How the EU sees Georgia: The Georgian population's perceptions

Although a majority of the population of Georgia approves of the Government of Georgia’s stated goal to join the European Union (EU), reported trust in the EU declined between 2011 and 2015. According to Europe Foundation’s Knowledge and attitudes towards the EU survey conducted by CRRC-Georgia, 22% of the Georgian public reported fully trusting the EU in 2011. In 2013 and 2015, the respective shares were only 4% and 3%. The share of those reporting they “trust” the EU moderately, rather than “fully trust” it, also declined from 47% to 31%. Distrust in the EU, on the other hand, increased in all age groups (between 2011 and 2015) and all settlement types (between 2011 and 2015), both among men and women (between 2011 and 2015). Moreover, the EU is increasingly perceived as a threat to Georgian traditions, as described in a recent blog post. This blog post looks at the Georgian public’s changing perceptions of EU-Georgia relations focusing on how Georgians think their country is perceived by the governments and citizens of EU member states.

In 2011, 41% of the population of Georgia reported believing that a majority of EU member states would like Georgia to enter the EU. Four years later, only 32% gave the same answer, while the share of those answering negatively doubled. Importantly, almost 50% of the population cannot answer this question. Similarly, in 2015, 18% answered that, in their opinion, a majority of European citizens wouldn’t like Georgia to enter the EU, compared to 11% in 2011. 

The decline of the share of the population that believe the EU will welcome Georgia as a member state may be related to the finding that the population of Georgia sees their country’s EU accession as less likely. While 33% of the population of Georgia thought in 2011 that the country would join the EU in 5 years or less, 18% did so in 2015. Today, 16% of the population thinks Georgia will join the EU within ten years – twice the share of 2011. The share of those answering that Georgia will never join the EU rose from 2% in 2011 to 11% in 2015.

Over time, the Georgian population thinks that citizens of the EU as well as the EU governments are less inclined towards integrating Georgia into the Union. More clarity and realism concerning Georgia’s potential for EU membership certainly could help to avoid a slow backslide towards less EU support for strong relations between Georgia and the EU in the years to come. The public should be aware that EU membership is a long-term prospect at best rather than an immediate future. This may avoid a sense of betrayal and frustration with slow progress.

To explore the data in more depth, take a look at our online data analysis tool or take a look at some of CRRC’s recent blog posts (see here, here and here). 

The population of Georgia on “good citizenship”

Although many people agree that being “a good citizen” is important, there is a great variety of ideas on what being “a good citizen” means. CRRC’s 2013 and 2015 Caucasus Barometer (CB) surveys asked respondents to rate the importance of the following seven qualities for being “a good citizen”: always obeying laws, supporting the government on every occasion, voting in elections, following traditions, volunteering, helping people who are worse off than themselves, and being critical towards the government. This blog post discusses Georgia’s population’s assessments of these qualities.

As in previous years, of these seven qualities, helping people who are worse off and following traditions are reported to be the most important qualities of “a good citizen” in Georgia. Always obeying laws and voting are considered somewhat less, however, still quite important qualities. At the same time, supporting the government on every occasion or being critical towards the government are not reported to be as important.

In 2015, the seven qualities have been assessed slightly differently than in 2013. The largest change is a 12% decrease in the reported importance of supporting the government on every occasion. The assessment of importance of voting in elections has slightly decreased (by 7%), although almost within the margin of error, and the importance of helping people who are worse off has slightly increased (7%).

Note: A ten-point scale was used to record answers to these questions, where code ‘1’ corresponded to the answer “Not important at all” and code ‘10’ corresponded to the answer “Extremely important”. For this blog post, codes 1 through 4 were grouped as “Not important”, codes 5 and 6 as “Neither important nor unimportant” and codes 7 through 10 as “Important”. Only the shares of those assessing the respective quality as important (codes 7 through 10 of the original scale) are shown on the charts of this blog post. 

People living in the capital, other urban and rural settlements have slightly different views on what qualities a good citizen should have. Compared to the opinions of those living outside Tbilisi, voting, always obeying laws, volunteering and being critical towards the government are reported in the capital as more important, while supporting the government on every occasion – as less important. Following traditions, though, is considered highly important in all settlement types.

