Internally Displaced Population in the Cities of

Georgia – “Inclusion” Through Exclusion?

David Sichinava, Ph.D.,

Tbilisi State University, Republic of Georgia

Working paper, please do not cite without author's permission

April 13, 2015

Abstract

Since early 1990s, internally displaced population (IDP) of the Republic of Georgia

represent a distinct social group in terms of their identity, residential and place-making

patterns. Individually accommodated persons comprise 45% of Georgia’s IDP population

of roughly 300 thousand. They reside in the collective centers scattered over the large

urban areas of the country, including the capital. The official policy largely contributed to

IDP’s socio-spatial segregation. Based on the results of representative survey, this paper

identifies obstacles against their inclusion into mainstream society and major policy areas

to which the state and city authorities need to address.

Keywords: Georgia, Internally Displaced Population (IDPs), Social exclusion

1

1 Introduction

Social exclusion in urban areas has been an important aspect of social research, e.g. Atkinson

(2000), Musterd and Ostendorf (2005), Murie (2005), Byrne (2005). The scope of this effort

is limited geographically and addresses the situation in Europe and North America. Generally,

research in this field covers issues related to the international migrant communities who are

residing in major urban areas. Other areas of interest include problems of the disadvantaged and

vulnerable who tend to be excluded due to racial, economic or political prejudice. Along with

scientific work, there are numerous policy approaches which deal with the problems of social

exclusion (Hayes et al., 2008; Chakravarty and D'Ambrosio, 2006; Byrne, 2005; McGregor and

McConnachie, 1995).

Post-Communist cities which represent contrastive cases in terms of their transitional pro-

cesses, express different forms of socio-spatial exclusion of vulnerable groups. Shift from the

planned economy and limited political powers of the population to democracy have led to the

substantial changes to the urban environments as well. As Sykora and Bouzarovski point out,

urban transition in post-Communist cities refers to the institutional transformations, changes in

social practices and transformation in urban spaces (Sỳkora and Bouzarovski, 2012, 53). They

underline that the problem of exclusion couldn't be completely understood without taking into

consideration social transition. The case of urban areas in Georgia represent an important prove

of this claim.

Since the early 1990s, internally displaced population (IDP) of the Republic of Georgia

represent a distinct social group in terms of their identity, status, networking and mobility, resi-

dential and place-making patterns. Individually accommodated persons comprise 45% of Geor-

gia’s IDP population of roughly 300 thousand. Large share of this group resides in the collective

centers scattered over the large urban areas of the country, including the capital city of Tbilisi.

Republic of Georgia witnessed several armed conflicts in 1991-1993 and again in 2008,

which yielded two major waves of displaced population. First wave IDPs, i.e. who left their

homes in the last decade of twentieth century, were accommodated in a chaotic and unplanned

manner. It was not surprise, as the country was almost devastated from civil wars and political

unrest.

2

Another wave of displaced population appeared after August 2008 war with Russia. Almost

128 thousand individuals left their areas of residence in South Ossetia and bordering regions of

Georgian proper. Part of those individuals returned after French-brokered cease-fire, however,

more than 25 thousand people are still unable to get back to their homes.

According to the most recent census carried out by the Ministry of Internally Displaced Per-

sons from the Occupied Territories, Accommodation and Refugees of Georgia (MIARG), there

are more than 253 thousand IDPs registered in the country, 37% of whom reside in the capital

city of Tbilisi (MRIA, 2014). In 2011, 45% of IDPs were sheltered in the collective centers

(Salukvadze et al., 2013), which are mostly scattered over the large urban areas of Georgia.

As usual, collective centers lacked adequate living conditions as they were organized in a non-

residential buildings such as schools, kindergartens, former research institutions and so forth

(Salukvadze et al., 2013).

