CRRC-Armenia Conducts Training on How to Improve Survey Question Quality

On 17 and 18 April, CRRC-Armenia hosted a two-day training for a select group of attendees on Prediction of the quality of survey questions using the program SQP: Improvement of questions and correction for measurement errors. The training was conducted by Melanie Revilla and Diana Zavala of the Research and Expertise Centre for Survey Methodology (RECSM) within the Pompeu Fabra University in Barcelona, Spain. They both work on the European Social Survey (ESS), with a focus on research methodology. The purpose of the training was to introduce two methods to evaluate the reliability and validity of survey questions and how to determine the quality of survey questions and the amount of measurement error.

RECSM has created a website to allow any researcher to use their Survey Quality Prediction (SQP) tool. The training provided the theoretical background of SQP, the practical application of SQP, and how to use the website to easily receive quality scores for survey questions. Those interested in the training materials may request them from CRRC to study on one’s own.

The attendees included participants from the Central Bank, the National Statistical Service and academic and non-governmental organizations. The attendees were engaged by the trainees, asking many questions and completing the practice exercises created for them. Certificates were given to the attendees at the completion of the training, and each attendee stated that the training met or exceeded their expectations.

Motherhood and Beauty Day: a Moment to Focus on the Wives of Migrants

Motherhood and Beauty Day, April 7^th, is the last day of “Women’s month” in Armenia. For this day, CRRC wants to draw attention to the fates of wives that stay in Armenia while their husbands migrate for work. Migration is a large issue in Armenia, as every year tens of thousands of men temporarily leave Armenia for employment purposes. This months-long separation creates significant challenges for families remaining in Armenia and introduces new risks to the family, including STI and HIV risks.

CRRC-Armenia recentlycompleted a study on labor migration and the risks of HIV and other STIs in Armenia. This study was done in partnership with Mission East - Armenia and with financial support from The Global Global Fund to fight AIDS, TB and Malaria. Technical assistance was provided by the National Center for AIDS Prevention and the Medical Scientific Center of dermatology and STI in Yerevan.

The aim of this study is to examine STI/HIV risks among labor migrants and their marital partners, to assess current HIV prevention activities among this population, and provide recommendations. STI/HIV is primarily entering Armenia through migrant workers from post-soviet states, especially Russia,and heterosexual intercourse is the main form of HIV transmission in Armenia (National Strategic Plan on HIV & AIDS, RA, 2012-2016). These two factors make the wives of migrants particularly vulnerable to infection.

Many Armenian wives have extreme faith in the fidelity of their husbands. This faith can cause a decrease in interest in STIs as many women don’t think they’ll become infected. As one woman from Lori said, “My husband told me that I am the only woman in his life and that is why I am not interested in information on STIs.” 

Migrant wives still predominantly believe their husbands will be faithful (68%), but are more likely to recognize the possibility of infidelity. One woman from Tavush said, “I understand that sometimes married men can be engaged in illicit sexual relations. … Due to their nature, men are engaged in such relationships when they work hard away from the family. This is necessary for men’s health.” With this recognition, comes more interest in reducing the health risks of STIs and HIV. Wives of migrants are more likely to have spoken to their husbands about STIs within the past year than the wives of non-migrants.

To combat some of the underlying issues that led to migration, especially irregular migration, the EU Mission, UNICEF, and the Ministry of Labor and Social Affairs and Territorial Administration Ministry have initiated a three-year one-million euro program on “Social Response to Labour Migration in Armenia”. The program focuses on mitigating the social consequences of labor migration in four marz in Armenia.

As more studies are conducted and information directed to this issue, the more Armenian women will become informed and better able to protect their health and the health of their husbands and kids. The CRRC-Armenia team is happy to be a part of this progress. In one interview, a woman from Lori said “I regularly talk about STIs, HIV/AIDS with my husband. Last time it happened was after a quantitative survey conducted by your organization.”

Women in Armenia: equality through challenges!

Women in Armenia: equality through challenges!

In continuing the series of blog posts on women, this post will look at the economic independence of Armenian women.

For many women, the only way they can develop a sense of independence is through economic independence. While some economic activity, especially those that fall within traditional gender roles like cleaning or teaching children, is accepted by many societies, there are still many large impediments to women seeking economic equality and economic independence.