The data also shows that those who believe that, in general, people shape their fate themselves assign higher importance to such qualities of a good citizen as voting in elections, volunteering and being critical towards the government, compared to those who think that everything is determined by fate. The results of a Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test show, this finding is statistically significant.

Note: A ten-point scale was used to record answers to the question on fatalism. The original answers were recoded so that codes 1 through 5 were combined in the category “Everything is determined by fate” and codes 6 through 10 were combined in the category “People shape their fate themselves”.

Of the seven possible qualities of a “good citizen” offered in CRRC’s Caucasus Barometer survey, the population of Georgia assesses following traditions and helping those who are worse off as the most important ones. Assessments of most of the qualities of a good citizen slightly differ by settlement type. Notably, those who think that everything in life is determined by fate assign less importance to voting in elections, volunteering and being critical towards the government. For more data, visit our Online Data Analysis tool.

Attitudes toward public opinion polls in Georgia

In his book Polling and the Public Herbert Asher notes that findings of public opinion polls have significant effects on citizens’ attitudes and behavior. This is clearly true in Georgia where public opinion polls (especially those focused on political attitudes) are widely discussed by politicians, experts, and the media. Using CRRC’s 2015 Caucasus Barometer (CB) data, this blog post examines attitudes towards public opinion polls in Georgia.

Generally, the public’s trust in the results of public opinion polls is mixed in Georgia. One-third of the population reports trusting poll results, another third reports a neutral attitude, and 21% reports distrusting them. A small share of the population either does not know anything about the polls, answers “Don’t know” or refuses to answer this question.

Note: A 10-point scale was used to record answers to the question: “Generally speaking, to what extent would you say you trust or distrust the results of public opinion polls conducted in our country?” On the original scale, code ‘1’ corresponded to the option “Do not trust at all” and code ‘10’ corresponded to the option “Completely trust”. For this blog post, the answers were grouped as follows: codes ‘1’ through ‘4’ were labeled as “Distrust”; codes ‘5’ and ‘6’ were labeled as “[In the middle]”; codes ‘7’ through ‘10’ were labeled as “Trust”. Options “Don’t know” and “Refuse to answer” were combined. 

Reported trust in the results of public opinion polls varies in different demographic groups. Tbilisi residents tend to report slightly higher trust compared to those living in other urban and rural settlements. Those who are younger (18 to 35 years old) also report higher trust than those who are 56 years old or older. A slightly greater share of those with higher than secondary education reports trusting poll results compared to those with secondary or lower education.

Note: Only shares of those who reported trusting public opinion poll results are shown in the chart. The answer options for the question on education level were grouped as follows: options “No primary education”, “Primary education (either complete or incomplete)”, “Incomplete secondary education” and “Completed secondary education” were grouped into “Secondary or lower”. Options “Incomplete higher education”, “Completed higher education (BA, MA, or specialist degree)” and “Post-graduate degree” were grouped into “Higher than secondary”.

Interestingly, nearly half (46%) of those who report trusting the media also report trusting poll results, and statistical correlation of the answers to these two questions is significant. By comparison, only a quarter (26%) of those who distrust the media report trusting poll results.

Note: A 5-point scale was used to record answers to the question, “Please tell me how much do you trust or distrust Georgia’s media?” For this blog post, answer options "Fully trust" and "Rather trust" were combined into "Trust media"; ”Rather distrust" and "Fully distrust" were combined into "Distrust media". Options "Don't know" and "Refuse to answer" are not shown on the chart.

Attitudes toward public opinion poll results in Georgia are mixed, and nearly equal shares of the population trust, distrust or neither trust nor distrust the results. There are, however, some differences between those living in different settlement types, as well as between representatives of different age groups, and those having different levels of education. Generally, those who report trusting the media tend to trust the results of public opinion polls.

To learn more about public opinion polls, take a look at earlier blog posts including Ask CRRC | Survey vs Census and Pre-Election Polls | what would be needed. To learn more about how CRRC collects data, take a look at this video or read CRRC-Georgia’s Research Guidelines. 

