments that typical poverty data is one-dimensional ("relative poverty as a curse of Fabian Socialism"); the observation that throughout the former socialist bloc answers to "do you feel freer than before?" remain quite sticky, in that the positive sea change is not forgotten; the curious observation that 58% of Turkish population appears worried about Christian missionaries; and that Russia after the collapse for a long time lacked the "why we are here" speech, something that in post-1945 Germany was easier to deliver. His curriculum vitae lists many of his relevant publications.

The overall outlook was quite optimistic, in that he saw extensive progress. Professor Rose is currently writing a book about Transition and After, which will reflect many of these themes. Currently he is offering a training course on designing Social Capital questionnaires. He also urged us to publish more results from our Data Initiative, which we will be doing over the next few weeks.

Tourism: Structure and Cost-sharing

A slightly specialized topic: what's the cost of tourism? Often suggested as a way of developing parts of the South Caucasus, especially Georgia, quickly, it's interesting to take a quick look, since in tourism many factors interact: business, environment, architecture, urban planning, societal habits, local versus national government, local and foreign expectations, and the challenge of reconciling all of those.

Gudauri, Georgia's main ski resort is an interesting example. It currently is being privatized again, after a previous privatization attempt did not succeed when the investor walked away after a few months, for a range of reasons, including local (they found it difficult to get all the land they needed to consolidate their holdings) and legal (apparently they were sued in a foreign court for a debt incurred by the Shevardnadze government, under an obscure clause).


In Gudauri the lifts are bundled together with the main Sport Hotel, as a single entity, a curious late 80s Austrian-Soviet venture. The bundling creates various problems: investments into the lifts may benefit all hotels and guest houses by bringing more visitors, but investment has to be undertaken by a single institution. The other hotels effectively are free riders.

This also raises issues at the end of season: now the lifts are beginning to run at a loss, with daily electricity costs about 600 GEL, and personnel costs of about 400 GEL, plus fuel costs for grading the pistes, starting anywhere at 300 GEL per day, depending on the weather. At a price per pass of 25 GEL, more than 60 skiers are needed in the resort, and as last weekend showed, it's barely more than three dozen at this time of year.

But: at this time of year, lifts start at nine o'clock (as opposed to ten, earlier in the season) and many people prefer to ski early before it gets too slushy, so that people now are even more likely to stay over, rather than drive up from Tbilisi. A few guest houses are actually full, and thriving. Of course, that money would dry up once the season is over, so the skiing is primarily kept to feed the guesthouses. Yet in the current structure, the lift operator still incurs a loss.

Generally, quality of service has seen a huge improvement in the last year, and the main variable is competent new management. But a lot of things still need to fall into place, and in the upcoming privatization one idea is to separate the lifts out, which may even be an option since this year for the first time the llifts have been making a profit.

In a way, the resort mirrors many of the intervowen challenges that need to be met (and who to meet them: national government? Local?), and in which growth typically throws up the next problem, such as the supply of drinking water to all the new buildings.

Armenia and Azerbaijan’s Performance | Millennium Challenge Corporation’s Meta-Index

A previous blog entry on Millennium Challenge Corporation’s Meta-Index, as you may recall, presented Georgia’s performance. For those who do not know, Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC) uses data from the research of various organizations such as the IFC, the World Bank Institute, UNESCO, Freedom House and others. Millennium Challenge Corporation recently released an assessment through its annual scorecard, which has three main policy categories: Ruling Justly, Investing in People, and Economic Freedom.

Unlike Georgia, were most of the trends are positive, trends in Armenia and Azerbaijan are not very consistent. Armenia has problems, especially in the Ruling Justly categories: the Political Rights, Civil Liberties and the Voice and Accountability are all in decline. The only two Armenian trends, which are currently improving, are the Primary Education Expenditures (UNESCO/National Sources) from the Investing in People category and the Regulatory Quality (World Bank Institute) from the Economic Freedom section.

Armenia

As for Azerbaijan, the news, according to the scorecard, unfortunately is pretty bleak. Most indicators are below the median, and some trends are declining further: among them, the Voice and Accountability trend, which was already quite low; the Inflation trend has increased, although, it looks as if that trend had been stopped in 2006. The Business Start-Up (IFC) and the Fiscal Policy (National Sources) are the only ones with a consistent increase each year.

