Volunteerism in the South Caucasus

Unpaid voluntary work helps to foster social cohesion and promotes a strong civil society. This post presents trends in volunteerism in the South Caucasus and compares it to data for countries in the European Union. In the South Caucasus, Armenia has the highest level of volunteerism, while Georgia has the lowest. People who volunteer in the South Caucasus are more likely to be male, employed, and to have a higher level of formal education – which is similar to the profile of a volunteer in the EU countries. 

Rates of volunteerism in the South Caucasus region have remained rather stable in the past few years. The 2011 and 2012 Caucasus Barometer asked, “Which of these activities have you been involved in during the past 6 months”, with “volunteering work without compensation” as one of the possible answer items. The result of the study show that 24% of Armenians, 21% of Azerbaijanis, and 14% of Georgians said they had volunteered without compensation within the past 6 months. Data between 2011 and 2012 appears to show a slight increase in Armenia and Azerbaijan, and a decrease in Georgia. However, all of these changes are within the margin error of ±3%. 

The average level of volunteerism in the South Caucasus region was 20% in 2012. The average level of volunteerism found in the 2006/2007 wave of the European Social Survey (ESS) was 25%. This was for at least one act of volunteerism within 6 months for 24 European Union countries and 6 non-EU countries: Croatia, Israel, Norway, Russia, Turkey and Ukraine. The ESS study also asked respondents about their experience of volunteering within the previous 12 months prior to the survey, and 36% said they had volunteered at least once. The 5 year difference between the 2012 CRRC and 2006/2007 ESS survey does not allow for robust comparisons, but the data referring to the same time span as in CB survey questions is not available for more recent ESS surveys. Nonetheless the reported averages for the past 6 months for the South Caucasus countries, and the EU member states and their environs (Croatia, Israel, Norway, Russia, Turkey and Ukraine) are quite similar.

What is interesting, the profile of a typical volunteer in the South Caucasus (CB 2012) is also similar to that of a typical volunteer in the EU. Men are significantly more likely to participate in voluntary activities. People who volunteer are also more likely to be employed and to have a higher level of education (measured in terms of the years of formal education in the South Caucasus).

A detailed report by Angermann and Sittermann (2010) on volunteerism in the EU allows also for the between-countries comparisons. The report classifies EU countries with volunteerism rates between 20-29% as ‘medium-high’ (e.g. Estonia, France, and Latvia). If the same categorization were applied to the South Caucasus, Armenia and Azerbaijan would also belong to this group, with 24% and 21% volunteerism rates, respectively. Countries with volunteerism rates between 10-19% are classified as ‘relatively low’ (e.g. Spain, Poland, Ireland, and Romania). Georgia would belong to this group with its volunteerism level of 14%.

Although volunteerism rates in the South Caucasus countries are still lower than in many EU countries, a significant part of the populations in Armenia, Georgia and Azerbaijan considers volunteering important to be a good citizen. CB 2012 data shows that volunteering was perceived as extremely important for being a good citizen by 39% of Armenians, 27% of Azerbaijanis and 48% of Georgians. This positive attitude might help to encourage volunteerism in the region, and to make it a more popular activity in the future.

For more information on volunteering in Georgia specifically, please see the EPF/CRRC report available here.

 

Community Support and Volunteerism in the South Caucasus

Donating, volunteering or simply helping a relative with daily chores can help strengthen communities and boost trust. Data from the 2012 Caucasus Barometer (CB) shows that helping friends and neighbors with household chores is relatively common, while volunteerism remains low in Georgia, Armenia and Azerbaijan even though the latter is recognized as important and meaningful. A previous blog discussed social capital in the South Caucasus and this blog post aims to provide new data from 2012 to this topic.

Support from others is a crucial element for building trust in a society. The 2012 CB shows that less than half of the populations in Armenia, Georgia and Azerbaijan feel they have close relatives, friends and neighbors to rely on to help them repair their apartment/house, to take care of them when they are ill, and to lend them money. Across the board, Georgians feel they will most likely receive help in these situations and Azerbaijanis are least likely to say so. 

