Gender Attitudes in Azerbaijan

In February 2012, CRRC conducted a survey entitled “Social Capital, Media and Gender in Azerbaijan”, which was funded by the Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency (SIDA). People were asked about gender roles, division of labor and participation of men and women in domestic and public life. The results show that most Azerbaijanis express traditional attitudes.

According to the survey data, over half (67%) of the Azerbaijani population considers the main task of a woman to take care of the home and cook for her family. Moreover, 57% agree to the statement that being a housewife is just as fulfilling as working for pay, and 61% think the children suffer when a mother works for pay.

 

With regard to the division of labor within the household, 85% of Azerbaijanis think that changing diapers, giving kids a bath and feeding children are the mother’s responsibility. When asked about what tasks they were taught when they were children or teenagers, 96% of Azerbaijani women mentioned routine domestic chores such as cooking and cleaning (32% of men said the same). In contrast, 74% of the men said they were taught how to fix home appliances (21% of women said the same). Thus, the data indicates that the attitudes about gender roles as well as the actual behavior within the family are rather traditional in Azerbaijan.

The survey results show that there is an unequal level of participation between men and women in public sphere. There is generally less female involvement. 63% of the Azerbaijani population said that on the whole men make better business executives and political leaders than women do. Furthermore, 58% agree to the statement that men should have more right to a job than women when jobs are scarce. Nevertheless, 83% of the Azerbaijanis say they would vote for a woman candidate in the next parliamentary elections (all things being equal), and 59% think that the current number of women members of the parliament (19 out of 125) is too few. This reveals that the Azerbaijani population is not generally disinclined to have women in important positions, yet men are still more represented in politics and the labor market.

Surprisingly, just over half of the population thinks that gender equality in Azerbaijan has already been achieved for the most part. However, women are less likely to agree to this statement (45%) than men (59%).

In summary, CRRC data indicates that traditional gender roles persist in Azerbaijan. The findings show that the population’s attitudes towards gender equality are a bit ambiguous. Many people express traditional attitudes about gender roles, division of labor and participation of men and women in domestic and public life. Yet, much of the population also thinks gender equality has already been mostly achieved. This indicates that the perception of gender equality differs from the actual distribution of gender roles.

Georgia: A Liberal or Socially Conservative Country?

How justified is it for Georgian women to bear a child or have sex outside of wedlock? Is the Georgian population tolerant towards homosexuals? What are views on issues such as these in the light of the western-oriented political course of the country? How do men and women compare in terms of liberal attitudes? To address these questions, this blog post presents the results from two waves of a nationwide public opinion survey entitled “Knowledge and Attitudes toward the EU in Georgia” conducted by CRRC in 2009 and 2011. The data indicates that attitudes towards women having sex or bearing a child without being married have slightly changed in a more liberal way over the past two years, yet social conservatism remains deeply rooted in Georgia. Georgians remain generally unaccepting of homosexuality. Also, Georgian women seem to have more conservative attitudes towards particular issues than men.

Social values are quite static and two years is a very short period to speak about value changes. Yet the data still suggests some interesting trends indicating that certain values related to women having sex or bearing a child without marriage are slightly changing in a more liberal way, while other attitudes such as tolerance of homosexuality remain unchanged. CRRC data shows that 50%-64% of Georgians think that it is never justified for an unmarried woman to bear a child or have sex. Also, vast majority of Georgians think homosexuality is never justified.

As the chart shows, the number of Georgians who think that it is always or sometimes justified for a woman to give birth without being married has increased from 30% to 42%, while the number of people who think it is always or sometimes justified for a woman to have sex before marriage has increased from 15% to 28%. When the same question was asked about men in 2011, over half (57%) of the population said that it is always or sometimes justified for man to have sex before marriage. These results suggest that to some, men having sex before marriage is more justifiable in Georgia than woman doing the same. These slight changes within the past 2 years cannot be generalized to the entire range of social questions asked in the survey.  For example, 90% of Georgians think that homosexuality can never be justified and this result has remains unchanged since 2009. This is one indicator that social conservatism is still deeply rooted in Georgia.

Examining the data by gender shows that Georgian men and women equally condemn homosexuality and their attitudes related to woman bearing a child without marriage are also similar. However, there are some differences in values related to people having sex before marriage by gender. 

The data indicates that having sex before marriage is more justifiable for men than for women. 33% of Georgian men think that is always justified for a man to have sex before marriage, while this share decreases to 18% for women to do the same. However, it is also worth noting that 25% of Georgian men say that a man having sex before marriage can never be justified.

When asked about women having sex before marriage 57% of Georgian men think this is never justified and 70% of Georgian women say the same. Thus, Georgian women are even more conservative on this question. Moreover, over half (51%) of Georgian women agree that is always or sometimes (percentages added) justified for a man to have sex before marriage, while only 25% think that this can be justifiable for a woman as well.

The results suggest that even though there is a slight shift towards liberal values concerning women bearing a child or having sex without marriage, social conservatism still prevails. Tolerance of homosexuality remains extremely low over the past two years. Exploring the data by gender shows that while men and women share similar values and attitudes towards certain issues such as homosexuality and woman bearing a child without marriage, Georgian women have more conservative attitudes towards having sex before marriage than men.