In Armenia, almost half of both men and women agree that being employed is the best way for a woman to gain independence, but there are multiple societal beliefs that limit women’s employment opportunities. Sixty-five percent of Armenian men and almost half of women believe that when there are limited jobs, men should have more rights to work than women (see the chart below). In a country with high unemployment like Armenia, this view can seriously limit women’s employment opportunities. Fortunately, official statistics say that the share of unemployed women of the total unemployed population has decreased from its peak of 61% in 2007 to 53% in 2011 (National Statistical Service Republic of Armenia, Women and Men in Armenia, pp. 107-109).

As women develop skills that can lead to higher incomes, like learning English or office management, they have the extra worry about their relationship with husbands: according to the recent World Values Survey ( WVS, 2011), almost half of Armenian men believe that problems are likely to occur if the wife makes more money than the husband does. Almost a third of Armenian woman have the same view.

While women are approaching equality in (un)employment in Armenia, there is still a large discrepancy in average wages. In 2011, the mean pre-tax monthly income for men was 131,294 AMD (about 350 USD) and for women it was 84,992 AMD (227 USD) (National Statistical Service of the Republic of Armenia, Labour Market in the Republic of Armenia, 2007-2011, p 163).

Promoting employment as a mean for economic independence challenges another traditional social norm for women: raising children. Fifty-nine percent of men and almost half of women believe that children suffer if the mother is a hired employee. Such common societal views may impose a negative social cost on mothers who take a job, including negative views among the mother’s social group or an increase in marital disagreements. 

Jim Yong Kim, the World Bank’s President, mentioned having bank accounts as one of the indicators of women being more independent and integrated with the formal economy.  Based on this indicator, one could record essential progress in Armenia even during the last year. According to another survey – CRRC’s Caucasus Barometer for the previous two years, the share of women with bank accounts more than doubled from 2011 to 2012 and is now at 34% of the female population. The share of women reporting that they have any personal savings grew more modestly from 7.1% to 10.3%, which is in line with men’s reported savings.

CRRC Presents Caucasus Barometer 2012 Results

On March 20-th, at Congress Hotel, Heghine Manasyan, the Director of CRRC-Armenia, gave a presentation on the recently released results of the Caucasus Barometer 2012 survey. She presented new questions regarding Joseph Stalin and the Armenian Genocide and new year-to-year changes in previous questions to an audience of over 70 people. Also part of the presentation were Drew Loizeaux, from CRRC, and Astghik Mirzakhanyan, the Head of the Social Affairs Department within the Government of Armenia.

Gevorg Ter-Gabrielyan from the Eurasian Partnership Foundation introduced Heghine and began the presentation by mentioning that yesterday was the International Day of Happiness. The topic of happiness in Armenia came up as an interesting point that warrants more study. While a number of indicators on people’s views, like trust in the parliament, have grown more negative over the last few years, happiness has increased, which shows to be not a paradox anymore, but a persistent trend.

Astghik Mirzakhanyan stated that the Government ought to learn from the Caucasus Barometer and from other surveys and studies to develop better policies. This developed into a discussion over how the Government is structured and whether it could have an internal analytical department.

This year, questions were added to the survey regarding respondents’ views on Joseph Stalin. The questions were asked across all there Caucasian countries and—for the first time—Russia, with the support of the Levada Center in Moscow. A majority of people in Armenia (55%) and Georgia (68%) believe that Stalin was a wise ruler who brought power and prosperity to the Soviet Union, but a vast majority in all three Caucasian countries (72% in Armenia, 73% in Azerbaijan, and 63% in Georgia) would not like to live and work in a country ruled by someone like Stalin. When asked to select what word best describes your attitude towards Stalin, Armenians primarily selected “indifference” (25%), Georgians selected “respect” (27%), while 22% of Azerbaijanis said they do not know who Stalin is, which the presentation audience found funny.

The 2012 survey also had new questions solely for Armenia on the Genocide and Armenian-Turkish relations. When asked about opening the border with Turkey nearly half of respondents (49%) believed it would be beneficial to the economy, while almost an equal share (47%) believed that it would harm national security.

