Levels of trust in the banks in Georgia: Changes over the past two years

Banking is one of the fastest-growing sectors of the Georgian economy, a point which was underlined in a 2009 report from the Ministry of Economic Development of Georgia. But does this development mean that society views banks as trustworthy partners for households (HH) in Georgia?

In fact, from 2008 to 2009, the overall level of trust in banks has decreased in Georgia, especially for the HHs who say they have savings and for those who say they have debts. This could in part be due to the global financial crisis which, according to the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development’s (EBRD) 2010 country strategy report, significantly affected the Georgian economy. The crisis revealed the financial sector’s weaknesses around the world and led to widespread doubt concerning the reliability of banks.

Households & Savings

For the small number of HHs who say they have savings (9 percent in 2008, 6 percent in 2009), the level of trust in banks has significantly decreased. According to the 2008 Caucasus Barometer (CB, previously referred to as the “Data Initiative”), combining the “fully trust” and “somewhat trust” categories shows that 60 percent of HHs with savings said they trusted banks. In 2009, however, this figure fell to 49 percent. As a place to put one’s money and keep it safe, apparently, fewer people view banks in a positive light.

Even for HHs without savings – the majority of the respondents – the level of trust in banks has fallen: in 2008, 53 percent of them had said that they trusted banks, whereas only 42 percent said the same in 2009 (see Figure 1). At the same time, the number of those saying specifically they distrust banks remained the same, hinting at a high degree of uncertainty with regard to banks among the population.



Households & Debts

The level of trust in banks among HHs who reported that they have debts saw an even larger drop. Although these could be debts either to banks or to private persons, without interest, this drop could be linked to the fact that it has become increasingly difficult for HHs to take out loans to help alleviate any debts they have. Overall, 43 percent (2008) and 42 percent (2009) of the HHs claimed to be indebted. Of these HHs, 59 percent said that they trusted banks in 2008, though only 45 percent claimed the same in 2009.

On the other hand, the level of trust remained broadly similar in those HHs who say they do not have debts. Forty-nine percent of them had said that they trusted banks in 2008, while 42 percent said the same in 2009.




Conclusion

The 2008 Caucasus Barometer was carried out from the second half of October to the middle of November, and these figures offer a snapshot of how the global financial crisis may have taken its toll on HHs’ trust in banks in Georgia. Still, there are certainly other factors which play a role, and further research and commentary are needed. We invite you to access the 2008 CB dataset to make your own comparisons here.

Caucasus Barometer | A New Name for the CRRC's Data Initiative

The CRRC’s annual Data Initiative Survey will be renamed into the Caucasus Barometer starting from 2010. At CRRC, we think that the new name better reflects the essence of the survey and is more understandable for the general public and the journalists.

The Data Initiative was first launched in 2004. Since 2007, a representative sample of approximately 2,000 respondents is interviewed annually in each of the counties. They answer core questions about household composition, social and economic situation of households, employment status, assessments of social and political situation in the countries, as well as respondents’ perceptions about direction of life. In addition, we include questions about media, health, crime, and other topical issues.

The change of the name, however, will not cause any changes in the way the survey is carried out – it is still an annual survey conducted every fall in all countries of the South Caucasus, employing the same methodology and the same survey instrument. Its major goal is to get reliable longitudinal empirical data to understand various aspects of the processes of social transformation in Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Georgia. We are committed to ensure the highest possible scientific quality through all the steps of survey implementation.

The data and the survey documentation are open to all interested researchers and represent a unique tool for further quantitative analysis. You can find more information about the Data Initiative/Caucasus Barometer on our website.

The Level of Trust in Government Institutions in Georgia: The Dynamics of the Past Three Years

During the last two decades, Georgia has created new government institutions designed to serve as the tools and safeguards of democracy. But do Georgians believe that these institutions live up to their mission statements? How much do Georgians trust government institutions, and which factors influence the public’s attitudes toward them?

A look at the data from the Data Initiative (DI) over the last three years (2007–2009) shows how the level of trust in government institutions may be related to the political crises and external threats to the country, as well as to the personalities representing these institutions.

For example, the public’s trust in President Saakashvili has experienced a significant increase, especially after the 2008 August war. Combining the “fully trust” and “somewhat trust” categories shows that the percentage of the respondents who trusted the President rose from 32 percent in 2007 to 51 percent in 2008 and remained nearly the same in 2009. Moreover, combining the “somewhat distrust” and “fully distrust” categories reveals that the number of those who distrusted him dropped from 37 percent in 2007 to 18 percent in 2009 (see Figure 1). Such changes could perhaps be linked, firstly, to the events that led to the November 2007 political crisis and, secondly, to the 2008 war and the rise of external threats to the country in the subsequent years. (The DI surveys were conducted in a period of around two weeks, between September and November of the respective years.)

