DOCSLIB.ORG

Georgian Civil Society

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

AN ASSESSMENT OF GEORGIAN CIVIL SOCIETY Report of the CIVICUS Civil Society Index 2010 2 FOREWORD The development of civil society is entering a new stage in Georgia. Inspired by the 2003 Rose Revolution and the widespread and ongoing post-revolution euphoria, and shaped by the events and processes of recent years (protest demonstrations, elections, the war, economic crisis) Georgian society is currently re-evaluating its values. A significant part of Georgian society seems to be disappointed, as years of revolutionary changes have not brought the results they expected. Thus, there is a need to find new ways to solve existing problems. Georgian civil society is also affected by this slow progress. In this regard, every effort to facilitate the re-evaluation of these change processes and to help identify new goals should be welcomed and supported. The CIVICUS Civil Society Index project, implemented by the Caucasus Institute for Peace, Democracy and Development (CIPDD) under the aegis of CIVICUS: World Alliance for Citizen Participation and with the kind financial support of the Open Society Institute, is one of the first attempts to analyse and understand the new reality in which Georgian civil society operates. The project was supported by different, and sometimes opposing, civil society organisations, and provided for an active dialogue with segments of civil society that are often excluded from participating (e.g. mass media, business community, political parties). We hope that the atmosphere of cooperation and good relations generated through this inclusive project will survive beyond the timeframe of the CSI project and continue to positively impact the development and consolidation of civil society in Georgia. This report was prepared by David Losaberidze, PhD, Programmes Coordinator and Member of the Executive Board, Caucasus Institute for Peace, Democracy and Development. We wish you an informative and pleasant reading. Kind regards, Caucasus Institute for Peace, Democracy and Development (CIPDD) Tbilisi, September 2010 CIVICUS Civil Society Index Analytical Report for Georgia 3 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The CSI Georgia project was implemented by Caucasus Institute for Peace, Democracy and Development (CIPDD) with the financial and technical assistance of Open Society Institute. The CIVICUS Civil Society Index project methodology has been developed by CIVICUS: World Alliance for Citizen Participation. The project team was assisted by an Advisory Committee 1 which significantly contributed to the project implementation process. We also appreciate contributions from the following researchers: George Babunashvili, Tamar Charkviani, Ana Chelidze, Rusudan Chkheidze, Gia Gotua, Nino Ghambashidze, Tinatin Jishkariani, Ketevan Khapava, Vasil Mamulashvili, Tina Tkeshelashvili, Zurab Tsiklauri, Merab Tsindeliani, and Sopho Vasadze, who were actively involved in different activities of the project, collecting and analysing materials for case studies, research, and focus-group discussions. The following members of CIVICUS staff took part in the research and preparation of this final report: Tracy Anderson, Yosi Echeverry Burckhardt, Mariano De Donatis, Andrew Firmin, Megan MacGarry and Mark Nowottny. This report is the result of a team effort, rather than the product of an individual author or a group of authors. We would thus express our particular gratitude to civil society representatives for their participation in the national workshop and all of the valuable feedback and recommendations that helped accomplish the project objectives. David Losaberidze Caucasus Institute for Peace, Democracy and Development Tbilisi, September 2010 1 The CSI Georgia Advisory Committee consisted of: Ramaz Aptsiauri, Manana Ghurchumelidze, Paata Gurgenidze, Nana Janashia, Emzar Jgerenaia, Lela Kartvelishvili, Ghia Khasia, Tamar Khidasheli, Kakha Khimshiashvili, Koba Liklikadze, Kamila Mamedova, and Bakur Sulakauri Gurgenidze, Nana Janashia, Emzar Jgerenaia, Lela Kartvelishvili, Ghia Khasia, Tamar Khidasheli, Kakha Khimshiashvili, Koba Liklikadze, Kamila Mamedova and Bakur Sulakauri CIVICUS Civil Society Index Analytical Report for Georgia 4 TABLE OF CONTENTS FOREWORD ....................................................................................................................... 2 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .................................................................................................. 3 TABLE OF CONTENTS ..................................................................................................... 4 TABLES AND FIGURES ................................................................................................... 5 LIST OF ACRONYMS ........................................................................................................ 6 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................... 7 I. CIVIL SOCIETY INDEX PROJECT AND APPROACH ................................ 9 1. PROJECT BACKGROUND ........................................................................................ 9 2. PROJECT APPROACH ........................................................................................... 10 3. CSI IMPLEMENTATION ......................................................................................... 12 4. LIMITATIONS OF CSI STUDY ................................................................................ 15 II. CIVIL SOCIETY IN GEORGIA ...................................................................... 16 1. CONCEPT OF CIVIL SOCIETY IN GEORGIA ............................................................ 16 2. HISTORY OF CIVIL SOCIETY IN GEORGIA ............................................................. 17 3. MAPPING CIVIL SOCIETY ..................................................................................... 19 III. ANALYSIS OF CIVIL SOCIETY ................................................................... 22 1. CIVIC ENGAGEMENT ............................................................................................ 22 1.1 The extent of socially-based engagement ............................................. 23 1.2 Depth of socially-based engagement ..................................................... 24 1.3 Diversity within socially-based engagement .......................................... 24 1.4 Extent of political engagement ................................................................ 25 1.5 Depth of political engagement ................................................................. 26 1.6 Diversity of political engagement ............................................................ 27 Conclusion ....................................................................................................... 27 2. LEVEL OF ORGANISATION .................................................................................... 27 2.1 Internal governance .................................................................................. 28 2.2 Infrastructure ............................................................................................. 28 2.3 Sectoral communication ........................................................................... 29 2.4 Human resources ..................................................................................... 29 2.5 Financial and technological resources ................................................... 30 2.6 International linkages ............................................................................... 31 Conclusion ....................................................................................................... 32 3. INTERNAL PRACTICE OF VALUES ......................................................................... 32 3.1 Democratic decision-making governance .............................................. 33 3.2 Labour regulations .................................................................................... 33 3.3 Code of conduct and transparency ......................................................... 34 3.4 Environmental standards ......................................................................... 35 3.5 Perceptions of values in civil society as a whole ................................... 35 Conclusion ....................................................................................................... 36 4. PERCEPTION OF IMPACT ...................................................................................... 37 4.1 Responsiveness (internal perception) .................................................... 37 4.2 Social impact (internal perception) .......................................................... 38 4.3 Policy impact (internal perception) .......................................................... 39 4.4 Responsiveness (external perception) ................................................... 39 4.5 Social impact (external perception) ........................................................ 40 4.6 Policy impact (external perception) ......................................................... 41 4.7 Impact of civil society on attitudes .......................................................... 41 CIVICUS Civil Society Index Analytical Report for Georgia 5 Conclusion ....................................................................................................... 42 5. EXTERNAL ENVIRONMENT ................................................................................... 42 5.1 Socio-economic context ..........................................................................
Recommended publications
  • Status and Protection of Globally Threatened Species in the Caucasus

