2010 Big Mac Index | Increased differences between Baku and Tbilisi

In 2007 we wrote a blog post on the Big Mac Index, an index published by The Economist as an informal way of measuring purchasing power parity (PPP). The idea is that a dollar should buy you the same amount in all countries, and as a Big Mac is assumed to be produced in the same way everywhere it can serve as a point of comparison. You can thus determine how far off the exchange rate is between countries, in terms of citizens’ ability to buy the same “basket” of goods and services (in this case a Big Mac hamburger).

Back in 2007 a Big Mac cost 4.60 GEL (lari) in Georgia (which at the time was equal to 2.60 USD) and 2.50 AZN (amat) in Azerbaijan (2.73 USD). The price was thus similar in the two countries, and, according to the 2006 Big Mac Index, comparable to Hungary and Mexico. The same year, one had to pay 3.15 USD for the burger in the U.S. The only former Soviet country on The Economist’s list was Russia, and it placed much further down with the cost for a Big Mac equaling 1.6 USD.

Three years on a striking difference in price is now apparent. McDonalds is still not established in Armenia but a comparison can be made between Azerbaijan and Georgia and the rest of the world. As of March 2010, the price for a Big Mac in Georgia is 5.50 GEL, which according to the current exchange rate equals 3.2 USD. The price has therefore risen by almost 20 percent but at the same time the USD has gotten weaker in comparison with the GEL. According to the 2010 index, Georgia places between South Korea and Britain, relatively close to the U.S. at 3.58 USD. Without making any attempts to evaluate the strength of the lari in comparison to the USD, the Big Mac Index shows that the Georgian currency is somewhat undervalued.

In Azerbaijan, by contrast, the price for a Big Mac today is as much as 3.2 AZN, which equals 3.98 USD, a 28 percent increase from 2007. The huge increase in price means that a Big Mac in Azerbaijan is now more expensive than in the U.S., placing Azerbaijan on the same place as Australia, according to the index, indicating that the amat went from being slightly undervalued in comparison with the USD in 2007 to being overvalued today.

	2010	2006
Switzerland	6.16	4.93
Euro Area	4.62	3.51
Canada	4.06	3.01
Azerbaijan	3.98	2.73
Australia	3.98	2.44
Hungary	3.85	2.71
Turkey	3.71	3.07
United States	3.58	3.15
Japan	3.54	2.19
Britain	3.48	3.32
Georgia	3.2	2.6
South Korea	3	2.56
Poland	2.86	2.09
Mexico	2.56	2.66
South Africa	2.44	2.29
Russia	2.39	1.6
Egypt	2.37	1.61
Taiwan	2.36	2.35
Indonesia	2.28	1.54
Thailand	2.16	1.51
Malaysia	2.12	1.47
China	1.83	1.3

*Note that the numbers for Azerbaijan and Georgia are from 2007.

The price difference between Baku and Tbilisi was only 13 cents in 2007 but today is as much as 1.03 USD. Differences between the two countries have thus grown immensely in only three years. Russia is still in the lower part of the list with the cost for Big Mac being 2.34 USD. China is at the very last place of The Economist’s rating, indicating that the RMB (yuang) is greatly undervalued in comparison with the USD.

Comparing the currencies in the South Caucasus with the starting point in a McDonalds product might not be suitable for several reasons (e.g. there are few McDonalds restaurants in the Caucasus compared to other countries). The International School of Economics in Tbilisi (ISET) has recognized this and created their own index: the “Khachapuri Index”. It is based on the Big Mac Index but with the main purpose to measure inflation. Have a look at here.

Comments and comparisons to other purchasing power indices are welcome!

Gender imbalances | The South Caucasus on the top of the list

Earlier this month The Economist published two articles (article one, article two) on imbalances in gender. In all societies there is, at birth, a sex ratio slightly biased in favor of boys: 103-106 boys to 100 girls. The number evens out later on as male babies have a higher mortality rate than female babies. In some parts of the world, however, there currently is an abnormally high number of boys being born.

The Economist explains the phenomenon of imbalances in the genders by a preference in the society for boys, together with the modern family’s desire for a small family and the increased availability of sex-determining mechanisms such as ultrasounds. Some authors, and The Economist itself, have called this development “gendercide” (to use the title from Marry Anne Warren’s 1985 book). Globally, as many as 100 million girls are assumed to have “disappeared”.

The articles focus on China and India, countries that are said to have the highest rates of gender imbalances. But excessively high numbers of male babies is not a problem confined to the Far East. Data from the United Nations show the prevalence of distorted sex rates also in the South Caucasus. On the list of countries with the highest levels of gender imbalances we find Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia in the top (see chart below).

The problem of distorted sex ratios in the South Caucasus is not a new problem. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, there was an upsurge in the ratio of boys to girls in Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia. According to a UNICEF report from 2007 the sex ratios rose from normal levels in 1991 to 110-120 in 2000. These changes occurred simultaneously in all three countries, in sharp contrast to neighboring countries.

So why have we heard so little about this and where is the discussion today? Any thoughts on this?

