Perceptions of court proceeding transparency

[Note:  Social Science in the Caucasus is publishing the work of six young researchers who entered CRRC-Georgia’s Junior Fellowship Program (JFP) in February 2015. This is the sixth blog post in the series. Click here to see the first, second, third, fourth, and fifth posts in the series.]

By Mari Mekhrishvili

Transparent courts are essential to ensuring the accountability of the judiciary and to sustaining society’s confidence in the judicial system. The current version of the Organic Law of Georgia on Common Courts, after important amendments made in 2013, is designed to ensure the transparency of the courts. The courts are now obliged to record court sessions and provide records to all interested parties upon request. In addition, the Public Broadcaster is authorized to record and broadcast court sessions except in cases when sessions are closed either in part or in whole, and to provide records to other media outlets upon request. The law also guarantees that the prosecution, defense, and any person present at the trial can record court sessions. 

To find out to what extent the legislative changes about photo, video and audio recording during the court sessions works in practice, the Georgian Young Lawyers Association surveyed 26 Georgian media outlets. According to the results of this survey, court proceedings are truly transparent in Georgia, as all media requests to receive court session records were granted from the Public Broadcaster when carried out in compliance with law. 

In this context, this blog post looks at Georgian citizens’ perceptions of court transparency in 2014 using CRRC-Georgia’s 2014 Attitudes towards the Judicial System in Georgia survey, funded by East-West Management Institute and the United States Agency for International Development.

Respondents were asked whether, in their opinion, Georgian court proceedings were transparent (a) before and (b) after the milestone 2012 Parliamentary Elections. Only 13% reported that courts were transparent before 2012. This is the period, when only the courts had the authority to record and stenograph court sessions, which could still be banned by the judge’s “reasoned decision”. 34% reported the same for the period after 2012 elections.

Note: The answers to the question, “To what extent do you agree or disagree with the opinion that court proceeding are transparent in Georgia?” were re-coded from a 10-point scale used in the questionnaire into a 3-point scale, where original options 1 through 4 were combined into “Disagree,” options 5 and 6 were combined into “Neither agree nor disagree,” and options 7 through 10 were combined into “Agree.”

Differences in attitudes are evident in different settlement types. Only 7% of Tbilisi residents reported that the courts were transparent before 2012, compared with 13% of urban settlements besides the capital and 17% of rural residents. Perceptions of court proceeding transparency after the 2012 Parliamentary Elections followed a similar pattern with 20% of capital residents, 33% of residents of urban settlements besides the capital, and 44% of rural residents agreeing with the statement that court proceedings were transparent. Rural residents generally appear to believe most in transparency of courts, though, as it is well known, rural residents always report higher levels of trust in institutions.

Hence, people’s perceptions of court transparency in Georgia differ when assessing the situation before and after 2012 Parliamentary Elections, but in both cases the rural and urban populations have very different assessments. 

Take a look at the 2014 Attitudes towards the Judicial System in Georgia survey, here.

Perceived happiness and the strength of social ties

[Note:  Social Science in the Caucasus is publishing the work of six young researchers who entered CRRC-Georgia’s Junior Fellowship Program (JFP) in February 2015. This is the fifth blog post in the series. Click here to see the first, second, third, and fourth posts in the series.]

By Mariam Londaridze

Findings of a 2002 experimental study of University of Illinois students suggests that being a part of a strong social network might not guarantee happiness, but is one of the necessary conditions for being happy. Another study showed that both strong (family and friends) and weak (random acquaintances) social ties can contribute to happiness. This blog post examines how Georgians’ reported level of happiness differs by a number of measures of social ties, using data from the 2014 Volunteering and Civic Participation in Georgia survey funded by USAID and East-West Management Institute. Although this is a slightly oversimplified approach, throughout this blog post we refer to those who report being happy as “happy” people and those reporting being unhappy as “unhappy”.

There is a notable difference of 31% between happy and unhappy people reporting whether they enjoy meeting new people or not, amounting to 80% and 49%, respectively.

Note: A 10-point scale was used to record respondents’ answers to both questions. On the scale for the question “Overall, how happy would you say you are?” code 1 corresponded to the answer “very unhappy”, and code 10 corresponded to the answer “very happy”. For the analysis, the original scale was re-coded into a 3-point one, with original codes 1 through 4 corresponding to “unhappy”, codes 5 and 6 – “neither happy nor unhappy” and codes 7 through 10 – “happy”. The scale measuring answers to the statement “I enjoy meeting new people” was re-coded identically.