Azerbaijan

For more info, click here. As always your comments welcome.

Focus Groups | some basic local lessons

We have recently conducted 20 focus groups across Georgia. (More on the content later.)

Here are some basic tips and tricks we found useful.

• Rewards: 15 GEL phone cards; that seems just about right: not overpaying, but still attractive.
• Recruitment: on the street, at sampling points a couple of days in advance; we get definitive agreement from 20 people, write down their phone number and address, and then send out a taxi to pick up the respondent before the event; we did NOT screen for articulacy and ended up with a few laconic focus group members, but never more than one or two per group. In future, we may ask a quick AND complex question (a typical screen is something like"if you could only pick one skill, which skill would you like to have, playing an instrument or a team sport? And tell us why?"), to select even better.
  
• Timing: amazingly, we started several of the focus groups EARLY since everyone was there already; so we turned the reserve away, with the 15 GEL phone card as a reward for showing up. Typically, groups ran 2 hours, and that worked fine.
  
• Numbers: we had 10 people per group, which was OK considering that we had some less outspoken participants; otherwise, it would have been just a bit too much; small things matter: narrow tables ended up isolating participants at the end.
  
• Discussion Guide: on that, we spent a lot of time. We think we got that right.
• Mirrors: nice to have, of course, but we opted for a camera, with a live feed (see photo) into the next room; we briefly thought about purchasing the cameras, but then decided the wiser course was to hire a professional local journalism organisation.
• Minority areas: for Kvemo Kartli and Samtske-Javakheti, we brought in facilitators from Azerbaijan and Armenia. Many people told us that you couldn't use Baku Azerbaijani language in Marneuli, but it turns out that our Baku-based facilitator got along very well (although some people seemed shy of her 'high' language, and responded in Russian); maybe this would change in rural areas, but in Marneuli city, Azerbaijani language is not an issue.
  
• We always had a facilitator and a note-taker, even if the latter is a bit of a luxury since we had full transcripts, it serves a good support function.

We hope others doing research will find some of this helpful. Any suggestions for good screening questions?

Brookings Index of Regime Weakness | State Rebuilding or State Collapse in the Caucasus | The Annals of Data

Yet another index was released recently -- Brookings Index of State Weakness in the Developing World. One professor of mine in graduate school, who was a veteran hot spot worker, related that all of the conflict professionals keep their eye on this map to see where they are going next. In this year's version of the index, however, it's where they already are: Somalia, Afghanistan, the Democratic Republic of Congo and Iraq top the list.

But how do the Caucasus fit in? A bit surprising, Azerbaijan (ranked 80th out of 141) is considered the weakest regime in the Caucasus. Indeed, the Azerbaijani government has accused Western governments of ranking Azerbaijan as worst on purpose.

So what's behind the Azerbaijani rating? Much of this is because of Azerbaijan's bottom quintile rating for the "incidence of coups" as well as it's relatively low scores (second lowest quintile) on all but one variable in the political basket। Such data gels with the findings from the Bertelsmann Transformation Index, which we recently wrote about. But what about the political coups? As it turns out, it is the number of political coups since 1992 as rated by the Economist Intelligence Unit and something call Archigos 2.8. But, why has Azerbaijan had more coups than Georgia? Deeper into the halls of data we go.

Archigos is a dataset collected by Professor Hein Goemans of the University of Rochester, which contains a massive dataset on "the date and manner of entry and exit of over 3,000 leaders 1875 - 2004 as well as their gender, birth- and death-date, previous times in office and their post-exit fate." So, what does this database have to say about coups in Azerbaijan? And why is Azerbaijan's coup rating so much higher than Georgia's, which arguably has had more coups of a sort?

Azerbaijan's higher coup incidence hangs on definitions. According to the rules laid down by Professor Goemans, as long as political succession happens according to the laws of the country, even if a leader is removed extralegally, it is not considered a coup. Therefore, when Shevardnadze was toppled in 2003, it was not a coup according to the database because Nino Burjanadze became interim president, as stipulated by the constitution.