New Policy Advice on Migration and Development in Georgia

Migration is a major factor in Georgia. Many Georgians live abroad, and by some estimates the money they send back accounts for nearly 10% of Georgia’s GDP. Did you know that households in rural areas who receive such aid are less likely to be poor, but that in Tbilisi, the opposite is true? Robert Tchaidze from the IMF and Karine Torosyan from CRRC’s partner institution ISET are about to reveal not only who in Georgia migrates, and when and where they go, but also how the country could take advantage of these migration flows in the future.

Their report “Measuring and Optimising the Economic and Social Impacts of Migration in Georgia” is not yet available online, but you can find an early summary. Robert and Karine’s work is part of the global project “Development on the Move” that was created by the Global Development Network and the Institute for Public Policy Research. It aims at analyzing the impact of migration on development around the world, and how these flows can be profited on with adapted public policy, as we had previously mentioned in our blog.

Georgia is one of six countries that have been selected for in-depth quantitative and qualitative studies. In this particular case, CRRC carried out the fieldwork, and we are happy to see our high-quality data used for valuable public policy advice.

Please let us know if you would like to receive the full document once it gets released publicly.

Work in Progress | Workshop Opportunity with CRRC Georgia

After a couple of informal workshop events, our Georgian office has decided to create a series of workshops called Work in Progress, or WiP in short. The idea is that people can present ongoing research and get feedback, primarily with the aim of generating suggestions that help them improve their work.


The typical format is a relatively short presentation, followed by a hands-on discussion. We do this together with ARISC and American Councils. The events are coordinated by William Sadd, who is representing ARISC in Georgia.


Today we started with a talk by Tim Blauvelt about research on Language Status in Georgia. (We will tell you more once the project is completed, it's a very exciting replication of experiments that have never been conducted in the South Caucasus.) 


So if you have research that you would like to present, a questionnaire that you want feedback on, a paper that is about to go to a conference, let us know. We'd like to get people together to give you good feedback.


The events will typically be held on Wednesdays, at 5.30, and we will advertise them through Facebook. Find us there, become our fan, and join us for the events.

Social Dialogue in the Eastern Partnership Countries

Eurasia Partnership Foundation (EPF) committed to draft an outline for the study Social Dialogue in the EaP partner countries (EaP 6) at the EaP Civil Society Forum in Brussels last fall. This is the first draft of the outline. The draft will be open for your comments and suggestions until March 19, 2010. Please feel free to disseminate this letter and invite your colleagues to contribute to the drafting of Social Dialogue in the EaP 6. EPF will summarize your comments and re-draft the study outline accordingly for the final discussions at the WG2 meeting in April, 2010.

EPF and its Caucasus Research and Resource Centers (CRRC) program, with offices in Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Georgia, will serve as a lead organization in developing and drafting the study outline. We are ready to lead the study team, draft funding proposal(s), and carry out the research in the South Caucasus countries as well. We are inviting expressions of interest on behalf of individuals and organizations to join the study team. Please indicate (1) your specific interest in the study, (2) research capacity, and (3) individual/organization’s experience in administering and/or conducting similar studies. Please post your comments on the time-frame, research team selection process, and fundraising opportunities on this blog.

Social Dialogue in the Eastern Partnership Countries

Background

The first Civil Society Forum for the Eastern Partnership (EaP) initiative was held in Brussels on November 16-17, 2009. In the Economic Integration and Policy Convergence Working Group (WG2), participants highlighted the need for social dialogue, stressing that regular consultations with CSOs (chambers of commerce, business and trade associations, employers unions, trade unions, and NGOs) would support the formulation of Association Agreements and deep and comprehensive free trade agreements (DCFTA). Social dialogue, a substantial basis of the European social model, should be adequately introduced as a means for EaP countries to secure the necessary stability to achieve economic reforms, transition to market economies, promote the general development of the society, and improve living standards.[1] The WG tasked Eurasia Partnership Foundation (EPF) with drafting an initial terms of reference for studying the situation and identifying gaps in the social dialogue policies and practices of the EaP 6.[2] With the publication of these initial terms of reference, EPF invites experts from the European Union and EaP countries to review the proposed components of the social dialogue study and/or express their interest in being a part of the research team by March 19, 2010.

For the purpose of the suggested study, social dialogue is defined as a type of cooperation among social partners, state institutions, and local governments aimed at balancing the interests of different segments of society in social and economic issues, and at ensuring internal social stability.[3] This definition is in compliance with the International Labour Organization (ILO) concept[4] and also includes assessment of social interactions at the company level. European social dialogue takes two main forms – a tripartite dialogue involving the public authorities and a bipartite dialogue between European employers and trade unions. Conventional social partners are trade unions and employers associations.

Objectives

The objective of the study of the social dialogue in the EaP 6 is to assess the current level of social dialogue within the EaP 6, compare this level across the EaP 6, and define the capacity building needs of the respective social partners as well as the legal and administrative frameworks for developing social dialogue at the national and company levels.

The study will determine the potential for using the EU’s new member states’ (NMS) experience of social dialogue to promote policies that improve social and labor standards in the region and facilitate the economic development and European approximation of the countries concerned.