From ‘altruist’ to ‘realist’: changing perceptions of the EU in Georgia

There has been a slowdown in the EU’s ‘values promotion’ in the former Soviet space, according to a recent publication by The Foreign Policy Center. As Frederica Mogherini,  High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy and Vice-President of the European Commission stated in 2015, the priorities of the reviewed European Neighborhood Policy are, “First, focus on economic development and job creation; second, cooperation on energy; third, security; fourth, migration; fifth, neighbors of the neighbors.” The statement has no mention of values. This policy shift may lead to the weakening of the image of the EU as a value oriented power, as described for example in the 2007-2013 European Neighborhood and Partnership Instrument, and there is some empirical data supporting this expectation. This blog post looks at the Georgian population’s changing perceptions of the EU’s interests in Georgia and EU-Georgia relations using findings of several waves of Europe Foundation’s Knowledge and attitudes towards the EU survey conducted by CRRC-Georgia.

The share of the population that fully agrees with the opinion that the EU supports Georgia because the country is an exemplary new democracy and the EU wants it to develop declined over the years. The share of those who fully agree that the EU helps all developing countries, among them Georgia, also declined.

Note: Six possible reasons for the EU’s support to Georgia were evaluated during the interviews. This chart presents the distribution of answers regarding only two of these reasons. The distribution of answers for three other reasons are presented in the next chart. 

The population of Georgia also thinks the EU supports Georgia in order to achieve more realpolitik goals. On the one hand, compared to 2011, less people fully agree that the EU is interested in Georgia because it wants Georgia to be a stable country and to use its territory to transport oil and gas to Europe. On the other hand, the share of those who agrees (both “fully agree” and “agree”) that the EU supports Georgia because it wants to reduce the flow of migrants towards the EU rose between 2011 and 2015. The share that agrees the EU supports Georgia because it wants stability in its neighborhood also increased.

Thus, the shift from the EU’s value oriented neighborhood policy to more realpolitik goals seems to have been noticed by the Georgian population and is reflected in its attitudes towards the EU. More people think that the EU is driven by ‘harder’ interests than in the past.

To explore the data in more depth, try out our online data analysis tool or take a look at some of CRRC’s recent blog posts (see here, here and here).

Changing issue salience in Georgia after 2008

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Body Mass Index in Georgia

The population of Georgia on immigrants

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Volunteerism in Georgia between 2013 and 2015: attitudes and practice

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What the population of Georgia wants to know about the EU and how people want to be informed

The Government of Georgia (GoG) recently announced a plan to better inform the public about European Union (EU) programs in Georgia and their benefits. This effort is important, because the population often does not have accurate information about the EU and Georgia’s relations with it, as described in a recent blog post, as well as in a more comprehensive report. Nonetheless, roughly half of the Georgian population reports they would like to get more information on the EU, and this share has remained steady since 2013. This blog post aims at understanding how the EU and GoG could best design their information campaign about Georgia-EU relations by covering topics Georgians are most interested in. To do so, we take a look at the 2013 and 2015 waves of Europe Foundation’s Knowledge and attitudes towards the EU survey which was conducted by CRRC-Georgia.

To start, existing knowledge about the EU is rather limited. Only 27% of the population of Georgia knew in 2015 that the EU had between 21 and 30 member states, while 23% chose an incorrect answer. Most importantly, half of the population responded that they did not know the answer or refused to answer the question. These findings are roughly the same as in 2013. 

The population’s level of education seems like an understandable place to turn for possible explanations for the lack of knowledge. However, 46% of those providing an incorrect answer to the respective question report having at least some higher education – in fact, the shares of people with various levels of education are the same irrespective of whether they answered this question correctly or incorrectly.

Note: During the interviews, a show card was used for the question, “How many member states are currently in the EU?” The options from the show card have been recoded for this chart. The option “Incorrect” combines options “Up to 10 [member states]”, “From 11 to 20”, “From 31 to 40”, and “More than 40.” The option “Correct” corresponds to the option “From 21 to 30 [member states]”. Reported level of education has also been recoded for this chart. The options “Complete or incomplete primary”, “Incomplete secondary”, and “Complete secondary” have been combined into category “Secondary or lower education”. The options “Incomplete higher [education]”, “BA”, “MA”, and “Postgraduate” have been combined into the category “At least some higher education”.