These questions were originally measured on a 1 to 10 scale where 1= not likely at all and 10=very likely. The results show here combine points 7-10 on this scale.

Armenians are least likely to say they have plenty of people to rely on when they have problems (27%), versus 38% in Azerbaijan and 40% in Georgia. Additionally, fewer Armenians indicated having people that they can completely trust.

These questions were originally measured on a 1 to 10 scale where 1= not likely at all and 10=very likely. The results show here combine points 7-10 on this scale.

Despite the fact that Armenians are least likely to say they have plenty of people to rely on when they have problems, they appear to be more engaged in volunteering with others in certain respects. The CB shows that more Armenians say they have contributed to charity and have helped a neighbor or friend with household chores in the previous 6 months more than in the other two countries. Yet, volunteering without compensation remains a rare practice in the South Caucasus--23% in Armenian, 22% in Azerbaijanis, and 14% in Georgia said they had volunteered without compensation within the past 6 months. 

Dedicating time as a volunteer can make a real difference in communities. Although volunteerism is low in the South Caucasus, people generally have strong ideas about the value of voluntary work. According to the CB, around three fifths of Armenians and Georgians (60% and 65%, respectively) agree that volunteer work is important for a good citizen, and 50% of Azerbaijanis say the same. Interestingly, Georgians feel most strongly about the value of volunteering, yet they are the least engaged in volunteering.

These questions were originally measured on a 1 to 10 scale where 1= not likely at all and 10=very likely. The results show here combine points 7-10 on this scale.

This blog has shown that less than half of populations in all three countries say they have people they can completely trust or rely on when in need. Helping neighbors or friends with housework is relatively common, while volunteerism is low. Despite its low practice, there is a positive attitude about the value of volunteering in all three countries. Volunteering can have a meaningful impact on society. Perhaps this positive orientation can create prospects for future involvement and participation.

If you want find out more about social capital related issues in the South Caucasus, you are welcome to visit CRRC’s interactive online data analysis at http://www.crrc.ge/oda/.

CRRC Methods Conference: Advancing Methodological Innovations in the South Caucasus

On June 20, 2013 CRRC convened a conference on research methods in Tbilisi that brought together researchers from the South Caucasus and beyond to discuss methodological developments in the social sciences. The conference was attended by over 50 people and the program included 13 presentations of research projects carried out in the region and elsewhere, followed by discussions and Q&A sessions. Interdisciplinary approaches and broad methodological interests motivated a fruitful debate on previous and ongoing research projects -both qualitative and quantitative. Time was also devoted to discussing the policy-relevance of presented studies, as well as the next steps that need to be taken in order to promote high caliber research and to foster rigorous methodological training in the region. 

The keynote speech, delivered by Dr. Cynthia Buckley, highlighted the institutional context in which social research is being carried out and results are disseminated. This included a discussion of funding organizations, policy advisory bodies, academic and social research institutes, and the complex network of relations between them. The speech helped participants to focus on methodological advancements, as well as practical applications of the presented studies. 

The research projects presented at the conference included a wide range of topics, research designs and used qualitative, quantitative or mixed-method approaches. Several presentations used online and internet-based methods – a promising medium for research in the region since the share of internet users is consistently increasing in the South Caucasus.

The qualitative studies that were discussed highlighted social issues such as interethnic marriage in the South Caucasus, and Armenian diaspora in the region. The quantitative research projects that were presented primarily focused on policy-relevant issues, such as the work ethic in Azerbaijan, Russia and Turkey, the prospect of compulsory healthcare insurance in Armenia, and time-based measures for paid and unpaid work, as well as labour force participation. Other areas of particular interest were business and the accuracy of economic performance estimations.

This 2013 conference begins a cycle of annual conferences that will address methodological challenges, data collection techniques, and developments in social science research carried out in the South Caucasus. 

For more information on the conference and this year’s presentations, please see the conference programme and draft papers available on the CRRC website. 

What is Important for Getting a Good Job in the South Caucasus?