The specific objectives of the research are:

• Evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of social dialogue capacities at both a sectoral and company level in each country;
• Identify needs for further research to assess the impact of social dialogue on the overall economic development of the country and the region.

Needs of the study

The EaP framework was officially indorsed in May 2009 as new means for the EU to encourage alignment with its eastern neighbors on political and economic terms. EaP presents an opportunity to conclude deep and comprehensive free trade agreements based on the results achieved under the European Neighborhood Policy Action Plan (ENP AP) envisaging, inter alia, alignment on labor conditions and development of conditions for social dialogue. The governmental multilateral thematic platform for economic integration and policy convergence under EaP emphasizes the need for exchanging views and experience on conducting social dialogue between the EU and EaP 6. Social dialogue is a cross cutting issue discussed under EaP multilateral platforms for i) Good Governance, Democracy and Human Rights and ii) Economic Integration and Convergence with EU policies. The social dialogue study, therefore, will serve as a benchmark for progress in building civil societies in the EaP 6 and facilitating global integration of their economies.

Example of Georgia

There are three major social partners in Georgia: Georgian Trade Union Confederation[5] (GTUC), Georgian Employers Association (GEA), and the Georgian Government (GoG). The tripartite dialogue was formally launched[6] in December 2008 when a memorandum on initiating the social dialogue was signed by the social partners. Further, the Prime Minister of Georgia issued a legal act[7] establishing a tripartite social dialogue committee (TSDC).[8] Despite attempts made thus far, the improvement of social dialogue has not yet brought practical outputs in legal or policy reforms via consensus among the social partners. Furthermore, public debates on other economic policy reforms remain limited.

Methodology

Information for this research project will be obtained using a questionnaire designed to examine the organizational, financial, and human resource or personnel capacities for social dialogue at the national government and company level in each EaP 6 country.

Representatives from major employer or trade union organizations, companies, and experts in social-labor relations will be interviewed to analyze the situation with regard to collective bargaining practices and capacities at sectoral and company levels.

Further, the study will include an analysis of the existing legal framework to promote social dialogue and ensure freedom of association and possibilities for collective bargaining within the target region. In addition the practice of anti-union human resource management strategies and implications of investment-friendly environment policies will be analyzed.

The study will also present country-level data on the legal settlement of labor relations involving social partners, media coverage of social dialogue, and available literature on the topic. This will be gathered through the questionnaire, workshops, and national reports.

Who will use the study?

The results of the study would be useful for policy planning by the public authorities, policy makers, and researchers of social fields and CSOs, especially in terms of building capacity of the social partner organizations. The comparison and analysis of social dialogue in the EaP 6 countries will identify activities that should be included in projects to promote experience sharing among partner countries. The recommendations will be useful for intergovernmental platforms within the EaP on good governance and economic integration as well as for substantiating the positions by the EaP civil society forum participants. Last but not least, the social partners themselves would have a better vision for drafting their development plans. One of the outcomes of the study could also be enhanced regional cooperation among the Eastern partners on labor standards policies and possibilities for creating social partner coalitions and networks on the regional level.

--------------------------------

[1] Recommendation of the EaP CSF II WG

http://ec.europa.eu/external_relations/eastern/civil_society/forum/working_group2_en.pdf

[2] The Eastern Partnership initiative relates to six countries: Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine.

[3] Guidelines for the Government (Latvia) Communication Policy 2008-2013

http://www.mk.gov.lv/file/files/valsts_kanceleja/publikacijas/kom_pamatnostadnes_ang.doc

[4] Social Dialogue envisages “all types of negotiations, consultation or simply exchange of information between or among representatives of governments, employers and workers, on issues of common interest relating to economic and social policy.”

http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/pubdocs/2007/91/en/2/EF0791EN.pdf

[5] GTUC is a locally registered non-for-profit organization. GTUC is lobbying the Government to adopt the principal provisions in the Labor Code for adequate labor rights and standards.

[6] GTUC, GEA and the Ministry of Health, Labor and Social Protection signed a memorandum to institutionalize social dialogue.

[7] The Prime Minister of Georgia issued a decree (#335 from November 12, 2009) establishing the Tripartite Social Dialogue Commission (TSDC) and assigning a working group to elaborate the statutes of the Commission.

[8] The working group consists of two representatives from each social partner to analyze Georgian legislation and draft the statute of the TSDC. The social partners agreed to create a mediation service for possible labor disputes. Before such a body is created, the TSDC will function as a mediator.

Social networks in rural and urban Georgia

It is often stated that life in a city is fundamentally different from that in rural areas. In the West, village life is said to be more intimate, and its inhabitants more caring about their peers, with strong ties between neighbors and family members. Can this also be said in the South Caucasus? After all, family relations and friendships are supposed to be strong in countries like Georgia. Do these ties reach into the cities, erasing the difference between strong social networks in rural areas and the more anonymous, independent urban setting?

The data from our 2008 Data Initiative (DI) gives us several clues as to how to answer this question. Georgian respondents in three settlements types - rural, urban (excluding the capital), and Tbilisi - were asked about their views on their social environment. The results showed that people with positive feelings about their social networks were, contrary to our expectations, most likely to be found in the capital, but least likely in other urban areas.