The Caucasus Barometer is an annual cross-border project aimed at studying public opinion on social, political and economic processes in the South Caucasus region. The survey instruments: questionnaires, show cards, the detailed sampling methodology document, the survey databases (in SPSS format) and some findings can be found on the CRRC regional website at www.crrccenters.org, as well as on the website of CRRC-Armenia http://crrc.am/index.php/en/14/164.

Caucasus barometer. 20.03.2013 from Valeria Sargsyan

Women in Armenian Society: Adding CRRC Data to the Discussion

By Gabriel Armas-Cardona

Jim Yong Kim, the President of the World Bank Group, recently made a call for improving the lives of women all around the world. He said that one of the ways the World Bank is helping is by “collecting better data that measure equality for women and girls.”

Caucuses Research Resource Center (CRRC) recently conducted two significant surveys. The first is the latest iteration of the flagship Caucasus Barometer, which is an extensive annual survey in all three Caucasian countries. The second survey is the Armenian portion of the latest wave of the World Values Survey. These two surveys give us recent information about the status and perception of women and their rights.

This will be the first post of a series on the subject, and thus we’re going to start broadly examining the situation of women. Other people have begun to study this issue. Katy Pearce, who has worked with CRRC and the Caucasus Barometer data for a long time, has a post that covers the work satisfaction felt by women in the Caucasus.

From International Women’s Day until Motherhood and Beauty Day on April 7^th is women’s month in Armenia. As all Armenian women deserve happiness, we suggest a preliminary look at the picture of happiness and satisfaction by gender. The graph below evidences some growth of happiness in Armenia, especially for women during the last three years.

Women also report slightly more overall life satisfaction than men, even if the level of satisfaction is only at the middle part of the graph.

Delving further into what other factors may make women more or less happy or satisfied finds differences in age, marital status and education level. The charts for life satisfaction look similar to the charts for happiness, so only the happiness charts will be reviewed below.

Age

Marital Status

Education

For both happiness and life satisfaction, women that were 18-35 years old, either never married or currently married, or completed higher education or held a Ph.D. tended to score higher than other women. From 2011 to 2012, women that were 36-55 years old, never married, or hadn't completed secondary education showed the most significant improvements in happiness and life satisfaction. No difference was found in happiness between women based on settlement type (capital, urban or rural), and only a small difference in life satisfaction with women in the capital being more satisfied than urban or rural women.

Even without knowing if there are causative factors, recommendations can be made based on the strong correlations presented. The first is for women to obtain the highest amount of education possible; education lasts a lifetime and is well correlated to higher levels of happiness and satisfaction. The second is for women to be willing to delay getting married until they really want to; unmarried adult women report only a tiny amount more happiness compared to married women but significantly more life satisfaction.

Happiness and overall life satisfaction cover only the broadest aspects of women’s lives in Armenia. Yet, these two subjective scores demonstrate that women overall feel that their lot is improving, even if only a little bit. There are many challenges Armenian women face, including lack of economic opportunities, gender-based violence, expectations for boys and girls, etc. These challenges will be developed in future blog posts. 

First glance impression from data on Armenia’s recent Presidential Election: Manipulation?

Introducing our new International Fellow:

By Gabriel Armas-Cardona

Measuring the randomness of numbers is a well-developed field and of vital importance for testing the validity of election data. Multiple tests have been developed to test for randomness among data sets, including the last-digit test. These types of tests, including the last-digit test, can be used to help determine whether election data has been manipulated.

                The Last-Digit Test

 The last-digit test involves looking at the last, or final, digit of each number and counting how many 0s, 1s, 2s, …, and 9s there are. If the numbers are random, then each digit should appear at the end with an equal percentage, 10%. If certain digits appear much more or much less frequently than 10%, then that difference is evidence that the numbers are not random and that they’ve been manipulated.

Applying the last-digit test to election data is a standard method to determine whether the results have been manipulated. Special mention has to be made to Policy Forum Armenia’s Special Report on the 2012 Parliamentary Election. In that report, Policy Forum Armenia uses the last-digit test, among others, to demonstrate that the official 2012 results have been manipulated. 