The questions discussed in this blog post can be considered sensitive in Georgian society. Yet, these results are a good starting point for a healthy discussion on these issues. Feel free to share your thoughts with us and find out more on this topic via CRRC’s Online Data Analysis tool.

Counting Crowds & Crowds Counting | Jacobs' Method

During the last 25 years Georgian capital has experienced a diverse history of political meetings in its central areas including peaceful demonstrations, rallies with radical political demands, “tent towns” and so forth. The higher the attendance, the more legitimate the protests are often seen to be. As a result, the figures themselves usually are contested, sometimes in significant controversy.

This discussion has now been revived, after the new political coalition around Bidzina Ivanishvili started its full-scale entry into politics by gathering supporters on central Freedom Square of Tbilisi. Widely varying estimates of attendance numbers have been put forward. The Georgian police estimated the size of crowd as 30 000, supporters of Ivanishvili’s Georgian Dream claimed that about 300 thousand people gathered on Freedom square, however, independent observers suggested 80 thousand attendees had come to the rally.

So how does one approach crowd size systematically, short of counting every single head in the crowd? One robust method has been suggested in the 1960s by Berkeley journalism professor Herbert Jacobs who employed this approach to count the number of protesters against Vietnam War at his home university. According to this method, the area should be divided into smaller sections in order to assess how loosely people stand in the crowd. If people stand at an arm’s distance, one person will cover 0.93 square meters. In a second case, when people stand close enough but not pushing each other, the area taken by one person is estimated 0.42 square meters. And finally, in a tightly packed crowd 0.23 square meters are covered by one person, or, putting it differently an estimated four people are in one square meter.

In order to describe how Jacobs’ method is used for crowd estimation, we divided the entire space of Freedom square and neighboring streets into 29 parcels. Then we calculated the areas of the parcels using geographic information systems (GIS) and tried to analyze two photo images taken from Georgian Dream’s official Facebook page. The photos show 13 parcels in the central and southern part of the square and consequently, estimates are done only for these areas.

The analysis is based on visual assessment of density in the parcels, following Jacobs' method. Where people are

• standing tightly we assigned the score 0.23, 
• crowded but not pushing each other, we assigned the score 0.42 
• standing in a distance of one person’s arm, we used the score of 0.93. 

Rough estimates show that in the moment of taking photos there were about 31.000 in 13 parcels alone, with many parcels uncounted. 

Now, several remarks on these numbers:

1. Jacobs' approach only yields rough numbers, +/-20%. 
2. numbers work both ways, as various people have pointed out; it may be worth coming to some sort of consensus in Georgia how many people Freedom Square holds when it's crowded, and then apply that consistently.
3. ultimately, quantity is not legitimacy; a protest that is conducted civilly and that gets people to engage and discuss is plenty legitimate, so the entire numbers game is a bit problematic, and not only in Georgia.

That being said, we think the Jacobs method is as good as it gets, for quick assessments. Since we only counted 13 parcels, out of 29, and want to make this method more broadly available, we encourage our readers to be involved! Crowds can help count crowds.

Use our raw materials to assess the number of attendees. Download the spreadsheet, use the robust Jacobs method, and send it back to us when you are done. Also, feel free to send your comments and estimations, the topic is open for discussion!

Caucasus Barometer data in Slate | Kendzior & Pearce

Sarah Kendzior and Katy Pearce have summarized some of the points they made in their fascinating academic paper on Internet and dissent in Azerbaijan for an article in Slate.

(And we are glad to say they used some of our data.) Katy regularly examines the question on how the Internet impacts various parts of life, and has been great at mining the Caucasus Barometer for interesting insights. Find more of her work on her blog.

The Slate article is definitely worth a read, and right here.

Women in Parliament: How Do Georgia, Armenia and Azerbaijan Compare to Other Countries?

Expanding on the topic of a previous blog, this post compares statistics on the number of women in national parliaments in the South Caucasus and other areas of the world. The countries of the South Caucasus rank low on women’s participation in parliament compared to many other countries. Introducing quota systems has shown some success in certain countries as it has led to an increase in the number of women in parliament. Yet, such quotas require careful consideration of local resources and cultural factors. According to a recent article in the Economist, women currently hold almost 20% of the world’s parliamentary seats—up from 17.2% in 2007. The Economist provides the following chart based on data from the Inter-Parliamentary Union.

As the chart shows, Rwanda, Sweden and South Africa are leaders in terms of the percentage of women in parliament (well above the world average of about 20%). Brazil, Panama and Egypt have the lowest percentages of women in parliament on the chart, with Egypt having less than 2% women in its parliament. A more comprehensive list of countries can be found here. 

How do Georgia, Armenia and Armenia rank? With 6% of women in its parliament Georgia stands between Egypt and Panama. Compared to Georgia, Armenia and Azerbaijan have a higher share of women in their parliaments – 9% and 16%, respectively. However, all the three countries of the South Caucasus are well below many European countries—especially the Nordic countries which have the highest percentages of women in parliament (the average is 42%). 