According to our data, inhabitants of rural settlements and Tbilisi are most likely to have enough people to trust. Villagers also have the lowest percentage of people lacking this kind of social support. Our question asked the respondents whether they had “many people to trust completely.” Respondents were most likely to agree with this statement in rural areas and Tbilisi (both 35 percent). Urban Georgia came out last, where only 21 percent felt they had trustworthy people around. By contrast, 24 percent in Tbilisi and about 23 percent in other urban areas said they cannot trust many people in their social environment. In rural Georgia only 13 percent of respondents said the same. The neutral answer reading “the statement more or less describes my feelings” was most often recorded in urban areas (53 percent), followed by rural Georgia (51 percent) and Tbilisi (41 percent).


When asked about people close to them, respondents in Tbilisi were more often satisfied with their situation than those living in other settlement types. Inhabitants of rural areas were least likely to express a lack of close friends. In response to the proposed statement “I have enough people I feel close to”, urban Georgia had again the least favorable response pattern. In cities like Batumi or Rustavi, only 41 percent of respondents stated that they have many close people around. Fifty percent in the capital and 45 percent in rural areas agreed with this statement. This time, Tbilisi also had the highest percentage of negative answers, with as much as 13 percent of the respondents thinking that they lack close friends. Only 9 percent of answers recorded in rural parts of the country, and only 10 percent in urban Georgia, reflected the same negative feelings. The neutral answer was most likely to be found in rural settings and urban areas (both 46 percent), followed by the capital (37 percent).

In response to the statement “there are plenty of people I can rely on when I have problems”, once again more people in the capital than in other parts of Georgia agreed, and urban Georgia featured the highest percentage of respondents who miss reliable people when they encounter problems. In urban Georgia only 30 percent of the respondents felt safe to turn to their friends when in trouble, and there were 18 percent who thought that they cannot rely on their social environment in this way. Both in the capital and in rural areas, the spread between positive and negative answers is much higher: in Tbilisi a full 48 percent agreed that they have plenty of reliable people around, compared with 14 percent who disagreed. In rural areas 42 percent gave a positive and only 13 percent a negative answer. The percentage of respondents who chose “describes more or less my feelings” as their answer was lower in the capital (37 percent) than in rural (45 percent) and urban Georgia (51 percent).


Now, which settlement has the highest quality of social networks? If we take a negative definition (i.e. we search the type of settlement with the smallest percentage of respondents expressing a lack of sound social ties), rural life seems to be the best choice, with the fewest amount of people choosing the negative answers. If, however, we compare positive answers (i.e. we search the type of settlement where the highest percentage of respondents were satisfied with their social networks), the capital is ahead of rural settlements. With both definitions, urban Georgia (excluding the capital) comes out last in the comparison. This hints to the fact that city life might have significant drawbacks, but that they have been compensated in Tbilisi by factors not present in other urban settlements. By the way, people in the capital also tend to have a more pronounced opinion about these matters, with fewer respondents choosing the neutral answer in response to the three statements.

What are the factors that help Tbilisi to counterbalance some of the negative aspects of city life? Why does it have so many people satisfied with their social networks, without the large numbers of unsatisfied respondents found in other cities in Georgia? Some of these factors might be found with the help of our survey data. If you feel like exploring this interesting subject, or would like to see similar data for Armenia or Azerbaijan, we invite you to visit http://www.crrccenters.org/sda, where you can find all of our 2008 DI survey data for free, accessible via an easy-to-use web interface. Comments and ideas are appreciated.

Top Ten Leisure Activities in Georgia

Wondering what Georgians do in their free time? Do they read, listen to music, go to cinemas and theatres, stay at home and spend time with their families, watch TV, or just sleep?

Find out what are the ten top leisure activities in Georgia, according to a nationwide survey recently conducted by CRRC.

Read the full article, which was recently published in Georgian Times, here.

Reporting Data in the Media

This recently was on PhD Comics. So true. 

What would one add for the Caucasus? Any ideas? We should translate this and circulate.

Obstacles for Civil Society Development in the South Caucasus

What are the reasons for low public engagement in the South Caucasus? Why, despite the large number of non-government organizations, civil society remains weak in all three countries?

Marc Howard gives one of the most convincing explanations about the weakness of civil society in the post-communist countries.

According to Howard, three factors contribute to the weakness of civil society: citizen distrust towards formal institutions; general dissatisfaction with economic and political conditions; and the persistence of strong pre-transition social networks.

While Howard concentrates on the post-communist Europe, CRRC’s Data Initiative and EBRD’s Life in Transition survey data support the relevance of Howard’s argument to the South Caucasus. Read the full article in a recent issue of Development&Transition here.

Georgia & Russia | Russian Analytical Digest

What do Georgians think about Russia? What relationship would they like to have with their northern neighbor? And what do they think about the August conflict? Our data allows a nuanced answer to these questions: although Georgians have a very critical view of Russia’s role in the August conflict, they continue to desire a good political relationship with their northern neighbor, as long as this is not at the expense of close ties with the West. Georgians remain favorable to Russians as individuals, and to doing business with Russia. Culturally, however, Georgians are orienting themselves towards the West. 

