"… it is unjust when one can and another – cannot, one is allowed while another is not …"
“…poor people are more affected by different types of social injustices rather than well-off ones
…”
"…equal rights and equal access to different resources are not enough features of just society. If
all people live in equally poor conditions and have equal access to poor resources – all these still
can be classified as just society; however real social justice occurs only in case when everyone
lives in dignity…"
Social Injustices for Rural Poor in South Caucasus
(Qualitative survey)
Analysis Report
FINAL
Prepared by:
MEALS (Monitoring, Evaluation, Analysis, Learning and Sharing)
CARE International in the South Caucasus (CIC)
November, 2013 year
1
Table of Content
Acknowledgement..................................................................................................................................... 3
Acronyms ................................................................................................................................................... 4
Introduction............................................................................................................................................... 5
The New Approach: Revolutionizing Development .............................................................................. 5
The Impact Populations: The Rural Poor at the Center......................................................................... 5
The Business Model: A Focus on Innovation and Social Entrepreneurship .......................................... 5
Rationale behind the survey...................................................................................................................... 6
General economic situation and background statistics (Desk Research).................................................. 7
Georgia .................................................................................................................................................. 7
Armenia ................................................................................................................................................. 8
Azerbaijan.............................................................................................................................................. 8
Abkhazia ................................................................................................................................................ 9
Nagorny-Karabakh................................................................................................................................. 9
Aim of the research ................................................................................................................................. 10
Specific Objectives................................................................................................................................... 10
Methodology ........................................................................................................................................... 10
Survey limitations .................................................................................................................................... 12
General Observations .............................................................................................................................. 12
Results ..................................................................................................................................................... 13
General overview of socio-economic situation in target countries/entities as reported by participants
............................................................................................................................................................. 13
Understanding of "Social Injustice"/”Social Justice”........................................................................... 14
Specific types of injustice defined by different impact groups ........................................................... 16
Women ............................................................................................................................................ 16
Youth................................................................................................................................................ 20
Conflict affected and Internally Displaced Persons......................................................................... 25
Ethnic Minorities.............................................................................................................................. 28
Social injustices affecting elderly mentioned by different groups .................................................. 30
Social injustices affecting disabled mentioned by different groups................................................ 31
Social injustices affecting men mentioned by different groups...................................................... 32
Shared Social Injustices across all impact groups and target entities................................................. 33
Possible causes of social injustice............................................................................................................ 36
Analysis of impact population’s opinions about social injustices ........................................................... 38
CARE’s Learning Agenda .......................................................................................................................... 38
Discussion ................................................................................................................................................ 39
Annexes ................................................................................................................................................... 43
Annex 1: Focus-group discussion (FGD) Guide.................................................................................... 43
Annex 2: List of sampled communities................................................................................................ 46
Annex 3: Economic profile related statistics for South Caucasian Countries for 2010-2012 years .... 47
Annex 4: List of social injustices mentioned by different impact groups............................................ 53
2
Acknowledgement
Authors of the current report - Natia Rukhadze (Monitoring, Evaluation, Analysis, Learning and
Sharing (MEALS) Team Leader) and Maia Giorbelidze (Data Analyst and Database Administrator)
- would like to thank representatives of project “Strengthening Women’s Capacity for Peace
building in the South Caucasus (UN 1325)” implemented by CARE International in the Caucasus
together with its partners for their support during survey planning phase, in particular, for
introducing MEALS team to their partners and network of consultants in Azerbaijan, Armenia,
Nagorny-Karabakh and Abkhazia and mobilizing the team of consultants to undertake the
current survey.
Respectively, MEALS would like to express deep gratitude towards partner organizations and
individual consultants for their valuable contributions to actual implementation of the survey,
namely:







Mariam Samkharadze, Coordinator/Marneuli Center for Civic Engagement, Georgia
Sajida Abdulvahabova, Director/Women’s Problems Research Union, Azerbaijan
Natalya Martirosyan, Director/Helsinki Citizen's Assembly, Armenia
Artak Ayunts, Independent consultant, Armenia
Albert Voskanyan, Director/Centre for Civilian Initiatives, Nagorny-Karabakh
David Karabekyan, Independent consultant, Nagorny-Karabakh
Irma Chanba, Independent consultant, Abkhazia
And lastly, MEALS team would like to specially thank Mr. George Glonti, Impact Opportunities
Manager at CARE International in the Caucasus for his continuous support and effective
guidance throughout all stages of survey implementations - planning, actual administration of
the fieldwork and analysis.
Note on terminology used in the report:
The names used in the report refer to geographical locations and don’t carry any political
connotations.
3
Acronyms
CIC – CARE International in South Caucasus
CRRC – Caucasus Research Resource Center
CSO – Civil Society Organization
EOP – External Opportunity Scout
FGD – Focus Group Discussion
IDP – Internally Displaced People
MEALS – Monitoring, Evaluation, Assessment, Learning and Sharing
SC – South Caucasus
SCAN – Social Change Agents’ Network
ToC – Theory of Change
USAID – United States Agency for International Development
4
Introduction
The New Approach: Revolutionizing Development
CARE International in the Caucasus (CIC) embarked on the path to a Program approach since
2009. Traditional development projects focus on one-time or short-term measures of
effectiveness rather than addressing the underlying causes of poverty, injustice, and social
marginalization in a sustainable manner. CIC developed a new method to tackle development
problems in a way that creates grassroots socioeconomic improvements which build upon
themselves and self-perpetuate over time. CIC believes a sustainable development model
hinges on fostering local social entrepreneurism or people with ideas - whether economic,
social, or political - that seeks to address an unjust societal equilibrium that causes exclusion,
marginalization, and suffering. CIC aims to apply this innovative approach to revolutionize
development and achieve sustainable social change.
Under its new programmatic strategy, CIC’s initiatives focus on one long-term impact goal: to
decrease rural poverty, vulnerability, and social injustice in the South Caucasus and to improve
conditions for sustainable development, thereby contributing to stability and peace in the
region. CIC views all its activities as part of the path towards this goal rather than categorizing
initiatives into projects according to institutional donors or funding streams.
To map its way forward, CIC developed a theory of change that outlines its hypotheses and
assumptions. In addition, the theory of change details how activities add up to achieve
milestones that cannot be easily reversed and brings CIC closer to its goal. CIC categorizes its
activities by cross-cutting themes (gender, environment, emergency, and conflict sensitivity)
and domains (government, civil society, conflict prevention and security, and market linkages
and market responsiveness). Domains are areas that require change before CIC’s goal can be
reached; all CIC”s future initiatives will address injustices in at least one domain.
The Impact Populations: The Rural Poor at the Center
In its new programming, CIC targets the following impact population: rural households with
income below the poverty line or at risk of falling below. Within this population, CIC focuses on
socially and economically marginalized people cut off from markets and services, people
affected by or vulnerable to political instability, young people aged 18 to 31, and women. CIC
believes in being primarily accountable to these groups, rather than the donor, to ensure all
CIC’s activities contribute to improving the lives of local communities.
CIC plans to implement the Program with and through partners and envisages engaging various
stakeholders to achieve greater social impact. Stakeholders include a network of people across
the South Caucasus region engaged in social change agenda whose engine is CIC as a partner of
choice. It consists of opportunity scouts, idea bearers, partners, investors and impact
population.
The Business Model: A Focus on Innovation and Social Entrepreneurship
The new business model will position CIC as the key node amongst actors in the South
Caucasus. With its experience and extensive understanding of the region, CIC will leverage its
network of partners and allies as opportunity scouts to recognize and support local
entrepreneurs.
5



First, CIC intends to identify social entrepreneurs among the local population with
innovative ideas for how to realize social change.
After finding social entrepreneurs, CIC will vet their ideas and build local capacity to
transform the ideas into social enterprises—commercially managed businesses that also
create social value and reinvest revenue back into the community to address injustice and
local need.
To support these enterprises, CIC will leverage its networks, experience, and expertise to
conduct advocacy and remove policy barriers to social change.
After identifying ideas and fostering their transformation into feasible business plans, CIC will
act as translator to communicate these ideas to potential partners, government officials, allies,
and funders. Funders will include institutional donors, philanthropists, private corporations
with corporate social responsibility mandates, and individual investors. CIC will liaise between
donors and local entrepreneurs to verify that entrepreneurs get a good deal, to facilitate the
transactions, to troubleshoot the relationship, and to ensure that both sides follow through on
their commitments.
Rationale behind the survey
With ultimate goal to inform CIC Program’s Theory of Change (ToC) and respectively, the
Impact Measurement System CIC designed a qualitative study aimed at gaining better
understanding about nature and types of existing social injustices that would enable CIC to
achieve clarity and deeper insight to the mentioned phenomena.
Specifically, the knowledge gained from the study will help CIC program team to better
understand nature and dynamics of existing social injustices in different content and context
across the South Caucasus within diverse population groups and plan program related activities
accordingly. Findings of this survey will be widely used by CIC and its partners to inform
program related systems and processes.
In particular, the findings will inform the following documents and processes:
 Opportunity vetting & scouting methodology
Part 1: Opportunity vetting methodology - Opportunity vetting is a formal and
thorough examination of an idea against pre-defined criteria prior to approval for funding.
Three stages vetting process is introduced. Within the framework of vetting process,
opportunity scouts are expected to act as the first filter using “must have”/”must not have”
criteria for selection. Meeting the first filter criteria - addressing social injustices and/or
marginalization - is defined as an obligatory for all identified opportunities which should be
clearly documented and reflected while submitting an idea. Respectively, the first filter criteria
should be precisely diversified further and detailed list of social injustices should be elaborated.
Part 2: Opportunity scouting methodology - All contracted opportunity scouts should receive
adequate training before sending them into the field to fulfill scouting mission. Due to complex
nature of the new programmatic approach, CIC plans to develop orientation package and
training manual for opportunity scouts to be used as a guide during the identification process.
Respectively, findings from current study will be incorporated into the manual and will be used
for training purposes.
6
 Knowledge product of CIC to share with partners
Within the Program and Business model CIC plans to establish and maintain effective learning
and information sharing system. As part of the system, the current analysts will serve as a
knowledge product of CIC that will be widely disseminated to various partners and stakeholders
to build capacity and encourage their engagement into the processes.
 Increase accountability to the impact population
While accountability to various stakeholders represents one of the strategic priorities, CARE
International in the Caucasus (CIC) considers impact population to be the most important and
principal target for its accountability. CIC aims at establishing responsible and transparent
systems for decision making and leadership that fully addresses the commitments the
organization has made to the impact population. Respectively, exploring impact population’s
understanding around the phenomena is one step forward towards increased accountability.
General economic situation and background statistics (Desk Research)
Twenty years ago, after the collapse of the Soviet Union, the countries of the Caucasus
(Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Georgia) became independent. During the 20th century, these Soviet
Republics had been integrated into the unified production and trade system set up on the scale
of the Union. Gaining of independence was followed by armed conflicts across the region
(Nagorny-Karabakh, South Ossetia, and Abkhazia). As a result, some 800,000 people remain
displaced to this day. UN- and OSCE- led peace processes made little progress in resolving the
conflicts, and despite periodic flare-ups of hostilities, they can to be referred to as ‘frozen’
conflicts.
Georgia
Georgia has a population of 4.4mln people, out of which approximately 53% resides in urban
areas. Women make up 52.5% of total population. Approximately 83.8% of the population are
ethnic Georgians (followed by 6.5% ethnic Azeri population and 5.7% ethnic Armenians). 84% of
country’s population are Orthodox Christians. The rest of the population adheres to other faiths
or are non-religious. GDP per capita in 2012 equaled to 3,519.6USD with growth rate of 6%
compared to 3,230.7 USD in 20111. In 2011 the annual inflation rate in Georgia amounted to 8.5
per cent. GINI index achieved the ratio of 0.41 in 2012 demonstrating minimal improvement
compared to 0.42 in 2011.
Most recent analyses of Georgia and poverty have agreed on a number of issues. First, that
poverty is greatest in rural communities2. Based on National Statistics Office of Georgia, the
rural poverty level in 2012 equaled to 27% compared with poverty level in urban areas, which
reached 17.5%. Even though official statistics publish above-mentioned figures, number of
independent researches suggests much higher numbers of poverty level, especially in rural
areas, ranging between 40-45 per cent.
The war in 2008 affected Georgia’s economy increasing the number of displaced people by
15,912 individuals in addition to 233,453 IDPs from the earlier conflicts in Abkhazia and South
Ossetia. The agriculture sector provides (self) employment for over ½ of the population; it has
been decreasing in size in both absolute and relative terms. The share of agriculture in GDP has
dropped from 16% in 2008 to 9% in 2011. Agriculture has also seen meager investment.
1
2
http://geostat.ge/index.php?action=0&lang=eng
Program Document for CARE International in the Caucasus
7
Unemployment rate is slightly changing over the years towards positive trend. In 2012 the
annual unemployment rate in Georgia declined slightly by 0.1 percentage point to 15%. This
number does not consider more than 40% of self employed small scale subsistence farmers. No
information is available about urban unemployment as well. In 2012, women on average
earned 312 USD per month compared to male earnings of 518 USD (women earn about 40%
less than men).
Armenia
Armenia consists of 3.3milliion people, out of which approximately 64% resides in urban areas.
Women make up 51.0% of total population. Approximately 98% of the population is ethnic
Armenians. The official census did not identify religious affiliation, thus official religious
statistics of the country remain unknown. However, Armenians identify religion with
nationality, so the nationality provided on the census is likely matched with individual’s
religious affiliation3. In 2012 GDP per capita amounted USD 3,338 demonstrating slight
decrease from USD 3,420 in 2011. In 2011 the annual inflation rate in Armenia amounted to 7.7
per cent. GINI index in 2011 equaled to 0.37.
After collapse of Soviet Union Armenia was several years characterized by double-digit
economic growth, however in 2009 it was faced by a severe economic recession. The economy
began to recover in 2010 with nearly 5% growth. According to the latest available official
statistics, a third of Armenians lived below the poverty line in 2009. During this period the
official poverty line is calculated at an income of USD 58.74 PPP, while “extreme poverty” is
defined as an income of less than USD 33.21 PPP. In 2011, Armenia faced the unemployment
with 18.40% rate. The unemployment rate for women reached 18.60% while the rate equaled
to 17.30% for men. For the same period, the average nominal monthly salary of women in all
fields of economy and all sectors was only 65% compared to that of men.
Since the collapse of the Soviet Union the number of people who rely on agriculture for their
employment has been steadily increasing. In 1991 the employment level in agriculture was only
26% but by 2008 this had increased to 45%4.
According to a national report of the Republic of Armenia from 2005, over 360,000 refugees
were deported to Armenia from Azerbaijan during the period from 1988 to 1992. In
chronological terms, the influx of refugees virtually coincided with the Spitak Earthquake of
1988, which affected over 40% of Armenia’s territory.
Azerbaijan
Azerbaijan has a population of 8.2 million Azerbaijanis. Approximately 51% of the country’s
population lives in urban areas. Women make up 51% of the population. The predominant
ethnic group, make up about 89% of the total population, followed by Russians (3%), Dagestani
(3%) and Armenians (3%). Approximately 95% of the population of Azerbaijan is Muslim. The
rest of the population adheres to other faiths or are non-religious.
Azerbaijan has one of the highest per capita concentrations of IDPs in the world. The majority
of IDPs – approximately 90% - originate from seven territories around Nagorny-Karabakh. Only
3
4
http://www.iclrs.org/content/blurb/files/Armenia.pdf
Program Document for CARE International in the Caucasus
8
a minority of ethnic Azeris were living in Nagorny-Karabakh before the war. The IDP population
is more or less equally divided between women (50.4%) and men (46.6%), with a relatively high
proportion of children (40.8%) and elderly people (10.1%).5
In 2012, GDP per capita increased by 21% reaching USD 7,392 compared to USD 5,843 in 2010.
Number of persons received official unemployment status from employment service authorities
by the country made 36.8 thousand for the beginning of January 2013. During last years the
share of woman among unemployed persons being decreased made 42.1% in 2012 relatively to
55.9% in 2000. In 2010 the annual inflation rate in Azerbaijan amounted to 5.7 per cent. In 2009
GINI index equaled to 0.34.
During last 13 years (2000-2012) average monthly nominal wage of employees being increased
for 9 times made 398.4 manat (app. USD 508) and in comparison with 2011 increasing made –
9.4%. The amount of minimum wage was defined 93.5 manat (app. USD 119) since 1st
December 2011 based on corresponding Decree of the President of the Republic of Azerbaijan.
Abkhazia
Based on the Census from 2011, the population of the entity stood at 240,705. According to the
data of the census, the urban population represents 50.3%, whilst the rural population
represents 49.7%. The distribution of men and women was 46.4% and 53.6% respectively. The
population-figures for the most numerous nationalities break down as follows: Abkhazians –
122,069; Russians – 22,077; Armenians – 41,864; Georgians – 43,166; Megrelians/Mingrelians –
3,201; Greeks – 1,380.6
Nagorny-Karabakh
After the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, Azerbaijan and Armenia engaged in a protracted
war over the territory of Nagorny-Karabakh. The roots of the conflict go back to early Soviet
times, when Nagorny-Karabakh was declared an autonomous region within Azerbaijan. Ethnic
conflict erupted in 1988 when the Soviet government of Armenia agreed with NagornyKarabakh to incorporate it into Armenia. Nagorny-Karabakh declared its own independence in
1992, leading to war between Karabakh Armenian and Azerbaijani forces. Active hostilities
ended with a ceasefire agreement in 1994, but Nagorny-Karabakh’s independence claim has
not been withdrawn - although it was never officially recognised by Azerbaijan, Armenia or any
other state - and a final resolution to the conflict is still pending. Nagorny-Karabakh and seven
surrounding districts have been wholly or partially occupied by ethnic Armenian forces ever
since.
Note: For detailed statistical data, see Annex 3. The data is retrieved from National Statistical
Offices and World Bank. The figures for Abkhazia and Nagorny-Karabakh are not presented as it
is an unofficial data depended on various surveys and researches.
5
See Azerbaijan: Analysis of Gaps in the Protection of Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs), European Commission,
UNHCR, 2009, p. 10 and Azerbaijan – After some 20 years, IDPs still face barriers to self-reliance, Internal
Displacement Monitoring Centre (IDMC), Norwegian refugee council, 2010, p. 3.
6
http://www.abkhazworld.com/news/misc/779-the-population-of-abkhazia-stands-at-240705.html
9
Aim of the research
Purpose of the qualitative study is to explore impact population’s understanding on types and
nature of existing social injustices, their underlying and immediate causes and ways of possible
solution in all entities of the South Caucasus region.
Specific Objectives
The objective of the survey is to answer the following questions:






How people from different countries/entities/settings understand the term “Social
Injustice”
How this understanding differs/varies between different population groups (women, men,
youth, conflict affected people, ethnic minorities)
What types of social injustice existed before (last 3 years) and/or exist currently, that affect
impact population’s lives
How different population groups in different countries/entities prioritize various types of
existing social injustices (most priority – least priority)What are the causes (immediate,
intermediate, underlying) of social injustice from different population groups’ perspective
What are the ways of possible solutions to the mentioned injustice from different
population groups’ perspective
What are the major obstacles to reduce / eradicate existing injustice
Methodology
Overall approach used for the presented research is an exploratory and partially explanatory
phenomenological design. This method is generally best suited for describing participants’
experiences in a specific context to deeply understand a phenomenon.
Sampling: In total 29 focus-group discussions were conducted in five entities of the South
Caucasus region. Groups targeted through the survey are in line with CARE’s Program impact
groups. Table 1 below presents detailed sample distribution across the selected entities:
Table 1: Sample distribution
Women
Entities
1.
2.
3.
4.
Georgia
Azerbaijan
Armenia
NagornyKarabakh
5. Abkhazia
Total
(above 31
years)
Men
(above 31
years)
Youth (1831 years
old, mixed
gender)
Conflict
affected
people
(mixed
gender /age)
Ethnic
minorities
(mixed
gender/age)
Total
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
2
2
1
1
-
2
1
-
8
7
5
5
2
10
1
5
1
7
4
3
4
29
Communities were sampled from the lists provided by CARE and/or its partners based on
availability of focal points to support in participant recruitment. The only criteria applied for
community selection was rural setting.
10
Final sample includes communities not covered through CARE and/or its partners’ activities
(mainly in Georgia). The approach to the sampling did not affect random selection principle
which allows us to generalize finding across the countries and territorial units.
Number of selection criteria was applied in participant recruitment process:
 Mixed sex (equal distribution of men and women, if not defined otherwise)
 Mixed age (equal distribution of age groups (below 30 years, 31-50 years and above 51) if
not defined otherwise)
 Employment status (equal distribution of employed/ unemployed in each group)
 Education (equal distribution of people with basic/secondary/higher educations per group)
 Recruit and invite one member per household in a group
All other criteria (e.g. disaggregation of entire sample into different sub-groups - conflict
affected, ethnic minorities, Women & Men etc.) are self-defined in specific target groups preselected for the survey.
Participants for each group were selected randomly by partner organizations on-site using
above mentioned criteria. Final sample includes both, individuals covered through the projects
implemented by CARE and/or its partners and non-participants as well. Survey sample
distribution is not biased towards “CARE intervention groups”, thus diversity of opinions, views,
experiences and perceptions are well-captured and documented.
Survey tool: Open ended FGD guide was developed by MEALS team which underwent extensive
testing and piloting before full-scale survey administration. Pilot testing sessions were
conducted in three Georgian communities pre-sampled for the survey. Besides, field
observations were conducted in Armenian and Azerbaijan with two communities as well to
check for cultural and/or country specific differences (if any). Respectively, minor changes have
been incorporated into the final version of the FGD guide after consolidating pilot test results
from different countries.
Survey Period: Preparatory work for the survey has been initiated in March, 2013. MEALS team
developed detailed methodology for the survey, constructed survey instrument and arranged
all necessary administrative work related to the process (finalized recruitment of consultants,
concluded contracts with them etc.). Actual fieldwork took place during the period of MayJune, 2013. Detailed transcripts were provided by consultants before August, 2013.
Training: All contracted consultants received extensive face-to-face on-site trainings provided
by MEALS. Only exception was Abkhazia, where consultant was trained on-line via skype due to
politically driven border crossing constraints. Along with one-day training session MEALS team
conducted actual field observations to ensure quality of fieldwork before administration of the
survey on a full-scale as part of the training session (1-2 groups in Armenia and Azerbaijan were
observed by MEALS).
Group size: Number of participants per group varied between 8 to 12.
Meeting venue: place selection and recruitment of participants were undertaken by partners in
each entity. Mainly public buildings (schools, buildings of local administration etc.) were used
for survey purposes.
11
Documentation and Confidentiality: In order to ensure privacy, neutral and calm places were
selected to conduct FGDs, where no one was able to disturb the process and no one else but
the people who take part in the discussion and researcher were presented during the
discussions. The entire discussions were tape-recorded and further on transcribed verbatim,
but no-one will be identified by name on the tape. The information recorded will be kept
confidential, and no one else except research team will have access to the information
documented during the discussion. The tape will be kept at the office safe-box of study
researcher. The tapes will be destroyed after one and a half year after completion of the
survey. Only exception was Abkhazia, where research consultants were not allowed to use
tape-recorders due to politically sensitive reasons and maintained field notes instead.
Survey limitations


Target segments for the survey were selected in accordance with CARE’s Program impact
groups. Therefore, the final sample does not include disabled, sexual minorities and elderly
as separate targets. Hence, social injustices related to these groups are discussed from
outsiders, rather than insider perspectives compared to other groups.
Field visit to Abkhazia was impossible to arrange, therefore no field observations were
conducted. MEALS team conducted the training with recruited consultant via skype.
Besides, consultant was not allowed to record group discussion on a tape due to politically
sensitive reasons, hence field noted were used instead.
General Observations









Discussions in all groups around the issue of social injustices were very active and
participatory, that indicates on high importance of the topis for impact population
Each member of the groups had lot to say and share with others and they were doing it
with almost no tension regardless sensitivity and psychological implication of discussion
topics
“Social injustice”, “Unjust treatment”, “Unjust society” - all of these was regarded as
“shared problems” by respondents that led to high level of openness and honesty within
the FGD participants
Major similarities were found across the different countries and entities. Types and even
particular examples discussed within these groups were quite similar to each other
regardless the country where the discussions took place
Opinions expressed in different groups were more complementary to each other rather
than contradictory
Rural vs. urban and poor vs. rich differences were the main topics for the discussions
Level of average income, unemployment/barriers in accessing the job market and poverty
remain to be the number one priority issues for the vast majority of rural households.
Poverty is considered to be the main underlying cause for the vast majority of social
injustices discussed in current report (“…poor people are more vulnerable to social injustices
compared to rich…”)
Discussions on financial implications of every single inequality mentioned and discussed in
the groups became the main line of the story
Subsistence farming represents the main source of income for vast majority of surveyed
households that is considered to be the only way for their physical survival. Limited access
to job market, opportunities and financial resources keeps rural people isolated from rest
of the world
12