Happy people report there are “plenty of people” around them they can rely on when they have problems more often than unhappy people. While 61% of happy Georgians report having such people around, only 29% of unhappy ones report the same. The same tendency is observed when asked, “If you were ill, are there people besides those in your immediate household who would look after you without expecting any compensation?” While 79% of happy people reported “yes”, 60% of unhappy people did the same.

While 51% of unhappy people report that they have “helped their neighbor or a friend with some household chores or childcare” during the past 6 months, 77% of happy people report the same. It might not come as a surprise that 70% of happy people in Georgia report feeling being helpful to many people outside their family, while only 38% of unhappy people report the same.

Even though this post did not use a comprehensive measure of strength of social ties, the findings presented suggest that people who report being happy have stronger social ties compared to those who are unhappy. Hence, the findings we referred to in the beginning of this blog post likely hold true for the population of Georgia.
For more on happiness in the South Caucasus, you can find an earlier blog post on Happiness in Georgia, and have a look at the data using CRRC’s Online Data Analysis tool.

Who trusts the police in Georgia?

By Tamar Gzirishvili

[Note:  Social Science in the Caucasus is publishing the work of six young researchers who entered CRRC-Georgia’s Junior Fellowship Program (JFP) in February 2015. This is the fourth blog post in the series. Click here to see the first, second, and third posts in the series.]

The 2004 police reform in Georgia was regarded as a successful transformation of one of the most corrupt institutions in the country into a functional entity. The reform included the mass dismissal of police officers, rebranding of units with new equipment and a new image, and increasing the salaries of police officers in order to decrease the incentive to solicit or accept bribes. Largely as a result of this reform, as Alexander Kupatadze claimed in 2012, “Georgia has been portrayed as the ‘safest place in Europe’ with low victimization and low crime rates,” and as crime rates went down, the police earned increased public trust. However, a recent study on the effectiveness of the Ministry of Interior by several Georgian NGOs including Transparency International Georgia, Georgian Young Lawyers’ Association, and Georgian Democracy Initiative among others highlights a number of violations by the patrol police during searches of people on the streets in 2013. A joint statement by leading Georgian NGOs published in August 2013 identified some of these violations.

The statistics released by the Georgian Ministry of Interior show that the number of registered crimes decreased by 17% from 2013 to 2014, while the number of solved cases increased from 58% to 63% in the same period. However, doubts on the reliability of this data, as well as on the legitimacy of police raids and random searches persist. A public opinion poll conducted by ACT in 2013 shows that 34% of Georgians believe that the crime rate increased in Georgia over the last year, while 18% think it decreased. Considering this quite unstable situation, it is important to understand how levels of trust in the police have changed over time and who trusts the police. Looking at CRRC’s Caucasus Barometer survey data for the period between 2008 and 2013, this blog post examines the Georgian population’s reported trust in the police by settlement type and education.

During this period, different levels of (dis)trust in police have been recorded, with distrust gradually decreasing and trust fluctuating. The highest level of trust (67%) was recorded in 2011. It decreased to 50% in 2012, but increased to 58% in 2013. The share of those reporting “neither trusting nor distrusting” the police has increased from 19% in 2008 to 30% in 2013, with fluctuations in between.

Note: The original 5-point scale used for this question was re-coded during the analysis into a 3-point scale. Answer options “Fully distrust” and “Somewhat distrust” were combined into the category “Distrust,” and “Somewhat trust” and “Fully trust” into “Trust.” “Neither trust nor distrust” was not re-coded. 

Who trusts the police in Georgia? Interestingly, no differences are observed in trust in the police by age or gender. The 2013 Caucasus Barometer data shows that residents of rural settlements express trust in the police more frequently than those living in urban settlements and in the capital (67%, 52% and 49%, respectively). Consequently, distrust is higher in the capital and other urban settlements (11% in both cases) compared to rural ones (5%). It should be noted, however, that a similar trend can be observed in the reported trust towards any other social institution, with the rural population, overall, reporting higher levels of trust.

There are very small differences in levels of trust in the police by education. Those with secondary or lower education tend to trust police slightly more compared to those with secondary technical or higher education (61%, 56% and 55%, respectively).

Note: The variable measuring education level was re-coded, so that answer options “No primary education”, “Primary education (either complete or incomplete)”, “Incomplete secondary education” and “Completed secondary education” were combined into the category “Secondary or lower.” Answer options “Incomplete higher education”, “Completed higher education”, and “Post-graduate degree” were combined into the category “Higher than secondary education”. “Secondary technical education” was not re-coded.

Overall, the data shows that the share of those who report “neither trusting, nor distrusting” police has increased over the years in Georgia, while the share of those who distrust the police decreased. People living in rural settlements tend to report trusting police more than people living in other settlement types. There are very small differences by level of education and no differences by age or gender.