Want to know the full picture? 

Read a detailed piece by Nana and Hans in the Russian Analytical Digest (which also contains interesting articles by Cory Welt and Ghia Nodia) here. 

Insight to Georgian Households | CRRC Data on Economic Wellbeing in the Caucasus

How are Georgians doing financially, how much do they earn and what do they spend on? CRRC’s Data Initiative allows for an in-depth analysis of these and similar issues on the economic status of the population across the South Caucasus.

We again (see our recent piece on social developments here) published something in Investor.ge, the journal published by the American Chamber of Commerce -- and a great resource for tracking business and economic developments.

In this article, Arpine and Nana discuss how much Georgians earn, what they spend money on, how they borrow, and how they see their financial future. Read the article on economic well-being of Georgian households here.

SDA on South Caucasus Data | Video Tutorials

Earlier this year, CRRC launched Survey Documentation and Analysis (SDA), a web-based interface for statistical analysis loaded with information from the 2008 Data Initiative (DI). Based on interviews with more than 6 000 respondents in Georgia, Armenia and Azerbaijan, the program contains a whole variety of information available to everyone at www.crrccenters.org/sda.

If you feel hesitant about using statistical programs – think again! SDA is a user-friendly program that doesn’t require any previous knowledge of statistics. To help get you started there are now two short video tutorials available on Youtube and if you spend just 12 minutes watching part I and II you will be able to fully explore all the data available in SDA (you can also have a look at the first lesson here). You’ll be able to get answers to all those questions you’ve always been wondering about, for example how do men and women’s opinions about the Georgia-Russia war differ between the three countries? Or what is the difference in health status between respondents of different income level? Have a look at these videos and you’re ready to get started and explore the extensive data yourself!

Georgian Media as Business | Data Snapshots

In terms of the business findings, CRRC's Media Survey (undertaken in September/October 2009) generated extensive data that is available to help media make good business decisions. One recent presentation, summarized here, focused on showing the diversity of data that is available. 

Internet clearly will influence the media environment, with 19 percent saying that they have access to the Internet. When browsing the Internet, social networking sites are most popular (59 percent), followed by doing emails (36 percent) and then listening to music and watching movies (34 percent). For those that do not have Internet access at home, 36 percent say that the main reason is that it is too expensive. Twenty percent say that the problem is that they do not have access in their area. Only 7 percent say they do not want to use it. While price is the main reason for not getting Internet, 49 percent also say they do not know how much Internet costs in their settlement. (Details on how much different groups would be willing to pay is also available.) 

Yet a significant challenge, little discussed, is that free-download sites (ranked among the top ten sites in Georgia) may get the public to form the expectation that content is always for free. This expectation is a very significant risk to the media business in Georgia which needs to convince the public to pay for quality content. Intellectual property concerns, while not on the agenda right now, will soon become relevant.

While newspapers have limited circulation, not all of it is a matter of cost. Only 21 percent say that they don't read newspapers because they are too expensive. Twenty-three percent say they currently are not interested in reading newspapers, and 22 percent that newspapers simply are not sold in their area, implying that there are some potential customers that could still be won over. Again, the prices that different groups would be willing to pay are also available.

As for television, consumers clearly say they want quality coverage, delivered professionally. This seems important in attracting and retaining viewers. However, television is used in different ways by different groups. When switching on TV, the majority of men (65 percent) actually watch, while the majority of women (59 percent) use it as a kind of radio, running the TV while engaging in other tasks. Current TV advertising does not seem to popular, with almost 80percent saying that they usually switch channels if there's a long block of advertising.

These are only some data points, and that much more targeted data can be made available if media professionals or researchers are interested in finding out what the audience wants. 

[This research has been produced with the assistance of the European Union. The contents of this publication are the sole responsibility of the CRRC and can be in no way taken as to reflect the views of the European Union.]

The "Attitudes Towards European Integration" Survey

Georgia's government openly seeks greater cooperation and, eventually, convergence with the EU. The CRRC and the EPF have recently released the results of their "Attitudes Towards European Integration" survey, along with its summary report. The results show that Georgia's population seemingly strongly supports its government's drive toward Europe. The survey itself, in addition, is an excellent tool for analyzing and fostering a greater understanding of an important subject for the citizens and the government of Georgia.

Some interestingly high numbers from the survey include 81 percent of the respondents who said they think Georgia should become a member of the EU in the future, and 79 percent who said they would vote for EU membership were a referendum held on the issue. Furthermore, 68 percent of the respondents said that EU membership would either significantly or somewhat improve Georgia's national security. Being a part of what EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana calls the "bigger element of Europe" (Erlanger, "Europe's Foreign Policy," NYT, Nov. 30, 2009) not only includes the potential for increased trade with and mobility throughout the EU, it means being a part of a phenomenon that has brought peace, prosperity, and stability to a large part of Europe – and one that continues to gain momentum.