Participants divided list of social injustices into two major sub-groups while prioritizing them
according to the importance: 1. Social injustices with immediate financial implications (e.g.
lack of access to job market, thus lack of acces to loans, education, health services etc.) and
2. Social injustices without immediate financial implications (e.g. stigma associated with
sex, ethnic, religious minorities, lack of democracy etc.). The first group was regarded as the
top priority by almost all participants
Participants were unable to differentiate between social injustices and their causes. They
consider that every single injustice causes another injustice etc.
Starting with addressing any single injustice and/or even single cause that potentially
would lead to increased income generating opportunities and livelihoods is the only
acceptable way of problem solution for the vast majority of participants
For the majority of impact population underlying causes of social injustices are dominantly
associated with external rather than internal factors. Vast majority of participants from all
countries, entities, communities and even target groups tried to exteriorise the causes for
majority of social injustices and respectively, were biased to talk more on external rather
than internal causes.
With regard of external causes of social injustices mentioned in group discussions lack of
proactive approach from Governments to resolve the problems, lack of active
involvement of civil society organizations to make impact populations voices heard and
lack of state-funded programs targeting at eradicating social inequalities in rural areas
were mentioned as the main issues contributing to “unjust society”
Lack of social solidarity among members of the society, traditions and customs were
believed to be the major issue with regard of internal causes (“…we all are fighting for our
own well-being and do not care about other people…”)
Results
General overview of socio-economic situation in target countries/entities as reported
by participants
Rural communities across South Caucasus region represent the major focus of current survey.
At the very beginning of each FGD session participants were asked to describe general socioeconomic situation in their countries/entities/communities by providing main characteristics
on current status in order to better understand the major country-specific contexts. This
approach enabled research team to interpret the results in light of specific circumstances. The
discussions around this topic from the very beginning raised big interests of participants and
were extremely participatory, indicating on populations’ increased interest towards these
issues.
Vast majority of survey participants reported that rural population is mostly engaged in
subsistence farming, which represents the main source of their income. Despite the fact that
farming is insecure, risky and respectively, mostly depends on weather conditions, it is
considered to be the only way for their physical survival reported by almost all participants.
Respondents also noted that high level of unemployment and limited access to job market in
general, keeps rural people isolated from rest of the world. Respondents mentioned that the
latter represents the main in-depth root basis for majority of social injustices discussed later.
13
Participants noted that majority of rural household experiences and faces acute financial
problems on a daily basis and those social allowances and pensions provided by the
Governments are not enough to cover even basic needs of the population.
The vast majority of participants from all survey entities reported that regardless ongoing
observed positive changes and dynamics with regards of improving local infrastructure
including rehabilitation of roads, water and gas supply systems etc. general economic situation
still remains unchanged. Lack of job opportunities and extremely low salaries for those who are
employed remain to be the number one priority for the most of the rural communities: “if there
is work, all other problems are easy to solve”. Respectively, level of average income and
poverty issue remains to be the number one priority for majority of rural households.
Financial implications of almost all mentioned issues discussed in the groups are thoroughly
documented below in the current report. Financial aspect of mentioned injustices became the
main line of the story provided below.
Understanding of "Social Injustice"/”Social Justice”
At the very beginning of the discussion sessions, group participants were asked to define the
term “social injustice” in order to: a) document awareness and the level of knowledge of impact
population regarding the subject of discussion and b) ensure common and clear understanding
about the phenomena by providing standard definition of the term (if not understood
properly):
“Social injustice is an unequal access to opportunities and resources for some groups due to
structural, system related and psychological barriers that are reinforced by society”
Noteworthy, that discussions around the mentioned topic were very active and participatory
from the very beginning, the vast majority of participants in all groups were tend to express
their opinions and views regarding the phenomena that enabled us to uncover hidden content
behind the term. Participants looked at the term from different angles and perspectives,
however opinions expressed were more complementary to each other rather than
contradictory that helped to come up with comprehensive and thorough definition of the term
that was referred during the rest of the discussions.
Majority of participants frequently were referring to the particular examples while defining the
term, rather than generally discussing the features of the phenomena. The latter helped
moderators to catch the real meaning of the term and get deeper insight into it:
-
"… it is unjust when one can and another – cannot, one is allowed while another is not
…"
“… Is not it injustice why the others can cultivate their land and we cannot, nobody
among us can do that …”
“…it is unjust when you cannot find a job to support your family and human rights are
violated…”
“…social injustice is when society is divided into poor and rich and respectively, equality
is not declared…”
“…It is when high level officials do not consider and even more, ignoring their
subordinates…”
14
-
“…it is when law does not function and people are not equally treated… they pass new
laws all the time but don’t even apply to them...”
“…it is injustice when everything is available only for urban population. They have
everything, sport clubs, gyms, different courses, bowling and pool centers, pubs etc. and
while we have nothing…”
After discussing above mentioned particular examples within the social injustices context, the
impact population summarized definition of the term in a following way:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Violation of human rights
Poor implementation of low
Poor quality of life expressed as unequal access to resources for rural and urban, welloff and poor, disabled and healthy, youth and elderly etc.
Unemployment, barriers to access the job market
Absence of different types of social allowances for various vulnerable groups
Imbalance between scope of work and received salary (non adequate reimbursement
for the scope undertaken)
Division of society into different layers (poor vs. rich, rural vs. urban etc.)
In impact population’s understanding, overall the term “social injustice” is mostly associated
with “law”, in particular with “poor implementation of law”.
-
-
“…People should be informed about their rights. Sometimes you see someone passes
under the red light and the policeman doesn't do anything. He sees that luxury car and
he knows there is someone that will protect that person if he tries to do something…”
“…if the policeman does not respect the law himself, what do you expect from others?…”
In majority of participants the term “social injustice” has an opposite meaning of “justice” or
“just society”. For some people it was easier to discuss the term from the opposite angle and
provided definition of “just society”:
-
“…everything that cannot be classified as “just” can be classified as “social injustice” …”
“…social justice means for me life of dignity…”
“… It is when a person has a good job…”
“… to me just society is when rights of all individuals are properly protected…”
From the point of view of impact population society can be classified as “just” when rights of
every single individual (including women and children, man and disabled etc.) are properly
protected, basic needs of all individuals are met, social protection for vulnerable groups are
guaranteed, gender equality is experienced, privileged groups do not dominate, people live in
dignity, are employed and get adequate salaries, there is no wide gulf between “rich” and
“poor” and middle class exists. Some participants went beyond tangible aspects of “just
society” and talked about more in-depth characteristics of the phenomena. One part of impact
population considers that mentality, feelings, traditions and customs of different groups are
also very important to be considered while defining features of “just society”:
-
“… Society can be classified as “just” when it is tolerant towards different mentalities,
traditions, customs and feelings and are adequately and properly respected…”
15
Some of the FGD participants provided different examples that can not be considered as social
injustice:
-
-
“…if a person does a certain type of work abroad, but does not want to do the same in
Armenia, it cannot be considered as social injustice…”
“… The other thing is that there are people who earn 100000AMD (app. 245 USD) but
drive such an expensive car! Instead of taking care of their family they have to think
about their loans and that is only because their neighbor has a good car! Even in our
village! Everyone has an expensive car! And then they complain about poverty. And that
has nothing to do with social injustice…”
“… When one does not have enough knowledge and wants to pass exams in prestigious
faculty and/or institution…”
“…when someone demands benefits and does not deserve it in reality, does not meet
requirements like a “soldier” who spent only several days in battlefield, considers himself
disabled and demands lots of different types of benefits…”
Specific types of injustice defined by different impact groups
Survey participants were asked to talk about different types of social injustices they personally
face in their lives and/or have observed (or heard) with regard of others. The topic of discussion
raised a big interest among survey participants. Diversity of particular examples was named
within different type of social injustices discussed in the groups. It is also noteworthy that each
member of the groups had lot to say and share with others and they were doing it with almost
no tension regardless sensitivity and psychological implication of discussion topics. “Social
injustice”, “Unjust treatment”, “Unjust society” - all of these was regarded as “shared
problems” that led to high level of openness and honesty within the FGD participants.
Findings discussed below present social injustices mentioned by different sub-groups referring
to their own segment.
Women
In total 10 FGDs with women’s participation were organized and conducted in all five entities (2
in each entity). Number and diversity of different types of social injustices named by and with
regard of this particular group was significantly excessive compared to other groups. Types and
even particular examples discussed within these groups were quite similar to each other across
all regions.
Types of social injustices affecting women’s lives, in general, and their role in the society, in
particular, are described below:
 Low representation of women on leadership positions
Female participants expressed concern regarding inadequate representation of women on
leadership positions both in government structures and in other sectors and consider this fact
as a result of discriminative attitude towards women practiced and experienced by them over
the years:
-
"… There are only single cases of women representation in local municipalities …"
16
-
“… I do not think there is a chance that we will have a woman president in Armenia, it is
against our mentality…”
“…e.g. in hospitals physicians and nurses are usually female, however chief doctor is
always male…”
The problem was broadly discussed in almost all groups. Participants see root cause of it in
societies’ discriminative attitude and well-established stereotype towards women’s capacities:
-
“…it is widely believed that women are not capable to take management positions as
these usually require much time and effort from a person which they actually do not
have, as they need to take care of families and kids as well. …”
It is considered that such false believe and obvious discriminative attitude towards women’s
capacities has detrimental influence on women’s behavior that is frequently demonstrated in
preferential acceptance of low positions over high ones by them:
-
“…we usually are forced to accept a low paid, half-time job that enables us to take care
of kids and families simultaneously …”
Absence of kindergartens, that would enable women to accept more challenging jobs, was
named as a barrier that is considered as relatively minor issue to be addressed by the
government. However, respondents indicate, that not supportive environment remains
unchanged over the years contributing to high level of female unemployment:
-

“…There are no kindergartens in rural areas- regardless permission from husband and a
strong desire, women usually reject job opportunities due to unavailability of care-taker
of their children…”.
Discriminative attitude towards women associated with underestimation of women's
capacities
The issue was discussed within the context of previous topic – “low representation of women
on leadership positions” one of its determining factors, however was more broadly analyzed
separately as one of the most prevailing type of social injustices observed with regard of
women. Participants mentioned that mostly women are perceived as cookers and care-givers
by society:
-
“…even in case if woman is breadwinner in the household, she still does not have equal
rights as their husbands and/or male members of the family…”
“…frequently, it is considered that women are not capable to undertake any other job
besides housework…”
 Forced female migration internally and externally (Georgia specific)
The problem of female force migration was solely mentioned in Georgian FGDs. The same
problem was mentioned in all other countries as well, however with different content. All other
countries reported male rather than female force migration inside as well as outside of the
country.
-
"…women are moving to the Capital City mainly to work as unskilled labor force…"
17
-
"…it is easier to find a job for women in Europe. They go to foreign countries to work as
babysitters, cleaners, dishwashers etc. They do not want to leave their families, but they
are forced to do it to earn money …”
 Unprotected (insecure) maternity
Problem of insecured maternity was mentioned by almost all reproductive age women
participating in the discussion sessions. Some of the respondents said that women employed in
private sector are frequently forced to work overtime and have more difficulties in getting
maternity leaves. As reported by the participants, the owners of the private companies often
justify such a behavior quoted as: "…if you are not working, you don’t bring profit and nobody
will pay for maternity leave out-of-pocket…".
Besides, marital status based recruitment for the job position was also mentioned within this
particular context:
-
-
“…woman with under school-age kids and/or is newly married, has less chance to be
hired for challenging job. Women with children are frequently rejected from job offer
due to high probability of number of sick leaves related to children’s sickness…”
“...if they know you just got married they assume you will most likely to get pregnant
soon and they will not hire you…”
 Forced early marriages
Respondents mentioned that in rural areas early marriages are happening quite frequently and
represent a common practice. Noteworthy that these marriages in most cases are forced by
parents which are driven by cultural norms and well-established traditions:
-
“…as soon as the girl finishes the school, parents arrange marriage for her, even before
graduating from school…”
“…girls are often told they will be getting married after graduation the school which
affects their motivation to study well…”
Besides, some of the participants also mentioned that in case of early marriages, as they are
not officially registered, women are not entitled to their husband’s property and stay even
without housing in case they get divorced and this is considered to be the unjust towards them.
 Sex-selective abortion (preference of male over female fetus)
Participants talked about common and widely spread practice in rural communities (and in
urban communities as well) of identifying gender of the fetus at their early pregnancies to make
“right decision”. In majority of cases such act is initiated by husband and or mother-in-law.
 Gender-based property distribution
Issue of disproportionate distribution of property and income, gender related role distribution
in the family also was addressed in groups. Despite the fact that both mentioned issues were
proved to be the case for majority of rural households, they are not considered to be social
injustices neither by men nor by women.
-
“…Males are usually successor/heir of all inheritance of the family…”
“…In case, if assets are acquired during the marriage, husbands consider it as their own
property and are ready to inherit it to their child rather than to wife…”
18
-
“…Men in the family get inheritance as a rule in most cases. In case, if the girl divorces
from her husband, she still does not get anything and there are examples when such
cases resulted in suicide…”
Moreover, respondents from Azerbaijan referred to the cases, when parents don’t register
their sons as property owners as they are not certain about their future daughter-in-laws,
whether they “deserve” their inheritance or not:
-
“…e.g. educated young woman with successful career got married to a man from less
well-off family. The house belonged to his parents. Therefore, after divorce woman with
two kids stayed without housing, even her family did not accept her back…”
 Unequal opportunities for men and women to get higher education
Respondents noted that preferences in terms of higher education are frequently given to men,
as they are considered as breadwinners in the family. The rationale provided behind this
statement referred to the argument that
- “… if man does not get higher education, he will be taken to army...”.
There are rare cases when privileges are given to females in order to increase chances to get
more qualified and well-paid job.
 More and better employment opportunities for men
Female participants indicated that there is an observed imbalance in numbers of employed
men and women. Noteworthy, that women attempted to exteriorize the causes of this
particular injustice and noted, that underlying cause of mentioned issue lies more in less
demand on female labour force from employers’ side, rather than in husband’s discriminative
approach towards their wives.
-
"…despite high level of unemployment, currently level of employment of men is higher
compared to women…"
"…no single husband will disallow wife to find a job if that is possible. The main issue for
majority of families is to have income…"
In addition, respondents referred to differences in average salary offered to men and women
for the same scope of work and position. Participants noted, that this disparity is more
observed in private rather than state institutions, where these issues are more or less regulated
by legislation.
 Gender-based family violence
Participants underlined, that women are frequently subject to family violence –starting from
psychological insult and harmful approach to serious physical aggression. Issue of lack of
knowledge in human rights was mentioned and discussed as one of the contributing factors to
the revealed problem. Moreover, cultural background and mentality was also considered to be
an influential aspect of an issue:
-
“… Woman should obey a man, this is part of a tradition, which is accepted by society,
and otherwise women are threatened they will be divorced…”
19
Respondents noted, that the practice of women being responsible for household tasks
(cooking, cleaning, looking after the children, washing clothes, etc.) in addition to having a job
overburdens women and creates tension in the family. Noteworthy, that vast majority of them
reflected, that in addition to job and kids, woman has to be engaged in agriculture, taking care
of livestock and etc.
However, as reported, women with kids are forced to be financially
dependent on their husbands/parents and/or accept low paid jobs that enable them to take
care of kids simultaneously with jobs – these type of jobs usually are school, village
administration (town hall), and medical centers.
Youth
In total 7 FGDs were conducted across SC region with participation of youth (18-31 years) out of
which 4 FGDs were conducted in Azerbaijan and Nagorny-Karabakh (2 in each entity) and the
rest in Georgia, Armenia and Abkhazia (1 in each entity)7. Groups of your people in all surveyed
entities have mentioned and discussed various types of social injustices, which have
detrimental implications on their lives. Significant similarities were found and documented
across different groups and communities. Majority of mentioned issues and even contexts
within which they were discussed, were pretty much the same. Issues and challenges,
articulated by youth, cover different aspects of problems mentioned in the group discussions
that provide fruitful information for CIC to be considered within the new program planning and
implementation.
Every single participant of group discussions mentioned and discussed various types of social
injustices he or she personally faces on a frequent basis. Young people feel themselves to be
hardly affected by one or another injustice. Some of the problems mentioned in the groups
were crosscutting, however were judged from young population’s perspectives. Results suggest
that this particular segment is also sharply harmed with different types of social injustices and
are placed in the center of the problem along with other significantly affected segments
discussed in current report.
Youth related social injustices can be summarized as follow:

Low quality of education and access barriers to the higher education for rural vs urban
and well-off vs poor youth
Education related issues were discussed widely. One of the resounding complaints across all
groups of youth was significantly low quality of secondary education in rural areas compared
to urban settings. Participants talked about undersupply of teachers and professional staff in
rural areas and consider this fact to be one of the determinants and contributors to low quality
of education provided for rural people by village secondary schools:
-
“…there are number of teachers in our village who teaches more than one
subject/specialization at a time e.g. chemistry and physics, however is specialized in one
of them. This fact significantly affects quality of education in rural areas. Unfortunately,
such cases are not rare…” (Azerbaijan)
7
Findings from “Youth Sub-Impact Group Survey” (May, 2012) conducted by CARE International in the Caucasus in
Georgia (11 groups), Armenia (3 groups), Abkhazia (3 groups) and Nagorny-Karabakh (1 group) complements the
current analysis. The aforementioned survey coverage was considered within the sampling strategy for this
particular study
20
-
“…tutoring is more needed for rural pupils to pass exams in higher education institutions
compared to urban pupils…”
Limited access to higher educational institutions was also mentioned as one of the social
injustices affecting majority of young people living in the villages. Respondents underlined
financial aspect of an issue, namely additional accommodation and transportation costs were
named as representing the major constraint for youth to receive higher education. It was also
mentioned that due to financial problems majority of rural families cannot afford it for their
children and as a result, young people have to stay in the villages despite their wish to
continue studying at a higher level.
Gender aspect of access barrier to higher education was also mentioned by the respondents.
Some of the participants noted that girls are frequently disallowed by parents to travel to cities
even for studying purposes mostly justified by security reasons. In general, considering that
youth financially depend on their parents and education is costly, boys also need to take
permission from parents to continue studying at higher institutions and there are cases when
plans and views of different generations contradict with each other and youth are always the
ones who fail.
Some of the respondents also mentioned lack of vocational education centers in rural areas,
which creates obstacles for them to access job market due to absence of necessary skills that
cannot be obtained at any other place. Alternative way of gaining professional skills is
considered to be volunteering practices at different organizations, however respondents
complain that they are required to have certain knowledge and/or skills set before being
recruited as a volunteer.
Besides, cultural aspect related barrier was mentioned in this regard:
- “…There are plenty of places where you can work voluntarily, but we do not have this
culture yet, unfortunately…”
Moreover, high cost of higher education and extremely low monthly scholarships were named
as the barriers for receiving higher education:
-
-
“…if you want to get higher education, you should pay for it as majority of institutions
are private and respectively are costly. There are limited free places for those with
advanced academic achievements; however the quota usually in filled in by urban
students. Considering the fact that we have additional expenses to pay related to
housing and travel – all these it is not fair...”
“…we do not have a chance to apply to Russian Universities as other young people do,
who leave in Sukhumi; it is not affordable for majority of us. My family cannot even pay
for my stay in Sukhumi, if I decide to apply locally. In Sukhumi level of life conditions are
much better compared to rural communities…”
One respondent from Abkhazia also mentioned that earlier (during soviet times) students
received student allowance that was enough to cover all basic necessary needs of an individual,
while nowadays it has only symbolic meaning. Another respondent said that this was not due
the significant differences observed in actual volumes of students allowances used before and
now, but due to the fact that “life was much cheaper” by that time:
21
-
“…there are much more temptations nowadays for young people, like computers, fancy
clothes and mobile phones, candies and sweet stuff are everywhere. All of these were
not available earlier and people lived more quietly…”
With regard of free higher education provided by the Government, one respondent raised an
issue of teachers’ discriminative attitude and unjust treatment towards those students who
receive the education for free. Namely, free education is considered to be a “gift” provided by
the government that cannot be judged in terms of quality:
-
“…if someone who receives higher education in state institution for free and is
encouraged to express his or her complaint against any aspect related to the educational
process (e.g. quality of education, teachers etc.) they are blamed for not appreciating
government’s effort. We are told that we should be only thankful for this…”
Quality of education and access to it is considered to be the one of the main determinants for
quality of future life of every single individual as
- “…if you do not have quality education you have to stay in the village that is not
attractive for majority of us. Nothing is happening in the villages, we also want to get all
pleasures from the life as our peers do who live in cities…”
Vast majority of the participants consider that financial well-being of the family is the
necessary pre-condition for affording higher education for the young members of the family.
They consider that well-off families are less affected in this regards compared to poor.
High level of corruption and widely spread bribing practices were excessively reported taking
place in all sectors including educational system that directly affects poor people and
contributes to their exclusion from the system, as they simply do not have money to pay for it.
Noteworthy that the latter issue was named and discussed in all entities except of Georgia:
-
“…one can go and buy a diploma very simply, without any obstacles, main thing is
having enough money for that and this is mainly affordable for high level officials…”
“…one can get a diploma with money even not attending the single class and/or passing
a single exam…”
Some of the respondents noted that the situation with regard of corruption and bribing
practices taking place in education system were significantly improved as a result of
introducing test-based entrance exams to the universities.

Higher level of unemployment and access barriers to enter the job market for rural vs.
urban youth
Extensive and very acute were discussions around this issue. Unemployment is considered to
be the most painful, sensitive and prevalent problem across all surveyed entities,
communities and impact groups. Financial well-being is considered to be the strong and
significant pre-condition for “well-off life where social injustices are less widespread”. Important
to note, that the issue was more painfully discussed with regard of youth not only in youth’s
groups but in all other groups as well. Besides, rural youth strongly believe that financial wellbeing proved to be an effective instrument to fight against existing inequalities and prevent one
from being affected by different types of social injustices:
22
-
“… poor people are more vulnerable to social injustices. Money can resolve majority of
your problems. We all see that rich people have everything they wish…”.
Rural vs. urban differences with regard of access barriers to the job market was the main topic
of discussions around this issue. The vast majority of the respondents mentioned that this
difference is quite tangible and not easy to explain by Government:
-
“… who can explain why nobody cares about us who live in rural communities? Our only
fault is that we were born in the villages. This is an issue which is impossible to justify…”
Lack and even absence of job opportunities in rural areas was named and discussed by the
participants:
- “…there are no job opportunities at all offered and guaranteed by the government even
in case if one is graduated from local or international university with honors…”
- “…one of my friends graduated from the German University and still could not find a job
…”
Diversity of opinions regarding the issue, whether quality of education increases chances to
enter the job market of not, were broadly discussed and reported. One part of the respondents
consider that quality of education matters and represents significant pre-condition for
accessing the job market, while others disagree with this and believe that there is no difference
between educated and uneducated people with regard of employment opportunities. The
latter group considers that “…all you need is money; doors are open for rich people only…”. High
level of corruption and commonly spread bribing practices was also mentioned in this context
(except of Georgia).
Vast majority of respondents reported that existing limited job market is excessively filled out
by low-paid opportunities requiring unskilled labor, which is considered as “less acceptable”
and “less attractive” for majority of young people as “it cannot cover even basic needs”. Lack of
willingness to be engaged in low-paid, unskilled labor was regarded as self-driven internal
barrier of youth by elderly people that prevents them to be employed and “has nothing to do
with injustice”:
-
-
“…if someone is graduated from western University and continuously faces problems in
finding the job in his/her country, this is most likely due to the fact that he/she seeks for
“really good job, which implies high salary and high position with carrier advancement
opportunity…”
“…everyone seeks for high salary and top level position and this is not adequate
approach to the problem. You should priorities rationally between the things - you need
high position or just salary to help and support your family? …”
Another example of self-driven internal barriers that was named by the respondents was lack of
motivation to work due to low self-esteem.
Discussions largely covered topics related to past professional experience as one of the access
barriers to enter the job market in terms of being recruited. Participants complain that certain
years of past professional experience is usually number one requirement of employers even for
newly graduated ones:
23
-
“…we often are rejected due to lack of professional experience and skills… is it possible to
gain experience without starting to work?...”
Participants from all countries except Georgia, complain that available limited number of work
places is occupied by elderly people by which the latter creates barriers for youth to enter the
job market:
-
“… in our country it is common practice that nobody leaves the work place until the end
of the life, therefore disallowing youth to be hired …”
All aforementioned obstacles for accessing the job market forces youth to migrate to urban
areas or even abroad and find the job somewhere else. “… No one wants to stay in the
village…”.
In addition to revealed injustices, lack of job counseling centres in rural areas, that would
support youth to enter the job market was also named: “…Such centers only exist and are
operational in urban settings…”
 Lack of access to financial capital to start a business or improve conditions of life
Gap in pre-defined conditions suggested by financial institutions implying controversial
requirements in accessing the loans was mentioned by almost all respondents. This is
considered to be the social injustice that youth face in this regard:
-
“…You have to be no more than 35 years old to receive mortgage loan and also you
should have certain level of sustainable income; In most cases people under this age
category don’t have requested level of income – those who have higher salaries, are
more than 35…”.
According to the respondents, observed inconsistency in requirements makes the product
useless for majority of young population. This represents a serious constraint for starting own
business since young people usually don’t have initial capital required by financial institutions
to issue the loan. “…In order to receive a credit you need your house to be mortgaged, which is
impossible as the apartment is owned by parents and they won’t allow us to undertake this
action…”.
 Lack of social infrastructure and entertainment facilities for rural youth
Vast majority of surveyed respondents underlined unavailability of social infrastructure
(entertainment facilities, sports clubs, movies, theatres, pubs, etc) in rural areas. Young
participants referred to tangible rural vs urban differences in this regard:
-
“…it is injustice when everything is available only for urban youth, especially for those,
living in capital cities. They have everything: sport clubs, gyms, different courses, bowling
and pool centers, pubs, café etc. and none of these is available for us…”.
 Limited involvement of youth in community life and respective decision-making process
Almost all participants reported that their participation in societal life is not supported by local
and/or central government and even not encouraged by civil society organization:
- “…If you build even a tiny adjacent accommodation and/or outhouse they will
immediately show up to interfere and that’s it all. It’s all their support…”
24
-
“… I have not heard about any single youth based organization in rural settings. All
existing organizations are based and operate exclusively in urban areas and target
limited number of communities …”
They cannot recall any single case, when they were approach to express their own
ideas/opinions regarding any societal event, thus they noted, that their involvement
community decision-making is not acknowledged. Respondents complain that in practical
terms, community life is not practiced at all and mostly is limited to family-based events like
weddings, funerals, etc. Young participants mentioned, that they are not communicating with
government at all and latter’s involvement is limited to issuing official documents/certificates in
case of need. Majority of survey respondents reported, that they have never initiated any of
the community events and/or proactive found the ways to be involved in related decisionmaking processes due to lack of trust in government officials:
-
“… It does not make any sense as we all know, that our voices will not be heard. No one
cares what problems we have and how we address them…”.
Moreover, as youth reported, they face problem of accessing to information related to youthfocused state-funded services and/or programs.
 Discriminative attitudes towards youth from elderly
Young respondents expressed their concern regarding the attitude of elderly population
towards them. In particular, participants mentioned, they are treated stereotypically expressed
in judgmental approach to young people’s lifestyle, mentality, behavior, etc:
-
“…We don’t discriminate elderly people. On the contrary, we are discriminated by them.
They used to say that they were better at our age, than we are…”.
Respondents underlined, that such approach deepens the gap between generations and
represents basis of potential conflict, thus demotivating rather than encouraging them.
Conflict affected and Internally Displaced Persons
In total 4 focus group discussions were held with conflict affected population in Georgia (2
groups), Azerbaijan and Armenia. The discussions in the groups were active and participatory.
Respondents expressed their opinions, views and experiences with regard of different types of
social injustices they face. Conflict-affected people were not specifically sampled in Abkhazia
and Nagorny-Karabakh, because such disaggregation was not feasible there. Both mentioned
entities are regarded as “frozen” conflict zones and all individuals living there can be classified
as “conflict affected”. Thus the injustices documented in all other groups conducted in Abkhazia
and Nagorny-Karabakh can be discussed in relation with “conflict-affected” population.
In Georgia, the conflict-affected population was sampled from different sub-groups bringing
different views and experiences practiced by “old caseload” (after 1992 armed conflict in
Abkhazia) and “new caseload” (after the war in 2008 with Russia) Internally Displaced People.
Both groups expressed their reflections over the injustices they have dealt with during their
displacement period. Perspectives provided by different caseloads are complimentary to each
other and ties a story in one circle. The first group of “old caseload” IDPs were more
25
informative in terms of reflecting on life-long challenges and the ways how ongoing injustices
have been and are being addressed since 1992.
As for Azerbaijan, people affected by the war in 90-ies between Armenia and Azerbaijan over
Nagorny-Karabakh region were included in survey sample. Respectively, conflict-affected
people residing in Armenia also were interviewed during the process.
The particular injustices conflict-affected people referred to during the discussions can be
summarized as following:
 Lack of property ownership (housing, agricultural lands etc.)
Focus group participants described the injustice they have experienced regarding property
ownership. After displacement, government provided housing and land to internally displaced
people. As reported by the participants, the assets allocated to them are in poor conditions:
- "…government allocated the lands for IDPs but we face irrigation problems, channels are
damaged or do not exist…".
Moreover, IDP respondents indicated, that this property is not registered in their ownership,
thus can’t be managed based on the own will. They also added that the above-mentioned fact
limits their accessibility to loans issued by banks and financial institutions:
-
“…I applied for loan several times, but as I don’t have any belongings, that can be used
as collateral in bank, I was rejected from funding all the time…”.
Noteworthy, lack of agricultural lands is mentioned as one of the injustices experienced by
conflict-affected population. After resettlement, government of Georgia provided land to rural
type settlements and allocated 0.02ha per each family. As survey respondents noted, the land
is hardly enough to grow greens for the family and moreover, the quality of the land was the
issue in most of the cases indicated by the participants:
-
“…Land plots allocated to us are like swamps. Drainage needs to be arranged because
water comes out from beneath… the level of moisture is too high. We can’t grow
anything. Why do we need the land…”.
 Lack of livelihood opportunities
Survey respondents cited lack of livelihood opportunities and unemployment as one of the
biggest obstacles to local integration and finding durable solutions in their displacement. Vast
majority of the respondent declared, that their income consists of only government allowances.
-
“… My family is based on lucky-day job opportunities for my husband, but that does not
happen often. We have 2 kids and we are dependant only on social assistance from the
government but this barely pays our needs…”.
Lack of social networks was named as one of the contributing factors to the above mentioned
injustice. Majority of participants indicated, that as a result of their displacement, they got
disconnected from the networks, prevails them from accessing job opportunities, thus
improving their livelihoods:
26
-
"… new enterprise has been opened near our settlement which immediately hired local
people. Even though all of us applied several times for different positions, none of us has
been even short-listed as we did not have any personal contacts with manager…"
As noted by the respondents, after displacement they have been resettled in new
settlements/private buildings with “strange people”, thus disconnecting from their old social
networks. Moreover, vast majority of displaced people reported, that losing their old social
networks decreased their ability to manage risk and cope with negative shocks:
-
“…In old times, before the war, we lived in a community, where we express solidarity
within our families and through community networks. We supported each other in
funerals and weddings; we were stronger when we were together. Nowadays, we don’t
feel the same. We lost all the connections…”
Poor integration of IDPs into local communities - While discussing social injustices, survey
participants named the integration challenges as one of the key issues. They referred at
integration in two dimensions: within communities/settlements and across IDP/non-IDP.
People have generally come to know their neighbors inside the settlement. As for between IDPs
and non-IDPs, a positive picture was described:
-
“… There is no tension between us. We feel the support and encouragement from local
community from the very first day…”
However, as mentioned by the respondents, in some cases IDPs were considered to be
privileged group by locals. The rationale behind the issue was cited as displaced people receive
allowance and benefit from different subsidies:
-
“… IDP families in most cases have their own private business - e.g. small shop and
receive continuous support from government. It’s easier for them to get license to start a
business for example…”
 Arrogant attitudes towards IDPs
Focus group discussion with IDP population revealed the fact, that they are experiencing
domineering attitude from local population. As reported, locals always draw the borders
between themselves and displaced people and it’s notable in every type of social network, e.g.
school, university, jobs, etc:
-
“… I have local co-workers, with whom I interact daily. But every time we discuss any
social event or any public opinion, they always refer to IDPs as separate cast in
overbearing terms. I feel myself humiliated…”
 Limited access to information
Conflict-affected population mentioned that they often experience a case, when they get
delayed information or don’t get any. As reported, internally displaced people were mostly
resettled in remote areas, which restrict their accessibility to timely information:
- "…we are getting information on government/NGO initiatives with delay that restricts
our involvement in that particular project…"