Figure 1: Trust in the President.

Second, the level of trust in the Ombudsman was the highest when this institution was headed by a very popular personality, Sozar Subari (see, for example, Bahrampour, “Georgia’s Counterweight to Power,” Washington Post, July 24, 2009). The level of trust in the Ombudsman rose from 36 percent in 2007 to 58 percent in 2008, while the percentage of those who distrusted this institution fell to seven percent.

When Subari was replaced in September 2009, however, the public’s trust in the Ombudsman’s institution took a reverse turn, dropping by almost a third. While the level of distrust in this institution remained the same, the number of the respondents who trusted the Ombudsman dropped from 58 percent to 40 percent (see Figure 2).

Figure 2: Trust in the Ombudsman.

Unlike the President and the Ombudsman, the levels of trust in the Parliament and the executive government (the Prime Minister and ministers) were lower, perhaps attributable to the lower degree to which most MPs and cabinet members are perceived to be politically independent figures. The level of trust in the Parliament, for example, rose significantly from 19 percent in 2007 to 34 percent in 2008 and remained the same in 2009. Meanwhile, the number of the respondents who distrusted the Parliament dropped from 44 percent in 2007 to 26 percent in 2009 (see Figure 3). The figures in each category of trust in the executive government were nearly the same as that of the Parliament.

Figure: 3: Trust in the Parliament.

Overall, these snapshots show that the public’s trust in government institutions was the lowest in 2007, which coincides with an acute political crisis in Georgia. However, after the 2008 war, the levels of trust grew and, with the exception of the Ombudsman’s institution, remained relatively high compared with the previous years.

You can access the DI dataset here to analyze the public’s trust in other institutions and make comparisons with Armenia and Azerbaijan.

South Ossetia: Enhancing the Public Debate

On 15 April, in front of a packed house at the Heinrich Böll Foundation in Tbilisi, Ron Asmus led a public debate on his new book, A Little War that Shook the World. The evening featured the kind of discussion one would expect: the strategic interests of Russia, the US and Europe, Georgia’s path to democracy and the international mechanisms and organizations that failed to prevent the 2008 August war in South Ossetia.

I will not go into the actual details of the debate, since there was nothing people interested in the Caucasus have not heard before. Instead, I want to use it as an opportunity to illustrate how seemingly smaller-scale research can enhance public debate. Some of the CRRC’s recent projects on the August war and its aftermath, for example, might help to go beyond the usual geostrategic–political rhetoric bandied about.

On 9-10 April 2010 the CRRC, in collaboration with Saferworld, held five focus groups with participants from villages near the administrative boundary line (ABL) with South Ossetia. Focus groups (FG) are a research tool that can help to shed light on the public’s opinions on specific topics. They complement other tools like surveys, where issues and opinions are quantified, by providing insight into how those opinions come into being and the reasons people adopt them.

In the discussions that evolved around questions about community safety and citizens’ understandings of conflict, it quickly became apparent that those who are most affected by the war have a genuine interest in solving the underlying conflict. Many of the FG participants pointed out that mixed Georgian–Ossetian ties go back centuries, and their lives were drastically altered when the ABL between Georgia and South Ossetia was closed. No longer are people allowed to travel freely to see friends or family or to engage in cross-border trade. According to the participants, these severe changes increase the economic and psychological trauma brought about by the war.

It is these everyday concerns of the people most affected that the CRRC wants to reveal to the public. Debates on geostrategic issues, such as the one held by Asmus last week, are important for understanding how the war broke out. However, they generate few concrete recommendations for resolving the problems already existent in the war’s aftermath – problems which are acute for the communities in the areas surrounding South Ossetia.

By giving a voice to the people in the area, the CRRC and Saferworld hope to help refocus public discourse on the most important issue when it comes to geostrategy: making the lives of people safe and peaceful.

The report is not quite public yet, but to be notified when it becomes available, please contact Malte (malte.viefhues@crrccenters.org) or Jesse (jesse.tatum@crrccenters.org).

Abortion rates in the South Caucasus among the highest in the world

Last month we wrote a blog post on gender imbalance in the South Caucasus showing that there is an abnormal high number of boys being born in the region. Several comments were posted on the blog site that brought attention to abortion rates in Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia.

Prior to the collapse of the Soviet Union, induced abortion was used as a means of fertility control due to the lack of effective contraception methods. According to the Alan Guttmacher Institute and the World Health Organization, the number of induced abortions worldwide started decreasing in the mid 1990s and the most dramatic decline occurred in Eastern Europe. In the South Caucasus, however, abortion rates remain high.