    Status and Protection of Globally Threatened Species in the Caucasus

    STATUS AND PROTECTION OF GLOBALLY THREATENED SPECIES IN THE CAUCASUS CEPF Biodiversity Investments in the Caucasus Hotspot 2004-2009 Edited by Nugzar Zazanashvili and David Mallon Tbilisi 2009 The contents of this book do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of CEPF, WWF, or their sponsoring organizations. Neither the CEPF, WWF nor any other entities thereof, assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, product or process disclosed in this book. Citation: Zazanashvili, N. and Mallon, D. (Editors) 2009. Status and Protection of Globally Threatened Species in the Caucasus. Tbilisi: CEPF, WWF. Contour Ltd., 232 pp. ISBN 978-9941-0-2203-6 Design and printing Contour Ltd. 8, Kargareteli st., 0164 Tbilisi, Georgia December 2009 The Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund (CEPF) is a joint initiative of l’Agence Française de Développement, Conservation International, the Global Environment Facility, the Government of Japan, the MacArthur Foundation and the World Bank. This book shows the effort of the Caucasus NGOs, experts, scientific institutions and governmental agencies for conserving globally threatened species in the Caucasus: CEPF investments in the region made it possible for the first time to carry out simultaneous assessments of species’ populations at national and regional scales, setting up strategies and developing action plans for their survival, as well as implementation of some urgent conservation measures. Contents Foreword 7 Acknowledgments 8 Introduction CEPF Investment in the Caucasus Hotspot A. W. Tordoff, N. Zazanashvili, M. Bitsadze, K. Manvelyan, E. Askerov, V. Krever, S. Kalem, B. Avcioglu, S. Galstyan and R. Mnatsekanov 9 The Caucasus Hotspot N.
  • Georgia, Adjara Autonomous Republic