                Applying the Last-Digit Test to the 2013 Presidential Election Results

Using the last-digit test for the 2013 election involves examining the turnout results from every precinct in the election. The turnout at each precinct is not a random number; if a precinct has a 1,000 eligible voters, one can expect a turnout between 300-700. What is random is the last digit of the turnout, and Policy Forum's Report lists the theoretical support for this test (see page 25). Looking at the last digit of the turnout for each precinct that has at least 100 voters should create an even distribution, with each digit appearing 10% of the time (available on http://res.elections.am/images/doc/masnak18.02.13p_en.pdf). At the same time, it has to be mentioned that this is not entirely true for small numbers because of Benford’s Law. To compensate for this deviation, only turnout results of at least three digits, i.e. at least 100 voters, were analyzed.When applying the test to the 2013 precinct data, we don’t get an even distribution (see graph 1).

Graph 1: Distribution of the Last Digit of Reported Numbers for Precinct Turnout

Looking at the graph, anyone can see there are some wide variations from the expected result of 10% for each digit. In particular, we find that ‘0’ is overrepresented by 2%, ‘5’ is overrepresented by 1% and ‘9’ is underrepresented by 2.4%. These differences hint at human manipulation as humans tend to prefer some numbers over others (look at, for example, What the Numbers Say: A Digit-Based Test for Election Fraud, Bernd Beber and Alexandra Scacco (2012). To mathematically test for manipulation of the data, a chi-square analysis of the actual results compared to the expected results of 10% per digit can show whether the deviation is significant.

Conducting a chi-square analysis of the precinct turnout finds that the data is statistically improbable. Conducting a chi-square analysis comparing the actual outcome with the expected outcome of 10% finds that it’s statistically improbable that the data is random (n=1899, Chi-square value=23.4, p=.005; statistically significant). This implies that that the data has been manipulated.

This test was repeated after dividing the data between Yerevan and outside of Yerevan with differing results. When looking at precincts within Yerevan, the chi-square value is low and it’s plausible the distribution results from randomness (n=467, Chi-square value=9.85, p=.363; not statistically significant.). Looking at precincts outside of Yerevan finds again a statistically improbable outcome that implies manipulation (n=1432, Chi-square value=19.7, p=.02; statistically significant).

                Conclusion

Using the last-digit test, it’s statistically improbable that the data distribution is random, implying the data has been manipulated. The last-digit of the precinct turnout should have an even distribution, but instead it has the statistically improbable distribution shown in graph 1. This evidence of manipulation disappears when looking only at Yerevan, but it reappears when looking at precincts outside of Yerevan. This analysis does not prove that the official results are fake, but it does show that it’s improbable that the results occurred naturally and it is likely the turnout results are altered to some extent. This first glance impression perhaps will encourage researchers to dig more and come up with more relevant findings.

Full house for “Syrian Armenians in Armenia”

By CRRC-Armenia International Fellow Agnethe Ellingsen 

On February 6, 2012, Anastasia Baskina, current International Fellow at CRRC-Armenia, held a work-in-progress presentation on her research project “Syrian Armenians in Armenia: Pathways and Barriers to Integration”. The event aroused a vivid interest and attracted most relevant stakeholders currently working on Syrian Armenian refugee issues in Armenia, such as UNHCR, Ministry of Diaspora, UNISDR, as well as representatives from Syrian-Armenian diaspora, local NGOs, students, and media outlets. The CRRC office was filled to capacity and created a positive atmosphere to discuss this essential but still mostly uncovered issue.

The Armenian diaspora in Syria before the hostilities counted to be between 60 000 and 80 000 people, some of which fled to Armenia following the warfare. According to the official sources, currently there are about 6,500 Syrian immigrants of Armenian descent residing in Armenia. The main objective of Anastasia’s research was to identify major barriers to integration of Syrian Armenians in Armenia, as well to examine measures undertaken by the government, civil society and international organizations to address the issue. The study incorporated policy analysis and in-depth interviews with relevant stakeholders and Syrian Armenians, including life examples of troubles and difficulties faced.

As the research is still in progress, and the topic is an unexplored land so far, Anastasia strongly encouraged the listeners to discuss and review the first findings. The audience used this excellent opportunity to interact and exchange experience and opinions concerning the results. Moreover, an assessment of stakeholders’ actions fired up a debate among the audience from all sides. Furthermore, certain concerns regarding relationship between Armenians and Syrian Armenians in Armenia, the role of the Apostolic church, aid distribution, as well as media coverage of the situation were also covered by the discussions.