Hence, under Archigos' definition Armenia has had no coups since 1992 and Georgia has only had one -- when Jaba Ioseliani took over the reins of power from Zviad Gamsakhurdia. Azerbaijan, on the other hand, has had two coups since 1992, according to the dataset: the ascension to the presidency of Isa Gambarov (now Gambar) and Əbülfəz Elçibəy (often written as Abülfaz Elçibay). Heydar Aliyev's ascension is not considered to be a coup by the dataset.

Comments on these categorizations of coups in the Caucasus most welcome!

Philanthropy in Georgia

Corporate Social Responsibility, a fashionable issue, is becoming a topic in the South Caucasus as well. CRRC research fellow, Giorgi Meladze, explored Georgian corporations’ generosity in his research undertaken in 2006.

According to official information received from the tax department, 210 companies have officially claimed philanthropic activities in Georgia. The amount spent on charity varied from 50 GEL to 100,000 GEL. Unfortunately of those 210 companies, only 79 companies responded to Meladze’s questionnaire, which probably is somewhat less representative than one would wish.

According to official data, banks and construction and pharmaceutical companies most actively participated in philanthropy, spending around 7,565,994 GEL on charity in 2005-2006. Almost half of this money was spent on monument conservation, cultural and sport activities and health projects. The majority of the surveyed companies do not have a clear strategy and spend money on charity spontaneously. Moreover, the companies do not require financial reporting on their activities. The surveyed organization named ineffective legislation as one of the biggest challenges to philanthropy. This hindered donors from spending more funds on charity. According to the Georgian legislation, only legal persons are eligible for receiving tax subsidies, and government recognizes only money donations as charity.

According to the findings, the most popular directions in philanthropy are:

• aid to orphanages and shelters for elderly people
• help to religious intuitions
• support to sport organizations (NGOs)

Even though companies might finance NGOs working in a similar field, few companies were interested in helping non-governmental organizations despite the fact that some large companies cooperate with them and use their services. [For further information on corporate social responsibility you can visi thet Eurasia Partnership Foundation website.]

We hope the government integrates Meladze’s recommendations into upcoming legislative amendments. For more info, you can directly contact the author of the research through our office.

PISA in Azerbaijan | Take 2 | great maths scores

In a previous post we wrote about the PISA scores of 15-year olds in Azerbaijan. As you may recall, PISA is an international test of competency, primarily focusing on reading, mathematics and science. Azerbaijan deserves particular praise for participating in this challenging international exercise: the results in science were not altogether flattering, but it's better to take part than to stand aside, and it can only be hoped that Georgia and Armenia will also be taking part soon.

At the time of posting, we received some comments that the overall performance was not so bad. Azerbaijani math scores, it was pointed out, were much better. Time, therefore, for another look. Indeed, Azerbaijan performs much better at mathematics. (If you want to see what is being tested, check the PISA sample questions.)

Azerbaijan does better than, say, Argentina, Bulgaria, Mexico, Montenegro, and even Turkey. Conversely, the Baltic states and Russia do better than Azerbaijan. For example, Russia has about 15% reaching Level 4 in Mathematics, and about 6% reaching Level 5 (on a scale from 0 to 6, with 6 denoting highest). Azerbaijan by comparison only has about 7% reaching Level 4 in mathematics, and less than 1% getting to Level 5.

Still, altogether this is highly encouraging news. However, there is one item that is a little hard to explain, and if anyone has any ideas, let us know: according to this OECD data, Azerbaijan has the best basic mathematics training of all participating countries. Only 0.2% do NOT manage to reach the Level 1, which is quite exceptional. In Liechtenstein, for example, a wholesome 4% don't make it to Level 1, in Romania 24%, in Bulgaria nearly 30%, in Brazil even nearly 50%. So with 0.2%, what exactly happened in Azerbaijan? Is it really a case of no-child-left-behind? But what, then, should Switzerland (4.6%), Japan (4%) or Denmark (3.6%) learn from Azerbaijan?

Does anybody know? Did the bad students just not turn up for the test?

Intravenous Drug Users in Tbilisi | Survey Data

As part of a four part series, Save the Children in cooperation with a host of other organizations have released reports from survey data they have collected from Female Sex Workers (FSWs) and Intravenous Drug Users (IDUs). All of the surveys are funded by USAID. This entry reviews the Tbilisi report on IDUs. If you are interested in the other reports, please contact us.