The article in the Economist suggests the effectiveness of a quota system. Last year 17 countries had quotas for women out of 59 countries that held elections. There was about a 10% increase in the number of women in parliament for those countries with quotas compared to those without quotas. However, the institution of a quota system is not without contention. Quotas are related to largely-debated moral or attitudinal issues such as affirmative action. For example, see a critical review of the quota system in Central Asia: “Do Central Asia’s Gender Quotas Help or Hurt Women?” 

Should the South Caucasus follow the example of several other countries and set a quota system? And to be more critical - Are women in the South Caucasus willing and ready to occupy 20% or more of parliamentary seats? 

Bela Tsipuria on the Post-Colonial Aspect of Georgian Literature

In a recent W-i-P seminar, Bela Tsipuria, now Professor at Ilia State University, and previously Deputy Minister of Education and Science, made a compelling case for understanding Georgian literature as a post-colonial phenomenon. Here is a summary of the talk to inspire readers to follow up, even if its brevity will not do full justice to the nuance of the talk.

Georgia is not always described as a classical colony, as it was closely intertwined with Russian and later Soviet elites. Yet, as Tsipuria argues, Georgia had many of the key features of a colony. It lacked sovereignty, had no borders, was administered by a significant non-Georgian elite, with politics and even culture dominated by an Imperial center.

Georgian culture and literature thus developed in response to this colonialism, that arrived at the same time as modernity. As the state could not develop Georgian identity, it was left to culture to define Georgia -- thus the central role of writers, as reflected in street names in cities throughout Georgia. According to Tsipuria, the debate to which extent the state can be trusted to take the lead in society, continues. Eventually Russia became a liminal space, on the side, as Georgians tried to define themselves toward a European vision of modernity, under the theme of "relocating Georgia".

Briefly modernists defined their own space in the First Georgian Republic, as a cultural oasis, bringing together Georgian, Russian, Armenian and even Polish avantgardists. This glimpse of free modernism was post-colonial in various ways, in its assertion of experimentation and freedom. Yet this moment was snuffed out quickly with the Soviet take-over. Seeking to assert its own artistic vision, the Soviet Empire centralized cultural production, suggesting and even enforcing its approach, duplicating via mimicry, and marginalizing alternatives.

The symbolists tried to fight back. Tsipuria highlights how some of the artists used the facade of Socialist Realism to introduce their own national and modernist symbols. While much of that spirit was purged in the 1930s, a double narrative came back after the Second World War, that was both Soviet and personal, characterized by ambivalence. The double narrative created a rich texture, and creative tension, but also, Tsipuria said, created a double discourse, some of which still creates challenges for current debates in the country, in "how to manage the reality that the new freedom grants".

Interested in attending or even presenting in these sessions? The easiest way is to join the Works-in-Progress group on Facebook.

Public Opinion about Women in Parliament in Georgia

Since Georgia’s independence in 1991, the participation of women in Georgian politics has been very low. The number of women in government has diminished since 2004 and currently women comprise only 6% of the Georgian parliament. The reasons behind such statistics can vary from cultural to institutional factors. Cultural factors including gender stereotypes are more fundamental and difficult to change while institutional factors can be constructed through a variety of mechanisms (e.g., introducing quota systems, changing the electoral system, nomination methods within political parties, or increasing political funds for women). This blog looks at public opinion in Georgia on one aspect of women’s participation in Georgian politics--women in parliament. CRRC data from a 2011 survey on Voting and Political Attitudes in Georgia indicates that while just over half of the Georgian population would vote for a woman candidate (all things being equal) and think that men and women perform equally on elected positions, 31% of Georgians still find the number of women in parliament about right. 

The 2011 (September) survey conducted by CRRC on behalf of NDI asked Georgians whether or not women perform better than men. Just over half (56%) of Georgians answered that women and men perform equally and 21% said men perform better than women. Examining the data by gender does not change the general picture much, but it still provides some additional information regarding attitudes.

As the chart above shows, over half of both men and women think that men and women perform equally. However compared to men, women are slightly more likely do so. On the other hand, compared to women, men are more likely to think that men perform better than women. This data indicates that women in Georgia are more likely to think that women and men perform equally in politics while men remain more sceptical towards women in parliament. This trend is supported by answers to the next question.

The general picture is that 68% of Georgians say they would vote for a woman candidate in the next parliamentary elections all things being equal, 15% say no and 17% do not know. However, as the chart shows, women are again more likely to vote for a women candidate (all things being equal) than men.

Even though over half of Georgians (irrespective of their gender) are positive that men and women perform equally and would vote for a woman candidate in the next parliamentary elections, their attitude regarding the current number of women in parliament is confusing. Evidence from CRRC data indicates that 31% of Georgians find the current number of women members of parliament (9 out of 150) about right and 23% do not know whether this is too few, too many or about right. 

Examining the data by gender revealed only one difference in the “too few” category. Compared to men (34%), more women (43%) think that the number of women members of parliament is too few. This fits well into the general trend that compared to men, women are more likely to view men’s and women’s political performance as equal. 