When assessing how interested people are in various areas of knowledge about the EU, there is obviously a great deal of interest in the EU’s potential practical benefits for Georgia. Forty-one percent of those who report they would like to get more information about the EU want to have more information on Georgia-EU trade relations, consistent with the finding that economic reasons are named most frequently when Georgians are asked why they support the country’s membership in the EU. Unemployment and poverty being at the top of people’s concerns, it again isn’t surprising that the Georgian population is interested in the socio-economic situation in the EU.

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

Although 35% of those who would like to get more information on the EU mentioned that they would like to have more information on the EU’s role in conflict resolution, when asked what the EU Monitoring Mission does in Georgia, only 20% answered that it helps regulate the situation in the areas affected by the 2008 August War. Forty one percent reported they did not know the answer.

Television was identified by the Georgian Government in 2013 as the main source of information for Georgians about the EU and European integration. However, 40% of the population reported in 2015 that, in their opinion, there was little or no information on the EU on TV – almost twice as much as in 2013.

Note: A 5-point scale was used to record answers to the question, “How much information about the EU do you get from TV?” On the original scale, code ‘1’ corresponded to the answer “No information at all” and code ‘5’ corresponded to the answer “A lot of information”. For the analysis presented in this blog post, answer options ‘1’ and ‘2’ of the original scale have been combined and labeled as “Little / No information”. Option ‘3’ was not recoded and is labeled ”A fair amount of information”. Answer options ‘4’ and ‘5’ were combined and labeled as “A lot of information”. Options “Don’t know” and “Refuse to answer” (less than 5% if combined) were excluded from the analysis. 

Thus, on the one hand, about half of the Georgian population reports wanting to have more information about the EU, and its main source of information is TV. On the other hand, in 2015 more people reported that they receive little or no information on the EU from TV than did so in 2013. But efforts like the harmonization of Georgian legislation with EU legislation in areas such as the common market, sectoral policy, law, freedom, and security require wide ranging and costly reforms before leading to practical benefits. This means the reforms require public support if they are to be sustained. Therefore, it is increasingly important that TV broadcasters and other media find a way to keep Georgians informed about the EU and the country’s European integration. 

If the EU and GoG concentrate their communication efforts on the practical benefits for regular people, they are likely to succeed in sustaining the high level of approval towards European integration in the country.  

Trends in Scientific Output in the South Caucasus: 1996-2012

Increases in the quantity of peer reviewed publications, on the one hand, and citations, on the other hand, are believed to measure scientific progress. In the 1960s, efforts to document, explore and explain trends in scientific progress gave rise to the quantitative study of science and science policy – Scientometrics. The SCImago Journal & Country Rank Portal covers the period from 1996 to 2014 and provides indicators that help us examine the dynamics of scientific output worldwide, including in the countries of the South Caucasus (SC). In this blog post, we present the following indicators: 

• Number of publications in peer reviewed journals by academics affiliated with the country’s scientific institutions;
• The ratio of cited peer reviewed publications to uncited ones;
• International collaboration, measured by the ratio of peer reviewed publications co-authored by individuals from different countries.

The number of peer reviewed publications by authors from all three South Caucasus countries has increased between 1996 and 2012. The chart below shows a notable increase after 2002.

Importantly, the number of both cited and uncited publications has been increasing in each scientific discipline. The ratio of cited to uncited publications, however, has declined slightly, as the chart below shows. 

At the same time, international collaboration, measured as the ratio of SC authors’ peer reviewed publications co-authored with authors from other countries, seems to have increased between 1996 and 2012. As the chart below shows, Azerbaijan falls behind, while international collaboration is slowly but steadily increasing in Armenia and Georgia. 

To sum up, the number of peer reviewed publications is the most rapidly growing indicator, suggesting positive developments in the scientific community of the countries of the South Caucasus. However, it seems that there is still work to do when it comes to the impact of the publications by scholars in the South Caucasus.

To learn more on the subject, take a look at this comparative analysis of the scientific output of Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia; this study which examines trends in the development of science in the CIS countries, and this article (in Georgian) focused on Georgian academic institutions. 