To explore issues related to trust in social and political institutions, take a look at the Caucasus Barometer data using CRRC’s Online Data Analysis tool.

Finding divorce hard to justify

By Maya Komakhidze

[Note:  Social Science in the Caucasus is publishing the work of six young researchers who entered CRRC-Georgia’s Junior Fellowship Program (JFP) in February 2015. This is the third blog post in the series. Click here to see the first and second blog posts in the series.]

A study carried out by the UNDP in 2013 shows that traditional views of gender roles persist in Georgia – women primarily view themselves as housewives, spouses and mothers. Unsurprisingly, in the focus group discussions conducted within the framework of the National Research on Domestic Violence project, respondents associated divorce with “disaster,” “the end of the world” and the shame of a woman returning to her parents’ home after divorce. Female focus group participants stated that a woman should not think of divorce unless violence against her becomes intolerable. In contrast to these attitudes, the official number of divorces has increased in Georgia between 2006 and 2014. This blog post explores Georgians’ views on divorce using data from the CRRC Caucasus Barometer (CB) survey. As previous studies highlighted the changing values of young respondents who “no longer blindly follow traditions” and “do not tolerate from their husbands what their grandmothers and mothers put up with,” the blog post briefly discusses the attitudes of younger Georgians as well.

Slightly over half of the Georgian population reports that divorce is not justified, and this attitude did not markedly change between 2011 and 2013. Nationwide, differences by age groups are within the confidence interval. Differences by gender are also within the confidence interval. Differences by settlement type, on the other hand – namely, differences in the opinions of the population of the capital and the rest of the country – are obvious. The population of the capital demonstrates markedly higher acceptance of divorce compared with those living in other urban and rural settlements.

Note: Answer options to the question, “To what extent can getting a divorce be justified or not?” were re-coded for this and the following chart from a 10-point scale into a 3-point scale, with original options 1 through 4 corresponding to the option “cannot be justified,” 5 and 6 “sometimes justified,” and 7 through 10 “can be justified.”

The chart below shows the answers of the residents of different settlement types broken down by age group. Residents of the capital in all age groups differ in their views from the residents of other urban and rural settlements. In addition, the difference of opinion between younger and older generations is more pronounced in the capital, but less so in other settlements. This suggests that acceptance of divorce in Georgia is more closely related to where a person lives, rather than what generation a person belongs to, although age does appear to be an important factor.

Overall, disapproval of divorce remains strong in Georgia, and more than half the population thinks it cannot be justified. The views of people residing in the capital diverge markedly from the views of rural and urban residents, the most tolerant group being young residents of the capital. Still, despite the younger respondents of  the previous studies, who “no longer blindly follow traditions,” this seems to be the case predominantly in the capital, since young people outside Tbilisi generally do not approve of divorce.

For more information on the Caucasus Barometer data, take a look at the CRRC’s Online Data Analysis tool.

Georgia’s e-government – who is it for?

By Davit Mzikyan

[Note:  Social Science in the Caucasus is publishing the work of six young researchers who entered CRRC-Georgia’s Junior Fellowship Program (JFP) in February 2015. This is the second blog post in the series. Click here to see the first blog post.]

In the late 1990’s together with the boom in digital and information technologies, the concept of e-government first began to take shape. Since then, e-government has spread throughout the world. In 2007, e-government was launched in Georgia with the creation of the government commission supporting e-governance development, and in 2010, the Data Exchange Agency (DEA) was created under the Ministry of Justice of Georgia. One core function of the DEA is to assist in the development of e-governance. Since, the state has implemented a significant number of e-government projects including my.gov.ge, hr.gov.ge, eauction.ge, rs.ge. Looking to international rankings, progress is visible. According to the UN’s E-government development index, Georgia rose from 72nd place in 2012 to 56th in 2014.

E-government in Georgia will, of course, continue to develop, but, at the same time, it should be useful and efficient – to a certain extent, herein lays a problem. While the government develops and improves its digital services and communications through information and communications technology, a large share of the population – potential e-citizens – lacks knowledge of how to use computers, as well as knowledge of how to use the internet. Survey data from the 2013 Caucasus Barometer (CB) shows that roughly half of the county’s population (52%) has no basic knowledge of how to use a computer. This means that in all likelihood, these people are unable to use e-government services, or other means of communication with governmental bodies via the internet. In many ways, e-government without more or less advanced computer users is like a government without a population – its existence is pointless unless there are people who will benefit from its services. This blog post looks at the potential and perspectives of e-governance in Georgia considering self-assessed level of knowledge of computers by age and settlement type.

