WVS: Media Use – Azerbaijan

More on methodology here.

The WVS media use questions are essentially useless (sorry WVS!) for my research. They ask about frequency of use as an information source and then use of a personal computer. However, since sometimes some people question my analyses about technology use in the Caucasus, these can provide a datapoint from an alternative source.

So first, lets look at personal computer use in Azerbaijan.

As of late 2011, 50% of Azerbaijani adults never used a personal computer and less than a quarter used one frequently. (Although I looked at “size of town” and those living in places with over 500,000 residents were slightly higher with 32% using frequent, 25% using occasionally, and 42% never using.) Note that the Caucasus Barometer has 15% of households owning a personal computer in 2011 (and obviously some people use at work), but the ITU says 39% of Azerbaijani households had a PC in 2011. The WVS makes the ITU data look questionable (again).

pc1

I also looked at the average age of each of these categories.

meanagepc

 

Then looking at information sources, 70% of Azerbaijani adults never got information from email and 56% never got information from the Internet. 19% of Azerbaijanis did get information from the Internet daily though and 44% had used the Internet for information.
The Caucasus Barometer from CRRC in 2011 found that 22% of Azerbaijani adults had ever used the Internet, so that sort of lines up with this WVS data. Maybe it is possible that people are getting information FROM the Internet, but not directly? (Grandson tells Grandmother about some news he read online?). The ITU says that in 2011 42% of Azerbaijani households had PC-based Internet. Given that some people have Internet at work, this doesn’t really line up perfectly as well.

infosource

I looked at age as well and for most of these, there are no age differences. Internet does differ between ages, with the average “never” using the Internet person being 45.98 years and then the average daily user being 32.43 and the other categories being in the middle of those in their 30s. Otherwise the differences were small or none at all.

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.

freq

means

 

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

world

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.

MDyears

 

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.

ident

ETA: here’s the breakdown by region – Baku, regional cities, villages 1 = strongly disagree and 4 = strongly agree. All differences are statistically significant.

f

Capital and rural people much more likely to view themselves as independent people.

family

Identification with family is strongest in the capital and least important in rural areas? I need to think about this a bit.

e

Neighborhood identification is strongest in capital, then downward. Again, need to think about this.

 

d

Community/municipality is most important in rural area, least in capital.

c

Capital city people see themselves as citizens of the nation the most.

b

Not surprisingly, capital city people are the most connected to Azerbaijanis around the world.

a

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.

trust

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.

money

ill

reapir

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%.

facebookusers

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.

friends2

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.

fbactivities

 

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.)

vote

These voting rates seem to match up with the official reported rates.

fairness

Wow – this is all over the place. Georgia isn’t a surprise, Armenia is interesting, and Azerbaijan is depressing.

pARTICIPATE

Interesting with regard to the reported turn outs.