Eventually, CRRC was proud to conclude the event as probably for the first time the Syrian-Armenian community members and the stakeholders had a chance to face each other in a convenient environment to debate, interact, and exchange opinions across sore points and the big question about what an eventual “New Syria” will bring for the Syrian Armenian Diaspora, especially in the aftermath of the Arab spring in the Middle East.

We are looking forward for Anastasia’s final results and the discussions which hopefully will follow up her upcoming publication!

Syrian Armenians in Armenia: Pathways and Barriers to Integration  

Exploring Brain drain and the hydropower industry: Comparing Tajikistan and Armenia

 Introducing our newest International Fellow: 

By Agnethe Ellingsen

In the summer of 2011, a delegation of government officials from Tajikistan visited Armenia to learn about Armenia’s experience with developing its renewable energy potential. Today, the high potential of hydropower has attracted international organizations as well as international enterprises - such as Norwegian and Iranian ones - to contribute in different ways to the development of the hydropower industry in both countries. However, the high level of labor migration in both Armenia and Tajikistan raises an interesting question that has not been well researched: To what degree does brain drain have an impact on the development of the hydropower industry in Tajikistan and Armenia?As a Norwegian student, my interest in this question is especially strong, since Norwegian companies are running hydropower projects in both countries and their success or failure could depend on local capacity.

Tajikistan, the country with the highest hydropower potential in Central Asia, has only realized about 5 % of its potential. Tajikistan’s hydroelectric power plants account for 98% of its domestic electricity generation. Here you can see the Nurek dam, the tallest dam in the world.

Landlocked, one of the poorest countries in their respective parts of the former Soviet Union, surrounded by mountains, located in earthquake prone areas, and punished by war during the 90s; both Armenia and Tajikistan have faced an uphill battle in the economic transition that followed the breakup of the Soviet Union. Today, energy is seen as an important catalyst to the economic development of Armenia and Tajikistan. While Iran and Iranian enterprises are among the most active regional partners for both Tajikistan and Armenia in the hydropower industry, Norway and Norwegian enterprises are among the most active western actors in this sector. NorskEnergi  is a leading Norwegian consultant firm in the fields of energy, environment and safety, financing large and small projects on energy efficiency and greenhouse gas reductions, and often cooperates with the Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Over the past few years, NorskEnergi has started small hydropower projects in both Tajikistan and Armenia. The support for renewable energy in developing countries is one of the priorities of Norwegian development politics today.

Through the activities of NorskEnergi and considering the fact that in 2006 the UN recognized the nexus between migration and development, I became interested to investigate that issue more extensive. This led finally to my idea of analyzing the effect of labor migration and brain drain on the development of the hydropower industry in Tajikistan and Armenia, as the hydropower industry is an important part of the economic development in both countries.

Armenia already has realized about 42% of its hydropower potential. Armenia’s hydroelectric power plants account for 33% of its domestic electricity generation.Here you can see how one of many small hydro power plants in Armenia are looking inside.

Although plenty of studies have been conducted on labor migration in Tajikistan and Armenia, the exact economic impact of labor migration on one specific industry or sector has not been clearly examined. Furthermore, the several reports on the hydropower potential and the development of hydropower industry in Armenia and Tajikistan fail to answer the WHO-questions: WHO is going to construct and build all those dams and small hydropower plants? WHO is going to manage the construction process? WHO will have the responsibility for the maintaining the installations? WHO is responsible from the first outline to the final purchaser of electricity? 

What almost all of the studies to a little extent are indicating, but not further discussing, is the lack of skilled work force in all areas connected to the development of the hydropower industry. The first results from my research in Tajikistan indicate that brain drain in Tajikistan seems to have a negative impact, especially on the maintaining of hydropower plants, which are usually financed by the international community. Furthermore, the situation in Armenia will be explored in the coming months.

Here you can see the reservoir of Nurek. Standing here, I got a feeling of Norway, since it looks so similar to my Norwegian fjords.

A little about myself: my name is Agnethe Ellingsen, and I am the new International Fellow at the Caucasus Research Resource Center in Yerevan. I am a current Norwegian master’s student at Humboldt University of Berlin in Central Asian and Caucasian studies with a major in Geography and Development. Before joining CRRC in Yerevan, I interned at the Eurasia Foundation of Central Asia in Dushanbe, where I began my research for the above-mentioned project. I am very excited to continue exploring this topic here in Armenia and share the final results I will obtain by the end of my stay!