Lack of IDP-focused subsidies
27
Respondents mentioned that they are victims of injustice in regards to utility payment, as they
don’t get any subsidies on that. Moreover, participants indicated the need of having at least
subsidized tariff on utilities, because savings from utility payments will contribute to covering
their other basic needs:
-
"…we have to pay full amount as local non-IDPs, preferential tariff should be assigned…"
 High level of bureaucracy in government structures (mentioned in Azerbaijan)
Vast majority of survey participants mentioned, that they experience difficulties in accessing
governmental authorities and structures. As reported, IDPs have to stand in lines for a long
period and still don’t receive any response:
-
“…Bureaucratic barriers prevent us to access government structures even in case if we
reach proper individual or authorities, the problems remain unresolved…”

Selective, non-transparent approach from non-government authorities (mentioned in
Georgia)
Majority of survey participants questioned the integrity and fairness of programs implemented
by different organizations in their settlements/collective centres. They express the need for
more accountability and transparency from the organization’s side.
-
"… 2-3 hhs are selected for financing, which is not fair as all of us are in the same
conditions. Moreover, selection criteria are not fully clear …"
Ethnic Minorities
3 FGDs in total were conducted with groups of ethnic minorities within the current survey: two
in Georgia (with Azeri and Armenian nationalities) and one in Azerbaijan with ethnic Kurds.
However, it is remarkable, that social injustices were also broadly discussed in Abkhazia in
relation with ethnic Georgians (representing ethnic minority in Abkhazia).
Types of social injustices expressed by this particular segment in all entities can be summarized
as following:
• Lack of access to basic and higher education
This issue was raised in Abkhazia and was discussed in relation with ethnic Georgians.
Participants mentioned that children living in ethnic Georgian families mostly speak Georgian
and Mengrelian languages, while education at secondary schools is provided in Abkhazian
and/or Russian languages. Respondents regard this fact to be the obstacle for vast majority of
Georgian families ultimately affecting the quality of the education for children. Noteworthy that
another problem that was also mentioned in this context, is directly linked to the previous one
and moreover, explains it. Namely, participants reported that there are no kindergartens in
Abkhazia that would enable ethnic Georgian children at age 3-6 years to acquire Abkhazian
and/or Russian language skills. Considering poor financial conditions of such families the
majority of them cannot afford to hire private tutors for their children and as a result ethnic
Georgians can’t get quality basic and/or higher education.
28
Language issue was also mentioned and discussed in Georgia in relation of ethnic Azeri
population living in Marneuli region. In particular, Azeri participants mentioned that they face
language problems and mostly people still speak only Azeri language. This fact creates the
problem for young people to enter the secondary schools and/or higher educational
institutions later:
-
-
"…Georgian speaking teachers providing lessons at Azeri schools mainly speak only
Georgian language and are not able to explain lessons in Azeri, that limits learning
process for their kids…”
"…there were not enough teaching hours of Georgian language lessons before, only 1-2
hours per week were provided. Now situation has been slightly changed…”
• Stigma associated with ethnic and religious minorities
Respondents discussed the issue related to existing stigma and discriminative attitude
practiced and observed towards ethnic minorities from local population. Respondents said
that such attitude is mostly determined by different religious affiliation. Reluctance towards
mixed marriages was mentioned by almost all participants in both countries. Important to
mention that ethnic minorities themselves also prefer to marry the person from the same
ethnic and religion group rather than local one and they explain and justify such attitude by
exactly the same reason. Respondents mentioned that mixed marriages happen very rarely,
that again indicates on deep root of the problem that will be difficult tackle with.
-
"…there are single cases of mixed marriages. I would personally prefer for my daughter
not to marry Azeri boy and I cannot explain why… This is not appreciated in our culture,
probably mainly due to differences in religion believes …"
This issue was also mentioned and discussed in Azeri groups. Similarly, participants mentioned
that
-
“…ethnic minorities are less desirable to marry with, because of existence of prejudices
e.g. Kurds in Azerbaijan are considered as arrogant ones having less respective approach
towards women, as they are from mountainous regions…”
• Imbalanced representation of ethnic minorities in decision making structures
This issue was discussed from different perspectives and controversial examples were provided
by the participants in different groups. Majority of representatives of ethnic minority groups
from all three groups expressed their concern regarding low representation of ethnic minorities
in decision making structures at local and central levels. However, controversial opinion was
expressed by ethnic Georgians residing in Marneuli rayon. Noteworthy, that ethnic Georgians
represent the minority group in Marneuli (app. 90% Azeri vs. 10% Georgian households). Ethnic
Georgians, on the contrary, reported and complained about exclusive Azeri representation in
local Sakrebulo:
-
"…out of three available places for local community delegates, all of them were taken by
Azeri people. It is not fair…”
Similarly, ethnic Azeri participants in Azerbaijan also mentioned that “…there are many people
from ethnic minorities, especially Kurds, represented at top positions…”
29

Supportive legislation towards ethnic minorities (discussed in other groups)
-
-
"…existing Georgian law on property privatization allows foreign country citizens to
simply privatize the property, lands mainly... This law should be abolished immediately,
otherwise we will be kicked out from our country very soon…” (Men, Georgia)
“…lands owned by ethnic minorities are gradually privatized by reach Azeri people for
their summer houses and our Government does almost nothing to prevent this kind of
actions…” (Men, Georgia)
Social injustices affecting elderly mentioned by different groups
Number of social injustices related to elderly population were also mentioned and discussed.
The most resounding and challenging issue discussed in this regard was lack of access to quality
medical services and needed medicines. Despite the fact that limited health insurance
coverage are offered by Governments targeting at this particular segment, respondents in
Georgia complained about high level of widespread bureaucracy practiced by insurance
companies and health care providers. Respondents complain that they frequently face various
problems while receiving needed medical services (“…frequently providers try to qualify the
medical case as ineligible for funding...”). The same issues were discussed in other countries
and entities as well, however with different content. Respondents from other entities reported
about well-established bribing practices in health care facilities:
-
“… we all know that consultation with doctor is free for us, however we frequently are
requested to pay for the services, otherwise we will not be able to get needed service…”.
This problem appeared to be very pressing for this particular group as it has negative
implications on households’ financial status, in general, in case if serious health problem is
faced. Considering extremely low pensions provided by Governments in all surveyed entities,
elderly financially fully depend on their families, as they cannot rely on their own income only:
-
“…pensions are so low that it is even not considered in case if a person face acute
and/or ordinary health problems, which is not rare in our age...”.
That’s why respondents complain that all these problems represent serious burden for the
majority of the families with elderly members.
However, during the discussions respondents mentioned that even though pensions are very
low it still represents main source of monetary income for majority of rural households.
Besides, elderly participants of the group discussions noted about observed nonresponsive and
even ignoring attitude towards them when applying to different institutions to request for
needed information and/or certificate:
-
“… we frequently are fully ignored while requesting information we need, nobody wants
to dedicate time to us…”.
Elderly participants also noted that age limit while recruiting the potential candidates for
different types of job positions are unjust treatment from employers’ side:
30
-
“…one of the requirements for every single job position is to fit within age group from 25
till 40, even in case of cleaner…”
Participants discussed the issue of equalization of pensions for all individuals regardless the
length of service. One part of the respondents considers this fact as unjust treatment towards
those who has working experience. Another group of participants spoke about violation of
principle of equality by differentiating between different categories: “… all should be treated in
a same way…”.
Besides, the vast majority of the respondents complain about Governments unfair approach
towards elderly. Namely, respondents mentioned that despite the fact that the pensions
generally have been slightly increased, this was accompanied with high rates of inflations
observed in all entities during last several years. Respondents mentioned that this fact resulted
in higher prices on food products, and accordingly, purchasing power of this pension has been
declined.
Some of the respondents also mentioned problem related to lack of job opportunities in
relation with elderly. They consider that this issue affects elderly people as well as young ones:
-
“…we are frequently blamed by young people for being constraint for them to enter the
job market…”.
“…company needs to make a choice between the two options: either fire elderly people
and recruit youth, or maintain elderly thus limiting youth to enter the job market...”.
Social injustices affecting disabled mentioned by different groups
Specific groups with participation of disabled people and/or their family members were not
conducted within the current survey; however injustices affecting this particular segment were
also discussed broadly in the groups. Almost all participants have in their close networks people
who are disabled and they were quite well-informed regarding those challenges and issues
which affect these people. Namely, bureaucratic approach and high level of corruption while
assigning categories of disability were broadly discussed in almost all groups:
-
“… you should fight with bureaucrats to get relevant category and this is endless process.
The point is that different categories get different amounts of disability allowances…”.
It needs to be emphasised, that corruption (as mentioned earlier as well) was not an issue in
Georgian case. Participants expanded this issue further and talked about the observed gap in
legislations in relation with bureaucracy. Vast majority of survey respondents complained
about existing inflexibility in relevant laws and procedures with regard of assigning different
categories of disability and/or prolonging the status of disability to be able to get an allowance:
-
“… they intentionally create “extra” barriers and its is officially included in respective
laws and legislation. This law obligates every single disabled person, regardless disability
category and vulnerability, to undergo the checking commission once every 3 years in
order to prolong validity of disability. It is not fair that this procedure is obligatory even
for a person with physical insufficiencies e.g. person without legs and and/or hands
etc…”.
31
Discussions around this segment covered the issue related to absence of specifically designed
infrastructure for disabled people, even in the school buildings. Some of the respondents in
Azerbaijan mentioned that even the separate school for disabled children is operational in
urban setting, conditions there are extremely poor. This issue was discussed more broadly in
relation with violation of fundamental right of every child to get education. Vast majority of
respondents mentioned that absence of relevant infrastructure for disabled youth limits their
involvement in education system and puts them in unfair conditions compared with healthy
part of population:
-
“…disabled kids are mainly orphans or are from poor families who can’t afford to hire
teacher and/or buy wheelchair...”.
Respondents also mentioned the issue related to lack of pro-active approach from education
system officials to support integration of disabled children into education process. Namely,
participants mentioned that regardless the fact that schools are obliged to offer a tutor for
disabled children to provide home-based lessons for them, they do not follow this law:
-
“…despite the fact that relevant law exists – it is not implemented in reality”.
Moreover, absence of specially designed access points for disabled people to public transport,
buildings of public institutions and even to the medical facilities was particularly addressed by
the participants which results in isolation of disabled people from the rest of the society.
Participants complain about lack of pro-active approach and interest from the government
officials to resolve even part of the problems related to the disabled individuals and their
family members. Respondents consider that all aforementioned problems and challenges are
impossible to be resolved at the level of rural households with their own resources and the
issue needs to be addressed properly by the Government.
Social injustices affecting men mentioned by different groups
In total 5 groups with participation of men were conducted within the survey (one in each
entity). It is remarkable, that male participants mainly discussed social injustices in its broader
meaning and in relation with rural population as a whole and their families, in particular. There
were single challenges and/or issues named and discussed in relation with men. In other words,
male focused gender aspect was not the main topic for the discussion.
Noteworthy, some of the male participants referred to the injustice single fathers’ face. The
respondents noted that everyone talks about problems experienced by single mothers’, but no
one reveals the challenge single fathers’ deal with in their daily lives.
Vast majority of participants mention discrimination against age, gender and appearance, they
cite: “…only young good looking girls are hired for the jobs…”. It should be highlighted that this
statement contradicts with perceptions and attitudes expressed by young people towards this
issue.
Furthermore, access to livelihood opportunities was reported by the participants to be cause
of forced migration of men in order to find the income source for the family:
32
-
“…young men after graduation of higher institution have two choices: Either seek for a
job with the specialty outside the village, or return to the village, forget about diploma
and engage in agriculture/farming…”
Forced external migration in many cases, tends to be the reason of divorce of the families, as
reported by the respondents.
Shared Social Injustices across all impact groups and target entities
Along with group-specific social injustices discussed above under respective sections, survey
participants in each target group broadly discussed variety of issues and challenges which are
common for every single community and the vast majority of rural households. The problems
discussed in this section were provided as examples for different types of social injustices and
again, rural vs urban and poor vs rich differences were the main topics for discussions: “…social
inequalities mostly occur not based on gender, age, religion etc. but between rural and urban,
employed and unemployed, rich and poor …”
Conspicuously, it was very hard and even impossible for the respondents to prioritize between
different types of mentioned social injustices in terms of which ones are most critical to tackle
with and which ones can “wait” until the major ones are resolved. However, its was evident
that problems were divided into two major groups – social injustices with and without
immediate financial implications – where the first group was regarded as the top priority by
almost all participants:
- “…we experience and face extreme financial problems on a daily basis that we cannot
resolve by ourselves. Here we need support and help from the government. We cannot
even think over the “soft” issues, they are less urgent to start with, they all will be
resolved soon after financial problems are fixed…”.
Examples provided by the respondents under the social injustices not having financial
implication include the following: gender based family violence, discrimination against sexual
minorities and HIV positive people etc. These are the examples around which limited
discussions raised compared to other “more important ones”.
Shared social injustices are shortly summarized below. Part of these issues is already discussed
above in relation with specific target groups under respective sections, however are mentioned
here as well in broader context not differentiating between the segments.
•
Insecure and risky subsistence farming depended on weather conditions, hence providing
non-stable income for rural households and decreases number of people engaged in
farming
-
“…people working for state institutions and receiving low, but stable income are in much
better situation compared with those, engaged in farming activities. The latter group
depends on weather conditions, seasonality, productivity, market dynamics, etc. No
agricultural insurance services are provided at all – that’s why people prefer buying
vegetables rather than producing them by themselves…”
33
With regard to farming, lack of pasture lands was named by the respondents as one of the
injustice. Due to unavailability of lands, as reported by the respondents, rural poor is unable to
be engaged intensive livestock farming.