Paid work is one of the most common forms of social activity, and opinions about the mechanisms regulating labour force participation can reveal beliefs on how social life works in general. This post examines what factors people in the South Caucasus consider to be most important to get a good job. Belief in the role of meritocratic factors is strongest in Georgia across all labour market categories. On average, Azerbaijanis attribute more value to social networks, and this answer is most popular among the unemployed. Armenians attach similar weight to both of these factors. However, unlike in the other two countries, personal traits also seem to play a role there. More detailed analysis shows existing within-country differences in the distribution of answers across four labour market categories.

This post is pivoted around a question from the 2012 Caucasus Barometer (CB) about factors that facilitate getting a good job in Georgia, Armenia and Azerbaijan. Such factors reflect wider beliefs about what is needed to be recruited into the labour-force – an issue important in the South Caucasus region which is trapped by high unemployment. Three categories of distinctive factors encompass collapsed answer items as follows: meritocratic criterion (education, hard work, talent, professional abilities and work experience), social networks (connections and doing favours for the ‘right’ people), and personal traits (age and appearance). A fourth distinctive factor, entirely beyond individual control, is luck. 

Georgians are most likely to believe that getting a good job is based on meritocratic merits, such as professional experience or education. Azerbaijanis put more weight on the importance of social networks and meritocratic achievements come second on the list. However, the results are opposite when the unemployed are excluded from the sample. Armenians seem to be in between the two countries in terms of their assessment of these factors; the importance of meritocratic merits and social networks is viewed similarly. Armenians are also relatively most likely to attribute success in getting a good job to personal traits such as age or appearance. Out of the three countries Georgians are most likely to put an emphasis on luck. 

More detailed analyses show important within-country differences in the perception of factors facilitating getting a good job. These differences are related to status within the labour market: student, employed, unemployed and self-employed. Although students formally are not qualified as ‘active’ in the labour market, they are included in this analysis as a group that constitutes the future labour force and who also shape normative assessments of labour regulating-mechanisms. 

Meritocratic criteria were perceived as most important by students in Azerbaijan and Georgia (56% and 69%, respectively), but what is interesting is that students in Armenia pointed to social networks more often than meritocratic factors (51% versus 46%). Social networks were also perceived as most important by the unemployed Armenians, and of similar importance to meritocratic criterion for the employed part of the population. Only self-employed Armenians attached significantly more importance to the meritocratic criterion.

Those who are employed in Azerbaijan put meritocratic issues first, and only those who are unemployed attribute getting a good job mostly to social networks, while social networks and meritocratic factors are considered relatively equal for the self-employed people. In Georgia all categories attach greatest importance to meritocratic criteria.    

Perceptions of what it takes to get a good job provides important information about whether people think they can do something to change their condition or if they think situational or environmental factors are more important. 

For more information on factors which are considered to be most important for getting a good job in the South Caucasus please see our previous post on the CRRC blog. 

Unemployment and Job Satisfaction in the South Caucasus

The importance of the labour market for social and economic stability is unquestionable. An analysis of CB 2012 survey data for Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia shows a high level of social concern about work-related conditions such as unemployment. Even those who have a job are more likely to be dissatisfied with it in Armenia, compared to Georgia where more people are neutral about their job, and Azerbaijan in which the majority says they are satisfied with their job. This post provides information on the relative importance of labour market-related issues in Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia as perceived by respondents from these countries. This blog also presents levels of job satisfaction in the South Caucasus region.

This post uses data from CB 2012 questions about the most important issues facing the country, which includes two answer items pertaining to the labour market: unemployment and wages. These two items were collapsed into a single category which I shall call the “Labour market“ for the analytical purposes of this blog. Other general categories were the rule of law, social and economic issues (excluding labour market), international relations, tolerance and human rights, and political and territorial stability.

Labour market concerns top the list of important national issues in Georgia and Armenia. In Azerbaijan these concerns come second after the issue of political and territorial stability, mostly due to the high concern with unsolved territorial conflicts. Interestingly, other social and economic issues altogether (including poverty, pensions or inflation) do not outweigh the importance of employment for the three countries.  