This paper identifies major obstacles to Georgia's IDP population's integration into main-

stream urban society and areas to which renewed policy should be addressed from the state and

city authorities. Another issue which will be discussed is the impact of the Action Plan for the

State Strategy (hereinafter, action plan) approved in 2007 (Walter Kälin, 2010). This program,

intended to provide housing solutions for the collectively accommodated IDPs either by means

of privatization of current dwelling or building/renovating other collective centers. Since then

about 24 000 IDPs were given new shelter in a renovated collective centers. This program

ensured a fairly decent housing for the beneficiaries, however, the process significantly chal-

lenged future prospects of integration. In fact, collective centers appear to be remote and not

giving adequate opportunities (Kurshitashvili, 2012). The hypothesis suggests that the artificial

spatial clustering of the new IDP collective centers has negative consequences on the level of

integration of the recently relocated population. I argue, that newly renovated collective centers

meaningfully lack essential facilities. Additionally, as the IDPs are relocated to more remote

areas of the city or even in a different settlement, the access to the employment opportunities

are significantly diminished. As for the policy, I suggest that collective centers by itself are

important obstacles to the overall integration process of IDPs and complex approach is needed

when dealing with the action plan.

3

2 Literature review

Social exclusion is a broad concept, which refers to the multiple aspects of human lives.

It 'covers a remarkably wide range of social and economic problems' (Sen, 2000, 1). The

phenomenon of social exclusion first was conceptualized in the works of Lenoir and Townsend

in the second half of 20th century. Lenoir and Townsend, respectively in France and the United

Kingdom, dedicated their efforts to the problems of social protection and broader understanding

of poverty (Levitas, 1996). Initially, social exclusion was understood as a property associated

with marginalized groups, such as disabled, lone parents and uninsured unemployed. Soon

the scope was broadened and included disaffected youth and isolated individuals (Hayes et al.,

2008).

An individual can be considered as socially excluded if her participation in the basic social

and economic activities are restricted. According to the definition given by the European Com-

mission, social exclusion is a disintegration and fragmentation of social relations and hence a

loss of social cohesion (Chakravarty and D'Ambrosio, 2006). As Silver (1994) points out, it is a

socially constructed concept depending on what is considered as 'normal' and relies on accepted

norms and expectations in the society (Hayes et al., 2008). Social exclusion is a process rather

than an outcome (Atkinson, 2000) and implies multiple actors such as government agencies,

society and the community (Hayes et al., 2008).

Chakravarty and D'Ambrosio (2006) mention, that social exclusion represents a progressive

process of marginalization to economic deprivation and various forms of social and cultural dis-

advantage. It can be used as an equivalent to poverty, however, one should consider the role

of inadequate social participation, lack of integration and power (Hayes et al., 2008). Poverty

could be one of the reasons of exclusion, not vice versa. Not always socially excluded individ-

uals are poor. A person may exclude herself by choice or she may be excluded by the decisions

of other people, organizations or institutions. Social exclusion is a property of a group rather

than individuals and it is manifested at the community level (Hayes et al., 2008).

There are different conceptualizations of social exclusion, however, as Amartya Sen high-

lights, in almost all cases they consider employment, earnings, livelihood, property, partici-

pation, fulfillment and so forth (Sen, 2000). Bardgett et al. (2000) list six aspects of social

4

exclusion: income, employment, housing, fuel poverty, fear of crime. According to Room's

definition (as given in Papadopoulos and Tsakloglou (2001)), social exclusion is multidimen-

sional as it implies not only income but a range of different indicators. It has a neighborhood

dimension; multiple deprivations are caused not only because of lack of personal resources but

also by insufficient or unsatisfactory community resources.

Social exclusion is relational as it means low social participation, lack of integration and

power. Atkinson (2000) speaks about three dimensions of social exclusion: relativity (exclu-

sion from particular society), agency and dynamics (people have little prospects for the future).

According to Chakravarty and D'Ambrosio (2006), there are three types of conceptualization of

social exclusion. First one emphasizes the lack of participation in social institutions, second one

deals with problem as the denial or non-realization of rights on citizenship, and the third one

views social exclusion as in terms of increase in distance among population groups. Finally,

as McGregor and McConnachie (1995) show, social exclusion has deep spatial roots, as the

concentration of disadvantaged people in urban areas leads to the exclusion from the facilities

necessary for their human development and descent lifestyle. They conclude that spatial as-

pects do have impact on social exclusion, however, family and individual characteristics have

larger effect. The mechanisms of combating with social exclusion are laid through the qual-

ity, quantity and diversity of learning, recreational, social, educational, health and employment

resources in the community. There may be limited employment near the disadvantaged area.

When public transport infrastructure is limited, this may make it difficult to sustain paid em-

ployment. And third, there may be a stigma associated with living in particular areas. This may

result in discrimination and hence poorer outcomes for residents. People living in disadvan-

taged neighborhoods tend to have lower levels of social capital. The social capital mechanism

can explain a lack of access to networks and social connections.

