WVS: Trust in others – Azerbaijan and world

More on methodology here.

I’m currently working on 2 different papers that deal with trust of others in Azerbaijan, so I was very excited to see this. As per what literature says, Azerbaijanis have very low trust in strangers and very high trust in family.




And here’s the means of the world. Again, 1 is high trust and 4 is no trust. Azerbaijan has very poor trust in strangers compared to the globe


New World Values Survey is out

The World Values Survey is a large international survey, conducted every few years with a variety of cooperating organizations. In their words: it “is a global research project that explores people’s values and beliefs, their stability or change over time and their impact on social and political development of the societies in different countries of the world.” This wave included Armenia and Azerbaijan and they hadn’t been done in years, so I was very happy.

Most of the time they do a pretty good job measuring things. Sometimes I don’t LOVE their measures, but what can you do? Also the media use measures are far too limited for my work, so I don’t really use this too much professionally. But I will do some analysis on my blog for fun.

Note: there is an online data analysis tool, check it out!

The methods information is available here, but here is the information for the Caucasus.

In Armenia, conducted by CRRC, the data for this wave was collected in 2011 and is weighted against demographics. The sampling plan, gathered from the electricity lists, was:

The stratified two stage cluster sample using PPS methodology was employed, using the following stages:
(a)Stratification: The approach of stratification of households (and, correspondingly, their members: respondents) by the regions/marzes of the country was applied to design the sample. The stratification is being considered as preferable option, as it allows ensuring representation of all heterogeneity of objective social, economic, cultural and other characteristics of the sampling units located in different geographic areas/regions of the country. At the same time, it ensures quite internal homogeneity of the aforementioned characteristics within each stratum. Therefore, all households in the sample frame were devised into 11 strata by the regional criterion (Capital – Yerevan and 10 regions/marzes). At the same time, in each stratum the second level of stratification was carried out: urban and rural, in order to obtain the urbanrural proportions of the households at the regional and country levels. The same principle of the PPS stratification was applied also within the capital: Yerevan. There are some 7 districts in Yerevan, which were determined as sub-strata within Yerevan and the total number of households in each district of Yerevan in the sample is proportional to the general distribution of the households by these sub-strata.Thus, in total there are 28 separate strata and sub-strata, of which the selection of primary sampling units (PSUs) was carried out at first.
(b) Clusters (PSUs). Two-stage cluster sampling method was applied to the survey sample design. At the first stage of sampling procedure, clusters (city blocks) of households formed based on the sample frame were selected using SRS (simple random sampling) method. Approximately equal sized clusters of households were selected in each stratum. (c)Households (SSUs). At the second stage of the sampling procedure the secondary sampling units, i.e. households (SSUs) were selected in each already selected cluster, using the SRS method. In each selected PSU 20 SSUs were interviewed.
(d)Respondents (FSUs). In each selected household (SSU) the respondent/FSU (h/h member in the age group of 18-85) was selected using the recent birthday method.

For Azerbaijan, the data was collected by the International Center for Social Research and the data was collected in December 2011. Ages 18+.

Here’s the sampling plan:

11 economic regions of Azerbaijan were identified as initial strata. 100 PSUs were randomly selected with probability proportional to size of each strata, and then 12 persons were systematically selected in each PSU. The full list of election districts within each stratum were used for random selection of PSUs, and the full lists of voters within selected election districts were used for random selection of respondents. Both election districts (PSUs) and voters (respondents) were selected from the lists published on the official website of Central Election Commission of Azerbaijan (http://www.infocenter.gov.az ).
Thus, two-stage area probability sampling was applied:
(1) At the first stage – random selection of 100 PSUs proportionally to size of each strata;
(2) At the second stage – random selection of 12 respondents within each PSU.

Material Deprivation 2013 update

Material deprivation

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.

Here’s the past.

And here’s some comparison over time (not comparing means, just giving frequencies.



Identification with local and global – Azerbaijan

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.

Trust and Relying on Others in the Caucasus

I’m working on a project right now that looks at trust, so I wanted to share some results from the 2013 Caucasus Barometer.

Here’s some work on trust from 2012. And more from the EBRD Life in Transitions study.

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.

Facebook in Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Georgia

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.



Voting in 2013 – Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia

The new Caucasus Barometer is out and I did some analysis on voting behaviors. (Here’s 2011 and Here’s 2012.)


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.