Stemming from the common belief that young people are good with technology, while the older generation has trouble using it, one might think that older people are the only group in society which has no basic knowledge of computers. While CB data confirms this impression to a certain extent, as 86% of those 56 and older report little to no knowledge of computers, it also shows that 24% of 18-35 year olds report having no basic knowledge of how to use a computer. Although the majority of 18-35 year olds (76%) reports knowledge of the computer, 14% of them report only a beginner’s level of knowledge. Still, young people are likely most capable of using e-government services, compared with older populations.

Note: The question about computer knowledge asked about the level of knowledge of computer programs, excluding games. Options “Do not know” and “Refuse to answer” are excluded from the analysis throughout this blog post.

In addition to age, knowledge of computers differs by settlement type as well. CB 2013 shows that almost half (46%) of the population of urban settlements outside the capital and 67% of the rural population do not know how to use a computer, compared to 31% of capital residents. Distribution of internet access also falls along these lines. According to the Institute for Development of Freedom of Information’s Statistics of Internet Users in Georgia – 2013 of 434,969 wired internet subscriptions in 2013, 273,396 were in Tbilisi. Imereti region comes in second with only 42,198 subscriptions. According to GeoStat, the population of Tbilisi in 2013 was 1,171,200 while the population of Imereti was 703,900. Therefore, Tbilisi had approximately 233 wired internet subscriptions per 1000 inhabitants, compared with only 60 in Imereti. Hence, in order to improve access to e-governance, the greatest amount of work will be spreading knowledge and access to technology in the populations of villages and urban settlements outside the capital. This is particularly important as residents of the capital can much more easily communicate with governmental bodies or receive services by visiting ministries or agencies, but for citizens living outside the capital there are fewer alternatives.

Nevertheless, in every settlement type, 18-35 year olds report more advanced knowledge of computers than those over 36 years old. In the capital, only 11% of young people report no knowledge of computers compared with 13% of youth residing in urban settlements outside the capital and 43% in rural settlements. Still, in all settlement types, knowledge of computers decreases with age.

This blog post has looked at e-government in Georgia in light of reported knowledge of computers. Despite the fact that the older generation generally knows less about computers and therefore has less access to the services that e-government provides, the young generation often has enough knowledge of computers to use its services. Considering that this young generation will replace the older one, it appears that in the future, with increasing knowledge of computers, e-government will be more widely used in Georgia. Nevertheless, compared to the capital, knowledge is lacking in other urban settlements and, especially, in rural settlements.

For more information, take a look at our earlier blog post on e-transparency in Georgia, or look through our data using the Online Data Analysis tool.

Connections or education? On the most important factors for getting a good job in Georgia

By Nino Zubashvili

[Note: Over the next two weeks, Social Science in the Caucasus will publish the work of six young researchers who entered CRRC-Georgia’s Junior Fellowship Program (JFP) in February 2015. This is the first blog post in the series.]

What is believed to be the most important factor for getting a good job in a country where unemployment is widely considered to be one of the biggest issues? CRRC’s 2013 Caucasus Barometer (CB) survey results show that connections (30%) and education (28%) are the most frequent answers to this question in Georgia. This finding is in line with studies on social capital in various countries, arguing that social ties provide people with better labor market opportunities (Lin, 1999; Mouw, 2003;  McDonald and Elder, 2006), as well as with studies on the role of education in the job market, finding that education is an important resource worth investing in as it provides individuals with access to employment and better chances at  obtaining well-paid jobs (Kilcullen, 1972;Smith and McCoy, 2009). Analyzing both the social ties and perceptions about what is reported as the most important factor for getting a good job, an earlier CRRC blog post, Finding a good job in Georgia, argued that Georgians without connections might be more likely to think that connections are the most important factor for getting a good job. This blog post, on the other hand, looks at how the answers about the most important factors for getting a good job differ by level of education and by employment status, with the aim of finding out who is more likely to think that education matters the most for getting a good job in Georgia.

CB 2013 data shows there is almost no difference in answers to this question between people having different levels of education. The only notable difference can be observed in relation to the perceived importance of professional abilities/work experience. While 17% of those with post-secondary education think this is the most important factor for getting a good job, 8% of those with secondary or lower education report the same.

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”. For the question, “What is the most important factor for getting a good job in Georgia?” infrequently named answer options – “Age”, “Appearance”, “Talent”, “Doing favors for the ‘right’ people”, and “Other” – were grouped into “Other”.

While there are few differences in perceptions about important factor(s) for getting a good job by education, such differences can be seen by employment status, and specifically between those who describe themselves as self-employed, employed and unemployed. Namely, 34% of the employed think education is the most important factor for getting a good job compared to 25% of the group who report connections. In contrast, the self-employed report that education (20%) is the most important factor for getting a good job less frequently than they report connections (33%). Those who consider themselves to be unemployed also name connections (40%) most frequently.

