Sex, Lies and EU Red Tape

The internal workings of the European Union (EU) are notoriously yawnsome matters. However, in a survey from 2008, CRRC aimed to give an overview of Georgians’ understanding of and attitudes to the EU - including some hot topics concerning orientations towards such activities as sex before marriage, infidelity, dishonesty, and tax-paying.

Respondents were asked whether a range of these controversial activities were either ‘never justified’, ‘sometimes justified’ or ‘always justified’. Breaking down responses according to respondents from households that reported having a member who had lived in the EU for three months or more since 1993, against those from households that had no such members uncovered an interesting trend.

For example, respondents were asked whether it was ever justified for a woman to have a sexual relationship before marriage. A full 80% of respondents who had no family member who had lived in the EU reported that this was ‘never justified’, whereas only 54% of those with a family member who had lived in the EU felt the same. In terms of whether this was ‘sometimes justified’ the figures stood at 13% and 28% respectively (see table below).

A similar trend was found for attitudes to childbirth outside wedlock, as well as extra-marital affairs for both women and men. Meanwhile, though hardly anyone felt homosexuality was ‘always justified’, 10% of those with a household member who had lived in the EU felt it was ‘sometimes justified’ against only 3% of those who had no such member (see table below).

Interestingly, the same trend in attitudes held concerning such negative phenomena as lying, tax-avoidance, using criminal authorities for dispute resolution, and purchasing stolen goods. For example, while 69% of those respondents from households with no family connection to the EU feel lying for personal benefit is ‘never justified,’ only 57% of those with EU-experienced household members think the same (see table below).

If it is true that people-to-people contact creates shifts in attitudes, then a family member who has lived in the EU might ‘import’ certain value orientations into some households creating the differences manifested in the survey.

Given this, the question remains: why should having contact with someone who has lived in the EU affect individual liberalism in attitudes towards sexual matters, yet apparently negatively affect responsible social attitudes towards honesty, tax-paying, and rule of law? Is the EU a force for moral disorientation?

In answer to this, we should note that the survey does not ask if the practices in question are morally good or bad. Instead, it asks whether there might be some situations where such practices are justified. Plausibly then, those with exposure to predominantly tolerant, liberal and more relativistic values in Europe might be expected to produce flexible responses in which controversial practices are not categorically rejected on the basis of absolute moral beliefs.

So finally, perhaps we might suppose that as Georgia increases people-to-people contact through educational programs, political cooperation and trade, Georgians could slowly move towards a philosophy of ‘live and let live’.

Liberal Education Lecture: How Can It Help Us?

Dr. John Schoeberlein, Project Director on Islam in Eurasia at Harvard University, gave a lecture at the Free University in Tbilisi on February 15th on the usefulness of a liberal education, specifically anthropology, for life, society, and the individual. He elaborated on his personal experiences as a former student and current professor of anthropology and presented some fascinating ideas on the importance of a liberal education.

“Everything is becoming more integrated. A larger toolbox is required,” Dr. Schoeberlein explained, referring to the promise of a liberal education to equip students with the critical abilities to think analytically, problem-solve, and understand larger aspects of culture and societal behavior. Additionally, he outlined fundamental characteristics and concepts that describe liberal education, such as an emphasis on general knowledge, rather than instruction on specific tasks. He also discussed the importance of the concept of choice for students to help formulate their own course of study and the notion that students must actively engage themselves and participate in class discussions. While he explained these notions, he made clear that he did not wish to impose this system on Georgians, but rather discuss it and make it available. As he stated, “...being a missionary is not what I want to be.”

He drew on some examples when describing how anthropology fits within the framework of a liberal education and imparts knowledge, which facilitates an understanding of certain phenomena. For example, he explained that corruption exists in various different contexts that cannot be explained aptly by current economic models; however, anthropology provides a useful approach to understand corruption by turning to the different and specific cultural contexts in which it exists and invoking ideas of authority, family relations, and honor. While a payment may be deemed an act of corruption by one culture, it may be accepted as social norms by another. In this way, an anthropological study draws on specific cases and allows one to understand social systems and elements of culture, which is an approach that is not only theoretical but also applicable.