    Georgia, Adjara Autonomous Republic

    Georgia, Ajara Autonomous Republic: Ajara Solid Waste Management Project Stakeholder Engagement Plan (SEP) April 2015 Rev May 2015 1 List of abbreviations EBRD European Bank for Reconstruction and Development EHS Environmental health and safety ESAP Environmental and Social Action Plan ESIA Environmental and Social Impact Assessment EU European Union GHG Greenhouse Gas (e.g. methane, carbon dioxide and other gases) Ha hectare HH Households HR Human resources Km kilometer R/LRF Resettlement/Livelihood Restauration Framework M meter MIS Management Information System MoFE Ministry of Finance and Economy of Ajara OHS Occupational Health and safety PAP Project affected people PR Performance Requirement RAP Resettlement Action Plan SEP Stakeholder Engagement Plan SWC Solid Waste Company SWM Solid Waste Management ToR Terms of Reference 2 Table of Contents 1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 4 2 Brief Project Description .................................................................................................... 4 2.1 Closure of Batumi and Kobuleti ............................................................................................. 5 2.2 Construction of Tsetskhlauri landfill ................................................................................... 5 2.3 Organisation .................................................................................................................................. 7 3 Applicable Regulations
  • The Relevance of the Actual Values of the Political Actors of Georgia with the Ideologies Declared by Them

    The Relevance of the Actual Values of the Political Actors of Georgia with the Ideologies Declared by Them

    The Relevance of the Actual Values of the Political Actors of Georgia with the Ideologies Declared by Them Dr. Maia Urushadze1, Dr. Tamar Kiknadze2 1Caucasus International University 2Head of the Doctoral Program in Political Science, Caucasus International University Abstract The permanent ideological impact of the propaganda narratives of powerful political entities on the international community is perceived as one of the most important challenges of the 21st century. The international agenda is full of controversial interpretations, produced by powerful international political actors. As a result, the international media agenda is getting like the battlespace for the struggle of interpretations, where the ruthless kind of "frame-games" between the strongest global agenda-setting political entities takes place. The information field is open for all countries, including the small states, where political parties are not strong enough to have their propaganda to resist the ideological pressure from outside. Due to this, the societies of these countries are still easily influenced by the narratives of global political actors creating a suitable psychological environment for internal conflicts in societies. We consider Georgia among these states. Therefore, our research aimed to study the relevance of the actual values of local (Georgian) political actors with the ideologies declared by them. In this regard, our primary objective was to understand the specifics of strategic communication of local political actors, then, to compare their narratives with the rhetoric of international actors, and finally, to determine the strength of local society's resistance to these narratives. We hope that in this way we can assess the long-term impact of global actors’ propaganda communication could have on a small country.
  • Wikivoyage Georgia.Pdf

    Wikivoyage Georgia.Pdf

    WikiVoyage Georgia March 2016 Contents 1 Georgia (country) 1 1.1 Regions ................................................ 1 1.2 Cities ................................................. 1 1.3 Other destinations ........................................... 1 1.4 Understand .............................................. 2 1.4.1 People ............................................. 3 1.5 Get in ................................................. 3 1.5.1 Visas ............................................. 3 1.5.2 By plane ............................................ 4 1.5.3 By bus ............................................. 4 1.5.4 By minibus .......................................... 4 1.5.5 By car ............................................. 4 1.5.6 By train ............................................ 5 1.5.7 By boat ............................................ 5 1.6 Get around ............................................... 5 1.6.1 Taxi .............................................. 5 1.6.2 Minibus ............................................ 5 1.6.3 By train ............................................ 5 1.6.4 By bike ............................................ 5 1.6.5 City Bus ............................................ 5 1.6.6 Mountain Travel ....................................... 6 1.7 Talk .................................................. 6 1.8 See ................................................... 6 1.9 Do ................................................... 7 1.10 Buy .................................................. 7 1.10.1
  • Recent Elections in Georgia: at Long Last, Stability?

    Recent Elections in Georgia: at Long Last, Stability?