Note: To the question, “Which of the following best describes your situation?”, the following answer options – “Student and not working”, “Disabled”, “Other”, “Refuse to answer”, and “Don’t know” – were combined into “Other”.

This blog post has shown that while opinions about the most important factors for getting a good job in Georgia do not differ by education level, opinions do vary by employment situation. Those who describe themselves as employed more commonly think that education is the most important factor for getting a good job, while the self-employed and the unemployed most often name connections.

To learn more about CRRC surveys, visit our Online Data Analysis tool.

Junior Fellows at CRRC-Georgia: Facing new challenges

[Note: Over the next two weeks, Social Science in the Caucasus will publish the work of six young researchers who entered CRRC-Georgia’s Junior Fellowship Program (JFP) in February 2015.]

CRRC’s Junior Fellowship Program (JFP) was launched in 2009 as a Carnegie Corporation initiative within the CRRC, with the goal of providing on-the-job training opportunities in applied research for young social scientists. As the Program’s motto claims, the JFP would be “the best and hardest” experience the Junior Fellows would ever have, opening doors for educational and employment opportunities worldwide. Every year since, a new group of bright young people interested in social science research and selected through a highly competitive and challenging selection process would join CRRC-Georgia for a period of five to nine months.

Once becoming members of the CRRC-Georgia team, Junior Fellows are engaged in ongoing research projects at various stages of implementation both through direct participation and observation. Fellows learn about questionnaire development, pretest, sampling, survey fieldwork and back-checks, data management and analysis, slide production and presentation of results, report writing, the development of discussion guides, and preparation of interview and focus-group write-ups. We believe, Georgian higher educational institutions currently fail to help students acquire most of these skills, and hence the opportunity offered by CRRC-Georgia is quite unique for the Junior Fellows.

Potential junior fellows are expected to have already completed at least a BA degree, although it is not required that this degree is in the social sciences. They have to commit to the program full-time, and hence cannot combine JFP and another job or full-time studies during the fellowship period. In addition to valuable research experience, the Junior Fellows are provided with a number of training sessions on quantitative data analysis using SPSS and Stata statistical software, qualitative data analysis using NVivo software, and report writing.

Thirty two young people have been CRRC-Georgia Junior Fellows to date. After their fellowship period, seven stayed on to work at CRRC-Georgia, five continued their education abroad, and others started jobs at a number of different international and governmental organizations.

We asked some of the former fellows to share their opinions about what the JFP experience gave them, and how it relates to their current educational and employment situations. Here are some answers:

[At CRRC-Georgia] I got a valuable knowledge of how high-quality research should be conducted. While working with qualified people, I obtained knowledge and experience that helped me to advance in my future career. A great team, interesting projects and a great deal of perspectives – this is how I would describe my experience working at CRRC.
Nino Kerkadze, JFP-2012

CRRC is a small family, where one acquires new skills that will be useful [for the rest of your life].
Merab Bochoidze, JFP-2011

CRRC is a place with a wonderful working environment, qualified colleagues and great friends that will give a valuable boost to your career.
Salome Minesashvili, JFP-2011

CRRC-Georgia is currently hosting six junior fellows, and we believe, one of the most exciting, although challenging tasks for the current Junior Fellows is writing blog posts for the CRRC regional blog, Social Science in the Caucasus. In their blog posts, the Junior Fellows can focus on social science issues they are most interested in, apply their data analysis skills, and communicate their findings to an audience of international and local scholars, researchers, and journalists.

For the first time, we have decided to publish the 2015 Junior Fellows’ first blog posts in a single series. The JFP series will start today with Nino Zubashvili’s post and continue for two weeks.

Graduation Ceremony for the Junior Fellowship Program in Azerbaijan

On October 15, 2011, CRRC-Azerbaijan organized a conference recognizing the completion of its first Junior Research Fellowship Program (JRFP). The conference featured five presentations of individual research projects by the winners of the JRFP essay contest, as well as information about the general activities of CRRC-Azerbaijan office followed by an award ceremony and lunch. More than 30 invitees attended the event, representing civil society, academia, governmental agencies, and international organizations.

The JRFP aimed at building the social science research capacity among students or recent graduates in Azerbaijan. Competitively-selected program participants participated in a three-stage set of intensive trainings on qualitative and quantitative research methods, including introduction to policy analysis and public policy paper writing. The presenters demonstrated their learned skills and research findings at the conference.