Dr. Schoeberlein highlighted the applicability of anthropology with an example in which a factory manager needs to lead a team of employees with different cultural backgrounds. In this scenario, training in anthropological ideas could endow the manager with the skill to understand why each employee acts a certain way, how to motivate him or her, and what each one values.

These are just a few snippets of some of the ideas Dr. Schoeberlein presented. It would also be an interesting follow-up to try to evaluate what Georgians think about liberal education, in contrast to a vocation-based education system. We welcome your thoughts and comments on these topics!

Access to Justice in Central Asia | Coming Up

We are in the process of completing a major research project in Central Asia (Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan) on Access to Justice. It concentrated in particular on vulnerable groups, and how they could get access to justice. Sponsored by the Finnish Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the project involved a nationwide survey in each of the countries, over 70 in-depth interviews, plus focus groups and an extensive literature review.

We looked at what respondents thought were some of the biggest legal problems that individuals in their country faced. Divorce figured prominently among those, making women's access to justice particularly relevant.

We also asked who inviduals would turn to on various issues, when there were problems. You see sharp differences between the countries. 

We asked about trust in institutions, and among the list these are the least trusted. (Yes, that's not yet comprehensive information for you, but hopefully will whet your appetite for more.)

And we dug deeper, within the countries, to understand how people looked at the courts. Again, here a preview. It suggests that according to Kazakh citizens, competence is not the main problem in the courts.

The first presentation of results will happen on February 15 in Almaty (sorry for the short notice, but if you were likely attendee you probably received a separate invitation), and a more detailed report is out soon. Drop us a line in case you're interested in a preview, in exchange for giving us some feedback on it.

Ask CRRC | Representative Sample

Q: When conducting a survey, how do you select a sample that is representative of an entire population?

A: In order for a sample to be representative of an entire population, every member of the population must have some chance of being randomly selected. In reality, there are segments of a population that can and cannot be interviewed. Therefore, we need to understand the nature of the population for which each survey is representative.

Take the Caucasus Barometer (CB) as an example. First, we randomly select voting precincts from a list of all voting precincts that contain members of the population. Thus, every precinct has a chance of being selected.

The beginning of a long list of voting precincts from which precincts are randomly selected for sampling.

Second, CRRC randomly selects households within each of the selected voting precincts. Then, interviewers conduct a “random walk” in order to randomly select households. This random walk gives each household a chance of being selected for an interview.

This CRRC interviewer has a map of households in a selected voting precinct to assist her in her “random walk” household selection. Photo by Paul Stephens.

Third, an adult household member is randomly selected for an interview within each randomly selected household. Interviewers make a list of all adult (18 years and older) household members and randomly select one of those members for an interview. The interviewer uses a kind of random number table called a “Kish table” to randomly select one of those household members to interview. Using these three steps above, each member of the population has a chance of being selected for an interview.

This household consists of a 25 year old man, a 61 year old woman and a 24 year old woman. The 25 year old man has been randomly selected for interview.

As in any country, logistical realities mean that some segments of the country’s adult population do not have a chance of being sampled. For example, some voting precincts could not be sampled even if they were randomly selected (e.g., special voting precincts for military personnel). Also, some people might not be able to be surveyed even if they were randomly selected. This includes people who do not speak the language in which the survey is conducted or those who are not physically able to be interviewed. Other excluded groups of the population include people in prisons or hospitals. The impact of losing some of these groups is relatively little since such groups are usually so small that they are within the margin of error.

By understanding which groups of the population can and cannot be included in the sample, CRRC takes all of the steps above to ensure that samples are representative of the entire population. In addition, CRRC prints questionnaires in minority languages and recruits interviewers who speak those languages so that the CB can be described as representative of the adult population of the Republic of Georgia.

Access to justice in Central Asia | Presentation of research findings in Kazakhstan

CRRC has conducted a research project on access to justice in Central Asia. The project includes nationwide surveys in Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan, focus groups and in-depth interviews. We will be presenting the results in Almaty, Kazakhstan, on February 15, 2010, in case any of our readers are in the region. For the rest of you, we will be making the data and reports available in March. Keep your eyes open for posts here on the blog and at the CRRC webpage. For now, here’s a snapshot of the data from the surveys:

Third Stage of the Junior Research Fellowship Program at CRRC-Azerbaijan Launched!