Lack of access to urban areas due to transportation problem for remote communities
especially in winter
Vast majority of rural population reported, that due to lack of regular transportation, road
networks and the physical isolation of certain areas, they experience social injustice. As
mentioned, unavailability of transportation restricts their access to markets. Moreover, Poor
rural infrastructure (roads, irrigation channels, etc) increase the time for producing and taking
goods to the market:
-
“…poor roads damage both the goods and vehicle taking the goods and so increase the
costs and lower the price of the goods when they finally get there…”

Lack of support and artificially created barriers by governments for local
producers/farmers to enter local markets
Focus group participants mentioned that government supports importing substitute products
from abroad, rather than encouraging local production. As indicated during the discussions,
rural poor experience injustice due to the fact, that instead of supporting poor rural farmers,
government artificially creates barriers for local producers/farmers to sell their production at
local markets:
-
-
“…during soviet times, factories in rural areas were operational, where local population
including women were employed. All theses factories were destroyed and replaced with
import from China and Turkey – it’s considered to be more cost effective by them, this is
unjust…”
“…fruits and vegetables are also imported from Iran and Turkey and competing with
locally produced products. Therefore, there is no motivation for local farmers to be
engaged in local agriculture production…”
 Lack and high renting costs on agricultural machinery
Vast majority of the focus group participants reported, that all existing and available
agricultural machinery is working for well-off families as preferences are made in favor of rich
people due to the big sizes of lands they own. Furthermore, as mentioned by the respondents,
the price on renting the machinery is high and in lots of cases, they can’t afford the service:
-
“…Poor farmers with small amounts of lands can’t process their lands timely as a result,
that decreases productivity and the renting cost is really high…”
 High level of forced migration from urban to rural locations and even abroad.
While discussing social injustices with regards to insecured agriculture and subsistence farming,
vast majority of respondents noted, that all the above-mentioned injustices contribute to
decreased number of people engaged in farming activities. In addition, as reported,
unstable/low income from agriculture forces people to migrate either to the capital city, or
even aboard.

High interest rates on credits, lack of collateral and required level of salary to be eligible
for credit
34
As cited by the rural population, they experience social injustice in terms of accessing the
credits, as financial institutions require collateral and fixed salary, which, in most of the cases,
cannot be provided by the rural population.
 Limited employment opportunities in rural vs urban settings
All of the respondents mentioned, that there are better opportunities in urban areas to find a
job compared with rural. They indicated, that developments, constructions are happening in
cities and therefore, the availability of job places is higher:
-
“… Many new buildings are being constructed in the cities. If you emigrate to the capital,
you can find a job there unlike to the villages…”
As reported by the participants, people from rural areas are frequently engaged in construction
work taking place in urban settings without contract and job insurance, thus security is not
guaranteed. Gaps in job security, especially for low-paid unskilled labor is an injustice
experienced by rural poor as reported by them.