(From the left: Gursel Aliyev, Robia Charles, Aynur Ramazanova, Yulia Aliyeva)

During the award presentation ceremony, the top three finalists - Aynur Ramazanova, Nargiz Guliyeva and Shabnam Agayeva - were presented with notebooks. The fourth and fifth finalists--Aysel Aliyeva and Vladimir Rodin - received netbooks. All other participants of the third stage of the program received certificates of participation.

The Junior Research Fellowship Program was generously supported by the OSI Think Tank Fund, Budapest.

Carnegie Research Fellowship Program | Winners Announced

Six scholars from the South Caucasus have been selected to join a prestigious program administered by CRRC and the National Council for Eurasian and East European Research (NCEEER). Carnegie Research Fellowship Program (CRFP) offers local scholars in the social sciences 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 4 months, starting in either September 2011 or January 2012. All costs for the scholars are covered, including round-trip airfare.

The following scholars have been selected as finalists for this year’s program through a competitive application process including interviews: three scholars from Armenia (Asya Darbinyan, Tamara Tonoyan and Tatevik Zadoyan), two scholars from Georgia (Maia Simonishvili and Eka Pirtskhalava) and one scholar from Azerbaijan (Turkhan Sadigov). We would like to congratulate them on their success and wish them a productive semester in the US.

For those who are interested in applying for the next round, keep your eye on CRRC’s website and Facebook page in February 2012!

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

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

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

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

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

Restructuring Schools in Armenian Neighborhoods: Does Social Capital Matter?

Public schools in Yerevan face serious problems of restructuring. Most of the schools have not been renovated since the collapse of the Soviet Union. Does economic well-being affect the level of social capital in the neighborhood? Are the neighborhoods with higher social capital more likely to be willing to participate in school renovations? The answer depends not only on public cooperation, but also on socio-economic well-being. Armine Asryan together with her partner Anush Davtian investigated social capital in four neighborhoods of Yerevan.

According to the researchers, income positively determines the level of social capital -- the higher the income, the higher the social capital; and there is a further relationship between social capital and school renovation -- the higher the social capital, the more likely it is that the community will take part in school renovation. Armine characterized the communities as having low bridging and high bonding capital, which indicate low civic participation apathy and extreme individualism among those four communities.

The researchers developed policy recommendations such as enhancing the transparency of school boards. The data show that most of the respondents who expressed their willingness to support school restructuring affirm that they donate money through school boards. Therefore, clear and continuous reports on the management of the funds will enhance parents' participation in school renovation projects.

The paper is posted on the CRRC-Armenia website. Please let us know what you think.

Institutionalization of Ethnic Communities in Azerbaijan

The Russian community is the most institutionalized ethnic community in Azerbaijan, according to the research of Ilham Abbasov, a CRRC 2007 Fellow. This is due to the quite diverse nature of this community, some support from the kin state, and the demand for the social communication space among mostly urban Russian speaking actors.

The Lezgins, Talysh and Avar, the other ethnic communities studied by the fellow, do not have a particular demand for such space due to great ethnic, linguistic and cultural similarities with Azerbaijanis. This is the reason why they lack interest in ethnic organizations. These communities are closely integrated into Azerbaijani society, in general do not make distinctions between themselves and other people in Azerbaijan, and do not experience discrimination. Local (town/village) rather than national identity is important for these minority groups.

Another reason for weak institutionalization of ethnic minorities is the lack of financial means. The majority of ethnic community members are neither ready to participate in ethnic organizations, nor willing to support them financially, thus limiting alternative resources for the institutional development of such organizations. As a result of the aforementioned reasons and as well as the tight state control over ethnic institutions, the number of ethnic organizations is not expected to increase.

The full report is available at the CRRC-Azerbaijan website.

No Adult Male Role Models: Distorting Armenian Male Teenager’s View of Masculinity

Gender issues in Armenia are currently under-evaluated and are interpreted predominantly as women's issues. Most of the recommendations drawn from different research suggest special policies to support and reinforce women's integration into traditionally male-dominated areas. According to CRRC-Armenia fellow Mariam Martirosyan, it is dangerous to ignore areas where significant under-representation of men is apparent; since in the long-term view, it may lead to a outcome for the Armenian male, the Armenian family unit and Armenian society in general.

Mariam Martirosyan studied the impact of the lack of adult male role models or senior male mentorship in Armenian schools on male teenagers' perceptions of masculinity. The research findings were alarming. The lack of male teachers in contemporary Armenian schools causes misperceptions on masculinity and male gender values among teenagers, often resulting in increased crime rates and delinquent behavior among young male adolescents.