This data shows Georgian attitudes towards women in parliament to be a bit ambiguous. Over half of Georgians think women and men perform equally and they would vote for a women candidate (all things being equal), yet only 31% think that 9 women out of 150 members of parliament are too few. Why do you think this is the case? Is the low level of women’s participation in Georgian politics a matter of institutions or is it culture that determines such numbers? We would like to hear your thoughts.

Interested in finding out more about gender attitudes in the South Caucasus? CRRC has got lots of data on gender related issues and it is available and free for you on our Online Data Analysis tool. Try it out!

Getting information from the internet – how does it affect Georgians’ views?

Many characteristics of the Georgian population are changing, but perhaps none as drastically as internet usage. Looking at data from the Caucasus Barometer, in only three years the estimated proportion of the adult population using the internet at least once a week has grown from an estimated 23% to an estimated 41%: 

Since having access to the internet drastically increases the amount and varies the type of information available to people, the question of political implications naturally follows. As Georgians begin accessing information from online sources, how are their assessments of their governments and others changing?

In order to address this question, we can separate the population into two groups. One group is those people who access the internet at least once per week and report utilizing it for the purpose of searching for information, consuming news, writing or reading blogs, or engaging in forum discussions. The second group is those people who either don’t regularly access the internet, or who use it for purely recreational activities such as online gaming.

Let’s compare the two groups’ views on their government in the 2011 Caucasus Barometer. Here are five questions asked in the survey that measure respondents’ perception of the level of fairness and freedom of information in Georgia:

• Under the present government in Georgia do you completely agree, somewhat agree, somewhat disagree, or completely disagree that people like yourself are treated fairly by the government?
• To what degree does the court system in Georgia treat all citizens equally or to what degree does it favor some over others?
• Would you say that the most recent election was conducted completely fairly, to some extent fairly, or not at all fairly?
• In Georgia today, do you think or not that people like yourself have the right to openly say what they think?
• How well do you think TV journalists in Georgia inform the population about what is actually going on in Georgia?

Interestingly, not a single one of these five questions were answered significantly differently by the two groups! This suggests that consuming information from online sources does not paint a substantially different picture of Georgia than that painted by sources available via TV and newspaper. One area where we do find significant differences between those who collect information online and those who don’t, is in their perceptions of Europe. Looking at the most extreme views on EU integration, those who either don’t support integration at all or fully support it, the proportion of the population that gets information online has significantly greater support for integration. 

The same pattern holds with support for NATO integration, but does this trend hold outside of politics? Interestingly, it does. On the subject of inter-ethnic marriages, CB respondents are asked whether or not they approve of women of their ethnic group marrying members of other specific groups. When asked about domestic ethnic minorities such as Azerbaijanis living in Georgia and Armenians living in Georgia, the opinions of those who get information from the internet are not significantly different from those who do not. However, when asked about inter-ethnic marriages with members of European nations, opinions differ significantly. 

 The fact that the approval of interethnic marriages by those who get information from the internet is significantly higher with respect to Europeans but not with respect to domestic ethnic minorities suggests that the issue is not simply one of internet users being less socially conservative. In fact, respondents who got information from the internet were actually slightly more likely to say that both abortion and homosexuality were never justifiable, although the differences were not statistically significant. So, rather than simply being more liberal, it seems that people who get information from the internet are more open specifically to Europeans. 

In summary, the data suggest that while people who get information from the internet do not perceive their own country differently, they do perceive Europe more positively. Why might this be? Could it simply be because they have access to more information about Europe and thus feel more comfortable with Europe as a partner? Or could it be that they are actually receiving more positive messages about Europe via the internet? Or, could it be due to another factor or combination of factors altogether?

One way to look into this question in more detail may be by examining the Media Survey, which CRRC conducted in 2009 and 2011. Both data sets are for download at http://crrc.ge/data/, and for online data analysis at http://crrc.ge/oda/. The survey includes many questions regarding the channels through which respondents receive information, and also includes questions assessing the accuracy of media sources and measuring levels of trust in various governmental and international bodies. 

Readers are invited to respond with their own theories and data analysis to support them, and we’ll publish a blog post on one of the responses. Please send your ideas and preliminary analyses to lucy.flynn@crrccenters.org by Monday, May 21^st, and feel free to contact me sooner if you have any questions.

Political Participation and Democracy in Azerbaijan

For a functioning democracy, democratic attitudes are important as well as basic political rights. Attitudes toward democracy and participation in political life show the extent of a population’s support to and the legitimacy of a democratic system. The 2011 Caucasus Barometer provides insight to what people think about democratic principles and the democratic process in Azerbaijan. The data shows that voting in elections and democracy (as a political regime) both receive approval by over half of the population. However, particular political actions such as participation in protests receive only little affirmation. Furthermore, the current political system in Azerbaijan is not perceived to be an effective democracy by most Azerbaijanis.

The survey shows that institutional forms of participation such as voting in elections are perceived to be important by 64% of Azerbaijanis. In addition to considering voting very important, 62% said they voted in the last national election and 74% said they certainly or most probably would participate if presidential elections were held that following Sunday.

