georgia on the move

CRRC & ISET: Georgia ON THE MOVE

Georgia ON THE MOVE

CRRC & ISETGDN/ippr workshop

Kuwait, February 1, 2009


Plan

• Team composition• Sampling and data collection summary• Existing literature• Workshop and stakeholder interviews• Questions: Who migrates – where, why, for

how long? Who comes back? Effects on households, migrants, political views?


Team Composition• CRRC – survey and data collection

– Regular staff– Robia Charles, CRRC’s political science intern (Berkley)

• ISET – data analysis– Faculty, both permanent and visiting– Research Associates– M.A. students and former graduates

• Advisors– Ted Gerber (Wisconsin)– Randy Filer (Hunter college, CUNY)

• Themes: Remittances, education and health, gender.• BONUS: politics


Data Collection

• Sampling Frame (PSUs) based on geographic boundaries of the 2008 parliamentary election precincts.

• War delayed fieldwork and caused timing issues. Neighbors sometimes reported incorrect information.

• Households sampled: NM 620; AM 660; RM 660. Crude response rate of 73%.

• Database: RM 347; AM 493; NM 645


Excluded Precincts

Type of PSU

Total number of precincts (PSUs)

% of precincts

Total number of voters

% of voters

Military/War affected/ Under 50/Unreachable

136 3.8% 31,243 0.9%

Ethnic Minority 139 3.9% 97,613 2.8%

Total not included in the survey 275 7.7% 128,856 3.7%

Total included in the survey 3,281 92.3% 3,328,080 96.3%

Total 3,556 100.0% 3,456,936 100.0%


Screening Results

Frequency Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

Has a migrant 1,498 11.9% 11.9%

Doesn’t have a migrant

10,912 86.5% 98.4%

Don’t know 177 1.4% 99.8%

Refuse to answer 24 0.2% 100.0%

Total 12,611 100.0% 0.0%


Limited Research Out There• Ali Mansoor and Bryce Quillin, (eds.). Migration and Remittances: Eastern

Europe and the Former Soviet Union. (Washington DC: World Bank Publications, 2007

• Mikadze, Tamar. “Crisis in Higher Education and Educational Migration from Georgia.” Central Asia and the Caucasus. Journal of Social and Political Studies, 2002.

• Rowland, R. “National and Regional Population Trends in Georgia, 1989-2002: Results from the 2002 Census.” Eurasian Geography and Economics, 47, No. 2, 2006.

• Tsartidze, M. “Specific Features and Trends in the Development and Functioning of the Georgian Labour Market.” Problems of Economic Transition, Vol. 46, No 7, 2003.

• Badurashvili I., Kapanadze E. and Cheishvili R. “Some Issues of Recent Migration Processes in Georgia.” Central Asia and the Caucasus, Vol. 14, No. 2, 2001.

• EBRD Remittances Study


Workshop and Stakeholders• In addition to our workshop, another one was held by

Danish Refugee Council (DRC).• Most international organizations focus on regulatory

framework and not so much on development issues (with an exception of DRC). ENP framework affects migration related policymaking.

• About 20 Stakeholders: government officials (including the State Minister on Diaspora Issues), private sector, Diaspora leaders, NGOs, ILO, academicians, journalists.

• During the survey, we tried to interview local priests, but they were reluctant to answer.


Stakeholders• Brain gain if short-term, brain drain of long-term.

“New mentality.”– But! Migrants may get involved in criminal activities

abroad.• Remittances: good but moral hazard.

– Investment (?), financial stability.• Family situation (parentless children), demographics,

birth rates decline.• Government officials believe that trends have

reversed.• Protect property rights!


Who Migrates? Who Comes Back?

• For absent migrants (AM) and returned migrants (RM) we look at: – Gender composition; Marital status and family

composition; Health; Education; activity before departure; main households tasks.

• Where to?– Destination of migration; gender composition by

destination; education level by destination

• For how long and why come back?


0.0

05.0

1.0

15

De

nsity

0 12 24 36 48 60 72 84 96 108 120 132 144 156 168 180

Months

Duration of Stay for RM from Russia and FSU

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5D

ens

ity

0 12 24 36 48 60 72 84 96 108 120 132 144 156 168 180

Months

Duration of Stay for RM from All Other Destinations


0.0

05.0

1.0

15.0

2D

ens

ity

0 12 24 36 48 60 72 84 96 108 120 132 144 156 168 180

Months

Duration for RM from Russia Returning after 2004

0.0

05.0

1.0

15.0

2D

ens

ity

0 12 24 36 48 60 72 84 96 108 120 132 144 156 168 180

Months

Duration for RM from Russia Returning before 2004


Why go, not go, stay, come back?

• Why go?– RM: most common reason to leave was “to earn, save and send

money” (100%) followed by “to study” (19%)– AM: most common reason to leave was “learn useful skills” (50%),

“get a steady job” (45%), “earn more money” (35%).• Why come back?

– Most common reasons: family and done with whatever wanted to do. – Among least common reasons: Attractive government schemes (0%).

• Why not come back?– Lack of job opportunities (56%); Don’t want to return (19%); Lack of

money (13%);


Effects of Migration• Remittances:

– Who sends remittances– How much and how often– How are remittances spent– Structure of the recipient household

• Migrant– Income/wealth change– Gain in education and qualifications – Change in main activity – RM versus AM: main household tasks

• BONUS: Political Views


Has it made you richer?

• RM: slightly (38%); the same (23%); much wealthier (19%)

• AM: slightly (38%); much wealthier (36%); the same (10%)

• Perception?• Successes and failures?


Gains


BONUS: Politics

• Politics plays minor role– Most common reasons to leave for RM: 3rd in

ranks with 11%– Most common reasons to leave for AM: not

mentioned– Least common reason to migrate for AM: 1st in

ranks with 0.15%– Most coming reasons for NOT returning for AM:

8th in ranks with 5%

georgia on the move

Documents