Changing issue salience in Georgia after 2008

While territorial integrity was named by the majority of the population as the most important issue facing Georgia in late 2008 and 2009, in the aftermath of the 2008 war with Russia, the focus has since shifted to economic issues and, first of all, unemployment. Similar changes took place in the population’s priorities regarding support from the EU. This blog post discusses this change using data from the four waves of Europe Foundation’s Knowledge and attitudes towards the EU in Georgia survey conducted by CRRC-Georgia in 2009, 2011, 2013 and 2015.

In parallel to the decline in perceived relative importance of territorial integrity between 2009 and 2015, there has been a clear rise in perceived importance of economic issues. While territorial integrity and lack of jobs were named as the most important issues in 2009 (both named by 53% of the population), lack of jobs and poverty are now in the fore.

Note: A show card with 18 answer options was used for the question “What do you think are the three most important issues facing Georgia at the moment?” and up to three answers were accepted per interview. Only the most frequently mentioned answer options are presented in the chart above.  

The same trend appears when it comes to the topics in relation to the EU which Georgians are interested in getting more information about. In 2009, 29% reported wanting more information about trade relations between Georgia and the EU, while 41% did so in 2015. In 2009, 52% reported wanting more information about the EU’s role in conflict resolution, while 35% did so in 2015.
 

Note: A show card with 11 answer options was used for this question, and up to three answers were accepted per interview. Only the most frequently named answers are presented in the chart above. 

Investment in Georgia’s economy is now the most frequently mentioned kind of support Georgia’s population wants from the EU, while previously it was help with the restoration of territorial integrity.

Note: A show card was used for this question. Only the most frequently named answers are presented in the chart.

While immediately after the 2008 war with Russia, territorial integrity was named as the most important issue in Georgia, today economic issues are named by the majority of the population. Corresponding changes took place in respect to the areas Georgians want support from the EU on.

To find out more, visit CRRC’s online data analysis platform.

Body Mass Index in Georgia

The population of Georgia on immigrants

Unlike emigration, immigration to Georgia is a relatively recent and small in scale phenomenon. The country attracts a diverse group of immigrants from a variety of countries that arrive for educational, work, business or family reunification purposes. Data on immigrant flows and stocks are collected by GeoStat and the Public Service Development Agency of Georgia (PSDA), but since current regulations do not require that citizens of more than 100 countries coming to Georgia even for relatively extended periods of time (e.g., up to 12 months) apply for residence permits or otherwise register, existing residence statistics only provide an estimate of the number of immigrants in the country.

In many societies, including traditional ones with little or no previous experience of immigration, attitudes towards immigrants are rarely welcoming. The findings of a few empirical studies on the subject suggest that Georgia is no exception. CRRC’s 2015 Caucasus Barometer survey tried to find out more about the dominant attitudes in Georgia towards immigrants, defined during the survey as foreigners that have stayed in the country for a period longer than three months. This blog post provides the results of preliminary analysis of CB 2015 findings on the topic.

Only about a third of the population claims to have had any form of contact with immigrants: 9% report they’ve been in contact with them “quite often”, and another 17% have been in contact with them, but not much. The majority of the population (72%) reports never having any contact with immigrants. Unsurprisingly, those living in the capital report interacting with immigrants more often, but even in Tbilisi, 64% reports never having communicated with them.

Irrespective of whether people have or have not had personal contact with immigrants, they are still able to report certain attitudes towards them. Only 9% could not answer the question, “How would you characterize your attitude towards the foreigners who come to Georgia and stay here for longer than three months?” As for the rest, a large majority (61%) describes their attitude as neutral, while 25% describe it as good and 5% as bad. Importantly, as is often the case (among many others, the French and Italian examples are rather convincing), the more people have been in contact with immigrants, the better attitudes they tend to report towards them.

Note: For the question, “Have you had any form of contact with foreigners in Georgia who have stayed here for longer than 3 months?” answer options “Yes, I’ve often been in contact with them” and “Yes, I’ve rarely been in contact with them” have been combined for this blog post, and answer option “Refuse to answer” (less than 1% of all answers) was excluded from the analysis. For the question, “How would you characterize your attitude towards foreigners who come to Georgia and stay here for longer than three months?” answer options “Very good” and “Good” have been combined and labeled as “Good”, while answer options “Very bad” and “Bad” have been combined and labeled as “Bad”. The answer option “Refuse to answer” (less than 1% of all answers) was excluded from the analysis.