However, less institutional forms of political participation such as protests receive little support. Only 7% of the adult Azerbaijani population strongly agrees and another 21% agree to the statement that, “People should participate in protest actions, as this shows the government that the people are in charge”. In contrast, 16% very strongly agree and another 32% agree that, “People should not participate in protest actions against the government, as it threatens stability in the country”. The data indicates that support for this type of political involvement is rather low in Azerbaijan.

Regarding general attitudes towards democracy, the data reveals that the majority of Azerbaijanis do not perceive their country to be a full democracy. As the chart shows, 14% do not consider Azerbaijan to be a democracy. 30% think that their country is a democracy but with major problems, and 31% believe the country is a democracy but with minor problems. Only 10% think the country is a full democracy.

Even though the general public opinion is that Azerbaijan is not a full democracy today, just over half of the population supports a democratic system. According to the data, 52% of the Azerbaijanis prefer democracy to any other kind of government. In contrast, 14% say there are some circumstances in which a non-democratic government can be preferable, and another 18% say it does not matter what kind of government they have.

Thus, the results indicate that institutional forms of political participation such as voting have more approval than less institutional forms such as attending protest actions. Furthermore, people in Azerbaijan seem to support the idea of democracy although the majority holds that their country is not a full democracy yet.

Ethnic versus European Identity: The Case of Georgia

As Georgia seeks a course of European integration and eventual membership in the European Union (EU), it is important to examine the Georgian population’s understanding of its own identity. CRRC data from a 2011 survey entitled Knowledge and Attitudes toward the EU in Georgia shows that a majority of Georgians (88%) think Georgia should be in the EU. But do Georgians share a European identity in addition to strongly supporting EU membership? The data shows that ethnic Georgian identity remains the prevalent sentiment in Georgia despite strong support for EU membership and the fact that just over half of the population agrees with former Georgian prime minister Zurab Zhvania’s famous phrase -“I am Georgian, and therefore I am European”. 

59% of Georgians in 2011 say they agree with Zhvania’s statement, but the picture changes dramatically when Georgians are asked about how they identify themselves more specifically. Only 16% of Georgians identify themselves as both Georgian and European, whereas over half (60%) identify as their own ethnicity only—a result more or less unchanged since 2009. Moreover, the number of people who identify as both Georgian and European comes quite close to the number of people who identify as their own ethnicity and as generally Caucasian. 

Even though identity is considered to be a relatively static variable, examining the data by age groups offers interesting insights about identity change in Georgia. The analysis shows that compared to older age groups, younger people in Georgia are more likely to both agree with Zhvania’s famous phrase and identify themselves as European. 

Moreover, the proportion of those who identify as both their own ethnicity and European is greater in the age group 18-35 than in older age groups. Even though just over half (58%) of Georgian people aged 18-35 identify only as Georgian, they are more likely to identify as both Georgian and European (25%) and are less likely to identify as both their own ethnicity and as Caucasian. These results indicate that the incidence of Caucasian identity decreases with age among Georgians, while the frequency of claiming European identity increases in younger generation. In other words, a general Caucasian identity is gradually changing along with European identity among Georgians, however ethnic identity still prevails. 

Note: “Don’t know” and “Other” answers have been excluded from the analysis.

CRRC data indicates that over half of the Georgian population identify as their own ethnicity only. Even though many Georgians agree with Zhvania’s phrase, few Georgians actually identify themselves as both their own ethnicity and European. This demonstrates that they may consider these identities to be compatible. Further analysis also indicates that young people in Georgia are the forerunners in adopting European identity. Perhaps the younger generation is more affected by strong socialization agents such as media, advertisements and consumption models that reinforce European identity. What do you think?

Interested in finding out more about Georgian attitudes towards the EU and related issues? You can access the survey’s associated report here. Both datasets are free and available online at the link above. You are also invited to explore the dataset on CRRC’s fun Online Data Analysis tool.

Georgian get-togethers: Private Problems versus Politics

In September 2011, CRRC on behalf of Eurasia Partnership Foundation and EWMI G-PAC conducted a nationally representative survey on Volunteerism and Civic Participation in Georgia. Georgians were asked how often they get together and discuss private problems and politics with their friends and relatives (who do not live in their houses). The results show that while Georgians meet their relatives and friends quite often, the frequency of political discussions among them–one of the indicators of political motivation and involvement—is rather low.

Note: The question “How often do you get together with your close friends?” was only asked to respondents who said they have close friends (92%).

As the chart shows, Georgians meet their close friends more frequently than their close relatives; just over half get together with their close friends at least once a week and 46% meet their close relatives at least once a month. Even though the frequency of get-togethers with close relatives is lower than the frequency of meeting close friends, many Georgians are comfortable sharing their own private problems with their close relatives. 45% of the adult Georgian population always discuss their personal problems with their close relatives when they get together. 

Note: (1) This question was only asked to respondents who get together with their close relatives at all (98%). 

(2) The original ten-point scale is collapsed to a five-point scale.