Dwellings in Georgia's cities

View of Tbilisi from Turtle Lake (Photo by Mariam Kobaladze)

According to the World Bank, Georgia has become more urbanized since the collapse of the Soviet Union. The shift from a planned to a market economy was accompanied by increasing regional disparities, and more people moved to large urban centers looking for economic opportunities and better living conditions. As a result, more than half of the country’s population (57.5%) currently lives in urban settlements, according to the 2014 census. Based on the STEP Skills Measurement Survey conducted in March and April 2013 in urban settlements in Georgia by CRRC-Georgia on behalf of the World Bank, this blog post looks at the type of dwellings where the urban population lives, including data on the number of rooms per dwelling, type of floor covers and toilets, as well as the ownership status of these dwellings at the time of the survey. The survey data was released in 2015 and, for the time being, is the most recent data available.

The majority of Georgia’s urban population (78% of the population of Tbilisi and 53% of the population of other towns and cities) lives in apartments in large apartment blocks with more than ten apartments. Only 14% of Tbilisi residents live in single family houses compared with 41% of residents of other urban settlements.

When it comes to ownership, 83% of Tbilisi residents and 90% of the residents of other towns and cities own their dwellings. Only 9% of Tbilisi residents and 3% of the residents of other urban settlements rent their homes or apartments.

About one third of residents of urban settlements live in three-room dwellings. One- and two-room dwellings are more common in the capital, while five-room or larger dwellings are more common in the non-capital urban settlements.

Parquet floors are the most common flooring material in Tbilisi, where 73% of floors are made from parquet. The respective share in other urban settlements is 44%. The next most common flooring material is wood boards used in 16% of dwellings in Tbilisi and 39% in other urban settlements.

As the survey was only conducted in urban settlements, it is not surprising that most of the dwellings have flush toilets connected to a piped sewer system (97% in Tbilisi and 79% in other urban settlements). Still, there are dwellings that have pit latrines with slab (2% in Tbilisi and 11% in other urban settlements).

Note: The sum of answer options exceeds 100% due to the rounding. 

Thus, most urban Georgians reside in apartments in large apartment blocks. About a third of the urban population lives in dwellings that have two or three rooms. Most people own the dwellings they live in. Notably, there are still homes in the cities that do not have toilets connected to the sewage system.
To explore this topic more, have a look at the data, here.

Playing on traditions: Has Russia’s propaganda worked?

Has Russian influence in Georgia increased in recent years? While the political elite and civil society leaders argue a lot about this issue, in an August 2015 survey, CRRC and NDI asked people what they think. Findings presented in a recent blog post show that a significant share of Georgians (44%) perceives Russian influence as having increased since 2012. This number is all the more alarming considering that only 17% think that the EU’s influence has increased during the same period. Paradoxically, all this is happening against the backdrop of Georgia’s declared EU aspirations and a number of important EU-related foreign policy achievements. This blog post explores how recent efforts of Russian propaganda may have contributed to a decline in support for EU membership.

European Initiative – Liberal Academy Tbilisi (EI - LAT) recently conducted research on Russian soft power and hard power policy in Georgia and published a policy brief highlighting specific mechanisms used by Russia to increase its influence in Georgia. The research findings suggest that there is evidence of increased Russian influence on Georgia, and the brief describes some of its mechanisms. According to the document: 

"Political myths are one of Russia[n] propaganda[‘s] most important tools in Georgia. Russian propaganda is often built on emotional messages to create and strengthen negative stereotypes of ethnic, religious and sexual minorities, discrediting the western political or cultural space and supporting homophobic and xenophobic opinions among the public. By cultivating these myths, Russia [presents] itself as Georgia’s only ally with a common identity, [religious] faith, history and culture. Simultaneously, it portrays the West as a threat to all the above-mentioned values."

While this statement is based on qualitative research findings, it finds support in CRRC’s public opinion survey data. In 2009, 2011, 2013 and 2015 CRRC conducted four waves of The Knowledge of and Attitudes towards the European Union in Georgia (EU survey) survey, funded by the Europe Foundation (formerly the Eurasia Partnership Foundation). These surveys’ findings show that, overall, the Georgian population’s reported support for Georgia’s EU membership has decreased between 2013 and 2015.