In February 11, 2011, the CRRC-Azerbaijan office launched the third stage of its Junior Research Fellowship Program, funded by the Open Society Institute Think-Tank Fund. Fifteen selected participants will attend the next round of extensive trainings that will prepare them for writing public policy papers.

The major focus of the trainings this semester will be qualitative research methods. The participants will learn how to conduct in-depth interviews, focus groups and how to perform content analysis. They will also learn tips and tricks on how to transfer data from technical charts in SPSS to attractive and understandable graphs in PowerPoint. The semester will conclude with academic writing classes in which they will exercise making citations (footnotes and endnotes) as well as writing annotated bibliographies and literature reviews.

Throughout the third stage, new, interesting and challenging competitions will be organized. By the end of the course, the fellows will be armed with new skills and knowledge, as well as the inspiration to learn more about policy analysis and to become real professionals in the field.

Observations while Traveling through Samegrelo | Agriculture and Petty Crime

Much has been written about agriculture in Georgia, and the need to develop it extensively. Our upcoming reports on social capital (currently still under review with the donor) have some material on that. The typical concerns are well established: although fertile, Georgia is actually importing food. More than 50% of the employed work in agriculture, but it only contributes around 10% to GDP. And more than 50% of Georgia's arable land lies fallow.

The reasons are also familiar: privatization separated the land into small parcels that were not viable for modern farming. The people left in the countryside often are conservative and skeptical, and not quick to adopt more productive methods. They do not cooperate, and thus cannot mobilize sufficient resources to develop their land.

Traveling through Samegrelo recently highlighted another challenge. The structure of landholdings makes them particularly vulnerable to petty crime. Often the holdings are away from people's houses, so that they cannot guard them. During planting season seeds, seedlings and little plants can be stolen from the field at night, so that investing into better plants is not very attractive. Moreover, shepherds don't always respect fields that have just been fenced off anew, and let their cows trott into enclosures; or cut the fence to let a stray cow out, without repairing it.

During harvest season, the problem is even more pronounced. Unless you harvest early, your crop is at threat. And if you harvest early, you may be doing damage to the fruit. For some of the crop, the harvest season is quite long, so that the fields remain vulnerable over several weeks.

If you have a small holding, it is hard to address this problem. Sleeping outdoors on your field will only get you so far, and is not sustainable over time.  With average landholdings being around less than two hectares (one hectare being a bit bigger than a soccer field), the plots are too small to pay for a security guard. Typically you will need two guards, so that they can support each other. Professional security firms would charge up to $1,000 per month. This makes it particularly difficult to experiment with higher value crops (say, avocado) since you may need a security guard to protect a handful of plants. Easier to fall back on what you have always done. 

Planting in Samegrelo. This effort has fences, two security guards constantly, night vision goggles, and is about to add a trained guard dog.

We are curious whether other people have heard about this problem. If it indeed appears to be a challenge, it would be worth researching this in more detail. The government could help address this issue by providing more security through increased policing and curbing road access, together with introducing stiff sentences to signal that stopping agricultural theft is important for Georgia's economic development. Comments and ideas?

Human rights in the South Caucasus | Similarities and differences

Human Rights Watch (HRW) has released its 2011 World Report of human rights conditions in the world. The report is based on investigations carried out by HRW staff in partnership with domestic human rights activists. Their findings show that several of the main human rights issues in Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia are similar for all three countries.

Freedom of assembly remains a problem in the South Caucasus. In Georgia, HRW points out several incidents where peaceful demonstrations were disrupted by the police. The November 2007 demonstrations are also mentioned and the government’s refusal to launch an investigation of the events. In Armenia, the report focuses on the authorities’ failure to investigate the excessive use of police force during the March 2008 demonstrations. Police officers convicted of excessive use of force were amnestied, opposition activists remain imprisoned and relatives of those killed in the demonstrations unsuccessfully appealed to the court for an investigation into the deaths. In Azerbaijan, the authorities continue to restrict the freedom of assembly by denying requests to hold demonstrations. Unauthorized demonstrations were dispersed and protestors detained.