However, the picture changes dramatically when the question concerns politics. Over half of the adult Georgian population never discuss politics with their close friends or relatives. People in Georgia seem to prefer discussing their own private problems with their close relatives rather than politics–an issue that concerns everyone. The picture remains the same when Georgians are asked about how often they discuss politics with their friends when they get together. Georgians are equally reluctant to discuss politics with their close relatives and friends. This indicates that this aspect of political involvement is rather low in Georgia.

Note: (1) The question “How often do you discuss politics with your close relatives?” was asked to respondents who get together with their close relatives at all (98%). (2)The question “How often do you discuss politics with your close friends?” was asked to those who say they have close friends and get together with them (90%). (3) The original ten-point scale is collapsed to a five-point scale.

To explore this issue farther CRRC asked Georgians: When you get together with your close relatives, who discusses politics more – men or women? 40% said that men discuss politics more often than women. 36% said that men and women equally discuss politics when they get together with their close relatives, and 17% said that women discuss politics more often than men. Survey respondents were also asked to indicate an age range of their close relatives who discuss politics more frequently. 45% said middle aged (those in their 40s and 50s), 27% said elderly people (over 60) and only 6% said youngsters (those in their 20s and 30s). 23% said people of any age equally discuss politics with their close relatives when they get together. These results indicate that there is a perception that middle aged men are most likely to discuss politics with their close relatives when they get together, while youngsters are less eager to do so.

Discussing politics with friends and relatives is only one, yet very important indicator of political involvement that plays a crucial role in the democratization process. CRRC survey data indicate that the frequency of political discussions among Georgian relatives and friends is rather low. What are the reasons behind this result? Why people in Georgia are so reluctant to discuss politics with their friends and relatives then they freely discuss their private problems? How does such reluctance to discuss political issues affect democratization process in the country? We would like to hear your thoughts.

CB 2011 Preview | Attitudes towards IDPs in Georgia

The presence of Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs) within Georgia is testimony to its internal and cross-border conflicts. IDPs often face a life in limbo, unable to return to their homes and reliant on friends, family and the generosity of strangers to get by. To address this issue, and also in fulfillment of obligations to the Council of Europe, Georgia has developed policies on the integration and rehabilitation of IDPs.

As of January 2011, UNHCR-Georgia estimates that approximately 359,716 IDPs continue to live in Georgia proper. Preliminary survey results from the 2011 Caucasus Barometer show that Georgian attitudes towards IDPs are generally positive. More than half of Georgians support government assistance for IDPs, and view IDPs as part of Georgian society.

Results indicate that Georgians would like to see an increase in government assistance. 57% of Georgians say that the current level of assistance is not enough, while 18% claim it is. 22% of Georgians do not know if the current level of government assistance is meeting the needs of IDPs and only 2% consider the current policy of assistance to be excessive.

The survey refers to all IDPs in Georgia, not only those from Abkhazia or the Tskhinvali region of South Ossetia.

Over half of Georgians (61%) consider IDPs to be part of Georgian society. In addition 53% of Georgians disagree with the statement that, “IDPs are different from Georgia’s society”.

Data was recoded from a 5 to 3 point scale and the scale was reversed.The original scale comprised of strongly disagree=1, somewhat disagree=2, neutral=3, somewhat agree=4 and strongly agree=5.

On the whole, results indicate that Georgian attitudes towards IDPs are supportive. For those with further interest in the question, various crosstabulations should be of interest once the dataset is released. Also, click here for previous research CRRC has done on this topic.

This is only a quick preview of the results from the 2011 Caucasus Barometer, keep checking back for more information and the upcoming release of our results on ODA!

Blood Donation in Georgia: Obstacles and Opportunities

According to a report by the World Health Organization, blood donations in Georgia fall below the estimated need for patients. Approximately 60,000 donations are necessary per year to cover Georgian patients’ needs, while the number of actual blood donation does not exceed 37,000. Moreover, 95% of blood donations come from paid donors. The main obstacle in advocating volunteer blood donation is due in part to the fact that being paid to donate blood is deeply rooted in public perceptions and volunteer blood donors get little support from Georgian society. This blog looks at the obstacles and opportunities for fostering volunteer blood donation and shows that over half of the Georgian population disagrees with the statement that “people donating blood should be paid”, and that lack of awareness remains a deterrent.

Source: World Health Organization

According to the Caucasus Barometer 2011, about 80% of Georgians have never donated blood and 61% have not seen or heard anything about donating blood during the last two years. 57% do not personally know anyone who has donated blood in the last 10 years. Yet according to the same data, 61% of Georgians disagree with the statement that “people donating blood should be paid” (only 22% agree). If, as the data shows, over half of the Georgian population is against paid blood donations, what obstacles prevent the establishment a good practice of blood donation in Georgia? To explore the potential reasons behind this finding, CRRC asked Georgians why they have never donated blood.

Source: Caucasus Barometer, 2011

The data shows that 20% of Georgians cannot state an exact reason for not donating blood. A promising 9% say they do not know where to go and only 4% say that they do not like the idea of donating blood. 20% think that not being in good health or doctors’ advice against blood donation is the main reason why they have never donated blood, while 8% are afraid of possible infection, and 7% of Georgians indicate a fear of needles.