The EU survey data shows that Georgians increasingly perceive the EU as a threat to Georgian traditions. These traditions are extremely important for the people in Georgia who believe that preserving traditions is more important for a good citizen than being critical towards government or working as a volunteer. Thus, the above discussed mechanism of cultivating anti-Western myths may be very efficient in altering Georgia’s pro-Western course.

In fact, according to the EU survey data, the fear that the EU will harm Georgian culture and traditions has increased in Georgian society over the past seven years, especially after 2013. The 12% increase in the share of those who fully agree with the statement, “The EU threatens Georgian traditions,” over two years is a significant change and indicates the existence of a mechanism amplifying this fear.

The same attitude is demonstrated in the answers to another question asked on the same survey. About a third of Georgians believe there will be less respect for Georgian traditions if the country becomes an EU member. Notably, the share of those who think that respect for Georgian traditions will decrease significantly has doubled since 2013. 

The increasing fear that Georgia’s membership in the EU could threaten the country’s traditions can be considered another indicator or outcome of Russian propaganda discussed in detail by EI – LAT. Although this blog post does not prove that there is a direct causal relationship between Russia’s propaganda and changes in public attitudes towards the EU, the CRRC/EF data clearly show three trends that are, most probably, interrelated: 

1. Traditions are very important for Georgians; 

2. The EU is increasingly perceived as a threat to Georgian traditions; 

3. Although still at a high level, direct support for EU membership has declined. 

Based on both CRRC/EF and EI-LAT findings regarding Russia’s propaganda, we can assume that Russia’s propaganda was not only well informed and well planned, but also successful to a certain extent: the fear that the EU will harm Georgian traditions appears to have contributed to a decrease in the number of supporters of Georgia’s EU membership. This result is likely facilitated by the public not being well-informed about the EU, specifically – its commitment to preserve national traditions and supporting cultural heritage. 

The findings presented in this blog post shows that empirical research can be used not only for planning a successful propaganda campaign (by getting information on the most sensitive and important aspects of a given society), but also for detecting propaganda mechanisms and, potentially, taking counter measures.

Further research is essential and should focus on exploring the nature of the fear of “losing” traditions, as well as what people mean by Georgian traditions, as suggested by the Europe Foundation in a recent report. The findings also suggest that an awareness raising campaign on what EU membership actually implies is crucial for combating anti-Western propaganda.

If you would like to explore  Georgians’ attitudes towards the EU more, the data used for this post is available on CRRC’s online data analysis platform. As always, we welcome further analysis and your comments on our Facebook or in the comments section below.

The Georgian public's perceptions of the EU’s and Russia’s influence on the country

Numerous news reports in 2015 focused on foreign influence in Georgia (for instance, see the Financial Times, The Washington Post, Al Jazeera, the Wall Street Journal, Foreign Policy, the BBC, Foreign Affairs for some of the stories related to Russian influence), but how does the Georgian public see the situation? This blog post takes a look at how much influence the Georgian public think two foreign powers, the EU and Russia, have on Georgia compared with how much influence they think these powers should have, using August 2015 National Democratic Institute (NDI) and CRRC-Georgia survey findings.

The Georgian public thinks that Russia has more influence on Georgia than it should have. Forty-nine percent of Georgians assess Russia’s political influence on Georgia as somewhat or very high, while only six percent thinks it should be so. Sixty-eight percent think Russia’s political influence on Georgia should be low or that they should have no influence at all. When it comes to cultural influence, the mismatch is smaller although the pattern remains similar – 43% of Georgians assess Russia’s cultural influence as low  or none, while 58% think that it should be low  or none. When it comes to economic influence, 30% of Georgians assess Russia’s influence on Georgia as somewhat or very high, while only 12% think it should be so.

   .
In comparison with Russia, the influence that the Georgian public thinks the EU should have in Georgia is closer to influence Georgians think it does have, but there is still a mismatch, especially when it comes to assessments of political influence.

The share of Georgians who think that Russian influence on Georgia has increased since 2012 is higher than the share of those who think that EU influence has increased in the same period (44% and 17%, respectively).

When it comes to foreign influence on Georgia, Georgians clearly think that Russia has much more political, economic, and cultural influence than it should have. The assessments are much more similar in case of the EU. Notably, more Georgians perceive Russian influence as having increased since 2012 than those who think the EU’s influence has increased.