Musterd and Ostendorf (2005) point out, that the topics of social exclusion, along with

polarization and segregation, are essential to many contemporary urban debates. Focusing on

the issues of Western European and North American cities, they underline that urban areas in

Europe are less segregated. The authors point out the role of so called "neighborhood effect",

i.e. spatial clustering of a vulnerable and minority groups and its role on social exclusion of

5

population. Additionally, Murie (2005) proves, that residential and spatial factors are crucial to

the differentiation of how an individual can access services.

When investigating urban social exclusion in the Republic of Georgia, one should examine

a broader context of post-Communist transition. According to Sỳkora and Bouzarovski (2012),

this process was started from the institutional reconfiguration, which meant the introduction of

democracy and market economy. Changes in the legislative framework and economic relations

yielded another big transition in the social practices and organization. As the result, another

transition, now regarding with the reconfiguration of the urban environment could be observed.

The authors also mention the issue of social exclusion, however, as it appears in other works

(e.g. in Kovács (1999)), the phenomenon is described in the light of Communist housing estates

and already existing working-class neighborhoods.

Displaced population by all means can be considered as one of the most vulnerable social

groups. Internally Displaced Person (IDP) is one who "have been forced or obliged to flee or to

leave their homes or places of habitual residence, in particular as a result of or in order to avoid

the effects of armed conflict, situations of generalized violence, violations of human rights

or natural or human-made disasters, and who have not crossed an internationally recognized

State border" (UNHCR, 2001, 1). As usual, internal displacement and related issues, including

resilience strategies, social exclusion and social capital, are discussed in a broader context of

forced migration. However, as Weiss and Korn (2006) argue, due to the growing number of

IDPs worldwide, existing approaches, institutional arrangements and needs-assessment should

be different from that of refugees. Thework of Holtzman (2004) refers to the problem of internal

displacement in Europe and Central Asia. Exclusion from the mainstream society, low social

capital, employment and poor housing situation are central when discussing the problems of

internal displacement in above mentioned region.

When it comes to the situation of internally displaced population in Georgia, lack of the

scientific literature is evident (Salukvadze et al., 2013). There are several academic studies

dedicated to the political and social issues of IDP integration, namely, Kabachnik et al. (2010,

2012); Mitchneck et al. (2009). Kurshitashvili (2012) takes a look at the role of government

agencies in terms of the action plan. The author argues that existing approach to the relocation

6

of the IDPs significantly damages their employment and integration opportunities.

The review shows that the problem could be discussed in the framework of social exclusion.

The other theoretical assets which will be employed are the peculiarities of urban transition in

the post-Communist societies and the problems of internal displacement.

3 IDP Livelihood - results of the exploratory analysis

In the following section we will perform an exploratory analysis of survey data. Each subsec-

tion refers to the particular aspects of collectively accommodated IDPs, namely their assessment

of built environment, economic performance, attitudes towards state actors and local popula-

tion.

Figure 1: Distribution of Georgia's Internally Displaced Population and study areas. Ownwork.

Data sources: MIARG, Central Elections Commission of Georgia (2014)

The data was gathered among the residents of different collective centers located in eight ur-

7

ban localities and one newly established IDP settlements in the Republic of Georgia (see figure

3). The survey was conducted in July-September of 2011 and as the result, 889 response cases

were collected. It employed face-to-face semi-structured mode. The questionnaire captured

demographic and socio-economic peculiarities of the respondent, recorded the self-assessment

of housing and living conditions, investigated relations with local population. Quota sampling

was used for selecting respondents. Based on existing demographic data and the list of col-

lective centers, number of respondents were calculated according to the proportions of major

gender-age cohorts. Along with the quantitative study, 50 in-depth interviews were carried out

among the respondents picked from the same population group.

3.1 Built environment

High quality built environment and livable housing are central to the human development. As

it was mentioned earlier, in general, IDP collective centers were not residential buildings. They

were designed as administrative, educational and leisure facilities. After influx of the first wave

of displacement, these buildings were either occupied forcibly or the government settled IDPs

deliberately.