In another survey on Volunteerism and Civic Participation in 2011, CRRC asked Georgians what they thought were the main reasons why people do not donate blood. The answer options are different here, but still reflect the difference between what people mention as their own reason for not donating blood and their perceptions of others’ reasons for the same behaviour. Namely, 17% say people are preoccupied with their own problems. While talking about themselves only, 6% say they do not have time to donate blood. Similarly, 10% of Georgians think that being indifferent towards the problems of others is the main reason for people not donating blood – an answer which is less likely to be mentioned when people talk about themselves.

Source: Survey on Volunteerism and Civic Participation, 2011

As the chart shows, 30% of Georgians are unsure about the reasons why people do not donate blood in Georgia. 15% mention being afraid of infections as a reason for not donating blood, reflecting a concern related to blood safety standards that exists in Georgian society and prevents some people from donating blood.

Lack of awareness seems to be another factor explaining the low level of volunteer blood donors in Georgia. 6% of Georgians think people find donating blood as unnecessary. 5% say people do not know where to go in order to donate blood and 4% think people do not know that they can donate blood at all. In total 15% of Georgians think having no information is the main reason why people do not donate blood. These results indicate that there is room for awareness-raising campaigns. Filling the information gap can be an important step to promoting volunteer blood donation in the country.

Finally, Georgians were asked how possible it is that they donate blood in the next 12 months. 38% of Georgians are unsure, 21% think it will never happen and a promising 11% say it is highly expected. CRRC data indicates that this 11% can be increased by improving blood safety standards and raising public awareness about the importance of blood donation, as well as about blood banks already operating in Georgia.

Brookings Event - Internally Displaced Persons and Host Communities: The Limits of Hospitality?

...all of this straight from the Brookings website, an event that one of our colleagues, Yulia Aliyeva, will contribute to this week:

Most of the world's 27 million people who have been internally displaced by conflict do not live in camps; rather they live with family members or friends or are dispersed within communities. One frequently overlooked aspect of displacement is the impact of internally displaced persons (IDPs) on the communities which host them—communities which are often poor and marginalized themselves. 

On March 22, the Brookings-LSE Project on Internal Displacement and the International Committee for the Red Cross (ICRC) will host a discussion of two recent reports on IDP and host community relations: "Can You Be an IDP for Twenty Years? A Comparative Field Study on the Protection Needs and Attitudes Toward Displacement Among IDPs and Host Communities in Azerbaijan" and "The Effects of Internal Displacement on Host Communities: A Case Study of Suba and Ciudad Bolívar Localities in Bogotá, Colombia." 

Here a program snapshot: 

 
The event is at The Brookings Institution, Saul/Zilkha Rooms, 1775 Massachusetts Ave, NW, Washington, DC: Thursday, March 22, 2012, 12:00 — 1:30 pm.

Here is the link to the event. And here, as previously posted in our e-bulletin, is the link to the report.

Perceptions of Good Citizenship in Georgia

What do Georgians consider good citizenship to mean? The issue of good citizenship is important, especially because of Georgia’s expressed democratic aspirations. This blog looks at how Georgians perceive their responsibilities as citizens and how their attitudes towards good citizenship have changed in the past two years. The results indicate that mass attitudes and beliefs are gradually changing and that now, compared to 2009, Georgians take a more active view of citizens’ responsibilities.

Modern theories of democracy put a special emphasis on mass values and beliefs as a main force for achieving democracy (See Inglehart and Welzel, 2010 for a summary of modern theories on democracy). Several scholars (Lipset 1959, Deutsch 1961) have argued that citizens and their attitudes play a crucial role in bringing about and sustaining democracy. 

In 2009 and 2011 CRRC conducted a survey in Georgia entitled, “Knowledge and Attitudes toward the EU in Georgia”. Georgians were asked to consider the level of importance of certain activities or values in order to be a good citizen. The data shows that a majority of Georgians think supporting people who are worse off than themselves is one of the most important responsibilities of a good citizen. Paying taxes, protecting traditions, and obeying laws are also considered to be important by the vast majority of Georgians. Moreover, the importance of supporting the poor, protecting traditions and obeying laws has remained almost unchanged in the past two years. 

Note: Respondents were asked, “To be a good citizen, how important would you say it is for a person to...?” The answer options shown in this figure were collapsed into two categories (important and not important) from “not important at all, rather not important than important, rather important than unimportant and very important”.

In contrast, the importance of civic and political participation has notably increased from 2009 to 2011. Voting in elections—an issue closely related to democratization—gained more importance for Georgians in 2011 (92%) than in 2009 (86%). The shift from a passive to more active view of citizens’ responsibilities is further confirmed by the following results.

Since 2009, there has been an increase in the percentage of Georgians who think that forming their own opinions independently of others, being critical towards the government, and working as a volunteer are important for good citizenship. In addition, the number of people who think that participation in protests is important for a good citizen nearly doubled in 2011. These results indicate that mass values and beliefs are gradually changing in Georgia. 