The original answer options were collapsed into more general categories: Labour market (unemployment and low wages), Social and economic issues (unaffordability of healthcare, low pensions, poverty, low quality of education, rising prices/ inflation), Political and territorial stability (lack of peace, political instability, unsolved territorial conflicts), Rule of law (corruption, unfairness of courts, unfairness of elections, violation of property rights), Tolerance and human rights (violation of human rights, religious intolerance), and International relations (not having NATO membership, relations with Russia).

Further statistical analysis (logistic regression using country, years of education, settlement type, age and gender) show that both Armenians and Georgians are over 3 times more likely than Azerbaijanis to say these labour market concerns are central issues for their country. These answers mostly reflect concern about unemployment rates in these countries (19% in Armenia, 15.1% in Georgia and 5.4% in Azerbaijan in 2011 according to the World Bank and International Labour Organization). It is also worthwhile to mention here that Azerbaijan is a middle income country, which is not the case for Armenia or Georgia. Type of settlement also matters; across the three countries capital residents are least likely to put labour market-related issues first on the priority list, while inhabitants of rural areas do so significantly more often.

Disparities in unemployment rates and minimum wage across the region (for more detail see Country Reports on Human Rights Practices, United States Department of State, 2012) might be influential macro-level factors triggering cross-national differences in the assessment of the labour market importance. However, other indicators suggest that substantial differences also exist on an individual level – such as evaluations of job satisfaction which reflects personal experiences at work.

On average, Armenians are most dissatisfied with their work, while Azerbaijanis are the most satisfied. Interestingly, there are significant cross-sectorial differences in the level of satisfaction with work in Armenia and Georgia. In both countries people who work in construction, trade, or education are significantly less satisfied than people who work in agriculture, forestry or who are self-employed. Employment sector is not a significantly differentiating criterion in Azerbaijan. Lastly, the level of satisfaction with one‘s jobs is not related to the assessment of the labour market as an important issue facing the country. This, however, does not mean they cannot both reflect more general problems trapping labour force in the analysed markets, especially as the average level of job satisfaction is lower in countries with higher unemployment and lower minimum wage.

For more data on employment and perceptions of labour market issues please visit the CRRC website to download the complete CB 2012 dataset.

Different Perceptions of God in the South Caucasus

The Association of Religion Data Archives (ARDA) commissioned several new questions about religion and religiosity in the 2012 Caucasus Barometer (CB). The questions show similarities and differences regarding perception of God in Georgia, Armenia and Azerbaijan. Some of the questions asked in the CB were similarly to those in Chalfant’s 1993 study of “Images of God” in which he examined “experiences of sacred” among Protestants and Catholics. In his survey, Chalfant asked respondents to provide adjectives such as judge, lover, healer, friend and liberator for images that come to their mind when they think about God. His results showed that Catholic men most commonly identified God as a liberator, while Protestant men most commonly identified God as a healer. This blog discusses two similar questions in the South Caucasus.

ARDA’s project examining religion and religiosity in several countries around the world included Georgia (84% Georgian Orthodox, 10% Muslim), Armenia (95% Armenian Apostolic), and Azerbaijan (60% Shia and 30% Sunni). With these different religious contexts in mind, the 2012 CB specifically asked about adjectives or statements that people in these three countries associate with God. Specifically, the CB 2012 asked people to indicate which adjectives they felt described God (e.g., distant, wrathful, ever-present, loving, forgiving and punishing).  The majority (81%-96%) in all three countries say God is forgiving, loving and ever-present. Around a third of Georgians and Azerbaijanis describe God as distant and wrathful, while a much greater percentage of Armenians 78% and 56%, respectively, say the same.

The CB also asked about statements that people might associate with God. Georgians and Azerbaijanis similarly feel that God shows the difference between right and wrong (77% and 78%, respectively) or that God rewards the faithful with major success (76% and 80%, respectively). To add, Armenians and Georgians have similar perceptions that God punishes sinners with terrible woes (50% and 49%, respectively) and is direct involved in their private affairs (62% and 67%, respectively).

