Although many studies use income as a single indicator of socioeconomic status, certainly income is not a complete or direct measure of total economic wellbeing (Falkingham, 1999; Ringen, 1998). We use a consensual poverty measure, where the greater the number of consumable items absent, the greater the degree of material deprivation (Demirchyan & Thompson, 2008; Menchini & Redmond, 2009; Nolan & Whelan, 1996; for an extensive review, see Ouellette, Burstein, Long, & Beecroft, 2004), or what Boarini and Mira (2006) call objective satisfaction of basic needs. These have been shown to be most appropriate in the post-Soviet context (Falkingham, 1999; Kandiyoti, 1999; Rose & Mcallister, 1996), as income is low, irregular, and often not official. The scale used here (described by Rose, 2002) asked “what phrase best describes your family’s financial situation” and provided five choices.
And here’s some comparison over time (not comparing means, just giving frequencies.
In the 2012 social networks and media survey done by CRRC in Azerbaijan, respondents were asked about belonging to various groups.
ETA: here’s the breakdown by region – Baku, regional cities, villages 1 = strongly disagree and 4 = strongly agree. All differences are statistically significant.
Capital and rural people much more likely to view themselves as independent people.
Identification with family is strongest in the capital and least important in rural areas? I need to think about this a bit.
Neighborhood identification is strongest in capital, then downward. Again, need to think about this.
Community/municipality is most important in rural area, least in capital.
Capital city people see themselves as citizens of the nation the most.
Not surprisingly, capital city people are the most connected to Azerbaijanis around the world.
And similarly, capital city people are the most globally oriented.
As a quick follow up to this post, here are the frequencies of trust in various groups in Azerbaijan from the 2012 social capital and media CRRC study. No comparisons exist for the other countries.
I’m working on a project right now that looks at trust, so I wanted to share some results from the 2013 Caucasus Barometer.
First, the generalized trust question – there is scholarly debate about how people interpret this question, but it seems like many people think that this means other people in the street and thus is tied up with sense of safety.
In this case, Armenians are the least trusting, Georgians the most. (In an ANOVA, all these differences reported here are statistically significant).
But then when people are asked about their family/friends/neighbors helping, things change.
In all of these, Azerbaijanis are far less likely to believe that their family/friends/whomever would help them.
Without a doubt, “help” isn’t the same as trust, but it does say something about being able to rely on others for help. And it looks like there are some very different patterns in these states.
Number of Facebook users in the Caucasus is a popular topic. I did this analysis with data from Facebook itself.
From the 2013 Caucasus Barometer, we see that 20% of Armenian adults, 16% of Azerbaijani adults, and 26% of Georgian adults use Facebook at least once a week. (Also provided are the percentages out of Internet users.) This matches up pretty well with the Facebook information that had the following for those older than 14 in the countries: Armenia: 25%, Azerbaijan: 19%, and Georgia: 34%.
The Caucasus Barometer also asked about number of friends. This is always difficult because people aren’t sitting at their computers/phones and often have a hard time estimating.
The Caucasus Barometer asked about most frequent Facebook activities this year. See the chart above. I would have loved to have seen all activities asked about separately, as it is hard to really pin down one activity on Facebook, but oh well.
Interestingly, newsfeed reading is the most popular activity in Armenia and Georgia, whereas there is much greater variance in Azerbaijan. I suspect that the variance is due to the use of Facebook as a “free”(ish) space for deliberation in Azerbaijan whereas in Armenia and Georgia there are other places for free discussion.
These voting rates seem to match up with the official reported rates.
Wow – this is all over the place. Georgia isn’t a surprise, Armenia is interesting, and Azerbaijan is depressing.
Interesting with regard to the reported turn outs.
My Winter quarter class had the option to post memes related to course concepts and wow – did they come up with some fun ones!
Okay okay okay… a sneak preview.
Previous posts on Azerbaijan and gender online for context…
* Gender online, Azerbaijan, 2012, Caucasus Barometer
* Regional and gender Internet activities, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, 2012, Caucasus Barometer
* Internet infographic, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, 2012, Caucasus Barometer
* Social networking sites, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, 2012, Caucasus Barometer
* All technology, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia (with gender and regional), 2011, Caucasus Barometer
* All technology, Azerbaijan (with gender), 2011, Caucasus Barometer
And here’s one sneak peek at what’s going on in Azerbaijan with women getting online in 2013.
My favorite day of the year is here! No, not Fat Tuesday – but new Caucasus Barometer data day!
I’ll be posting a variety of analyses over the coming weeks, but here’s the one everyone loves – percent of adult Internet users in each country.
First, let us all acknowledge that I hate talking about Internet penetration because I think that it is meaningless to talk about percentage of users without contextualizing the economic, social, political, and cultural environment in which Internet use exists.
And here are dozens of other posts about technology use in the Caucasus.
This is data from the Caucasus Barometer, which is a trustworthy source. Read more about it at the link or check out their page and play around with the data. These results are all for adults.
First, this year’s distribution:
You can see that a large percentage of Caucasians aren’t using the Internet. Again, I’d rather be talking about who those people are (poorer, older, rural, less educated, women) than just percentages, but alas, this is what you all want, isn’t it? You can also see that most Internet users are online daily, although in Azerbaijan, they’re fairly divided between daily and once a week.
Now, on to the trends over time:
Next, those who ever use:
Ever used – this is a bit meaningless, as the benefits of Internet use are certainly relative to how often one is using it. Getting online less than one a month is an entirely different experience than being online daily (or all day long as is often the case.) But again, people are really interested in this. Each country saw some growth, but certainly the growth will slow down as time passes.
Daily use trends:
In my eyes, daily use is the most meaningful measure here. Those who are online daily are getting the most out of their Internet use. Once again, you can see that there is a huge gap between Armenia and Georgia with Azerbaijan. I’ve discussed this at length, but one reason for this is the lower percentage of Azerbaijani women online. But there are other reasons too. In the coming weeks I’ll elaborate on this.
For those that wonder if these Azerbaijan numbers are legitimate, I point you to this blog post.
Coming soon with be posts on:
social networking site use
ownership of technology
I’m happy to answer questions!