In the 1990s, under degenerated state institutions and corrupted officials, the process of

accommodation was especially chaotic. When coping with the results of 2008 conflict, the

government was more capable of quickly allocating shelter. Consequently, "new IDPs" (i. e.

displaced as the result of 2008 war) are more likely to be satisfied with shelter - around 71%

against 62% among "old IDPs". Many IDPs occupied the buildings forcibly. More than half of

collective center residents from the capital reported that their shelter was taken up. This number

was especially high in Zugdidi (71%), which is a town near Abkhazian border.

It is worth mentioning that forcible occupation of non-residential buildings is an ongoing

process, as IDPs still try to get new shelter in unused constructions and move to another place

(especially, in Tbilisi). State approach towards squatting varies significantly. Earlier, the IDPs

were allowed to stay in the occupied buildings, however, starting from 2011, illegal IDP hous-

ing became targets of government-imposed evictions. As Georgian Young Lawyers Associa-

tion (GYLA), local democracy and rule of law watchdog points out, the process of eviction did

8

not always follow the legislative norms and had clear forcible character (Kurdovanidze, 2011).

However, Public Defender of Georgia (2013) reported, that in 2013 there were no forced evic-

tions of collectively accommodated IDPs.

State approach towards IDP accommodation currently allows privatization of collective cen-

ters as an apartments, however, not all representatives of the community used this opportunity.

55% of all interviewed persons stated that their homes were not privatized. This figure was the

highest among the representatives of the most deprived areas of Western Georgia and was the

lowest in Tbilisi.

Not surprising, a few respondents mentioned improvements in the built environment. Tak-

ing into consideration that the shelters are perceived to be temporal accommodation and IDPs

have severe financial situation, less than quarter of the interviewees mentioned substantial re-

furbishment of the dwelling. Some of the IDPs (almost 16%) used to organize small-scale

renovations, 4.4% extended the living surface; 2.6% added WCs. But more than half did not

(or could not) make any improvement in their current dwelling.

Convenient housing is an important drive for the integration and better lives, however, not

many IDPs consider their current housing as convenient. Only 5.3% consider it very conve-

nient; 15% - convenient; 36.9% are more or less satisfied with conditions; but 42.1% consider

dwelling as inconvenient or very inconvenient. Living conditions annoyed 35.9% of all the

IDPs, especially in Zugdidi (65.3%) and Tbilisi (50%).

Another aspect of assessment of the living space is the proximity to the services which

include infrastructure, public spaces, shops, government agencies. As the collective centers

generally are located inmore remote areas, 8%mentioned lack of grocery shops, 5.6% - schools,

9.1% - ambulatory care facilities, 4.2% - pharmacy shops, 3.9% - kindergartens, 1.3% - public

spaces.

3.2 Economic Situation

As it is evident from the dataset, IDPs tend to report on their weak economic conditions. Men-

tioned main sources of income are state monetary assistance (equivalent to around 10 USD per

person) and various types of state pensions - about 68% of the respondents said so. Around

9

30% picked salaries of employed household members. An additional input to the budget of 7%

of IDPs consists of the monetary help from close people (friends and relatives) living outside

of the household. When the respondents were asked about their perceived economic situation,

two-thirds considered themselves as "poor" or "very poor" and almost no one reported of being

"rich".

When it comes to the amount of monthly financial income, IDPs in the modal category,

which united about 40% of the respondents, earn between 101-350 Georgian Lari (approxi-

mately between 60 to 210 USD). The lowest-earners, who reported their income as less than 60

USD, comprise 17% of the respondents. Respondents whose income consists of 300 USD or

higher, form only 11% of the group.

As it was mentioned above, self-reported unemployment rate among the residents of the col-

lective centers are extremely high - only about 23% of the respondents considered themselves as

employed. Residents of the capital and Eastern Georgia were more likely to be employed rather

than the IDPs living in the urban areas of Western Georgia. Among those who were employed,

about 45% were involved in some kind of private enterprises, 38% reported to be government

employees (including school teachers) and the rest were self-employed. Not surprisingly, un-

employment was considered as the most important obstacle - about half of the respondents

reported this issue. Among other problems were named health issues, living conditions and

socio-economic problems in general.