The fact that Azerbaijanis are less likely to think that God is directly involved in their affairs is interesting, especially if we consider the conclusions drawn from a previous blog which shows that private religiosity and a personal relationship with God are becoming more important for Azerbaijanis (although religious attendance remains low and trust in religious institutions is moderate).

This blog has compared a few new questions about people’s thoughts about God in the South Caucasus. The results show that the majority of people in all three countries describe God using positive adjectives such as loving, ever-present and forgiving although the three populations have different predominant religions. However, there are clear differences between Georgia and Azerbaijan on one hand and Armenia on the other with regard to descriptions such as wrathful and distant. Further analysis and open-ended questions would be recommended to explore the meanings behind these similarities and differences.

You can further explore the 2012 CB and data on religion and religiosity at http://www.crrc.ge/oda/?dataset=20 or http://www.crrc.ge/oda/ for previous 2011 data on the Online Data Analysis Tool (2012 data to follow on the ODA).

Museum Popularity in the South Caucasus

In the South Caucasus there is a tension between the desire to leave the Soviet past behind and the desire to re-evaluate history. Museums are one of the arenas in which the past, culture and history of any country (or nation) are captured. The International Council of Museums defines a museum as “A permanent institution for charity, to the service of the society and of its development”. This blog shows the changing situation of museums in the South Caucasus and reveals that the attendance rate is highest in Armenia although the country has the fewest number of museums in the region.

According to the national statistics offices of Azerbaijan, Armenia and Georgia (the State Statistical Committee of the Republic of Azerbaijan, the National Statistical Service of the Republic of Armenia and the National Statistics Office of Georgia), Azerbaijan is home to the largest number of museums in the region (227 in Azerbaijan, 183 in Georgia and 99 in Armenia). Azerbaijan has the largest population of the three states and Georgia has the greatest density of museums relative to its size and population. Additionally, Azerbaijan and Georgia have experienced the greatest increase in the number of museums. There has been a steady increase between 2005 and 2011 in Azerbaijan and a sharp increase from 2010 to 2011 in Georgia. Armenia, with the smallest population, also has the fewest museums in the region. 

Despite the fact that there were half as many museums in Armenia as in the other two countries in 2011, official statistics reveal that museum attendance is the highest in Armenia. Annual museum attendance in Armenia was relatively steady from 2005 to 2009 and then rose sharply after 2009. The number of visitors has almost tripled in Armenia since 2005, which reflects growing interest in museums in Armenia. The attendance rate in Armenia is more than three times higher than in Georgia even though there are almost twice as many museums in Georgia than in Armenia.

The increase in museum attendance in Armenia might be due to a number of factors, such as exhibition content, reduced ticket prices, effective advertising campaigns, and other possibilities. Additionally, tourism is one factor that might have an impact on museum attendance. However, data from the World Tourism Organization reveals that tourism was lowest in Armenia among all three South Caucasus countries from 2009-2011. In the last year, the tourism rate in Armenia was half that in Azerbaijan and four times lower than in Georgia. Thus, these numbers might suggest that museum attendance rates in Armenia are driven by locals rather than foreign visitors.

Data from the 2011 Caucasus Barometer (CB) also confirms that Armenians are the most keen to visit museums (or art galleries). CB data also indicate that this activity is most popular among women than men.

There is also a difference in the predominant type of museums found in each of the three countries: historical, memorial, local lore, arts and other. Museums engaged in collection, protection and the study of historical materials and monuments are predominant in all three countries. Again, data from the national statistics offices reveal a different distribution of the museums in the South Caucasus; memorial museums are the majority in Georgia, while most museums specialize in local lore and history in Azerbaijan, and the majority of museums are devoted to art in Armenia. The size of every museum possibly also affects its attendance rates, yet there is no data comparing their sizes in the region.

This blog shows that the number of museums negatively correlates with their attendance. Armenia has the fewest museums, yet it has the highest museum attendance rate. To add, it seems that museum visits are accelerated by locals in Armenia.

What types of museums do you find most appealing? What do you think explains the sharp growth of museum visits in certain countries? 

You can also explore the CB data sets on similar questions by visiting CRRC’s interactive Online Data Analysis tool at http://www.crrc.ge/oda/.