In the attempt to find solutions to the problem presented in the paper, the fellow recommended to attract and engage more men into Armenia's secondary schools by increasing teachers' salaries; to bridge adult and young males via programs like the ZANG program, to assign male students of higher education institutions as mentors for primary, secondary and high-school students; to organize frequent tours to the army or to different factories dealing with technology and construction.

The fellow published an article in the June 2008 issue on "Journal of Education and Human Development" at the Scientific Journals International. The paper (in PDF format) is also available for download at the CRRC-Armenia website.

Vouchers for Childbirth | A Field Study

CRRC fellow Simon Gabrichidze and his research partner Tamar Trapaidze evaluated the implementation of a newly launched State Assistance Program (SAP) by the Ministry of Labor, Health and Social Affairs aimed at providing better health services for people living under the poverty line in the Samegrelo and Adjara regions.

The fellow conducted focus groups with stakeholders and structured interviews with 320 mothers living in the abovementioned regions who gave birth in Zugdidi and Batumi between June and September of 2007. Gabrichidze compared three female target groups, those who:

1. Were in the database of people living under poverty line;
2. Were not in the database but applied for a "voucher" that covers delivery expenses;
3. Did not apply for any assistance from the state and paid all the expenses related to child delivery themselves.

According to the findings, the general population is aware of the health benefits envisages by SAP, however, the level of awareness is rather low: only 57% of patients in Batumi and 60% in Zugdidi knew that a voucher for free medical service fully covers all the expenses related to child delivery; the rest of the respondents thought that the voucher only partially covers costs.

The main reasons for mothers not using the State Assistance were the regulations of the program. The study showed that trust in health care professionals was the lowest in this last group, those that paid all for themselves. So that people (curiously even those in need of the social assistance program) preferred to pay money for child birth, rather than visit doctors and health care service provides unknown to them. The respondents from the first group were most satisfied with medical service, while the ones from the second and third groups were more dissatisfied with out of pocket payment and financial affordability of the program.

According to doctors and social agents, very often comparatively rich pregnant women request voucher from the State; as the fellow recommends, the government should introduce more strict criteria for identifying beneficiaries of this group (or completely abolish it) and direct funds to the people that really need such assistance.

Here is the PowerPoint (although, note, this was for a verbal presentation, not specifically for the web). 

Vouchers for Obstretic Care in Georgia

View SlideShare presentation or Upload your own. (tags: georgia vouchers)

The full report is also available on the CRRC-Georgia website.

Diaspora Armenians in Armenian Society: the Problem of Adaptation

Difficulties with socio-economic integration – unemployment and a feeling of being “a society within a society,” are some of the examples from the list of problems Diaspora Armenians face when immigrating to Armenia. CRRC-Armenia fellow, Anahit Mkrtchyan, researched why these issues are problematic for the Diaspora Armenians and made policy recommendations.

As the researcher finds, integration of immigrant Armenians into the Armenian society is rather weak, because of a number of essential differences in values, lifestyle, dialect, moral principles and ideology peculiar to both immigrant and local Armenians. Furthermore, Diaspora Armenians lack information on their homeland and have high expectation before moving to Armenia, which also causes difficulties for their full adaptation to the Armenian reality.

According to Mkrtchyan (pictured above presenting at CRRC Armenia), attitudes of different groups toward creating integration policy vary. Local authorities avoid having repatriation and integration policies because immigrants can become competitive at the top levels in government and in business, also fear increased real estate costs. Many experts do understand the serious need of repatriation and integration policy, as repatriates will help to cultivate culture, legitimacy and civic attitudes in Armenian society. A group of representatives of Diaspora structures is sure that this policy is important, as the Diaspora faces assimilation, and there is a lack of patriotism among the younger generation.

Based on the local and Diaspora experts’ suggestions and findings, Anahit made the following policy recommendations:

• Consolidation of Armenian structures around two parallel missions and joint involvement in their realization.
• A nation wide integration program directed at better coordination of integration measures, offered on national and local levels. Involvement of trade unions, welfare structures, voluntary and social advocacy organizations and neighborhoods in drafting the adaptation and integration program. (Read more)

Mkrtchyan's work was published in the Turkish daily "Agos" in May 2008. The paper (PDF) in English is also available on the CRRC-Armenia website.

(Note that this, and other Fellows' work is on the CRRC Armenia blog, which we strongly encourage you to explore.)

CRRC Publication Research Fellowship 2008 Available

Explore issues - handle data - satisfy your curiosity - get published - generate opportunities
CRRC is offering a round of research fellowships. Are you curious about a social issue? Do you have some ideas or hypotheses that you want to explore further? This fellowship could be the perfect opportunity for you!