It has been a conundrum for many why the number of HIV infected is not higher in Georgia (Georgia is low prevalence country, less than 5%, as defined by UNAIDS, but data is weak, since surveillance is bad), since it is estimated that there are 250,000-280,000 IDUs in Georgia, which accounts for around 5% of the total population -- an astounding figure. To understand the dynamics of IDUs and its relation to HIV infection other diseases a Behavioral Surveillance Survey (BSS) has been carried out three times -- in 2002, 2004 and 2006. The survey methodology uses a referral method, since sampling IDUs is no easy task. While providing good information, it does no present a representative sample of these people and when discussing the data, one must keep in mind various biases in the data, which may be present. However, the data points to trends that are generally positive, and it may be that Georgia will be able avoid a much larger HIV crisis.

So, what did the 2006 data show? Similar to 2004, the report found stability in the type of drugs injected. Most IDUs in the sample report injecting Subutex and also having started to use Antihistamines. In 2002, however, most users reported using heroin.

Also, in terms of good news, 96% of those who reported having paid sex (30% of the male sample -- about the same as in 2004), reported using a condom. The number who pay for sex and use a condom is substantially up from 2004, which hopefully indicates and increase in awareness of the dangers of unprotected sex. However, males users report not using condoms with their stable sex partner. In other good news, knowledge about HIV among drug users is also rising, at least in the sample, however remains low overall. Only 37% of the sample could correctly identify the six mechanisms of transmitting HIV. However, only 15% of the sample in 2002 could do so.

On the bad news front, respondents who inject seems to be getting younger and younger. There was a 10% jump from 2002 to 2006 in the those who started injecting between 15 and 19 years old.

Again, if you are interested in the whole report, please get in touch.

Carnegie Research Fellowship Program!

CRRC is happy to announce the Carnegie Research Fellowship Program. The program offers exceptional social science research opportunities in the United States for scholars from the Caucasus.

Specifically, scholars in the social sciences may apply for individual, non-degree research opportunities at universities and institutes in the United States. The program is directed at advanced researchers that already have a demonstrated track record in social science research. The research period lasts up to a full semester (i.e. 4 months), starting either September 2008 or January 2009.

Up to three scholars from the South Caucasus will be selected, to join a prestigious program administered by the National Council for Eurasian and East European Research (NCEEER -- that is an awful amount of "E"s). All costs for the scholars are covered, including round-trip airfare.

Applications need to be handed in as hard copies. Deadline for applications is April 30, 5 p.m., 2008, to be handed in to your local CRRC office. We suggest applicants study details in the guidelines and the application form closely, and in good time, to avoid disappointment. Please be aware that we will NOT be accepting applications in the humanities or international relations, since CRRC focuses primarily on empirical social research.

Note that the application process is very competitive, since a very concise research proposal is expected. We therefore encourage you to take advantage of specific mentoring that we will provide, to help you improve your application. The Carnegie Research Fellowship should present an extraordinary chance to researchers that can advance their work through a period of self-directed study in the US, and we will be happy to coach applicants.

Register your interest by writing to nana@crrccenters.org now, and no later than March 21, to learn how we can help you make your application competitive.

USAID Political Party Assessment of Europe and Eurasia

Admittedly we forgot to post this earlier, but we believe it is even more important with the upcoming elections in Georgia.

Democracy International, contracted by USAID, released a report on political party assistance across Europe and Eurasia. In order to carry out fieldwork, they selected four countries (Serbia, Romania, Georgia and Kyrgyzstan). There were a wide number of selection criteria variables, including the fact that both party institutes, the International Republican Institute (IRI) and the National Democratic Institute for International Affairs (NDI), had to be present in the country. In effect, this created an endogeneity problem in the research design, where countries were studied not because of their inherent differences but because the US government had invested the most resources in them. Of course, one country from each region was also chosen ensuring regional variation but also decreasing variation along other axes.
The report is long and includes an impressive theoretical overview. I will discuss only three subjects, which may be of interest to blog readers and discussed in the research:1) the relationship between political party assistance and development 2) survey work and 3) democratization in Georgia. However, I would encourage anyone interested in how USAID operates in the region to read the report and to also analyze it for the subtexts, since all documents put out by the government (even if it is contracted) will attempt to glaze over (or at least cover up) some things.