    Recent Elections in Georgia: At long Last, Stability? DARRELL SLIDER G eorgia held its fourth contested parliamentary elections 31 October 1999 (the fifth, if one includes the 1918 multiparty elections that produced a Social Democratic government that was forced into exile by the Red Army in 1921) and its fourth presidential election on 9 April 2000. Press reports emphasized the endorsement the elections provided to President Eduard Shevardnadze and his party, the Citizens' Union of Georgia, which won a clear majority in the parlia- ment. At the same time, both the parliamentary and presidential elections were marred by heavy-handed manipulation of the political atmosphere preceding the balloting. The parliamentary elections also continued a troubling trend in Geor- gian politics: the exclusion of significant segments of the political spectrum from representation in the legislature. Perhaps more than any other former Soviet republic, Georgia has emphasized the development of political parties. Party list voting is the chief method for choosing members of parliament: lince 1992, 150 of 235 parliamentarians have been chosen by proportional voting.' The remainder, just over one-third, are cho- sen from single-member districts that correspond to Soviet-era administrative entities.2 Each election, however, has taken place under a different set of rules, which has had a major impact on the composition of the parliament. The party list system was also employed in November 1998 to choose local councils. In theory, a party list system should contribute to the formation of strong par- ties and a more stable party system. In practice, however, Georgian political par- ties remain highly personalized and organizationally weak.
  • Status and Protection of Globally Threatened Species in the Caucasus

    Status and Protection of Globally Threatened Species in the Caucasus

    STATUS AND PROTECTION OF GLOBALLY THREATENED SPECIES IN THE CAUCASUS CEPF Biodiversity Investments in the Caucasus Hotspot 2004-2009 Edited by Nugzar Zazanashvili and David Mallon Tbilisi 2009 The contents of this book do not necessarily re ect the views or policies of CEPF, WWF, or their sponsoring organizations. Neither the CEPF, WWF nor any other entities thereof, assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, product or process disclosed in this book. Citation: Zazanashvili, N. and Mallon, D. (Editors) 2009. Status and Protection of Globally Threatened Species in the Caucasus. Tbilisi: CEPF, WWF. Contour Ltd., 232 pp. ISBN 978-9941-0-2203-6 Design and printing Contour Ltd. 8, Kargareteli st., 0164 Tbilisi, Georgia December 2009 The Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund (CEPF) is a joint initiative of l’Agence Française de Développement, Conservation International, the Global Environment Facility, the Government of Japan, the MacArthur Foundation and the World Bank. This book shows the effort of the Caucasus NGOs, experts, scienti c institutions and governmental agencies for conserving globally threatened species in the Caucasus: CEPF investments in the region made it possible for the rst time to carry out simultaneous assessments of species’ populations at national and regional scales, setting up strategies and developing action plans for their survival, as well as implementation of some urgent conservation measures. Contents Foreword 7 Acknowledgments 8 Introduction CEPF Investment in the Caucasus Hotspot A. W. Tordoff, N. Zazanashvili, M. Bitsadze, K. Manvelyan, E. Askerov, V. Krever, S. Kalem, B. Avcioglu, S. Galstyan and R. Mnatsekanov 9 The Caucasus Hotspot N.
  • Hate Speech in Pre-Election Discourse, Presidential Elections 2018

    Hate Speech in Pre-Election Discourse, Presidential Elections 2018

    Hate Speech in Pre-Election Discourse Presidential Elections 2018 Author: Tina Gogoladze Editor: Tamar Kintsurashvili Monitoring by Tamar Gagniashvili, Khatia Lomidze, Mariam Tskhovrebashvili, Sopo Chkhaidze Designed by Mariam Tsutskiridze The report Hate Speech in Pre-Election Discourse has been prepared by the Media Development Foundation (MDF) within the USAID-funded Promoting Integration, Tolerance and Awareness Program in Georgia (PITA), implemented by the UN Association of Georgia (UNAG). The contents are the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of USAID or UNAG. 1 Methodology The present report provides the results of monitoring conducted by the Media Development Foundation (MDF) ahead of the 2018 presidential elections. The monitoring was carried out on the cases of hate speech and discrimination on various grounds expressed by electoral subjects and political parties, as well as hate speech used against presidential candidates and political parties. The report involves only the cases of discrimination on ethnic, religious, racial and gender grounds, as well as the cases of encouraging violence; it does not provide insulting comments made by political opponents against each other. The monitoring covers the period from 1 August 2018 to 15 October 2018. The subjects of monitoring were selected from both mainstream and tabloid media. The monitored subjects were: ● News and analytical programs of five TV channels: Georgian Public Broadcaster (Moambe); Rustavi 2 (Kurieri; P.S.); Imedi (Kronika; Imedis Kvira); Maestro (news program) and Obieqtivi (news program). ● Talk-shows of five TV channels: Rustavi 2 (Archevani); Imedi (Pirispir); Iberia (Tavisupali Sivrtse); Obieqtivi (Gamis Studia, Okros Kveta); Kavkasia (Barieri, Spektri). ● Seven online media outlets: Sakinformi, Netgazeti, Interpressnews, Georgia and World, PIA, Kviris Palitra, Marshalpress.
  • Technical Election Assessment Mission: Georgia 2020 Parliamentary Election Interim Report