In all three countries, there are several examples of ill-treatment in policy custody and the police has in many cases failed to conclusively investigate these incidents.

Georgia and Azerbaijan both held elections in 2010. The local elections in Georgia are mentioned as a positive development, despite some shortcomings, but the parliamentary elections in Azerbaijan did not meet international standards. Only one opposition candidate gained a seat in the parliament and political parties could not express their views due to restrictions in the freedom of expression, assembly and association.

Additionally, Georgia is criticized for the authorities’ handling of the eviction of internally displaced persons (IDPs) from collective centers. According to HRW, the authorities do not engage in a dialogue with the IDPs, do not provide notice in advance of the evictions, and do not offer adequate alternatives to the collective centers. In Armenia, violations of the freedom of expression are brought up as an issue. It is, however,the lack of accountability and excessive use of force related to the March 2008 events that is the main point of criticism in HRW’s country summary for Armenia. In Azerbaijan, the focus is on journalists, political activists and bloggers who were faced with criminal charges for criticizing the authorities. Several of them also suffered physical attacks by the police. The government has failed to thoroughly investigate these incidents and continues to hold political prisoners.

HRW does not seek to rate or to compare the human rights conditions between countries. Nevertheless, the annual report provides a landmark summary of the current situation of human rights across the three countries.

You can access the full HRW report here.

Subtitling foreign films on Georgian TV? Thanks, but no thanks!

The Netherlands and the Scandinavian countries are often given as examples of countries where the populations have a good knowledge of foreign languages. One of the explanations can be that TV shows and films are shown in their original language in these countries. Learning a foreign language is easier if you hear people speaking the language, not only in the classroom. Many agree that being exposed to other languages on the TV and in the cinemas can speed up the language learning process.

After Georgian, Russian remains the most spoken language in Georgia. According to a nationwide survey on European integration conducted by CRRC in 2009, 32 percent of the population describes their Russian language skills as advanced while only five percent rate their English skills similarly (Figure 1).

Figure 1. English and Russian language skills.

The Georgian government is determined to improve the English language skills of the population through various initiatives. One of them is the Teach and Learn with Georgia program that has the goal to recruit 1,000 native English speakers to teach English to Georgian schoolchildren. Introducing a new subtitling policy can be seen as another initiative in the same direction. Since October 2009, licensed TV stations are obliged to show 30 percent of the foreign movies in their original language with Georgian subtitles. What does the Georgian population think about this idea?

Using subtitles instead of voice translation does not appeal to the majority of the Georgian population. According to the European integration survey, only ten percent support a subtitling policy and as much as two-thirds fully disagree with such policy (Figure 2).

Figure 2. Support of subtitling policy.

After asking whether the respondents agree or disagree with the subtitle policy, CRRC presented several arguments that are used in favour of subtitles and against voice translation. Three of these arguments concern learning languages.

Only four percent of the Georgian population find the argument that subtitles in films combine entertainment and education fully persuasive. A similarly low percentage buys the argument that subtitles teach languages efficiently. Georgians are also not convinced by the argument that the Scandinavian countries have used a similar subtitling policy with great success, and that Scandinavians know many languages. One-fourth of the respondents do not find this argument persuasive at all and only three percent say it is very persuasive. Out of all the arguments the respondents were presented with, the one they found most persuasive was: For the future of our economy and to create jobs, we should understand the newest technology. We need to keep up with the world and learn languages. Ten percent believe that is a very persuasive argument.

After being presented with these arguments the respondents were asked in which way they had changed their opinions about using subtitles instead of voice translation: ten percent of the respondents said they liked the idea of subtitling better than they did before they heard the arguments. The majority did, however, not change their opinion.

According to an article in the Resonance Daily, it is not only the Georgian population that shows little interest in the idea of using subtitles instead of voice translation; the Georgian TV stations also seem to be against subtitling for reasons ranging from costs to viewers’ convenience. Have the opinions of the Georgian population changed since the subtitling policy enforcement? Is it a question of getting used to a new way of consuming movies? We welcome your thoughts on this issue.