1
An important theoretical point was raised in the report: almost no literature exists on causality between political party assistance and development. While many other aspects of democracy have been thoroughly explored, most notably elections, how party assistance shapes democracy is a area ripe for study. I think one of the main reasons this has not been studied is the necessity of long-term on the ground fieldwork to trace out the processes of political party development. Since a comparative basis is needed to do so, the work involved seems particularly overwhelming. This could be an interesting place to create teams of local researchers to work on the ground in a well selected group of countries, to trace these processes over time in a standardized way.


2
The article highlights survey work, which is in one of the areas traditionally covered under party assistance and alludes to the fact that surveying has often been overemphasized and targeted not at domestic constituencies, but at the international and development community. Conversely, the report argues that the nexus between the survey work itself and any public policy outcomes is crucial and should be the focus of any polling efforts. If anything, the report underestimates the lack of sophistication that parties have in interpreting these results and the basic lack of understanding that they have in basic research methods. However, I would argue that the answer is not to give up on this work, but to work much harder on helping local government understand the basis of social research. I also think that does not emphasize enough the role between an active research community and public policy research. While the main goal of public opinion research is to inform politicians, the quality of the research often comes under fire in the region and there is no research community capable of demonstrating the quality of the polling and falsifying claims by polling companies that are unskilled. In order to add this concept to that of major international funders, would involve a much more holistic concept of the notion of development, which is generally missing from the debate. Also missing is any mention of the importance of mixing both quantitative and qualitative methods in polling, since the questions asked on the polls also may need to be better refined that they have been in the past.

3
In the Caucasus, Georgia was chosen for the analysis. Interestingly, the report, while of course lauding the Rose Revolution, notes many of the shortcomings of the the United National Movement (UNM) as a party. It uses the term "bandwagoning" usually used in the field of international relations to explain domestic Georgian politics, in which, according to the report, all of the major forces in the country including the media and civil society elites have become closely affiliated with UNM. According to the report, "these bandwagon effects in societies with weak democratic institutions can produce cycles of political convulsion where an initially liberally-oriented dominant party, facing few challenges from an effective opposition, loses dynamism and popular support,thereby engendering new rounds of political revolution." This statement is worrying for the future of Georgian democracy and may help to put the recent Okruashvili scandal into starker perspective.

Again, the full report can be found here.

Book Review | The Post-Soviet Wars: Rebellion, Ethnic Conflict and Nationhood in the Caucasus | Christoph Zürcher

The earliest books that came out about the Caucasus after the collapse of the Soviet Union were firsthand accounts of events. Now, a second spate of books, which attempt to apply analytical frameworks to the turbulent events that occurred have the breakup of the Soviet Union are beginning to appear. Christoph Zürcher’s The Post-Soviet Wars: Rebellion, Ethnic Conflict and Nationhood in the Caucasus, published with New York University Press, falls into this category. The book examines where wars occurred in the Caucasus (Georgia, Nagorno-Karabakh and Chechnya) and where they didn’t (Dagestan and Ajara) and places those cases studies within the context of the international quantitative literature that attempts to explain why internal wars occur.

Those who are knowledgeable about the Caucasus will find much information they have already come across. However, for those interested in international conflict who possess little regional understanding, the tersely written detail provides a good overview.

To whet your appetite for some of the details about why wars started in the Caucasus, Zürcher argues that, in Georgia, anti-Soviet rhetoric allowed for no maintenance of Soviet institutions, increasing the likelihood of conflict, since state institutions utterly collapsed as a result. Furthermore, the fallback on nationalist rhetoric, which was seen as the only way of creating a cohesive political force, then alienated both Abkhaz and Ossetians. Zürcher, perhaps controversially, also claims that Armenian politics looked very similar to Baltic politics (and different from Georgian and Chechen) in that the same type of state weakness did not exist. However, Zürcher makes the claim, which has been echoed in much of the democratization commentary about Armenia, that instead of the Baltic states’ orientation towards Europe, Armenia’s politicians unified around war in Nagorno-Karabakh, creating an anti-reform minded regime.