    Technical Election Assessment Mission: Georgia 2020 Parliamentary Election Interim Report

    TECHNICAL ELECTION ASSESSMENT MISSION: GEORGIA 2020 PARLIAMENTARY ELECTION INTERIM REPORT TECHNICAL ELECTION ASSESSMENT MISSION: GEORGIA 2020 PARLIAMENTARY ELECTION INTERIM REPORT International Republican Institute IRI.org @IRI_Polls © 2020 All Rights Reserved Technical Election Assessment Mission: Georgia 2020 Parliamentary Election Interim Report Copyright © 2020 International Republican Institute. All rights reserved. Permission Statement: No part of this work may be reproduced in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or by any information storage and retrieval system without the written permission of the International Republican Institute. Requests for permission should include the following information: • The title of the document for which permission to copy material is desired. • A description of the material for which permission to copy is desired. • The purpose for which the copied material will be used and the manner in which it will be used. • Your name, title, company or organization name, telephone number, fax number, e-mail address and mailing address. Please send all requests for permission to: Attn: Department of External Affairs International Republican Institute 1225 Eye Street NW, Suite 800 Washington, DC 20005 [email protected] IRI | Technical Electoral Assessment Mission: Georgia 2020 Parliamentary Election Interim Report 3 INTRODUCTION In June and July of 2020, the government of Georgia adopted significant constitutional and election reforms, including a modification of Georgia’s mixed electoral system and a reduction in the national proportional threshold from 5 percent to 1 percent of vote share — presenting an opportunity for citizens to pursue viable third-party options and the possibility of a new coalition government after decades of single-party domination.
  • Political Forum: 10 Questions on Georgia's Political Development

    Political Forum: 10 Questions on Georgia's Political Development

    1 The Caucasus Institute for Peace, Democracy and Development Political Forum: 10 Questions on Georgia’s Political Development Tbilisi 2007 2 General editing Ghia Nodia English translation Kakhaber Dvalidze Language editing John Horan © CIPDD, November 2007. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or oth- erwise, without the prior permission in writing from the proprietor. CIPDD welcomes the utilization and dissemination of the material included in this publication. This book was published with the financial support of the regional Think Tank Fund, part of Open Society Institute Budapest. The opinions it con- tains are solely those of the author(s) and do not reflect the position of the OSI. ISBN 978-99928-37-08-5 1 M. Aleksidze St., Tbilisi 0193 Georgia Tel: 334081; Fax: 334163 www.cipdd.org 3 Contents Foreword ................................................................................................ 5 Archil Abashidze .................................................................................. 8 David Aprasidze .................................................................................21 David Darchiashvili............................................................................ 33 Levan Gigineishvili ............................................................................ 50 Kakha Katsitadze ...............................................................................67
  • LEPL Tbilisi State Medical University First University Clinic Tbilisi Gudamakari St

    LEPL Tbilisi State Medical University First University Clinic Tbilisi Gudamakari St

    LEPL Tbilisi State Medical University First University Clinic Tbilisi Gudamakari st. N4 Aversi Clinic Ltd Tbilisi Vazha-Pshavela Ave. N27 b Neolab Ltd Tbilisi Tashkent st. N47 New Hospitals Ltd Tbilisi Krtsanisi st. N12 Medical Center "Cito" Tbilisi Paliashvili st. N40 Molecular Diagnostics Centre Tbilisi Lubliana st. N11 A Megalab Tbilisi Kavtaradze st. N23 Infections Diseases, Aids And Clinical Immunology Research Center Tbilisi Al. Kazbegi st. N16 Med Diagnostics Tbilisi A. Beliashvili N78 National Tuberculosis Center Tbilisi Adjara st. N8, 0101 State Laboratory of Agriculture, Tbilisi Zonal Diagnostic Laboratory (ZDL) Tbilisi V. Godziashvili st. N49 Medical World Diagnostics Ltd Tbilisi Lubliana st. N33 "National Genetics Laboratory" GN-Invest Ltd. Tbilisi David Agmashenebeli Ave. N240 Medi Prime Tbilisi Gabriel Salosi st. N9b5 PCR Diagnostic and Research Laboratory - Prime Lab Tbilisi Bokhua st. N11 Genomics Tbilisi Sulkhan Tsintsadze st. N23 Bacteriophage Analytical Diagnostic Center- Diagnose -90 Tbilisi L. Gotua st. N3 Ultramed Tbilisi Ureki st. N15 Medison Holding Tbilisi Gobronidze st. N27 Medison Holding Tbilisi Vazha-Pshavela Ave. 83/11 Medison Holding Tbilisi Kaloubani st. N12 Evex Clinics - Mtatsminda Polyclinic Tbilisi Vekua st. N3 Ltd. "Medcapital" - 1 Tbilisi D. Gamrekeli st. N19 Ltd. MedCapital - 2 Tbilisi Moscow Ave. 4th sq. 3rd quarter Ltd. "Medcapital" - 3 Tbilisi I. Vekua st. N18 "Tbilisi Adult Polyclinic N19" Ltd Tbilisi Moscow Ave. N23 JSC Evex Clinics - Didube Polyclinic Tbilisi Akaki Tsereteli Ave. N123 JSC Evex Clinics - Varketili Polyclinic Tbilisi Javakheti st. N30 JSC Evex Clinics - Isani Polyclinic Tbilisi Ketvan Tsamebuli Ave. N69 JSC Evex Clinics - Saburtalo Polyclinic Tbilisi Vazha-Pshvela Ave. N40 Tbilisi Sea Hospital Tbilisi Varketili-3 IV m / r, plot 14/430 "St.
  • Public Opinion Survey Residents of Georgia March – April 2016 Detailed Methodology