Want to explore the data in more depth? Take a look here, using our online data analysis tool.

The Georgian public’s awareness of visa liberalisation with the EU: Facts and expectations

The visa liberalisation agreement between Georgia and the EU is expected to enter in force in Summer 2016, allowing Georgian citizens holding biometric passports to enter and stay in Schengen area countries without a visa for up to 90 days in a 180-day period. EU-Georgia Visa Liberalisation Dialogue was launched in June, 2012. In February 2013, Visa Liberalisation Action Plan (VLAP) was presented to Georgian authorities. The European Commission’s December 2015 progress report stated that “given the outcome of the continuous monitoring and reporting carried out since the launch of the EU-Georgia Visa Liberalisation Dialogue, the Commission considers that Georgia meets all the benchmarks set in respect of the four blocks of the second phase of the VLAP.”  Visa liberalisation, however, in no way gives Georgians the right to work, study or become residents of Schengen area countries – for these purposes, a labor, study or immigration visa will be needed.

Visa liberalisation is considered a significant success of Georgian foreign policy and is an important step towards country’s EU integration through increased mobility. It is crucial to know, however, to what extent the population of Georgia is aware of the specific aspects of visa liberalisation, hence – how informed their opinions about this process are.

Before the European Commission’s December 2015 progress report mentioned above, CRRC’s 2015 Caucasus Barometer survey, conducted in October 2015, asked a series of questions measuring the population’s awareness of the then-expected visa liberalisation process. When asked, will successful completion of the visa liberalisation process benefit or not ordinary people living in Georgia, only 12% responded ‘no,’ while 32% answered they believed it would benefit ordinary Georgians. The remaining 56%, however, answered either “Don’t know” or said they did not know what the visa liberalisation process was (26% and 28%, respectively), with a small share refusing to answer the question. Hence, questions about specific aspects of the visa liberalisation process were only asked to those who answered either “yes” or “no” to this question i.e. just under a half (45%) of the total sample.

Importantly, only slightly over half (53%) of this group knows that only those Georgian citizens who possess biometric passports will be able to benefit from visa liberalisation, with 28% answering “Don’t know.” Even fewer (45%) are aware that the conditions of the visa liberalisation agreement will be effective only if the length of stay in EU countries does not exceed three months; this question resulted in the highest share (37% of the eligible group) answering “Don’t know.” Even more worrying is the finding showing that 42% of this group wrongly thinks that visa liberalisation will allow the Georgian citizens who have already emigrated gain living and work permits in the EU countries, without having to apply for additional residency documents – a major misunderstanding of what visa liberalisation is about.

 Note: These questions were asked only to those who answered either “Yes” or “No” to the previous question, “In your opinion, will successful completion of the visa liberalisation process benefit or not benefit ordinary people living in Georgia?” (i.e. 45% of the total sample). 

Although those living in Tbilisi tend to have slightly better knowledge compared to those living in other cities/towns or villages, the difference is not striking, and it cannot be claimed that the Tbilisi population is very well informed about specific aspects of visa liberalisation.

There are, though, interesting variations in knowledge by age. While Georgians of all age groups respond quite similarly to the question about whether or not visa liberalisation conditions apply if a person does not hold a biometric passport, younger Georgians tend to be better informed that the visa liberalisation agreement will be effective only if the length of stay in EU countries does not exceed three months and that visa liberalisation does not actually mean that Georgian citizens who have already emigrated will gain living and work permits in EU countries.

These findings strongly suggest that an awareness raising campaign about what the visa liberalisation process with the EU actually implies is crucial. A successful campaign will help to ensure that the population of Georgia has adequate expectations of it and makes informed migratory decisions to the EU countries once visa liberalisation enters into force.

Georgian society’s attitudes towards forced ‘volunteering’

Although the history and contextual background of volunteering in Europe vary from country to country, in most western societies, the development of volunteerism is associated with the emergence of civil society organizations, which appeared on the scene as a result of the crisis of the welfare state when governments could no longer manage to respond to the growing needs of society. Until the end of the 1990s the situation was different, though, in many socialist states, where the citizens were often forced to ‘volunteer’ for state controlled organizations. This practice had nothing to do with actual volunteering and would sometimes lead to human rights abuses. At the time, one of the common forms of this phenomena was ‘community service,’ e.g. organized cleaning of large public spaces, usually carried out on Saturdays (Shabatoba in Georgian). For many people living in socialist countries, it was an obligatory activity, often of a political character, and widely used by the state propaganda machine.