From a more technical standpoint, the book is a rare breed within the political science literature, as it is specifically concerned about testing existing theories about internal wars by examining a series of cases studies. In doing so the volume seeks to refine those theories. While this type of book is out of vogue because the academic nomenklatura does not perceive the endeavor as groundbreaking, it serves an important role in refining theories, something Zürcher does throughout the book.

So what does Zürcher find in relationship to the international quantitative literature? Several variables that are generally cited as determinants of internal war do not appear to hold true in the Caucasus: low economic development and mountainous terrain do not help in explaining the conflagrations in the Caucasus. Despite the Caucasus being mountainous, most conflict occurred in urban environs or in the plains. In the conflicts where mountains played a role, the guerillas (which conflict theory supposes are aided by mountains) had the mountains against them. In fact, Zürcher seeks to refine the theory about the relationship between mountains and war and suggests several plausible alternative hypotheses, part of the intellectual merit of the book. One interesting hypothesis is that mountains are a proxy for the cheap recruitment of male soldiers, since mountainous areas often have high unemployment rates and hence a male population ready to mobilize.

The volume also reinforces the idea found in the international quantitative literature that state weakness often plays an important role – perhaps much more so than underdevelopment – as does the role of one ethnic group constituting the majority of the population. This ethnicity argument is well-highlighted with Zürcher’s case study of Dagestan, where ethnicity did not play the same role as in Georgia, Armenia or Chechnya, in part because of the fact that no ethnic group had a majority.

Overall, this reviewer found the findings sound, but would have like to see more analysis of some of the interesting proxy variables discussed above. This, however, could form the basis of a new and fruitful conflict research agenda in the Caucasus.

This book review was also printed in The Georgian Times.

Inflation in Armenia? | Lecture by IMF Representative

Readers here may not be aware that actually our Armenian CRRC also runs its own blog, to announce and describe CRRC's events. One of the most recent events was a lecture by the IMF Resident Representative in Armenia, Dr. Nienke Oomes.

Dr. Oomes discussed what is happening to prices in Armenia, and offered a very comprehensive analysis. For a quick overview over the event, click here. Her PowerPoint presentation, which sets out her argument in good detail and includes four recommendations (more effective inflation targeting, facilitating reduction of import prices, tightening fiscal policy, and increasing the public's knowledge of inflation targeting), is available.

One snapshot:



Curious? The full presentation, with 38 slides, is right here.

Bertelsmann Transformation Index | Using a New Interactive Tool to Analyze the Caucasus

Many of our readers know of both our quibbles with indexes, but also our steadfastness when it comes to posting about them. The Bertelsmann Foundation released its trademark index, the Bertelsmann Transformation Index (BTI) (PDF), which according to its producers, is "the global ranking of the quality of democracy, the market economy and political leadership in 125 developing and transformation countries."

The BTI itself is a the example of what political scientists would call non-parsimonious. The BTI is a combination of two sub-indexes, which are in themselves made up of a wide number of indicators. These indicators in turn are based on an even greater number of variables. I don't want to bore you, so I won't go into details but refer you to the methodological report (which does a great job of documenting their approach). To boot, each of the 125 countries has a 25 page report.

However, despite its lack of parsimony, the BTI provides several good ways of visualizing the developments in the Caucasus -- though, as always, indices have their limits.

Scales run from 0 - 10, with 10 denoting the highest score. Georgia ranks 6.60 (38th) on the Status Index and 6.36 on the Management index (23rd). It gets strong upward ratings in the trends as well. Armenia follows behind Georgia with 6.14 (41stt) and 5.41 (56th). However, it shows no changes, in terms of trends. Azerbaijan lags behind with a score of 4.51 (87th) and 3.83 (99th) and also shows no significant change in terms of the trends.

The next three graphs show the seventeen main indicators that make up the ranking divided into the "Status" and "Management" parts broken down by country.






One way of simplifying and comparing the information in the BTI is a unique interactive tool, called the transformation atlas, which can be downloaded from the Bertelsmann website. While at first slightly difficult to interpret, the atlas provides a good visualization of individual countries, and tells a convincing story about many of the countries development problems. The averages, however, are less useful.