3.3 Social relations and attitudes

Another important aspect of social exclusion is how particular social groups react and set re-

lations with mainstream societal groups. In our case, we will discuss the attitudes of IDPs

towards local population. According to the dataset, about 60% of all interviewed respondents

have spent 10 or more years in the particular collective center. Through this time IDPs have

elaborated quite positive attitudes towards local population. As there were very few if any

linguistic, ethnic and cultural barriers, "human" aspect of adaptation cannot be considered as

problematic. The respondents were asked about marital preferences and more than half of them

would not distinguish among fellow IDPs and members of local community. In the qualita-

10

tive interviews, respondents narrated the stories of conflicts with locals, mostly in the form

of a locality quarrels, however, both qualitative and quantitative evidences show tremendous

improvements during stay period.

What refers to the discrimination in terms of "being IDP", generally respondents disagreed to

this notion, however, significant share of the interviewees still thinks of themselves as "second-

class" citizens in comparison with the locals. The difference is especially profound in capital,

where despite more employment and economic opportunities, one third of the respondents did

not considered themselves as citizens. About the same share of the respondents agreed that

being an IDP is an obstacle towards decent existence and participation in the city life.

Due to the high unemployment rate, IDPs are tend to spend most of their time in the col-

lective centers, as almost 65% of the respondents recalled. Their social networks, despite evi-

dences given above, seem to be restricted to the living places, especially for the representatives

for older age cohorts. Urban travel among IDPs is strongly gendered and appears to be limited

to the younger population. Taking into consideration overall bad economic conditions, urban

movement can significantly boost employment opportunities for the IDPs as well as the inte-

gration processes.

4 Impacts of the resettlement policy

The following section assesses Georgia's Action Plan for the State Strategy. One aspect of the

plan was relocation of the collective center residents into newly constructed or renovated per-

manent shelters. The main research hypothesis is that accommodation and artificial clustering

of forcefully displaced people in 'collective centers' significantly hinders possibilities of their

integration in the mainstream urban societies and processes, in terms of both social and spatial

dimensions. The implemented State policies have not favored an efficient resolution of this

problem so far. Some state actions have supported further social exclusion and disintegration

of IDP groups from the parts of Georgian society. Collective centers by itself are important ob-

stacles to the overall integration process of IDPs and complex approach is needed when dealing

with the action plan.

11

For the analysis purposes, we will use non-parametric statistical tests, as the variables are

measured either on ordinal or nominal scales. As the result, two groups of IDPs will be com-

pared based on their participation in the action plan. The analysis assesses whether there is a

statistically significant difference between two groups in terms of improvement of build envi-

ronment, economic situation and opportunities and integration processes. The assessment of

built environment is measured with the satisfaction of current housing. Economic situation and

opportunities are examined with employment status, belonging to the income groups and mon-

etary sources (salary, state financial assistance, pensions, social security benefits, help from the

relatives). Finally, we assess integration process by looking at the attitudes towards local pop-

ulation, whether they experienced problems with locals, how they assess of being IDP, whether

they perceive themselves as a citizen. Ordinal scaled variables are checked in terms of inde-

pendence with Mann-Whitney test, whilst nominal and binary variables are examined using

chi-square method. Test results are summarized in the table 1.

The two groups are dissimilar in terms of their attitudes towards built environment, several

aspects of economic peculiarities and integration attitudes. IDPs who were recipients of the

state program, tend to assess their dwelling more positively rather than their non-resettled peers.

For the moment of the survey, the effect of the program on the employment opportunities was

not statistically significant. Changed living environment, which in many cases meant moving

to another settlement, yielded an interesting effect on the income sources - resettled IDPs are

more likely to rely on remittances from family members as well as state social security benefits.

Resettled IDPs tend to be less involved with the local population, which can be considered

as an important negative effect of the program. The recipients of the program are more likely

to report difficulties with locals. Non-resettled IDPs are less likely to think that being an IDP is

an obstacle for them and finally, they are more probable to consider themselves as the citizens

of the city.