In contrast to Georgia’s enthusiasm, the EU’s approach toward deeper cooperation with Georgia is often lukewarm. Many commentators have noted this, and have even gone so far as to warn Brussels against adopting such a passive attitude (see, for instance, Vasalek, "What Does the War in Georgia Mean," CER, 2008 & Kucharczyk, "Time for the EU," European Voice, Aug. 21, 2008). Some of the survey's results may indicate that Georgia's citizens are aware of the EU's sometimes less-than-heightened interest: Although 37 percent said that a majority of Europeans supports Georgia's EU membership, 53 percent either did not know or refused to answer. Moreover, when asked whether a majority of EU Member States supports Georgia's inclusion, 39 percent said "yes," while 51 percent either did not know or refused to answer.

There are, nevertheless, at least two means by which the Georgia-EU relationship can be reciprocal and more constructive. First, for its part, the EU can continue with and strengthen cooperation within the framework of the Eastern Partnership (EaP). There should be a greater political will within the EU to inject life into a relationship that often finds itself to be lagging within the ENP (European Neighbourhood Policy). The recent meetings in Brussels on October 26, 2009, between the EU and the foreign ministers of Georgia, Armenia, and Azerbaijan, which were led by Swedish Foreign Minister Carl Bildt, are a start – especially in terms of practical steps to be taken. Visa-free travel to the EU for citizens of the South Caucasus, for instance, was one of the major subjects broached at these meetings. Although Bildt stressed the need to better facilitate mobility between the EU and the South Caucasus, no definitive commitments were agreed upon.

The numbers from the survey arguably support the ministers' requests: A fair number of the respondents – 30 percent – said they would be interested in working in the EU, a number that increased to 42 percent of the respondents under the age of thirty-five. In addition, 37 percent of the respondents aged thirty-five or under expressed interest in studying in the EU.

Second, for its part, Georgia can foster a greater understanding of the EU among its citizens by disseminating more information on EU affairs to its citizens through various media outlets and further studies and surveys such as these. In fact, the survey revealed that Georgia's population often lacks sufficient information on the EU. Forty-four percent of the respondents either did not know or refused to answer the "What do you expect from the Eastern Partnership for Georgia" question, and 17 percent answered "restoration of territorial integrity" – decidedly not the EaP's principal aim. Only 9 percent answered "political and economic integration with the EU." In all, 66 percent of the respondents stated that they would like to have more information on the EU.

A well-informed populace is one way to get Brussels to pay more attention to Georgia, where so much progress that is on par with other potential EU members has occurred. It also places Georgia in a unique position, i.e. to be an example to other nations on similar courses of development by taking matters into its own hands rather than passively waiting for directions from the EU.

For all the information on the survey, the report, and other documents from the EU, please visit EPF’s site.

Georgian Media | Georgian Public Broadcaster

CRRC recently undertook a major study of Georgian media. On the blog, we will publish some small excerpts that have not made it into the main report (the link to these reports will be published on the blog). One aspect not covered in that much more detail is the Georgian view of their Public Broadcaster (GPB). The GPB, you will remember, is financed from the government budget, and the GPB is intended to follow the general principle of serving the broader public interest. So how does it do?

60 percent of Georgians say the receive news on politics and current events in Georgia from GPB at least several times a week. But the GPB is not the first news station on people's minds, with only 25 percent saying they usually turn to GPB for news and shows related to current events. GPB is more popular in rural areas, and among people that are actually reading newspapers. Age also seems to be a factor, as the slide illustrates.

Trust levels in the news broadcasted on the GPB are not high, with only 26 percent saying they fully or somewhat trust GPB. 18 percent say they fully or somewhat distrust GPB. Significant amounts either say they neither trust nor distrust the news broadcast on the GPB (27 percent), or that they do not know (20 percent). Fifty-one percent believes the news coverage reflects the interests of the government, and 11 percent believed it reflected neither the interest of the government nor those of the opposition. (Twenty-six percent said they did not know, and 4 percent refused to answer.)

As for the financing, 40 percent correctly identified that GPB is primarily financed by government. Forty-two percent said they did not know what is the main source for financing the GPB. This suggests that the majority of Georgians do not realize that the GPB is primarily financed from public resources.

Contact CRRC in case you're interested in pursuing a more detailed analysis.

[This research has been produced with the assistance of the European Union. The contents of this publication are the sole responsibility of the Caucasus Resource Research Centers and can be in no way taken as to reflect the views of the European Union.]

Starting at Home | Georgia First Lady on Europeanizing Georgia

Georgia’s First Lady knows how to get a lively debate going. Invited by the Institute for European Studies at Tbilisi State University, Mrs. Saakashvili-Roelofs visited Tbilisi State University on 10 November to hold a keynote speech on the “Importance of EU Experience for Georgia’s Domestic Development”. It turned out to be an interactive and thought-provoking debate, in which the Pirveli Lady explicitly engaged the audience, mostly consisting of undergraduate students. Dutch-born Mrs. Roelofs was accompanied by her brother Egbert, who is currently living and working in France.

Keen on addressing the core questions underlying the Europeanisation debate in Georgia, Mrs. Saakashvili-Roelofs started by asking whether Georgia is indeed a part of Europe. After discussing this question with the audience, she concluded that although Georgia is geographically split between a European and an Asian part, its politics remain firmly directed towards Europe. Illustrating this, the First Lady recounted her husband telling the President of a new EU member state: “Congratulations, you’re now in the European House. But please don’t close the back door.”