Education in Azerbaijan: A Snapshot

According to last month’s World Bank Azerbaijan Partnership Program Snapshot, there is an increased sense of urgency in Azerbaijan for long-term reform of the country’s education system. In its one-page education summary, the report describes Azerbaijan’s high primary school enrollment but details three important concerns: 1) low preschool enrollment, 2) low participation in higher education, and 3) an overall low quality of education.

According to Azerbaijan’s State Statistics Committee, only 16% of children between the ages of one and five attended preschool in 2012. However, there is a large gap in preschool attendence between urban and rural areas; in urban areas 23% of children aged 1-5 attend preschool, while this figure is 8.6% in rural areas. 

Created with data from the State Statistics Committee

The World Bank reports a slightly higher preschool enrollment rate in Azerbaijan at 27%, while the 2011 PIRLS-an international reading assessment study- reports that 36% of Azerbaijani fourth grade children attended preschool. Azerbaijan has one of the highest percentages of children without a preschool education among the 45 countries included in the PIRLS study.

*All data is from 2011 except the “Like countries” category which uses the latest available data from each country. (This was 2011 for all countries except 2012 for Kazakhstan, 2008 for Georgia, 2010 for Turkey, and Turkmenistan is not included because there is no data). Created with data from the World Bank. Downloaded from  http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SE.PRE.ENRR/countries?display=default.

Low rates of preschool enrollment in Azerbaijan are particularly puzzling because Azerbaijan is also an upper middle income country according to the World Bank, yet it has a much lower preschool enrollment rate than many other upper middle income countries. Additionally, most Azerbaijanis place high value on preschool education. According to the the 2011 Caucasus Barometer, 85% of Azerbaijanis agreed that kindergarten is an important part of a child’s development. 

The Caucasus Research Resource Centers. (2011) “Caucasus Barometer". Retrieved through ODA - http://www.crrc.ge/oda/ on {May 2, 2013}. Available at http://www.crrc.ge/oda/?dataset=17&row=176

However, nearly 100% of Azerbaijani children attended primary school (grades 1 to 4) in 2011 according to Azerbaijan’s State Statistics Committee. This puts Azerbaijan on pace to achieve full primary school enrollment which is the major educational metric tracked by the Millennium Development Goals. World Bank data corroborates high primary school enrollment rates, but suggests that a small proportion of children (4%) may not attend school at all. The gap between gross and net enrollment suggests that some children attend primary school outside the suggested age range— they either enroll late or finish late.

 Primary School Enrollment in Azerbaijan

World Bank data on gross enrollment, net enrollment, and primary completion rate (male and female).

State Statistics Committee education data. *For a full explanation of gross and net enrollment see this helpful post by Friedrich Huebler.

According to the World Bank, Azerbaijan’s university enrollment rate is 20%— the second lowest in the CIS region and well below the averages for Europe and Central Asia, for upper middle income countries, and for “like countries” in Central Asia and the Caucasus. In fact, within the CIS only Uzbekistan (and possibly Turkmenistan but there is no data) shows a lower percentage of students attending university than Azerbaijan (9%). 

Available: http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SE.TER.ENRR/countries?display=default.

Nevertheless, enrollment figures are increasing. The percent of secondary school graduates who have been accepted to university has risen from 21.7% to 27.4% since 2010. The number of students enrolling in university each year has risen 16% over the last three years, even though the percent of applicants has remained relatively constant at 60%. This means that more applicants are being accepted.

University Enrollment in Azerbaijan

State Students Admission Commission (SSAC) data compiled from annual reports available at http://www.tqdk.gov.az/az/statistics/.

Despite the fact that the ‘success’ rate for university applicants has risen by over 24% in the past three years, score distributions from the 2010-2012 State Students Admissions Commission university admissions exams show slightly decreasing scores during this time period. A possible explanation for the increasing number of students accepted with lower scores is that the test is becoming more difficult while the university admissions cut-off for lower scores has become more flexible. 