Similarly, more of those who have been in contact with immigrants believe that foreigners will contribute to the economic development of Georgia.

As it is the case in many other countries, in Georgia direct interaction with immigrants seems to be one of the most important conditions determining attitudes towards them – however, a very small share of the population of Georgia report having had direct interaction with immigrants. On the one hand, this may indicate that despite the existing myth that lots of foreigners are in the country, their number is actually not that high. On the other hand, this also means that the attitudes of the majority of the population towards immigrants are based on indirect information, which may be inaccurate.

To find out more, visit CRRC’s online data analysis platform.

Volunteerism in Georgia between 2013 and 2015: attitudes and practice

Did the 2015 Tbilisi flood affect the level of volunteerism in Georgia? A recent article on volunteerism, based on CRRC’s 2013 Caucasus Barometer (CB) survey data, argued that the apparent large-scale volunteering efforts following the flood “stirred the hope that volunteerism is on the rise in Georgia”. Based on the soon to be released 2015 CB data, this blog post looks at whether there has been a change in the reported level of volunteering and in the attitudes towards it by settlement type, age and level of education.

CB data from recent years shows that the share of the population of Georgia that thinks volunteering is important for a good citizen has slightly increased. The same is true for the reported level of volunteering. The gap between the two indicators, however, is impressive.

Note: For the question “In your opinion, how important or unimportant is it for a good citizen to do volunteer work meeting the needs of the community without expecting compensation?” only the share of those who chose codes 7 through 10 on a 10 point scale, where code 1 meant “Not important at all” and code 10 meant “Extremely important”, is shown on the charts and analyzed in this blog post. For the question “Which of these activities have you been involved in during the past 6 months? - Did volunteer work without expecting compensation” only the share of those who answered “Yes” is shown on the charts and analyzed in this blog post. 

Actions
In some socio-demographic groups, there are small changes in the reported level of volunteering between 2013 and 2015, although these often are within the margin of error. While only 14% of the population of Tbilisi reported doing volunteer work in 2013, 21% did so in 2015. Nationwide, the reported level of volunteering slightly increased in the 18-35 year old age group and among those with higher education, while it stayed the same in other age groups and among those with secondary technical or secondary or lower education.

Note: The answer options for the question, “What is the highest level of education you have achieved to date?” were grouped as follows: options “No primary education”, “Primary education (either complete or incomplete)”, “Incomplete secondary education”, and “Completed secondary education” were grouped into “Secondary or lower”. Options “Incomplete higher education”, “Completed higher education (BA, MA, or specialist degree)”, and “Post-graduate degree” were grouped into “Higher than Secondary”.

Attitudes
Small positive changes can be observed between 2013 and 2015 in reported attitudes towards volunteering in all socio-demographic groups. In 2013, fewer Tbilisi residents thought that volunteering was important for a good citizen compared to other urban and rural dwellers. In 2015, however, the picture reversed. Assessments of the importance of volunteering also changed in the 18-35 year old age group countrywide, increasing from 66% in 2013 to 75% in 2015.

To sum up, although the reported level of volunteering at the national level did not increase after the June 13th Tbilisi flood, there was a small increase in Tbilisi as well as among the young people and those with higher education. Nationwide, the perception that doing volunteer work is important for a good citizen also slightly increased. In many cases though, the increase is within the margin of error. Hence, further observations will be needed to see if the trend continues.

Although a large gap still remains between the reported level of volunteering and the share of the population reporting positive attitudes towards it, the changes presented in this blog post might indicate that volunteering has a chance to become more widespread in Georgia. Notably, some literature on volunteering argues that volunteering in times of crisis creates a sense of community and solidarity, which was apparent among volunteers after the Tbilisi flood. Memories of volunteering could both inspire and serve as an example for Georgian citizens to volunteer more.

To learn more about volunteering in Georgia, take a look at the Volunteering and Civic Participation in Georgia survey and our previous post on volunteering: Georgian society’s attitudes towards forced “volunteering”.