    Public Opinion Survey Residents of Georgia March – April 2016 Detailed Methodology

    Public Opinion Survey Residents of Georgia March – April 2016 Detailed Methodology • The survey was conducted by Dr. Rasa Alisauskiene of the public and market research company Baltic Surveys/The Gallup Organization on behalf of the International Republican Institute. The field work was carried out by IPM Research, Ltd. • Data was collected throughout Georgia (except for the occupied territories of Abkhazia and South Ossetia) between March 12 – April 2, 2016, through face-to-face interviews at respondents’ homes. • The sample consisted of 1,500 permanent residents of Georgia older than the age of 18 and eligible to vote. It is representative of the general population by age, gender, education, region and size/type of settlement. • Multistage probability sampling method was used with the random route and next birthday respondent selection procedures. • Stage one: All districts of Georgia are grouped into 10 regions plus Tbilisi city. The survey was conducted throughout all regions of Georgia, except for the occupied territories of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. • Stage two: The territory of each region was split into settlements, and grouped according to subtype (i.e. cities, towns and villages). • Settlements were selected at random. The number of selected settlements in each region was proportional to the share of population living in a particular type of the settlement in each region. • Stage three: primary sampling units were described. • The margin of error does not exceed plus or minus 2.5 percent. • Response rate was 72%. • Charts and graphs may not add up to 100 percent due to rounding. • The survey was funded by the U.S.
  • Residents of Georgia August 4-21, 2020 Detailed Methodology

    Residents of Georgia August 4-21, 2020 Detailed Methodology

    Public Opinion Survey: Residents of Georgia August 4-21, 2020 Detailed Methodology • The fieldwork was carried out by the Institute of Polling & Marketing. The survey was coordinated by Dr. Rasa Alisauskiene of the public and market research company Baltic Surveys/The Gallup Organization on behalf of the Center for Insights in Survey Research. • Data was collected across Georgia between August 4 and August 21, 2020 through face-to-face interviews in respondents’ homes. • The sample consisted of 1,500 permanent residents of Georgia aged 18 and older and eligible to vote. It is representative of the general population by age, gender, region and size of the settlement. • A multistage probability sampling method was used with the random route and next birthday respondent’s selection procedures. • Stage one: All districts of Georgia are grouped into 10 regions. All regions of Georgia were surveyed (Tbilisi city – as separate region). • Stage two: selection of the settlements – cities and villages. • Settlements were selected at random. The number of selected settlements in each region was proportional to the share of population living in a particular type of the settlement in each region. • Stage three: primary sampling units were described. • The margin of error does not exceed plus or minus 2.5 percent and the response rate was 75 percent. • Charts and graphs may not add up to 100 percent due to rounding. • The survey was funded by the U.S. Agency for International Development. 2 Frequently Cited Disaggregates Disaggregate Disaggregation Category Base Male n=691 Gender Female n=809 Age 18-29 n=299 Age Groups Age 30-49 n=567 Age 50 and older n=635 Secondary/Incomplete secondary n=714 Education level Vocational n=223 Higher/Incomplete higher n=557 Rural n=634 Settlement type Urban (excluding Tbilisi) n=414 Tbilisi n=452 *Cited bases are weighted.