This image shows Georgia compared to Romania (Georgia in blue). The images shows neatly how uneven Georgia's development has been in comparison with a recent EU accession state like Romania. The places where the area in blue is small denotes a lower score. Georgia diverges significantly from Romania here on the key issues of rule of law, socioeconomic development, welfare regime, political and social integration and sustainability of transformation, among others. Since the sustainability variable pertains to the quality of education and research institutions in the country and environmental protection, we agree that Georgia needs more work on these areas. All of these areas sync well with what commentators have noted to be many of Georgia's shortcomings. Georgian does notably well on resource efficiency and steering capability, which address the ability to implement change -- something Georgians have certainly been doing.

The Armenia comparison shows the change over time function. What stands out in the Armenian case, as compared to the Georgian or even the Azerbaijani is the lack of change over time, particularly since 2003, where much greater change is noticeable in other countries in the region. Of interest here is that there has been no change in the socioeconomic ranking despite Armenia's status as the "Caucasian Tiger." However, the socioeconomic development indicator is more concerned with income gaps across the population and social exclusion, and all of the South Caucasus countries do poorly -- scoring 4 across the board.


A comparison of Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan yield interesting findings related to oil rich countries. The first obvious fact is that Azerbaijan looks theoretically very similar to Kazakhstan. However, Azerbaijan finds itself at a slightly lower level than Kazakhstan. Unfortunately, multiple comparisons cannot be carried out at the same time, so we cannot examine this longitudinally with multiple countries. Unsurprisingly, Azerbaijan scores high on stateness and economic performance and other economy related variables and extremely low on indicators related to democracy (upper left corner). Surprisingly Azerbaijan has higher than expected scores (4) on the rule of law.

We encourage our readers to explore more on their own!

Armenian Election | IREX Media Survey

IREX has released a print media election survey a few weeks ago, and this offers an interesting glimpse into growing political engagement in Armenia. Readers of our previous surveys may remember that our data has suggested widespread cynicism in Armenia. Well, as various commentators have noted, the entry of Levon Ter-Petrosian seems to have re-energized political debate.

The survey is an excellent overview, including media consumption habits, and it comes quite well documented. We're a little surprised how they managed to find so many male respondents (almost 50%, when typically women are overrepresented among any sample), and we also would have been curious to hear about the non-response rate, but these are minor issues.

The survey suggests that secrecy of the vote still remains a major issue. If 30% do not believe that their vote is secret, this already has an impact on the integrity of the election itself. Also, a similar number says that they will not do anything if they are disenfranchised, i.e. if they are not given the chance to vote at all. A solid 56% comes prepared, saying that they always bring their own pen to the elections (as otherwise, there may only be a pencil in the voting booth). Much more food for thought is available in the overview, here.

More broadly, though, recent developments in Armenia make one cautiously optimistic: there is political competition and there are substantive debates. Arguably, apathy is not the default setting, and an engaged population also constrains the space for extensive electoral manipulation.

The short overview of the survey is in the link above, and a longer version, with some SPSS charts should be available from IREX (or also us, upon request).

Data Initiative Snapshots | Reading

Books, of course, are essential to knowledge transmission, and for creating a broader conversation within a society. They may be hyped, but bestsellers such as Freakonomics or Wisdom of Crowds disseminate new ideas that enrich our understanding of the world. So it is interesting to follow up reading as an essential cultural practice. We asked the question in the Data Initiative 2007: did you read a book in the last six months? And here the results:
Armenia, clearly, reads most. It would be interesting to follow up reasons for this (and we will do a few crosstabs for future posts). One explanation for the prevalence of reading is that Russian is still very popular. If you just read in local language, the offerings are quickly exhausted and The Tipping Point is unlikely to be on your reading list anytime soon.

This is not just an arcane point: the societies still live in a sort of information vacuum, and breaking this will be essential to economic, social and political development.

Alpha Version of CRRC Data Initiative now online!!!

The alpha version of our Data Initiative data set, broad household data, covering lots of household data, but also political attitudes, social development, some health, education, migration, and social capital questions (and more) is online now. We interviewed more than 8000 people, so this really is the single largest dataset that is available on developments across the South Caucasus.

