|
PART 1 CHAPTER II DEMOGRAPHIC AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC PROFILE 1.2.1. Demographic Characteristics
Citizenship
and urbanization The Republic of Armenia was established as independent state in May 1918, joined the Soviet Union in 1920, and regained independence in September 1991. Its homogenous population was 3,766,400 inhabitants in January of 1996. According to official estimates, 96% of population are ethnic Armenians. Currently, more than two thirds of Armenian population lives in designated urban areas. The survey sample consisted mainly of inhabitants of towns and cities (72%), 34% of the men in the survey live in the capital city of Yerevan (Figure 1.2.1). Most of the respondents were citizens of Armenia (95.8%), but 3.9% of the men in the sample had the status of refugee or displaced person. Representation of men with other citizenship is 0.3% (Figure 1.2.2).
Place
of residence There are 11 regions (“marzes”) in Armenia, including the capital city Yerevan, which has 1.2 million inhabitants. The frequency distribution of survey respondents by location in Armenia is shown in Table 1.2.1.
Religious
belief
The
majority of men who participated in this survey considered themselves to
be Christians by culture (97%), and only 38 men (2.7%) were atheists.
Three hundred fifty eight of the men
specified that they were members of the Armenian Apostolic Church (26%),
15 men (1%) were members of the Russian Orthodox Church, and 14
men were Armenian Catholics
(1%). There were also 6 men (0.5%) who claimed to be Jehovah’s
Witnesses. Most of the respondents, however, irregularly attend
religious services (84%) and only about 6% attended services at least
once a week.
Characteristics
of the households The number of families per household for the survey respondents varied from 1 up to 4, and the mean number was 1.4±0.6. In about 28% of the households there were 2 families living together, and in more than 5% there were three or four (Figure 1.2.3).
Age
distribution The age of respondents of this survey varied from 15 up to 44 years of age, and the average was 34 years (Mean = 33.9±6.6). Representation by young men below 20 years of age was only 0.9 %. The age of spouses (partners) varied from 15 to 47 years old, and the average was 31 years (Mean = 30.7±6.9). The percentage distribution of men and the spouses (partners) according to their age is given in Figure 1.2.5. The comparison between the age of spouses shows that female partners were usually younger than males, and the average age difference was approximately three years (p<0.00).
Marital
status Most of the men were currently married and lived with their spouses (91%). The frequency of consensual union formation was about 5.7%, including 2.1% of couples living together and 3.6% living separately. Two men (0.1%) were never married but had children (Figure 1.2.6). Results of this survey show that the frequency of the separation, divorce and consensual union formation were higher in Yerevan, as compared to other urban and rural areas (p<0.00).
Current
marriage duration The total duration of the current (recent) marriage varied from one month up to 27 years, and on the average, it was about 10 years (Mean=9.6±6.2). The representation of men who were married less than one year ago was 3.4% (Table. 1.2.2).
Education The educational level of survey respondents and their spouses/partners is high (Figure 1.2.7). All had completed at least 8 years of primary school. Women have an equal access to education, as compared with men. About 27% of men and 25% of their spouses (partners) had a university level of education. The highest proportion of men with university level of education was found among inhabitants of Yerevan (33%), as compared with inhabitants of other urban (28%) and rural areas (18%) (p<0.00). 1.2.2. Social and Economic Status Presently, Armenia is in the process of a hard economic and social transition. The centrally planned economy of the former soviet republic of Armenia is transforming now into a market economy, with the attendant serious social problems that major transition entails. This transition to the new economic system is being undertaken in an unfavorable geopolitical environment and has resulted in extreme fluctuation of prices, hyperinflation and high unemployment rates. With the beginning of restructuring of Armenian economy, poverty has increasingly become an urgent issue. This survey demonstrates that more than 31% of Armenian men claimed no means of earning an income at the time of the survey-interview, and 29% had only occasional earned income. The situation was worse in female partners: about 66% of them have had no way to earn their own income (Figure 1.2.8). At the time of this survey two hundred out of 454 business and factory employees (44%) received their salaries on an irregular basis and some of them (3%) had not received any salary during at least three months. The proportion of men involved in a handicraft, gardening or keeping domestic animals was about 14%. Ninety-four men (7%) had their own registered small enterprise, while 138 respondents (14%) were involved in unregistered trade (the black market). Most of the families (64%) had not received any financial support either from relatives, or from the government; a little more than a quarter of the men (27%), however, received social support. The average monthly gross expenditures in 10% of families of survey respondents were less than 20US$ (Table 1.2.3). The outcome of the self-assessment appraisal by the male respondents of their own living conditions are demonstrated in Figure 1.2.9. About 12% of men considered their living conditions as “very poor” and 32% as “poor”. Table 1.2.4 displays the percentage distribution of households according to the availability of selected amenities. In more than 30 percent of the households the bathroom and shower was not available or was out of order, 47% did not have a local heating system, and 17% did not have a washing machine. Twenty seven percent of men, though, had their own automobile. One of the positive observations of this survey was the high access of target population to mass media via television and radio.
According
to the replies of the survey
respondents, the great majority had a TV (95.5%) or tape-recorder
(65.6%), more than one half (50.5%) had a radio and 26% had a
video-player. However, only 27 men (1.9%) had personal computers. We also analyzed the situation with respect to electric and water supply to houses. There was a crisis in the energy sector in Armenia that began in 1989 after the functional closing of the nuclear power plant, in Medzamor. After its reopening in 1995, the situation relatively improved. By the time of this survey most of the households (96%) had electricity supplied regularly. However, the water supply to the houses still was insufficient in most of the regions of Armenia. Only 26% of the targeted households always had at least cold water and about 11% did not have water at all (Table 1.2.5).
To
be able to assess the impact of social and economic conditions on the
status of reproductive health, we created a socioeconomic index for each
of the survey participants, based on the described above social and
economic characteristics of the family, excluding the education. To
create this index we assigned equal values for each of the below
mentioned parameters and calculated the total score:
1)
means to earn own income, 2) means to earn income by the spouses and
other family members, 3) other financial support, 4) average monthly
gross expenditures of the family, 5) self-appraisal of their own living
and housing conditions, 6) electricity and water supply to the house,
and 7) availability of the basic household amenities. The highest possible value was 36 points but it was never reached. The score varied from 1 up to 27, with an average of about 14 (Mean =13.8±5.25). Based on the social score we subdivided the sample population into three conventional levels of socioeconomic development: 1) “low” (up to 12 points), 2) “middle” (from 13 up to 24 points), and 3) “high” (25 and more points). In total 571 respondents (40.8%) received the score below 12 and were defined as persons with the low status of socioeconomic development. Only 26 men (1.9%) were defined as having the high socioeconomic status (Figure 1.2.10).
The
socioeconomic status of respondents differs by the place of residence
(Table
1.2.6). The great majority of men who live in Yerevan (69.5%) have
had the low social and economic index, while most of men living in other
regions have had the middle index (p<0.00).
A summary of the above-described selected demographic and socioeconomic characteristics, according to the level of urbanization of survey respondents, is given in the Table 1.2.7. This summary includes their age distribution, education, and marital and socioeconomic status. |