Limited access to qualified vs. unskilled jobs
-

Inadequately low salaries (scope of work is not adequately reflected in the salary)
-
•
“…less qualified positions sometimes are paid higher compared to qualified jobs, e.g.
babysitter gets twice more salary compared to professional staff employed in
government structure…”
Unfair selection of individuals eligible for different types of social allowances
-
•
“…I am working everyday as a worker. I have family, wife and two kids. Despite the fact
that I have almost zero time to dedicate to my family my salary can hardly cover even
our basic needs…”
Equalization of wages between the people with and without higher education, qualified vs
less qualified etc.
-
•
“…agriculture is the main source of income. There are no other workplaces available in
rural areas…”
“…there is selective approach for different types of social allowances. There are frequent
cases when well-off families receive social allowance while those, who really are in need
don’t get any support…” (Georgia)
“…e.g. disabled unemployed person receives no allowance except of pension, while
government official might be a beneficiary of different types of government subsidies…”
Limited access to quality medical services
-
“…we can afford local medical facilities where only limited and/or poor medical services
are provided by less qualified medical personnel compared to urban clinics...”
“…even necessary basic medical equipment are not available at local medical facilities, if
you need to take simple diagnostic test you have to go to the city …”
35
•
Poor implementation of Laws affecting poor more rather well-off individuals
-
•
“…laws are made by and for rich people…”
“…only the regular people should obey the law. The rich ones or powerful ones are not in
a same position, they are violating the rules and nobody addresses this issue…”
Lack of accountability of governments to rural population
-
•
“…poor conditions of infrastructure in remote areas, especially roads – even emergency
can’t reach the area…”
“…we rarely address government officials as we believe that our voices will not be
heard…”
“…Government is not interested in rural people’s needs…”
Wide gulf between rich and poor and absence of middle income category
-
-
“…there is a big difference between poor and rich families. Well-off households don’t
understand poor people’s problems as they are fed, they wear good clothes, they get
medical service etc…”
“… Poor people are always working hard for the benefit of rich…” – Armenia
“…rich people enter the parliament to protect their own businesses; these rich guys do
not care about ordinary or poor people …”
Possible causes of social injustice
Extremely active were discussions targeting at identifying potential causes of mentioned social
injustices at the end of each session. Despite the fact that respondents faced difficulties while
differentiating between the social injustices and their causes, they tried to summarize overall
picture with regard of factors contributing to inequality.
External causes
Underlying causes of social injustices are dominantly associated with external rather than
internal factors. The vast majority of participants from all countries, entities, communities and
even target groups tried to exteriorise the causes for majority of social injustices and
respectively, were biased to talk more on external rather than internal causes.
Majority of participants strongly believes that poor people are more vulnerable towards
different types of social injustices rather than those from well-of families. Therefore, poverty is
considered to be the main cause for majority of social injustices discussed above.
Besides, unbiased implementation of Law is widely considered to be the fundamental
prerequisite for “just society”:
-
“…everyone should obey the law, there should not be any single exemptions an/or
deviations in this regard…”.
36
Participants see huge gaps with regard of implementation of Laws in general and they say that
this fundamental pre-condition frequently is violated even by those who develop them.
Corruption and nepotism were widely discussed in this context leading to the poor
implementation of laws in general.
Besides, lack of proactive approach from governments and lack of state-funded programs
targeting at eradicating social inequalities in the society were mentioned as a one of the
contributors to unjust society:
-
“… everything depends on political will of the Government. If government wants to
eradicate poverty and inequality, they will target all their resources to that direction …”
Besides, unresolved and “frozen”conflicts were also mentioned by the respondents as one of
the determinant that creates obstacles (mainly in terms of trading) that, itself contributes to
higher level of poverty.
Respondents mentioned that poor knowledge of human rights also is the one of the major
contributors to unjust society:
-
“… people do not know much about their rights, which limits their ability to defend
themselves when treated not fairly…”
Lack of rural-based civil society organizations (CSO) and respectively, lack of their
involvement in rural societal life was mentioned to be the one of the pressing issues with
regard of potential causes of existing injustices. CSO is seen by participants as a resourceful
instrument in terms of advocating for rural peoples rights and facilitating provision of better
conditions to them:
-
“…someone should alert government about our problems and make them more active in
this direction. We can not reach them by ourselves …”
Lack of democracy and respectively, fair of expressing own opinions were mentioned in all
countries except of Georgia that prevents rural people from being heard by governments:
-
“...we can not say whatever we want. We lack this freedom of expression…”
Internal causes
There were minor issues mentioned and discussed with regard of internal causes contributing
to mentioned social injustices. Mainly participants addressed cultural norms, traditions and
mentality that are considered to be the most sensitive areas, and respectively very difficult to
tackle with:
-
“…traditions have very deep roots and they are strongly built in our mentality…”
Participants also mentioned that lack of trust towards decision-makers and government
officials, who are in a position to resolve existing problems, makes them to be in-active that
itself is demonstrated by lack of social solidarity among the population:
-
“…we all are fighting for our own well-being and do not care about other people…”
37
Analysis of impact population’s opinions about social injustices
•
Impact population defines the term “Social Injustice” from their own perspectives bringing
variety of real-life examples
•
The term “social injustices” is mostly associated with proper and impartial implementation
of Law, as latter is considered to be fundamental pre-requisite for just society
•
Despite the fact that majority of participants strongly believe that solution to the problems
lies within sufficient knowledge of human rights, they admit, that they are poorly familiar
with it
•
Pessimistic judgments are observed during discussing possible ways to minimize, overcome
existing social injustice. Lack of proactive approach from impact population results in
exteriorization of feasible solutions that makes them more outsiders rather than insiders
•
Even though impact population identifies gaps in different areas affecting their lives, they
feel themselves to be not instrumental to contribute to the process due to lack of
•
Corruption, bureaucracy, lack of interest from decision-makers represent major obstacles
to make impact populations’ voices heard
•
Acquiring high quality education is not considered to be crucial pre-condition of well-off life
•
Impact population see the immediate solution to the vast majority of mentioned injustices
in improved income generating opportunities/livelihoods, as they believe that well-off
people experience less discrimination compared to those from poor families
•
However, people reckon that still there are number of injustices having roots in deeper
layers related to culture, customs, traditions and mentality of society (like men is superior,
women is housewife etc), which are difficult to tackle with
•
Impact population is tend to treat social injustices caused by external factors with more
judgmental, firm approach compared to those associated with customs and culture
•
Impact population is biased towards articulating social injustices which have direct
implications on their own lives rather than discussing those related to other
groups/segments; however other group related injustices also were mentioned and
discussed (e.g. injustices affecting disabled, children, elderly etc.)
•
Participants judgment around causes of social injustices goes beyond immediate causes
and penetrates into the intermediate and in some cases, in underlying causes
•
Influence of "Soviet Regime" is still observed and is most desirable
•
Issues and challenges discussed in different groups, cover various aspects of mentioned
social injustices that provide fruitful information for CIC to consider and address it within
the new program planning and implementation.
CARE’s Learning Agenda
The aim of the current research - to explore impact population’s understanding on existing
social injustices, their underlying causes and ways of possible solutions, was adequately
reached within this particular survey. All questions related to specific objectives of the study
were thoroughly discussed and responded by participants during FGDs. Findings suggest that
there is direct causal relationship and a vicious circle of poverty and social injustices. Given the
complexity of the phenomena, wide range of facets was revealed while discussing different
38
aspects of the topic. Respectively, not all issues were studied deeply that enabled CIC team to
mark areas for further research. Discussions were mainly deepened around the aim and
objectives of current survey.
Based on relevance of identified challenges to CARE’s Program and Business Model, research
team proposes following areas for further analysis, which will enlarge the scale of spectrum to
broadly understand the study phenomena:
-
-
-
Despite the indication on relationship between the power and wealth reflected in
“more wealth means more power and vice versa”, the issue was not specifically
assessed during the FGDs. More evidences are needed to prove the given hypothesis.
Fundamental questions “why does poverty exist at all? Does disparity cause poverty or
vise versa?” – are partially responded within the current study. Participants broadly
discussed the hypothesis saying that poors are more vulnerable to different types of
social injustices compared to well-off ones and poverty is the main determinant of social
injustices. However, controversial opinions were also mentioned by providing
alternative thinking that eradicating existing injustices will lead to improved income
generating opportunities. These questions are extremely complex in their nature and
are unable to be responded via stand-alone designed surveys. Therefore, further
thinking and analysis consolidating existing knowledge resources will potentially
uncover core aspects of the issue.
Considering that CIC believes in being primarily accountable to impact population,
current analysis should inform CARE’s accountability strategy in order to improve its
transparency resulting in increased credibility of CARE within impact population.
Discussion
As presented in the report, all South Caucasian entities experience considerable similarities not
only in terms of the post-Soviet legacy, but also with regard to social injustices rural people
have to deal with in their daily lives. The evidence of existing commonalities is demonstrated by
different survey reports developed by various local or international institutions operating in the
South Caucasus.
As mentioned by vast majority of the respondents in this particular report, unemployment and
low salaries are the main challenging social injustices they face, especially women, as these
group is the most affected by low access to professional job market and well-paid jobs. Based
on this report, women’s participation in labor market is significantly lower, than men’s.
Comparable to the above-mentioned, according to the Caucasus Barometer in 2012, 35% of
women in Armenia, 26% in Azerbaijan and 35% in Georgia are working – either as employees,
or self-employed (excluding pensioners, students and disabled, who remain outside of the
labour force). Around twice as many men in Armenia (74%), in Azerbaijan (68%), and in Georgia
(56%) have paid jobs. Lower involvement in paid work comes together with a substantial share
of unpaid domestic labour being done by women. This work is not accounted for in official
39
statistics, yet it is an important aspect of the labour market8. The above-mentioned facts are
also discussed in the “Action Research” conducted by Brigitta Bode in June 2011 for CARE
International in the Caucasus. Important to note that official statistics publish much higher
numbers of employment rates as they count subsistence farming as self-employment.
The report indicates that the practice of women being responsible for reproductive tasks
(cooking, cleaning, looking after the children, washing clothes, etc.) existed during the Soviet
time and has not changed since. This is despite the fact that a large number of men have
considerable free time, but chose to spend this time outside in the yard chatting with other
men and playing cards. Moreover, it outlines the case of women being overburdened with
having jobs, farming and processing and managing the household “chores”.
The aforementioned leads to gender inequality both on the family and on the society level,
which was referred as one of the crucial social injustices experienced by rural poor. Traditional
gender roles dominate the South Caucasian family structure, which are learned and reproduced
from older generations. The consideration of men as a “breadwinner” also provides them with
authority in family. When a man dies, his authority passes not to his widow, but to the eldest
son. And then it is the son who sets the rules for his sisters. Women on the other hand were
considered the main people to do housework, such as cleaning, cooking, ironing, child care and
“implementing decisions” taken by their husbands and obligations of mother and wife9.
Gender aspect of access barrier to higher education is also emphasized in Program Document
for CARE International in the Caucasus. The duration of the school-to-work transition for girls is
almost twice as long as that of boys: 13.5 years versus 8.6 years. The contrast between the
educational opportunities of poor and non-poor young people is rather stark. The richest 20
percent of households spend an average of 22 times more educating their children than do the
poorest 20 percent.
Similar to this report, where vast majority of respondents outlined the issue of Gender Based
Property Distribution, the Desk Research on Peace, Security and Democracy from a Women’s
Rights perspective conducted for CIC discusses the traditions and legislation in the South
Caucasus. Comparable to the presented survey, there are no legal barriers to women‘s property
ownership, in reality it is customary for men to be given preference in property inheritance,
ownership and administration10. In rural areas, the land is usually registered to the husband. In
families, sons most often inherit the property. NGO representatives, who work with victims of
domestic violence, explained that women are living in homes owned by their father-in-law(s)11.
In cases of divorce, they would have no right of the property whatsoever12.
As presented in this report, access to quality medical services for rural poor was cited as huge
challenge for people living in rural settings. The injustice was explained as improper state
insurance program implementation and low financing of health care by government. Similarly,
the data from Caucasus Barometer, 2012 and World Health Organization, 2011 demonstrates,
8
http://crrc-caucasus.blogspot.com/2013/08/gender-inequality-in-south-caucasus.html
BIM Women in Azerbaijan – Peace, Security, Democracy from a Women’s Rights Perspective – Desk ResearchLudwig Boltzmann Institute of Human Rights for CARE International in the Caucasus, August, 2011, p.20
10
Sanikidze, Lia, The Reality - Women’s Equal Rights, p. 23.
11
Women in GEORGIA Peace, Security and Democracy from a Women’s Rights perspective - Desk Research Ludwig
Boltzmann Institute of Human Rights Sabine Mandl, for CARE International in the Caucasus, June, 2011 p.14
12
Gender Assessment, USAID/Georgia, p. 24.
9
40
that total expenditure on health as a percentage of GDP provides information on the level of
resources invested in health relative to a country's overall wealth. In developed countries,
government spending on health care accounts for approximately 10% of gross domestic
product (GDP)or more. This percentage of resources pooled by the government is
comparatively lower in the South Caucasus. It accounted for as much as 9.9% of the total GDP
in Georgia, 4.3% in Armenia and 5.2% in Azerbaijan13.
The social injustices faced by ethnic minorities residing in rural areas, in particular the issue of
Stigma associated with ethnic/religious minorities (reluctance towards mixed marriages
mostly determined by different religion affiliation) is commonly described in The Life in
Transition (LIT) survey14, conducted jointly by the European Bank for Reconstruction and
Development and the World Bank in 2011. The survey states that Azerbaijanis and Armenians
largely disapprove of marriage with each other. Georgians are slightly more open to the idea of
marrying outside their ethnic group (albeit results are within the 25%-35% range). Again,
Abkhazians and Ossetians figure in this middle range. Russians continue to garner the highest
approval, while Kurds receive less approval than many of the other groups. The main difference
is that Azerbaijanis overwhelmingly disapprove of Azerbaijani women marrying outside of their
ethnicity (only 6% to 11% would approve of doing so). The exception is marriage with Turks
(53%) as they share some religious, cultural and ethnic similarities. There are no radical changes
over time except for a decrease in the number of Armenians willing to marry Russians (53% to
40%) and Americans (44% to 33%)15.
Corruption was reported to be commonly spread across all entities of the South Caucasus
region besides Georgia. The perception can be correlated with statistical data provided in
Caucasus Barometer16. The dataset demonstrates, that in 2012 27% of the Azerbaijani
population cited that they paid a bribe during the last 12 months, followed by 6% of people in
Armenia. Georgia seems to have been the most successful in fighting corruption with no person
saying they had paid a bribe during the last 12 months.
While conducting focus group discussions with youth, this particular segment outlined lack and
even absence of job opportunities in rural areas as a major constraint for their livelihood. The
similar challenge was documented in “Youth Survey” conducted in 4 entities of the South
Caucasus region (Georgia, Armenia, Abkhazia, Nagorny-Karabakh) by CARE International in the
Caucasus in May, 2012. The report mentions, that most groups in all surveyed regions say that
there is very limited possibility to find a job in their communities. According to Youth
employment in Eastern Europe: Crisis within the crisis17 survey, place of birth plays the crucial
role and likelihood to be bob-active is higher in small cities and villages, rather than in the
capital city. At the same time according to the survey results, the most accessible jobs in rural
areas for youth are in farming, public sector (teachers, military, police, governmental
structures) and service sector (such as shop assistant, hairdresser, waiter, etc). Nevertheless,
some participants, mostly men focus more on unskilled labour, as a possible field for getting
job. Moreover, “Males had better chances than females of succeeding in the South Caucasus
13
http://crrc-caucasus.blogspot.com/2013/10/funding-for-healthcare-in-south-caucasus.html
http://www.ebrd.com/pages/research/publications/special/transitionII.shtml
15
http://crrc-caucasus.blogspot.com/
16
http://www.crrc.ge/oda/
17
International Labour Organization “Youth employment in Eastern Europe: Crisis within the crisis” – Geneva, 15
June, 2011
14
41
labour markets”, states the “Youth employment in Eastern Europe: Crisis within the crisis18”
report.
All South Caucasian entities experienced war in early 90s, accordingly either conflict-affected or
internally displaced people reside in any of the entities. The qualitative research revealed lack
of livelihood opportunities a crucial social injustice for these particular segments of rural
population.
Similar to this presented report, the surveys conducted within the framework of different
projects/programs implemented in this region outline comparable data. In particular, the
document on “CARE’s Vision of Contributing to durable solutions for people displaced as a
result of the August 2008 war” prepared by Fleur Auzimour Just, cites, that the official
unemployment rate across the general population of Georgia is high, around 16.5 %, 19 and
while it is hard to find firm statistics on the matter it is probable that the unemployment rate
amongst IDPs is even higher. A 2008 nation-wide survey of 3000 IDP households revealed that
69% of the adults interviewed were unemployed.20 The UNHCR estimates that IDPs are three
times more likely to be unemployed than members of the general population.21
Noteworthy, that most of the reports discussed above reveal comparable results and
demonstrate the similarities between the all entities, although the differences also provide a
great opportunity for examining and researching the underlying causes of poverty in each
entity discretely. The entities are likely to be at different developmental levels in some areas
and this can offer insights about how one might expect the developmental trajectory to move
forward. Moreover, the presented documents provide general overviews and perceptions of
rural populations on the challenges and problems they tackle with practically every day.
Although, deeper analysis and further investigation of poverty, income distribution and gaps
per each entity will give enable all stakeholders to implement evidence-based regional
programming.
18
http://www.ilo.org/public/english/region/eurpro/geneva/download/events/ministers2011/youthempl_easteur_
en.pdf
19
United Nations Country Team in Georgia, United Nations Development Assistance Framework 2011-2015,
(02011)
20
Mamuka Nadareishvili and Vasil Tsakadze, Survey on housing and socio-economic conditions of internally
displaced persons in Georgia (2008)
21
UNHCR, Protection of IDPs in Georgia: A gap analysis (2009)
42
Annexes
Annex 1: Focus-group discussion (FGD) Guide
Focus Group Discussion Guide
Exploring understanding of social injustice & its underlying/immediate causes in
the South Caucasus
I. Introduction
Moderator introduces his/herself and explains purpose of the meeting/group discussion: I am --- (name, last name) and I work at CARE International in the Caucasus. CARE is an international
non-profit non-governmental organization operating in all entities of the South Caucasus
region. CARE currently implements program aiming at decreasing rural poverty, vulnerability
and social injustice in the South Caucasus (SC) and improving conditions for sustainable rural
development, thereby contributing to peace and stability in the region. CARE implements the
program through and with partners. Therefore, focus of today’s discussion will be social
injustice and its causes.
II.
1.
2.
III.
1.
2.
3.
Warm-up
Please introduce yourselves: name, age, employment status, marital status, level of
education achieved
How can you briefly describe general situation (economic, social etc.) in your
country/entity? Has it been changed towards positive or negative direction in the last 3
years? If yes, what has been changed and how?
Term definition/understanding of the meaning
How would you define social injustice? What does social injustice mean for you? Please try
to give as detailed definition as you can. Why do you think all of these can be considered as
social injustice?
What is social justice? How would you define the term?
What in your understanding can not be classified as social injustice? Why do you think so?
(Probe: how would you classify the situation if a person is ashamed of particular type of
work and is unemployed accordingly?)
IV. Types of social injustice
1.
What types of social injustice have you (or your friends/family members/acquaintances)
ever heard? Which population groups are mostly affected by different types of social
injustice? (E.g. ethnic minorities, elderly, women, disabled etc.)
2. What types of social injustice have you personally (or your friends/family
members/acquaintances) ever encountered/faced in your area/community?
3. How would you characterize the current situation with regard of social injustice? Has
anything changed with this regard during last 3 years? (E.g. new type of injustice occurred
and/or existing one has been eradicated. If yes, please specify which and how?)
For the moderator - ask for each type below if not mentioned:
Definitions and examples:
 Disproportionate wealth distribution: It differs from the distribution of income in that it
looks at the distribution of ownership of the assets in a society, rather than the current
income of members of that society.
43










V.
Prejudices: unfavorable prejudgments toward people or a person because of gender, social
class, age, disability, religion, sexuality, race/ethnicity, language, nationality or other
personal characteristics. It can also refer to unfounded beliefs.
Discrimination: is the prejudicial or distinguishing treatment of an individual based on their
actual or perceived membership in a certain group or category.
Sexism: is prejudice or discrimination based on a person's sex. Sexism usually refers to
discrimination against women, although it can also apply to men
Oppression: any kind of pressure, coercion, violence and/ or burden
Homophobia: it encompasses a range of negative attitudes and feelings towards
homosexuality or people who are identified or perceived as being lesbian, gay, bisexual or
trans-gender (LGBT)
Racism: it usually defined as views, practices and actions reflecting the belief that humanity
is divided into distinct biological groups called races
Classism: it is prejudice or discrimination on the basis of social class. It includes individual
attitudes and behaviors, systems of policies and practices that are set up to benefit the
upper classes at the expense of the lower classes (e.g. poor part of the population compared
to wealthier part).
Ableism: a form of discrimination or social prejudice against people with disabilities
Ageism: age discrimination is an stereotyping and discriminating against individuals or
groups because of their age (youth and elderly)
Stereotyping: is a thought that may be adopted about specific types of individuals or certain
ways of doing things but that belief may or may not accurately reflect reality (e.g. IDPs,
refugees etc.)
Possible causes of social injustice (immediate / intermediate / underlying)
1.
How do you think, what are the causes of mentioned injustice? Let’s talk about each type
of mentioned injustice and explore possible causes.
(For the moderator: look at possible differences for: rural/urban, youth/elderly,
employed/unemployed, educated/non-educated, women/men, IDP/non-IDP, poor/wealthy
etc. and explore immediate/intermediate and underlying causes thoroughly)
2. How aforementioned injustice can be addressed/redressed/eradicated? What needs to be
changed/improved to make this happen? (For the moderator: look at possible interventions
at different levels: population/local government/central government/ civil society
/international community etc.)
3. How do you think, which social injustice/cause(s) would you start solving as the first
priority? In your understanding, which one is most crucial? Why do you think so?
4. What are types of injustice and its underlying causes that never / or hardly can be
redressed /eradicated? Why do you think it is hard to change and/or not possible to ever
change?
For the moderator – try to structure causes in a way presented below:
Definitions and examples:
 Immediate causes (Saving lives: these causes directly relate to life and survival): e.g.
disease, famine, environmental disasters, conflict.
 Intermediate causes (Improving Human Conditions: These causes affect people’s well-being
and opportunities for development and livelihood security): e.g. low livelihood (agric or
income) productivity, limited livelihood opportunities, lack of skills, inadequate access to
food, inadequate care for women and children, lack of basic services (physical and/or
psychological access barriers), e.g. health, education, water and sanitation
44