Social Snapshot and Poverty in Armenia: Children are the Most Vulnerable

The National Statistical Service of the Republic of Armenia has recently published its annual statistical and analytical report “Social snapshot and poverty in Armenia”. The report is based on the results of the 2011 Integrated Living Conditions Survey (ILCS) of Households and intends to inform the public about the living conditions and social situation in Armenia. For researchers, students and any interested individual it provides the most comprehensive report and data set on social, economic and demographic issues in Armenia. According to ILCS estimations, the number of current population of Armenia is 2,927,600 people. The resident population comprises 48.6% males and 51.4% females, with an average age of 35.3 years.

The chapter on poverty profile and labor market situation presents detailed information on Armenia’s economic development in the period 2008-2011. Due to economic reforms implemented in the last decade before the global economic crisis, Armenia was able to join the group of middle economy countries. However, the Armenian economy underwent a deep recession in 2009 and real GDP dropped by 14.1%.A moderate recovery followed in 2010 and 2011, by 2.2% and 4.7%, respectively. The global economic crisis has also seriously undermined the government capacity to alleviate poverty. While the rich increased their wealth even further, the poor suffered the most and benefited less from the economic growth of the last two years.

In order to assess the level of well-being in Armenia, the report uses a consumption aggregate. Based on living standards, the population of Armenia is divided into poor and non-poor, with the poor further divided into poor, very poor and extremely poor.  In 2011 more than one third of population (35.0%) was poor, 19.9% was very poor, and 3.7% was extremely poor. A majority of the extremely poor are urban residents, which seems to suggest that subsistence agriculture plays an important role in safeguarding people from extreme poverty.  Overall, the real monthly consumption of the population as not recovered from the most recent recession and is 6.1% lower than it was in 2008. The report estimates that Armenia would need AMD 111.5 billion (or 3% of GDP) to overcome poverty, in addition to the resources already allocated to social assistance.

Child poverty remains a grave concern. Among all population groups, poverty incidence is highest among children, particularly in age groups of 0-5 years, 6-9 years, and 15-17 years, and lowest in the age group of 60-64 years. It is interesting to note, in contrast to old-age pensions and family benefits, child allowances do not make any significant difference to average child poverty rate,.The report estimates that without pension income the average extreme poverty rate would triple in the households with a relatively low consumption level.

As of 2011, 1.2 million people (out of 1.4 million economically active labor force) were employed, with 39% of them in the agricultural sector.The youth (15-29 years old) accounted for 21% of the employed and 42% of the unemployed population. It is estimated that half of the jobs (50.4%)are informal, which causes many problems for the social and financial situation in Armenia. Most significantly,the large share of informal economy undermines social protection and further economic growth in Armenia. On average, monthly earnings in 2011 equaled to AMD 74.408, which is 8.3% higher than in 2010. Men earn 1.6 times more than women.

The full report contains much more information on the economic and social situation in Armenia and contains interesting details for students and researchers alike. The full report can be found here, at the NSS website.

Caucasus Barometer Presentations

On Wednesday, December 12, staff members from CRRC-Armenia visited the Armenian National Agrarian University (ANAU) and observed presentations that students had prepared using the Caucasus Barometer. Eight pairs of students each presented their findings on statistics related to the social and economic standards among Armenians, Georgians, and Azerbaijanis. Each group had a unique hypothesis and analyzed different parts of the data set. There were interesting conclusions that took an impressive amount of time and effort to develop.

 

Using PowerPoint presentations, the groups investigated their hypotheses by creating relevant charts and graphs. CRRC-Armenia Director Heghine Manasyan and Research Director Drew Loizeaux were on hand to offer their advice on how to best utilize the Caucasus Barometer tool and conduct social science research.

Overall, the day was a great example of CRRC’s data in action and a great outreach opportunity for the institute. Thanks to ANAU for the invitation to attend the event, and to the students for their hard work and thoughtful presentations.

Currently, we are looking forward to the presentations of a group of master’s students at ANAU on the Caucasus Barometer, and will be sure to provide an update after we attend.