The resettlement program significantly affected the lives of its recipients. Despite the fact

that the living conditions improved a lot and all participants acquired more or less decent hous-

ing, other factors of adaptation and social inclusion seem to be significantly deteriorated. Re-

settled respondents are more dependent on state assistance and remittances and are less adapted

12

Mann-Whitney Pearson's chi square

Built environment

Current dwelling convenient for you? 16.7663***

Economic situation

Are you employed? 0.0159

To which income group do you belong? 3.4691

Income source - salary 3.1372

Income source - IDP state assistance 27.059***

Income source - pension 0.2243

Income source - social security benefits 14.747***

Income source - relatives 21.7149***

Integration

Do you have relations with local non-IDP

population?12.3848**

Did you have any problems with local

non-IDP population?6.8067**

Being an IDP is an

obstacle in this city?10.3920**

Do you consider yourself as the citizen

of this city?17.2243**

(N = 889, NResettled=309)

Table 1: Non-parametric assessment of IDP resettlement policy towards urban IDP population

of Georgia

to the new circumstances. To summarize, the improvements in one aspect of the livelihoods

did not yield overall positive results. The picture is evident even after the first couple of years

since the launch of the program.

The existing realities about collectively settled IDP community, resulted from both public

policies and self-elaborated coping strategies, tend to be supportive for social alienation and

territorial segregation of this vulnerable group of the contemporary Georgian society. Addi-

tionally, newly created settlements do not provide IDPs with basic social needs, as they are

characterized by remoteness and physical significant distance from the central areas of the cor-

responding urban settlements. Spatial clustering of the newly created/rehabilitated collective

centers negatively affects successful process of integration into local society.

13

5 Discussion

In the times of violent ethnic conflicts and turbulent transition internally displaced popu-

lation of Georgia's urban areas appeared to be one of the most disadvantaged social groups.

Post-Communist economic collapse yielded structural changes which caused greater income

inequality (Aslund, 2002) and unhealthy economic relations (Papava, 2002). Post-Communist

urban paradigm of transition definitely affected the developments in Georgia. Similarly to other

post-Soviet countries, institutional changes, shift to market economy and corresponding shocks

were particularly harsh for the country. Almost all strata, including internally displaced popu-

lation, have suffered from the transitional period and the process of relief was not easy.

Collectively accommodated IDPs bear several clear signs of being socially excluded, or at

least, in danger of being so. First dimension which needs to be addressed is the shape and condi-

tion of collective centers. Despite renovation efforts from the government, current shape of the

collective centers stay an important obstacle for IDPs. As no additional personal initiatives are

drawn, deterioration of living conditions can lead to diminished opportunities and danger to so-

cial exclusion. Collective centers, in many cases lack access to necessary services and at some

point create deprived areas of reduced employment opportunities thus further undermining the

livelihoods of the IDPs, who already suffer from unemployment and health problems.

Existing state policy towards collectively allocated internally displaced population contin-

ues to be oriented to the artificial clustering. IDPs are settled to the new or renovated centers,

which are located in major urban centers, but in more remote areas, where opportunities of em-

ployment and access to basic services are particularly restricted. As the survey results show, the

"human" factor of exclusion is less important in terms of Georgia's urban environment, however

adaptation and elaboration of social networks in a new living places takes some time. At this

stage, current policy managed to significantly improve living conditions, but caused a negative

effect on the adaptation strategies of the IDPs. It is not a surprise, as according to Kurshitashvili

(2012), earlier resettlement efforts significantly diminished employment opportunities for IDPs.

It took ten or sometimes, twenty years of residence in particular area for IDPs to consider

themselves as a part of the local community. Moving IDPs to another collective centers in a

new environment would deter already existing networks and significantly limit the possibilities

14

of successful integration into local society. Overall, not all indicators of the exclusion appear

to be strong enough as they are in case of other vulnerable groups, however, state action plan

needs to be reassessed.

6 Concluding remarks

In this article we showed that internally displaced population of Georgia, who reside in the

collective centers located in urban areas, are in danger to be threatened by social exclusion.

Deteriorated built environment, high unemployment rate and artificial clustering are central to

excluding of this stratum from the mainstream society. Although "human" aspects of exclusion

are negligible, state approach towards IDPs inclusion insufficiently addresses their needs. The

state action plan was mainly oriented on the improvement of housing conditions, however, we

argue that it further hindered the process of alienation and exclusion.

7 Acknowledgments

The data which was used in this research has been collected in the framework of project "Cop-

ing with marginality and exclusion - can IDP communities successfully integrate into main-

stream urban societies in Georgia?". The study was carried out by the department of Human

Geography at Tbilisi State University, Republic of Georgia. The funding and capacity build-

ing was provided by the Academic Swiss Caucasus Network (ASCN). ASCN is a program

aimed at promoting social sciences and humanities in the South Caucasus. It is operated by the

Inter-faculty Institute for Central and Eastern Europe (IICEE) at the University of Fribourg and

supported by Gebert Ruef Stiftung.