When the First Lady asked if, and how, Georgia would truly benefit from joining the European Union, several students were eager to discuss the benefits a potential EU membership would give them: it would make it easier for them to travel, and to study at European universities (CRRC’s recent EU survey shows 37 percent of those under 35 years of age interested in studying at a European university).

Despite acknowledging the general economic advantages of EU membership, the First Lady also placed some critical comments. In particular, she expressed her worries that EU membership could bring an end to traditional Georgian craftsmanship and raise the prices of Georgian products, since EU regulations on agricultural and commercial products would homogenise Georgia’s traditional ways of production and lead to the bankruptcy of those artisans who would not be able to modernise their business. “What are the alternatives for economic integration with the EU?” Mrs. Saakashvili-Roelofs asked the audience. Could Georgia, with its highly skilled population, not become an economic hub and a tax haven, like for instance Singapore or Dubai?

Above all however, the First Lady stressed that EU accession would require the Georgian population to embrace European values. In particular, Georgians would have to become more aware of their civic duties, such as assisting the government in improving public health. Wearing a seatbelt, for one, seems to remain a cultural taboo in Georgia, and interest in Tbilisi’s free breast cancer prevention programme remains low. However, the audience was quick to suggest effective solutions to this problem, like “handing out free t-shirts with seatbelts printed on them”. On a more serious note, Mrs. Saakashvili-Roelofs then stated that if Georgia wanted to become a true member of the European community, it would have to learn to embrace its weak and marginalised groups, like mentally and physically handicapped people, and respect every individual's decision to live life in their own way. 

The First Lady concluded on a positive note, saying that Europeanisation is a two-way street and that Europe can also learn from Georgia. She praised the strong sense of community in Georgia, and the many families who choose to take care of their elderly family members rather than sending them to retirement homes - as is often the case in Western European countries. And, of course, she did not forget to mention Georgia’s traditional dances, songs and its rich literature.

The Institute of European Studies at Tbilisi State University regularly hosts events and regular talks. Check their website to get onto their mailing list.

Religiosity and Trust in Religious Institutions | Paper with CRRC Data

Robia Charles, a fellow at CRRC Georgia from January to June 2009, has written a paper to examine determinants of trust in religious institutions in Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia - three countries with low levels of religiosity as measured by attendance, prayer and fasting, yet high levels of trust in religious institutions. The analysis employs individual-level survey data from the Caucasus Research Resource Centers’ (CRRC) 2007 Data Initiative and uses advanced statistical techniques to show that while religious practices do not determine trust in religious institutions, the importance of religion in one’s daily life is a strong indicator of trust in religious institutions in each country.

However, the results show some differences between the three countries with regard to two types of control variables-trust in secular institutions and socioeconomic factors. Georgia is the only country in which interpersonal trust is a significant indicator of trust in religious institutions. Residence in the capital is only significant in Azerbaijan. Armenia is the only country in which both education and age are significant.

To read the actual paper, which also tests two theories of trust in institutions, click here.

TI's 2009 Corruption Perceptions Index: Georgia's Score in Context

Transparency International (TI) released its 2009 Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI) on 17 November, and Georgia’s score rose slightly to 4.1, compared to 3.9 in 2008, which marks a minor improvement. The CPI uses a scale where "0" equals highly corrupt and "10" denotes not at all corrupt. New Zealand, for instance, came in first with a score of 9.4, whereas Somalia came in last with a score of 1.1.

The methodology behind the CPI reportedly includes a combination of surveys and assessments from over the last two years of both resident and non-resident experts and business leaders from ten different independent institutions. For a country to be included in the index, at least three different sources must be available, and, according to the index, seven surveys were used for Georgia.

According to TI, the CPI is meant to be a "snapshot," not an indicator of progress over time, to gauge perceptions of corruption in the public and political sectors. A degree of caution should therefore be used when interpreting the CPI results, as they do not necessarily reflect the views of the wider public but the expert opinions of a small group (a third party) of public sector analysts.

The scores, however, are inevitably used to compare countries, and individual scores from the prior year are always mentioned in the media, i.e whether they have risen or dropped.

On a regional level, Georgia's scores are rather positive. Armenia scored 2.7 and came in 120th place, which was a slightly negative decrease from last year (2.9). Azerbaijan received a score of 2.3 (143rd place), a fair improvement from its mark of 1.9 in 2008.

Overall, Georgia's ranking places it 66th out of 180 countries. Interestingly, that score puts Georgia above EU Member States Greece, Bulgaria, and Romania, all of which scored 3.8 (tied for 71st place). Moreover, Georgia's score ties that of EU candidate Croatia and is above FYR Macedonia (3.8, 71st place), another EU candidate. Georgia also scored better than Montenegro (3.9, 69th place), Serbia (3.5, 83rd), Moldova (3.3, 89th), and Bosnia and Herzegovina (3.0, 99th). (Note that though the confidence intervals overlap substantially in the index, Georgia’s point estimate was still higher than in these other countries.)