Underlying causes: (Improving Social Positions, Human Conditions & Enabling Environment:
These causes are related to the structural underpinnings of underdevelopment, specifically
social systems, and political and economic structures, and environmental issues): e.g.
Economic: Inequitable resource distribution (distributive justice); Political: Poor governance
and institutional capacity/not supportive legislative environment; corruption; violent
conflict; domination by regional / global superpowers; Social: Marginalization, inequality,
social exclusion (based on gender, class, ethnicity); harmful social customs and cultural
practices/norms; over-population; Environmental: climate change, resource based conflict;
natural hazards / environmental disasters; inherent environmental constraints (e.g.
vulnerability to drought, propensity for human disease; propensity for crop and livestock
disease)
Thank you for participation!
45
Annex 2: List of sampled communities
#
Country/entity
No of groups/communities
Name of community
1. Skra
2. Saguramo
3. Tamarisi
4. Orjonikidze
1.
Georgia
8 / 10
5. Kachagan
6. Kirach-Muganlo
7. Agmamedlo
8. Metekhi
9. Kisiskhevi
10. Sakobiano
1. Sulu-tepe
2. Masazir
2.
Azerbaijan
7/6
3. Mashtaga
4. Buzovna
5. Nardaran
6. Pirshagi
1. Tolors
2. Qarahunj
3.
Armenia
5/5
3. Kornidzor
4. Khachik
5. Akhlatyan
1. Baludga
2. Chartaz
4.
Nagorny-Karabakh
5/5
3. Gishi
4. Tafavert
5. Knushinak
1. Eshera
5.
Abkhazia
4/4
2. Chkhuartal
3. Khuap
4. Merkula
46
Annex 3: Economic profile related statistics for South Caucasian Countries for 2010-2012 years
Key Statistical Figures on Georgia (2010-2012)
Section
Demographics
Indicator Name
2010
Source
4 436.4
4 469.2
4 483.8
www.geostat.ge
Population (female)
2327.50
2341.90
2353.80
www.geostat.ge
Population (male)
2108.90
2127.30
2143.80
www.geostat.ge
Urban Population (%)
53.00
53.00
53.00
www.geostat.ge
Rural Population (%)
47.00
47.00
47.00
www.geostat.ge
Internally displaced persons (number, high estimate)
258000.00
257000.00
265109.00
Refugee population by country or territory of asylum
639.00
462.00
World Bank Databank
10640.00
10112.00
World Bank Databank
11638200595.50
14434568633.26
15829225458.7
3
World Bank Databank
6.25
6.95
6.00
World Bank Databank
2623.00
3230.00
3520.00
GDP per capita growth (annual %)
5.25
6.22
5.33
World Bank Databank
GINI index
0.43
0.42
0.41
www.geostat.ge
Inflation rate
5.70
8.50
Subsistence minimum for working age man (US$)
80.90
95.06
91.02
www.geostat.ge
Median consumption (US$)
Share of population under 60 percent of the
- overall
Share of population under 60 percent of the
- in rural areas
Share of population under 60 percent of the
- in urban areas
Share of population under 40 percent of the
(%)- overall
Share of population under 40 percent of the
(%)- in rural areas
97.35
109.46
22.70
23.00
22.40
www.geostat.ge
26.70
26.90
27.00
www.geostat.ge
18.60
18.80
17.50
www.geostat.ge
10.00
10.40
9.30
www.geostat.ge
11.90
12.90
11.70
www.geostat.ge
GDP (current US$)
GDP growth (annual %)
Subsistence
Minimum and
Median
Consumption*
2012
Population, total
Refugee population by country or territory of origin
Macroeconimic
indicators
2011
GDP per capita (current US$)
World Bank Databank
www.geostat.ge
www.geostat.ge
median consumption (%)
median consumption (%)
median consumption (%)
median consumption
median consumption
47
Poverty
Employment,
Unemployment
and Wages
Migration
Gender
Statistics
Share of population under 40 percent of the median consumption (%)
- in urban areas
8.00
7.80
6.70
www.geostat.ge
Beneficiaries of subsistence allowance (In percent to total population)
9.70
9.20
9.70
www.geostat.ge
Poverty gap at $2 a day (PPP) (%)
13.68
World Bank Databank
Poverty headcount ratio at $1.25 a day (PPP) (% of population)
17.99
World Bank Databank
Poverty headcount ratio at $2 a day (PPP) (% of population)
35.60
World Bank Databank
Poverty headcount ratio at national poverty line (% of population)
24.00
World Bank Databank
Poverty headcount ratio at rural poverty line (% of rural population)
30.70
World Bank Databank
Unemployment, total (% of total labor force)
16.30
15.10
15.00
www.geostat.ge
Unemployment, female (% of female labor force)
14.50
13.10
13.80
www.geostat.ge
Unemployment, male (% of male labor force)
17.90
16.70
16.10
www.geostat.ge
Unemployment, rural (% total labor force)
27.20
26.50
26.20
www.geostat.ge
7.90
6.50
7.00
www.geostat.ge
Average salary, total (US$)
360.00
383.13
429.22
www.geostat.ge
Average salary, female (US$)
256.99
277.23
311.99
www.geostat.ge
Average salary, male (US$)
447.47
464.52
517.83
www.geostat.ge
Net migration
18.1
20.2
www.geostat.ge
Women victims of family violence
166
253
www.geostat.ge
16
32
www.geostat.ge
6.50
6.60
Unemployment, urbran (% of total labor force)
Men victims of family violence
Proportion of seats held by women in national parliaments (%)
*
12.00
World Bank Databank
Median consumption based on total consumption is the magnitude, when half of the population (50 percent)
consumes no less than this, and the second half – not more than this magnitude.
48
Key Statistical Figures on Armenia (2010-2012)
Section
Indicator Name
Population, total
Demographics
Poverty
Source
3274.3
www.armstat.am
Population (female)
1673.70
1679.00
1684.00
www.armstat.am
Population (male)
1575.80
1583.60
1590.30
www.armstat.am
Urban Population (%)
64.01
64.24
64.24
www.armstat.am
Rural Population (%)
35.99
35.76
35.76
www.armstat.am
Internally displaced persons (number, high estimate)
8000
8400
World Bank Databank
Refugee population by country or territory of asylum
3296
2918
www.armstat.am
Refugee population by country or territory of origin
17547
16487
www.armstat.am
9260285762
10138077996
9910387657
World Bank Databank
2.10
4.74
7.14
World Bank Databank
3124.78
3420.27
3337.86
World Bank Databank
GDP per capita growth (annual %)
2.26
4.72
6.97
World Bank Databank
GINI index
0.36
0.37
www.armstat.am
Inflation rate
6.90
7.70
World Bank Databank
GDP per capita (current US$)
Subsistence minimum for working age man (US$)
83.00
www.armstat.am
Poverty gap at $2 a day (PPP) (%)
3.95
www.armstat.am
Poverty headcount ratio at $1.25 a day (PPP) (% of population)
2.47
www.armstat.am
19.91
www.armstat.am
35.8
www.armstat.am
36
www.armstat.am
Poverty headcount ratio at $2 a day (PPP) (% of population)
Poverty headcount ratio at national poverty line (% of population)
Poverty headcount ratio at rural poverty line (% of rural population)
Employment,
Unemployment
and Wages
2012
3262.6
GDP growth (annual %)
Subsistence
Minimum
2011
3249.6
GDP (current US$)
Macroeconimic
indicators
2010
Unemployment, total (% of total labor force)
19.00
18.40
www.Armstat.am
Unemployment, female (% of female labor force)
21.20
19.60
www.Armstat.am
Unemployment, male (% of male labor force)
17.00
17.30
www.Armstat.am
6.10
5.80
www.Armstat.am
Unemployment, rural (% total labor force)
49
Unemployment, urbran (% of total labor force)
Migration
27.80
26.90
www.Armstat.am
Average salary, total (US$)
275.00
290.00
www.Armstat.am
Average salary, female (US$)
214.80
227.78
www.Armstat.am
Average salary, male (US$)
334.35
352.25
www.Armstat.am
-2.4
-1.3
www.Armstat.am
9.20
8.40
Net migration
Women victims of family violence
Gender Statistics
Men victims of family violence
Proportion of seats held by women in national parliaments (%)
10.70
World Bank Databank
50
Key Statistical Figures on Azerbaijan (2010-2012)*
Section
Demographics
Indicator Name
2011
2012
Source
www.state.gov.a
z
www.state.gov.a
z
www.state.gov.a
z
www.state.gov.a
z
www.state.gov.a
z
Population, total
8997.6
9111.1
9235.1
Population (female)
4542.1
4594
4651.6
Population (male)
4455.5
4517.1
4583.5
Urban Population (%)
53.00
53.00
53.00
Rural Population (%)
47.00
47.00
47.00
Internally displaced persons (number, high estimate)
593000
599000
World Bank Data
Refugee population by country or territory of asylum
1891
1730
World Bank Data
16753
5290599887
9
16162
6595276394
9
World Bank Data
6872693899
0
World Bank Data
5
1
4
World Bank Data
5843
7190
7392
World Bank Data
4
0
3
World Bank Data
5.6000
5.4000
Refugee population by country or territory of origin
GDP (current US$)
GDP growth (annual %)
Macroeconimic
indicators
2010
GDP per capita (current US$)
GDP per capita growth (annual %)
GINI index
Inflation rate
Subsistence Minimum
Subsistence minimum for working age man (US$)
Poverty gap at $2 a day (PPP) (%)
Poverty headcount ratio at $1.25 a day (PPP) (% of population)
Poverty
Poverty headcount ratio at $2 a day (PPP) (% of population)
Poverty headcount ratio at national poverty line (% of population)
Poverty headcount ratio at rural poverty line (% of rural
population)
Employment,
Unemployment, total (% of total labor force)
51
Unemployment and
Wages
Unemployment, female (% of female labor force)
6.9000
6.4000
Unemployment, male (% of male labor force)
4.4000
4.5000
Unemployment, rural (% total labor force)
Unemployment, urbran (% of total labor force)
Average salary, total (US$)
Average salary, female (US$)
Average salary, male (US$)
Migration
Net migration
Women victims of family violence
Gender Statistics
Men victims of family violence
Proportion of seats held by women in national parliaments (%)
* Note:
Statistical data for Azerbaijan is mostly available till 2008. Only
some indicators are updated till present
52
Annex 4: List of social injustices mentioned by different impact groups
Women













Low representation of women on leadership positions in government structures
Discriminative attitude towards women associated with underestimation of women’s capacities
Forced female migration internally and externally – to earn income for the family
Insecured maternity affecting demography of the family and limiting women to access job opportunities
Marital status based recruitment
Forced early marriages affecting women’s access to education
Unregistered marriages limiting women’s access to husband’s property
Sex-selective abortion
Gender-based property distribution with preferential attitude towards men
Unequal opportunities for men and women to get higher education (preferential attitude towards male
justified by cultural norms and traditions)
More and better employment opportunities for men vs women (higher salaries and positions)
Gender based family violence
lack of kindergartens limiting women’s access to job opportunities
Youth










Low quality of secondary education in rural areas due to undersupply of teachers and professional staff
Limited access to higher educational institutions due to additional accommodation and transportation
related costs
Gender-based barrier in accessing higher education (preferential attitude towards male in multichildren families)
Lack of vocational education centres in rural areas resulted in absence of necessary skills
More demand on unskilled labor and on low-paid job opportunities vs. skilled labor
High level of unemployment and access barriers to enter the job market for rural vs urban youth/ Lack
and even absence of job opportunities in rural area
Lack of job counseling centers in rural vs. urban areas
Lack of access to financial capital to start a business or improve conditions of life
Lack of social infrastructure and entertainment facilities for rural youth
Limited involvement of youth in community life and respective decision-making process/Lack of proactive approach from government officials to rural youth involvement in societal life
Conflict-Affected and Internally Displaced People









Lack of property ownership
Lack of livelihood opportunities
Lack of social networks
Poor integration of IDPs into local communities
Arrogant attitude towards IDPs
Limited access to information
Lack of IDP-focused subsidies
High level of bureaucracy in government structures
Selective, non-transparent approach from non-governmental authorities
Ethnic Minorities

Lack of access to basic and higher education due to language barriers
53



Stigma associated with ethnic and religious minorities reflected in reluctance towards mixed marriages
Low representation of ethnic minorities in decision-making structures
Supportive legislation towards ethnic minorities (considered as injustice by other groups towards them)
Elderly People





Lack of access to quality medical services and needed medicines due to extremely low pension
allowances
Nonresponsive and even ignoring attitude towards elderly when applying to different institutions
Age limit while recruiting potential candidates for different type of job openings
Equalization of pensions for all individuals regardless the length of service
Government’s unfair approach towards elderly (slight increase in pension accompanied with high rates
of inflation)
Disabled People





Unfair selection of disabled individuals while assigning categories of disability
Gap in legislation/existing inflexibility in relevant laws and procedures (it’s obligatory to undergo the
checking commission once every 3 years even in case of physical insufficiencies)
Absence of specifically designed infrastructure for disabled people
Violation of fundamental right of children to get education due to absence of relevant infrastructure in
public secondary schools
Lack of proactive approach from education system officials to support integration of disabled children
into education process
Shared Social Injustices across all groups and entities


















Insecure and risky subsistence farming
Lack of support and artificially created barriers by government for local producers/farmers to enter local
markets
High level of forced migration
Lack and high renting costs on agricultural machinery
High interest rates on credits
Lack of collaterals and required level of salary to be eligible for credit
Limited employment opportunities in rural vs urban settings
Limited access to qualified vs unskilled jobs
Gaps in job security, especially for low-paid unskilled labor
Inadequately low salaries
Equalization of wages between the people with and without higher education, qualified vs less qualified
Unfair selection of individuals eligible for different types of social allowance
Limited access to quality medical services
Poor rural infrastructure (irrigation channels, etc)
Poor implementation of laws
Lack of accountability of governments to rural population
Wide gulf between rich and poor
Discrimination against being different (based on traditions)
54