15

References

Aslund, A. (2002). Building Capitalism: The Transformation of the Former Soviet Bloc. Cam-

bridge University Press.

Atkinson, R. (2000, May). Combating social exclusion in europe: The new urban policy chal-

lenge. Urban Studies 37(5-6), 1037--1055.

Bardgett, L., G. Vidler, and G. Britain (2000). Regional social exclusion indicators. Great

Britain, Parliament, House of Commons, Library.

Byrne, D. (2005). Social exclusion. McGraw-Hill International.

Chakravarty, S. R. and C. D'Ambrosio (2006). The measurement of social exclusion. Review

of income and wealth 52(3), 377–398.

Hayes, A., M. Gray, B. Edwards, and others (2008). Social inclusion: Origins, concepts and

key themes.

Holtzman, S. B. (2004). Living in limbo: Conflict-induced displacement in Europe and Central

Asia. World Bank Publications.

Kabachnik, P., J. Regulska, and B. Mitchneck (2010). Where and when is home? the double

displacement of georgian IDPs from abkhazia. Journal of Refugee Studies, feq023.

Kabachnik, P., J. Regulska, and B. Mitchneck (2012). Displacing blame: Georgian inter-

nally displaced person perspectives of the georgia–abkhazia conflict. Ethnopolitics 11(2),

123–140.

Kovács, Z. (1999). Cities from state-socialism to global capitalism: an introduction. GeoJour-

nal 49(1), 1–6.

Kurdovanidze, N. (2011). State policy towards IDPs - deficiency analysis. Technical report,

Georian Young Lawyers' Association, Tbilisi.

Kurshitashvili, N. (2012, June). The impact of socially irresponsible resettlement on the liveli-

hoods of internally displaced persons in georgia. Refugee Survey Quarterly 31(2), 98--118.

16

Levitas, R. (1996). The concept of social exclusion and the new durkheimian hegemony. Crit-

ical social policy 16(46), 5–20.

McGregor, A. andM.McConnachie (1995). Social exclusion, urban regeneration and economic

reintegration. Urban Studies 32(10), 1587–1600.

Mitchneck, B., O. V. Mayorova, and J. Regulska (2009). “post”-conflict displacement: Isola-

tion and integration in georgia. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 99(5),

1022--1032.

MRIA (2014). Number of registered IDPs-statistics by region.

Murie, A. (2005). The dynamics of social exclusion and neighborhood decline: welfare regimes,

decommodification, housing, and urban inequality. Cities of Europe, Changing contexts,

local arrangements, and the challenge to urban cohesion, 151–169.

Musterd, S. andW.Ostendorf (2005). Social exclusion, segregation, and neighbourhood effects.

Cities of Europe, 170–189.

Papadopoulos, F. and P. Tsakloglou (2001). Indicators of social exclusion in EUROMOD.

Technical report, EUROMOD at the Institute for Social and Economic Research.

Papava, V. (2002). Necroeconomics–the theory of post-communist transformation of an econ-

omy. International Journal of Social Economics 29(10), 796–805.

Public Defender of Georgia (2013). Human rights situation of internally displaced persons and

conflict affected individuals in georgia. Technical report.

Salukvadze, J., D. Sichinava, and D. Gogishvili (2013). Socio-economic and spatial factors

of alienation and segregation of internally displaced persons in the cities of georgia. Studia

Regionalia 38.

Sen, A. K. (2000). Social exclusion: Concept, application, and scrutiny. Number 1. Office of

Environment and Social Development, Asian Development Bank Manila.

17

Silver, H. (1994). Social exclusion and social solidarity: three paradigms. Int'l Lab. Rev. 133,

531.

Sỳkora, L. and S. Bouzarovski (2012). Multiple transformations conceptualising the post-

communist urban transition. Urban Studies 49(1), 43–60.

UNHCR (2001, June). Guiding principles on internal displacement.

Walter Kälin (2010). Report of the representative of the secretary-general on the human rights

of internally displaced persons. Technical Report GE.10-17912.

Weiss, T. G. and D. A. Korn (2006). Internal Displacement: Conceptualization and its conse-

quences. Routledge.

18