For the 2009 CPI results and the methodological brief, go here.

The South Ossetia Crisis: a War of Ideologies

Many scholars have commented on the influence of the Russia-Georgian war on foreign policy strategies in the Caucasus. In contrast, little attention has been given to its effect on public perception in the countries of the Caucasus.

It is therefore noteworthy that public opinion plays a key role in a recent article by Anar Valiyev, entitled “Victim of a ‘War of Ideologies’ - Azerbaijan after the Russia–Georgia War”. Because of the war, Valiyev argues, Azerbaijanis have become less supportive of Western-style “unmanaged” democracy, preferring instead a more controlled and Moscow-backed “sovereign democracy”.

Interestingly, he asserts that the Russia-Georgia war “significantly changed Azerbaijanis’ perceptions of the democratic West and negatively impacted their perceptions of the United States and the European Union. Georgia’s defeat and the subsequent political turmoil demonstrated the viability and stability of the sovereign democracy and made the Russian model of governance more attractive to the people of Azerbaijan.”

In order to illustrate this premise, Valiyev places a great emphasis on public opinion polls, including CRRC’s Data Initiative. He emphasises the value of these statistics, noting that they are almost the only method enabling to track the political development and the perceptions of the Azerbaijani society before and after the South Ossetia crisis.

For one, surveys held by CRRC show an interesting change in Azerbaijani public support for NATO membership. Whereas about 60 percent of the population supported NATO membership in 2006 and 2007, only 48 percent of the respondents supported the military block in November 2008. At the same time, the share of the population that was neutral on the question rose significantly. To Valiyev, this increasing undecidedness about joining NATO is a direct result of the West’s failure to effectively engage with Russia during the South Ossetia war.

Azerbaijani public support for EU membership was characterised by a somewhat similar development. The year 2008 saw a sharp increase in the percentage of people taking a neutral stance on potential EU membership for Azerbaijan (from 37 to 48 percent), while there was a decline in both the percentage of people supporting and the percentage of people not supporting EU membership. This shift indicates, Valiyev concludes, an increasing confusion among the Azeri public about the role of the EU in the Caucasus.

Other CRRC statistics used by Valiyev demonstrate how public trust in the Azeri armed forces dropped from 81 to 68 percent between 2007 and 2008, and how President Aliyev’s popularity rose to a record 82 percent after the war. Some additional survey material refers to popular support for enhancing economic relations with Western countries and Russia.

There is no conclusive answer as to whether the developments in public perception are a direct result of the Russia-Georgia war. However, Valiyev’s article makes for an engaging read, and highlights the value of survey data to expose the ideological dimension of conflict.

We recommend you to read the article at: http://heldref-publications.metapress.com/app/home/contribution.asp?referrer=parent&backto=issue,4,4;journal,1,23;linkingpublicationresults,1:119920,1
Alternatively, it can be found in Demokratizatsiya: The Journal of Post-Soviet Democratization (Issue: Volume 17, Number 3 - Summer 2009).

CRIA: 2009 Autumn Issue

The Caucasian Review of International Affairs’ (CRIA) Autumn issue has arrived.

Since 2006, the non-profit, quarterly academic journal has been publishing works from a wide array of international scholars, analysts, and researchers. Committed to providing a better understanding of regional affairs, the CRIA is unique as a free, peer-reviewed online academic journal devoted to covering the South Caucasus.

In the interest of promoting an exchange of ideas and dialogue on this fascinating part of the world, the CRIA publishes papers, comments, book reviews, and interviews, as well as its weekly Caucasus Update, all of which provide in-depth analysis on affairs in the Caucasus as well as the wider region.

Representing several different academic institutions, the CRIA’s international advisory and editorial boards lend their expertise and experience to the journal, and its readership continues to grow. Further, the CRIA was recently added to Columbia International Affairs Online, and is now included on a large list of international citation indexes and research databases, and in numerous universities’ e-journal catalogues. Several mutually beneficial partnerships have been established as well, including one with the CRRC.

Kartvelophiles will find plenty to pique their interest. The headline paper for the Summer ’09 issue analyzes patterns of balance and bias in several international newspapers’ coverage of the 2008 Russia–Georgia war. The current autumn issue includes a paper by Alexi Gugushvili on the reform of the old-age pension system in Georgia and an interview with CRRC’s Regional Director Dr. Hans Gutbrod and its Georgia Country Director Koba Turmanidze.

And do not forget to browse the back issues, too, and check out Aaron Erlich’s review of Magnarella’s “The Peasant Venture” for a fascinating look at a work that goes beyond standard political and economic themes. In addition, other noteworthy pieces by Dr. Papava of the GFSIS, Lasha Tchantouridze, and Till Bruckner’s paper on the government’s efforts to house IDPs can also be found in the back issues.

Finally, for all who are interested, the CRIA accepts papers, comments, and book reviews on a rolling basis (see our submission guidelines for further details), and all manuscripts are carefully considered. Submission deadlines for the Winter 2010 and the Spring 2010 issues are December 15, 2009, and March 15, 2010, respectively. Feel free to e-mail www.cria-online.org with any questions or comments.