What issues are we looking to address?
We're looking for social science research that addresses pressing issues your country faces. The Millennium Development Goals (click here) constitute one such urgent research agenda. Other likely issues include child poverty, youth, social capital, migration and democratization. Pretty much any advanced analysis based on our Data Initiative is of interest to us. We can also help you develop your topic if you are unsure about it, but are committed to undertaking professional research. Check "CRRC Fellowship" in the label cloud on the left.

What results?
We want you to produce international quality research. You should aim to publish your research in a peer-reviewed journal (we will help you find one). This will give your research international recognition. We also expect your work to contain prescriptive richness and ask you to present your findings to relevant interested groups (international, organizations, NGOs, government agencies) in your home country. We definitely want you to use some of our great data from the Data initiative 2007.

Who is the fellowship for?
You are smart, committed, curious and want to apply all your abilities. Typically you will have at least a Master's Degree. You are committed to develop your research ability and have a track record of excellence. You may work in fields other than research, but you are interested in getting back into research because you realize there are excellent long-term opportunities there. We require a working knowledge of English, since you want to publish internationally. Exceptions can be made for those doing quantitative and survey work. (Sorry, no funding for stipends abroad, or for those who live outside the Caucasus.)

What do you get?
Primarily you get the satisfaction of doing excellent work and of being part of a small but vibrant community of internationally recognized research scholars in the South Caucasus. Moreover, if you get published internationally, many opportunities follow. The fellowship provides an opportunity to prove your professionalism, which you can use for many other applications (jobs, consultancy work, joint research projects, conference participation, international research stipends such as CRRC's Carnegie Fellowship, to name the most obvious). Depending on your research project, you can also get between USD 2000 and 4000 for pursuing your research interest (surveys, for example, may have higher costs).

Is it easy?
Yes and no. We will help at every step. But it certainly is not easy money. In research you confront new challenges and difficult decisions all the time. That is why we are doing it, after all. It requires determination and persistence -- we hope you will join us in the thrill of discovery.

How to prepare?
Our online application procedure is specifically designed to help you develop your research proposal. Write us a short email now (latest by July 18, 2008) to Melissa at melissa@crrccenters.org to find out more, telling us about your field or interest, and, if you have it, your provisional research topic. We will end you an email to let you know about the next step and to invite you to discuss your ideas at our open houses.

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.

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.

Attitudes in the South Caucasus Towards NGOs and International Organizations

CRRC Researcher and Fellow Irakli Sakandelidze recently conducted a study analyzing the attitudes of the local populations toward social institutions and the role of international organizations in the capital cities of the South Caucasus. The researcher used various research methods to analyze the determinants of trust towards non-governmental organizations (NGOs). In Armenia, confidence in NGOs is predominantly determined by age; respondents under 40 display higher levels of trust than older generations. Sex is also a determinant of trust in NGOs as women had higher confidence levels in NGOs than men. Similar to the results of the Armenia study, trust in NGOs in Georgia is mostly determined by age. In contrast, in Azerbaijan, the study results indicated that education is the only determining factor.

On a curious sidenote, it turns out that people working for international organizations are more likely to think that "things in our country are moving in the right direction". Arguably, working for an international outfit really sets people apart from their society. Below a slide from our 2006 Data Initiative, showing Armenian data.

(CRRC Data Initiative, 2006, open for extra resolution)

These discrepancies would merit a little more digging through the dataset, which we may do soon.

Corruption in Education in Armenia

It is not a secret that corruption negatively affects virtually all aspects of political, economic and social life. A recent study conducted by Bagrat Harutyunyan within the framework of CRRC 2005 Fellowship program focused on the problem of corruption in the Armenian education system. The fellow used qualitative methods (expert interviews and focus groups) to gather data on perceptions of corruption and manifestations of corrupt behavior in schools and universities, as well as on the graduate level. The study aimed to identify the main reasons behind corrupt behavior in educational institutions, the structure of corrupt relations and to create a typology of students and lecturers. According to the study, degrees of corruption vary largely depending on universities and faculties within each academic institution.

Armenian male students more often than females prefer to resort to corruption. It is worrisome that only about 20% of focus group and interview participants recognized their behavior as corruption as such. Thus, often academic fraud, use of personal connections, misuse of public property or patronage were not considered a corrupt behavior by respondents. Interestingly, friends and relatives of students and faculty, who are not part of education system, are the main mediators of corruption in academic life.The final report and two scholarly articles in Armenian are available on CRRC-Armenia website here. You can also email CRRC-Armenia for more information.

Bagrat Harutyunyan went a step forward and used the data collected within CRRC Fellowship program to further his PhD thesis defense on the topic of corruption in modern Armenian society will take place on June 13 at 14:00 in the Yerevan State University building.