There is a difference between the first and second group of activities in terms of the effort they require from citizens. Protecting traditions and obeying laws are consistently considered important to be a good citizen by the majority of Georgians; however, attitudes towards certain forms of political participation and criticism are changing over time. Yet, helping the poor, obeying rules and protecting traditions are not sufficient to sustain democracy, especially without a certain level of political participation and criticism. Thus, it will be interesting to see how values and attitudes towards the characteristics of good citizenship continue to change, and if they influence democratization in Georgia—a country which has also been influenced by its Soviet past. 

If you are interested in finding out more about Georgians’ attitudes towards EU Institutions or democratic values, you can access the survey’s associated report here. Moreover, both datasets are free and available online at the link above. You are also invited to explore the dataset on CRRC’s fun Online Data Analysis tool.

Georgia and the EU’s Economic Woes

Why hasn’t the economic crisis in Europe deterred Georgia’s desire to join the European Union? The majority of Georgians (and the Georgian government) want to join the EU despite crisis in the Eurozone. Yet, the continued crisis, including the Eurogroup’s recent (and second) rescue of Greece’s economy and Hungary’s harsh austerity measures, illustrates that the crisis is not isolated to the Eurozone. Thus, for EU-aspiring states such as Georgia--which also operates under the European Neighborhood Policy (ENP) framework--the crisis presents a growing concern over the security of the Eurozone, as well as the overall health of EU integration. Despite these economic problems, Georgians remain overwhelmingly positive about the future of EU integration. This is because not only do Georgians have high expectations that economic conditions would improve in the country, but that territorial integrity and national security would significantly increase upon joining the union.

Map courtesy of europa.edu

A 2011 CRRC survey (and its associated report) entitled “Knowledge and Attitudes towards the EU in Georgia” show that support for EU membership has increased from 81% in 2009 to 88% in 2011. The report also presents an analysis of Georgians’ perceptions towards EU integration and shows that the desire for EU membership is partially tied to a desire for strengthened national security, territorial integrity and economic improvement. According to the survey, the top three most important issues facing Georgia are unemployment/jobs (58%), territorial integrity (42%) and poverty (31%).

Respondents were asked to indicate what they considered to be the three most important issues facing Georgia at the moment. The 2011 survey on Knowledge and Attitudes towards the EU in Georgia also had a target population of adult speakers of the Georgian language. See the report for information on the methodology used for this survey.

When asked, “How will the following issues change if Georgia becomes an EU member?” 59% of Georgians say national security would increase and 58% feel territorial integrity would improve. Just over half (56%) of Georgians anticipate that the number of available jobs would increase, and 48% of Georgians think poverty would decrease.

The data also shows that 40% of Georgians think the EU currently provides Georgia with financial support, while 15% say that the union provides solutions to social problems, and 10% believe the union helps Georgia to develop relations with Russia. 35% of Georgians think that the EU will help restore territorial integrity, thereby addressing one of the issues that many Georgians consider most important.

Many EU candidate (or potential candidate) countries see the current economic crisis as a warning of the risks associated with full European economic integration. Indeed, economic stability (e.g., jobs) is also a concern for many Georgians. However, Georgian motivations for membership are somewhat sated with the knowledge that EU membership could strengthen national security and territorial integrity even if membership may not provide a solution to the current economic woes facing the country.

Georgia Corruption Data | Now Available

Recently, a nuanced article in an Indian magazine discussed "How Georgia Did It" to get rid of corruption. This has, of course, been a topic of extensive debate in India. It's good to see that lessons are being drawn from the Georgian case, and that they travel beyond the immediate neighborhood.

The article cites a broad number of participants in the reforms, quotes Transparency International, and also refers to CRRC's research on Judicial Independence. Find the link to the article here.

On the theme of battling corruption, CRRC recently contributed some data analysis to a World Bank report that summarizes the Georgian lessons in the following way:

"From the case studies, 10 factors emerge that help explain Georgia's achievements to date: exercising strong political will; establishing credibility early; launching a frontal assault; attracting new staff; limiting the state's role; adopting unconventional methods; coordinating closely; tailoring international experience to local conditions; harnessing technology; and using communications strategically. While many of these factors may seem obvious, the comprehensiveness, boldness, pace, and sequencing of the reforms make Georgia's story unique."

Comparatively little data was cited in the report (link is here), but our Caucasus Barometer data certainly corroborates that there are huge regional differences.

To give good access to our data, we have now made a collection available on our website – more than 80 pages of tables, that offer a comprehensive overview over the years. This includes data from CRRC and other organizations, and thus should be a useful resource. To access this data collection, please click here. 

Comments? Let us know.

ETF Migration Survey in Armenia | Update

For the last few months, CRRC Armenia has been doing a survey for the European Training Foundation (ETF).  This is a major undertaking, with 4.000 respondents, and a specialized sampling procedure (basic details here). We are looking forward to getting the results. Now, the effort has been covered by the ETF website, in an article that shows some of the human dimensions of migration, and its various dimensions.

Within that article, there is a short reference to our ongoing work.

In early March 2012, Heghine Manasyan, the Country Director at CRRC Armenia, will be presenting the preliminary results of that survey at a conference in Turin (program). Keep following the blog, we will let you know once the survey results are available. (Of course, much additional CRRC migration research materials is also available, most of it linked through this blog.)

You find the ETF article here.