Register here to receive access to the dataset. In case you don't receive the confirmation email, let us know. (You typically should be able to log in with your email-address and password even without getting that confirmation email, though.)

You need SPSS to process it (trial versions of SPSS that last for 14 days can be downloaded here; a hefty 202 MB, though), and if you want to find out how to use SPSS, we offer a quick crude crash course on our website.

More updates on the dataset soon. And let us know what you find!!!

The Global Broadband Speed Test

According to CRRC's 2007 Data Initiative 2007 (visit www.crrccenters.org), around 3% of the population have Internet access at home in Georgia; nevertheless, we were curious to know how fast these people’s Internet speed is across the Caucasus. Speedtest.net, which is identical to Ookla Speed Test, provides visitors with the opportunity to measure broadband connections. For more, visit the site.

According to Speedtest.net, the top Internet service provider in Georgia is Rustavi 2 Online with 713 kb/s (it seems to be outdated though). The top region by download speed is strangely Dushetis Raioni with 640 kb/s (please let us know if you know why). In Armenia and Azerbaijan the top regions by download speed are Yerevan and Baku, respectively. The fastest download speed is in Azerbaijan — 3184 kb/s (only best test scores are used for the ranking, so this is probably inflated). Of course, the Caucasus still lags quite a ways behind developed countries. Japan is number one for download speed according to Speedtest.net — it scored 11,237 kb/s .

If you want to find out the fastest Internet Service Provider close to you or elsewhere, wish to install this software on your computer, or simply are curious, click here .

If you test it from the Caucasus or have criticisms of the test, we’d love to hear from you.

Georgian Borderlands | Mathijs Pelkmans

Many social researchers working on the Caucasus bemoan the lack of good scholarly works on the region. However, one recent book, which is both excellent and readable, seems to have fallen under people's radars -- Mathijs Pelkmans' Defending the Border: Identity, Religion, and Modernity in the Republic of Georgia, which came out in 2006 with Cornell University Press.

Pelkmans' book is deeply embedded within the literature on the studies of borderlands. Using the case of Sarpi (and Ajara more generally), Pelkmans argues convincingly that the Georgian (Soviet) border was not like other borders treated in the academic literature, which were porous and where strong cross-border networks have and continue to play an important role. Conversely, the Georgian border still plays a strong role, despite the ease with which it is now crossed.

Sarpi, which is only part of the study, provides a fascinating place to study a the effects of a Soviet border. First, the village was split in half after 1921. Second, the community is the only predominantly Laz community in Georgia. Therefore, in practice, the community should have felt more oriented towards their Laz brethren on the other side of the border in Turkey, where the majority of Laz live, after the border reopened.

However, the Soviet Union did something incredible with their tactics for closed border zones. Despite the fact that those on the Sarpi side of the village still have relatives on the other side of the border and their families also used to have landplots across the border, the Georgian Laz hardly ever go across into Turkey. Furthermore, only two marriages have occurred between the two Sarpis and those only in the heady days right after the border opening.

So what happened? Pelkmans' book examines three types of bordering, the literal border, the border between Islam and Christianity and the relationship between an urban provincial capital of Batumi and its rural periphery. As a brief insight into the Islam/Chrisitian divide, Pelkmans discusses the many people within the community of Sarpi who have now converted to Christianity as part of Tbilisi's narrative of the temporary conversion of its people to Islam under the Ottoman yoke, and the book contains wonderful quotes to highlight the process by which these people chose to convert to Christianity. Furthermore, Pelkmans examines the perceptions of the Turkish Sarpi "other." Those on the Georgian side of the village feel that their brethren on the Turkish side of the border have lost their Laz identity and become turkified. Indeed, they often refer to them as Turks. Conversely, as Pelkmans notes, the Georgian Laz have lost many of their cultural traits as well.

You will have to read the book, to get insight into the other types of bordering. However, in short, Pelkmans argues that religious, spatial and cultural borders have come together to create a border that still exists in the minds of the residents of Sarpi.

A follow up study on the other side of the village would prove fascinating, but for the time being Pelkman's account is a wonderful read.