A number of recent studies argue that currently observed negative attitudes towards volunteering in some of the post-socialist societies are a consequence of Shabatoba and similar experiences (UNV, 2010; GHK, 2010; Ekiert and Foa, 2011). At the same time, there are other studies (UNV and UNDP, 2009) arguing that it is impossible to generalize any finding about how people felt and still feel about forced 'volunteering' practices.

Currently, attitudes towards Shabatoba-type activities are all but straightforward in Georgia. This blog post looks at how these attitudes differ by age, level of education, and previous volunteering experience, based on the findings of CRRC’s April 2014 Volunteering and Civic Participation in Georgia survey, funded by East-West Management Institute (EWMI) and the United States Agency for International Development (USAID).

According to the abovementioned UNV and UNDP 2009 study, if older generations tend to remember socialist era unpaid work programs with certain affection, for the younger generations, it is often hard to understand how such forced work could have been enjoyable. Considering this finding, one would expect younger Georgians to have less positive attitudes towards Shabatoba-type activities, compared to representatives of older generations. Surprisingly, however, the survey results show that representatives of different generations report quite similar attitudes towards potential forced ‘volunteering’ in today’s Georgia. The majority of Georgians of all age groups agree with the statement that “Georgia would be better off today, if the government forced us to volunteer,” although a slightly smaller share of young people (18-35 years old) agree with it, compared with those aged 36 and older.

Note: A 10-point scale was used to record answers to the question, the answer options for the question “In the Soviet Union there were Shabatoba-s, when people were jointly cleaning up public spaces. What do you think about having similar activities in Georgia now?” On the original scale, code ‘1’ corresponded to the opinion “We are lucky that the government does not force us to volunteer,” and code ‘10’ corresponded to the opinion “Georgia would be better off today if the government forced us to volunteer.” For this blog post, the answers were grouped as follows: codes 1 through 4 were labeled as “We are lucky that the government does not force us to volunteer.” Codes 5 and 6 were labeled as “Neither agree nor disagree with any of the statements.” Codes 7 through 10 were labeled as “Georgia would be better off today if the government forced us to volunteer.” Options “Don’t know” and “Refuse to answer” were excluded from the analysis. 

A number of studies conducted in the EU and in some of the post-socialist states (although not in Georgia) have shown that people with higher education tend to volunteer more than people with secondary education (UNV and UNDP, 2009; GHK, 2010). One might expect that the opinions about whether a government should be forcing citizens to volunteer or not would also differ by level of education. In fact, according to our survey results, those with higher education are slightly less inclined to agree with the statement that it would be better if the government forced citizens to volunteer, compared to those with secondary technical or secondary or lower education.

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

Notably and rather unexpectedly, those who have previously been engaged in volunteering (for example, have planted a tree outside their own property or have cleaned a public space) report slightly more often that Georgia would be better off today if the government forced citizens to volunteer, compared with Georgians who have not participated in such activities.

Note: A new variable was computed for this chart based on the questions, “Have you planted a tree outside your property during the past 6 months?” and “Have you helped to clean public space during the past 6 months?”  The answer “Yes” in the new variable means participation in at least one of the abovementioned activities, and “No” means participation in neither. 

To sum up, the findings presented in this blog post are rather unexpected. The majority of Georgians think the country would be better off today if the government forced citizens to volunteer, and this attitude varies only slightly by age and level of education. Probably the most unexpected of these findings is that those with volunteering experience support this idea slightly more often than those who have not been involved in volunteering activities previously, and this correlation proves to be statistically significant, although relatively weak.

To learn more about volunteering in the South Caucasus, take a look at earlier blog posts, What We Know About Volunteering in Georgia, Volunteerism in the South Caucasus and Community support and volunteerism in the South Caucasus.  If you wish to know more about Volunteering and Civic Participation in Georgia surveys, visit our Online Data Analysis tool or take a look at the Volunteering and Civic Participation report.