Data show that the South Caucasus countries have among the highest abortion rates in the world. The official number of induced abortions is not extremely high but this statistics should also not be considered completely reliable due to underreporting. According to UN data from 2004-2005 there are nine abortions per 1 000 women of reproductive age (15-49 years) in Azerbaijan, 13.9 Armenia and 19.1 in Georgia. This can be compared to for example 1.3 in Austria and 5.7 in Croatia. The most alarming numbers can be found in Russia though with more than 50 abortions per 1 000 women of reproductive age. Nevertheless, data from other sources present higher abortion rates for the South Caucasus. The Reproductive Health Surveys from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and a Demographic Health Survey in Armenia (both from 2005) look at total abortion rates, which is the expected average number of abortion a woman will have during her reproductive years. The total abortion rate is 1.8 abortions per woman in Armenia, 3.2 in Azerbaijan and 3.7 in Georgia. Thereby the abortion rates in Georgia are the highest in the former Soviet Union and are estimated to be among the highest in the world.

It is being argued that the reason for the high abortion rates in the South Caucasus is the lack of modern contraception. The prevalence of modern contraception methods (the percentage of women of reproductive age, married or in union, currently using contraception) was, according to UN statistics, 13 percent in Azerbaijan in 2006, which is among the lowest of the former Soviet Union countries and below most other countries in the world. As a point of comparison, the prevalence in the U.S. was 68 percent in 2002.

High abortion rates have consequences both for the individual woman and for the society as a whole. Abortions bring health risks, especially in countries such as Georgia where the government’s spending on health care is low and most people do not have access to adequate health care. Some abortions take place outside of medical facilities, leading to complications and in some cases even deaths. Even in cases of legal abortions there is a risk of post-abortion medical problems when the quality of medical service is low. According to a survey carried out by the Open Society Institute’s Network Public Health Programs, half of all Georgian women consider abortion a health risk. Moreover, according to data from the UN, the fertility rates in the South Caucasus are among the lowest in the world. In Azerbaijan, the fertility rate is 1.82, in Georgia 1.41 and in Armenia 1.39 (the world average is 2.55). It means for example that the Georgian population is expected to decrease from 4.2 million in 2010 to 3.3 million in 2050. You can read more about the implications of low fertility rates on the UN Population Division website.

To return to the previous blog post on gender imbalance, the societies’ preference for boys is nothing new but the practice of selective induced abortion has put this preference into practice. The distorted sex ratios in the South Caucasus question the explanation that high abortion rates are a matter of lack of access to contraception methods. We have found little up-to-date information on this and would be grateful if anyone can post links with references to relevant research on abortion in the South Caucasus.

Research on Education of IDP Children in Georgia

On 29 March the Norwegian Refugee Council (NRC) held a presentation in Tbilisi of the research report “Not Displaced, Out-of-Place – Education of IDP children in Georgia”. The research project examines the academic performance of children in so-called Abkhaz public IDP schools in comparison with children in local schools. The research was conducted in the 13 remaining Abkhaz public schools for IDPs that were established in the early 1990s, in the newly established Tserovani School for children displaced from South Ossetia, and in local schools.

The main finding from the research shows that IDP children are disadvantaged in the education system. It has, however, more to do with their economic situation than their IDP status. Pupils from Abkhaz public schools do relatively well in some science subjects, but worse in others. A consequence is that the amount of pupils from Abkhaz public schools that enter higher education is lower than the amount of pupils from local schools.

For different reasons it has long been the case that many pupils use private tutors to be better prepared for the national entry exams (NEE). Private tutors are considered the primary factor that determines success in the NEEs. As IDP families are generally poorer than non-IDP families, they are less able to afford private tutors, leaving the pupils less well-prepared for the NEE. Moreover, research shows that performance is strongly related to conditions in the schools and at home. For many pupils in Abkhaz public school, neither the schools nor the homes provide an environment conducive to studying. The report shows that Abkhaz public schools are in worse state than local schools, and in some cases even dangerous.

As a positive finding, the research shows that IDPs are discriminated against to a lesser extent today than a couple of years ago. It differs between the regions, though: the situation is best in Tbilisi, whilst in other places discrimination against IDP children is significant. As a result, parents move their children from local schools to Abkhaz public schools. It raises the questions whether Abkhaz public schools should be closed down in order to avoid a segregated system, or if they should remain as a way of ensuring that IDP children get to go to school in an environment free of discrimination.

The audience agreed that the most preferable solution is to improve the standard in the Abkhaz public schools, thus also attracting non-IDPs. As a summarizing remark, the audience also called for the Georgian government to step up and spend more money on education. According to statistics from UNESCO, Georgia is one of the former Soviet countries that spends smallest part of the budget on education. In 2007 Georgia spent 2.7 percent of the GDP on education, in comparison to for example 6.6 percent in Kyrgyzstan and 5.3 percent in Ukraine.

Read more about education of IDP children on NRC Georgia's website. You will also find several articles on education in Georgia here on the blog site.

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.