State Students Admission Commission (SSAC) data compiled from annual reports available at http://www.tqdk.gov.az/az/statistics/

Although Azerbaijan’s education system is making strides, there is still a lot of work to be done to create an inclusive system that provides opportunities for all children, and which develops Azerbaijan’s human capital. Azerbaijan’s spending on education has increased from 1.2 to 1.4 billion AZN between 2010 and 2012, but this is a decrease from 10% to 8.8% of the state’s total spending (because overall state spending has increased by a much higher percentage). Spending on education is currently 3.5% of the GDP, and while education spending is not considered to be a good indicator of education quality, the overall downward trend of social spending on education might be a problem. 


Contributed by Vitaly Radsky from the Center for Innovations in Education Policy Unit, and former CRRC International Fellow

Freedom of Press in the South Caucasus

Freedom of press is one of the indicators of a free society (e.g., immunity of communications media from censorship or governmental control). Freedom House’s 2012 analysis of Freedom of Press found that only 14.5% of the world’s population live in countries with a free press, while 45% have a partly free press, and 40.5% live in an environment without a free press. As for the South Caucasus region, Georgia was classified as having a partly free press ranking 111 out of 197 countries, similar to Bangladesh, Kenya and Mauritania which were among countries classified as partly free. Both Armenia (rank 149) and Azerbaijan (rank 172) were classified as having a “not free” press. This blog discusses the changing situation with regard to media freedom in the South Caucasus, as well as perceptions of trust in the media. It also highlights a gap between media freedom and trust in media in the region.

The Freedom of Press survey was first conducted in 1980 and has annually assessed the level of media freedom and editorial independence worldwide ever since. Freedom House provides analytical reports for 197 countries and territories and assigns them with a total score from 0 (best) to 100 (worst). The score is composed of 23 methodological questions that are divided into three categories: legal, political and economic environment. Primary attention is given to the political environment for press circulation, referring to the ability to operate freely and without fear of persecution. The degree to which each country permits the free flow of news and information determines the classification of its media as “Free,” “Partly Free,” or “Not Free.” Countries scoring 0 to 30 are regarded as having a “Free” media, while scores of 31 to 60 indicate “Partly Free”, and 61 to 100 represents “Not Free”.

In 2012 Georgia was the only country to make significant improvement in the region of Central and Eastern Europe and Eurasia – it moved from 55 to 52 points (out of 100). This was primarily due to the establishment of new publications, the issue of a broadcast license to a media group critical to the government (TV9), and enforced provisions for media ownership. However, a few deficiencies have remained. For instance, the Georgian National Communications Commission has been broadly reported to have limitations, delays in the access to information, and a lack of independence from political parties.

The report also identified Azerbaijan, Russia and Kazakhstan as countries of special concern in the region (i.e. not free). Freedom House’s country overview of Azerbaijan explains that journalists continue to be persecuted and imprisoned, authorities use economic and political pressure to maintain control over major media outlets, and the 2000 Law on Mass Media remains inoperative.

In Armenia, press freedom also remains restricted. The media environment remains controlled despite several amendments and legal protections that have been in place since the 2008 presidential election. In addition, close ties between government authorities and media owners encourage journalist self-censorship, particularly in the broadcast sector.

Freedom House data also allows us to follow its Freedom of Press index over time. According to the index, freedom of press has worsened (again, 0=best and 100=worst) in Armenia and Azerbaijan since 1994. Furthermore, while press freedom in Armenia has worsened from 1994 to 2009, there was a slight improvement from 2009 to 2012. The freedom of press index has fluctuated more in Azerbaijan, although it steadily deteriorated from 2004 to 2012. Georgia’s index sharply improved from 1994 to 2000, after which it worsened from 2000 to 2009, and began improving again from 2009 to 2012.

It is also difficult to find a direct link between changing freedom of press since 1994 and trust in the media. According to the Caucasus Barometer (CB) survey, the level of trust in the media has also varied in these countries from 2008 to 2012. The overall picture that emerges after combining results from the CB and the freedom of press index is interesting. Although the Freedom of Press index has slightly worsened from 2011 to 2011 in Azerbaijan, trust in the media during that period sharply increased. On the contrary, Georgian trust in the media has decreased since 2009 although the index of freedom of press improved. Thus, the freedom of press index does not directly tell us much about how much societies trust media. 

The South Caucasus has not yet achieved a completely free press. However, according to Freedom House, freedom of the press index is improving in Georgia, whereas the index is stable in Armenia and worsening in Azerbaijan. This blog discussed major criticisms about the press environment by Freedom House, as well as the interchanging level of trust in the media in the South Caucasus.

You are invited to see the full 2012 Freedom House report and to find out more about trust in institutions using the CRRC Caucasus Barometer.

A Contradiction Between Civil Liberties and Democracy in Azerbaijan

Many conversations about civil liberties focus on the freedom of expression and belief, associational and organizational rights, rule of law, personal autonomy and individual rights. According to Freedom House, these civil liberties play an essential role in measuring the robustness of democracies worldwide. CRRC data from the 2012 Caucasus Barometer (CB) shows a disjoint between perceptions of democracy and civil liberties in Azerbaijan. Specifically, the data suggest that in Azerbaijan, which is categorized as a Not-Free country according to the Freedom House 2012 rankings, people perceive that their country is either a full democracy or one with minor problems more than the other two South Caucasus countries. This blog reveals the ambiguity of the relationship between civil liberties and perceptions of democracy in Azerbaijan and provides comparisons with Georgia and Armenia.

Democracy means something different to different people. The perception of democracy is different in three countries of the South Caucasus. For instance, even though the Economist Intelligence Unit rankings show Azerbaijan as an authoritarian regime, Azerbaijanis themselves perceive their country to be more democratic than citizens in Armenia and Georgia. Despite the fact that Azerbaijanis recognize a number of weaknesses of civil liberties in their country (e.g., an unfair court system and controlled freedom of expression), the 2012 CB shows that about half of the population assess Azerbaijan as a full democracy or democracy with minor problems.

Less than a half of Azerbaijanis identified the most recent national election (2010 parliamentary election) as fair, compared to 54% of Armenians (2012 parliamentary election) and 87% of Georgians (2012 parliamentary election). Azerbaijanis are also more skeptical about their participation in elections and its importance for citizens although voting in fair elections is an essential feature of a functioning democracy. Two thirds (68%) of Azerbaijanis say they would participate in a presidential election the following Sunday, and approximately one fourth (24%) doubt that voting is important for citizens. While these results focus specifically on electoral process, they are also major indicators of civil liberties.

Freedom of assembly and expression are additional indicators of democracy. Over half of Armenians (66%) and Georgians (55%) agreed that people should take part in protest actions against the government to show the government that the people are in charge, whereas only 29% of Azerbaijanis said the same. There is a similar tendency regarding freedom of expression. Just under half of the Azerbaijan population (47%) think people have the right to openly say what they think (in comparison with two thirds in other two countries). Additionally, 19% of Azerbaijanis agreed that it is important for a good citizen to be critical towards the government, compared to more than half of Georgian and Armenian populations (55% and 53% respectively).

CB data also suggest a strong feeling of inequality before the law and government in all three countries. Only half of the populations in Azerbaijan and Georgia believe that people are treated fairly by the government, whereas one fifth of Armenians agreed. Additionally, the results are even more controversial regarding the legal system; only around one tenth (approximately 13%) of each population believes their court system treats everyone equally. This means that laws, policies, and practices do not guarantee equal treatment of various segments of the population. However, one third of Azerbaijanis trust in their court system although the majority does not believe that it is equal for everyone.

Despite problems with certain civil liberties in the South Caucasus, many people still believe that their country is a democracy or a democracy with minor problems. This is most recognizable in Azerbaijan where many people distrust court system, question the fairness of elections, and remain concerned about the right to criticize the government or participate in protest actions. Moreover, the Economist Intelligence Unit named Azerbaijan a strong authoritarian regime although half of the population believes it is represented by a democratic government or a democracy with minor problems. This seeming contradiction in perceptions of democracy as measured by subjective and objective measures would be an excellent topic for further research.

If you want to explore more about these questions, visit the 2012 Caucasus Barometer dataset.