Most Pakistanis now see the Pakistani Taliban as well as al Qaeda as a critical threat to the country--a major shift from 18 months ago--and support the government and army in their fight in the Swat Valley against the Pakistani Taliban. An overwhelming majority think that Taliban groups who seek to overthrow the Afghan government should not be allowed to have bases in Pakistan.

(Photo: Al Jazeera English)

However, this does not bring with it a shift in attitudes toward the US. A large majority continue to have an unfavorable view of the US government. Almost two-thirds say they do not have confidence in Obama. An overwhelming majority opposes US drone attacks in Pakistan.

These are some of the results of a new WorldPublicOpinion.org poll conducted May 17-28, 2009. The nationwide random sample included 1000 Pakistani adults, selected using multi-stage probability sampling, who responded in face-to-face interviews. The margin of error is +/- 3.2 percent.

"A sea change has occurred in Pakistani public opinion. The tactics and undemocratic bent of militant groups--in tribal areas as well as Swat--have brought widespread revulsion and turned Pakistanis against them," comments Clay Ramsay, research director. However, he adds: "It's crucial to understand that the US is resented just as much as before, despite the US having a new president."

There has been a huge increase in those who think the "activities of Islamist militants and local Taliban" are a critical threat to Pakistan--a 47 point rise to 81 percent, up from 34 percent in late 2007. If the Pakistani Taliban were to gain control of the country, 75 percent say this would be bad (very bad, 67%)--though only 33 percent think this outcome is likely.

Seventy percent say their sympathies are more with the government than with the Pakistani Taliban in the struggle over Swat. Large majorities express confidence in the government (69%) and the military (72%) to handle the situation. Retrospectively, the public leans (by 45% to 40%) toward thinking the government was right to try to make an agreement in which the Pakistani Taliban would shut down its camps and turn in its heavy weapons in return for a shari'a court system in Swat. But now 67 percent think the Pakistani Taliban violated the agreement when it sent its forces into more areas, and 63 percent think the people of Swat disapprove of the agreement.

On the Afghan Taliban, an overwhelming 87 percent think that groups fighting to overthrow the Afghan government should not be allowed to have bases in Pakistan. Most (77%) do not believe the Afghan Taliban has bases in Pakistan. However, if Pakistan's government were to identify such bases in the country, three in four (78%) think it should close the bases even if it requires using military force.

Public attitudes toward al Qaeda training camps follow the same pattern. Those saying the "activities of al Qaeda" are a critical threat to Pakistan are up 41 points to 82 percent. Almost all (88%) think al Qaeda should not be allowed to operate training camps in Pakistan. Though 76 percent do not believe there are such camps, if the Pakistani government were to identify them, 74 percent say the government should close them, with force if necessary.

This striking new public willingness to see the government directly oppose Taliban groups and al Qaeda owes little or nothing to an "Obama effect." A 62 percent majority expresses low confidence in President Obama to do the right thing in world affairs (none at all, 41%). Only one in three (32%) think his policies will be better for Pakistan; 62 percent think they will be about the same (26%) or worse (36%).

Views of the US remain overwhelmingly negative. Sixty-nine percent have an unfavorable view of the current US government (58% very unfavorable)--essentially the same as in 2008. Eighty-eight percent think it is a US goal to weaken and divide the Islamic world (78% definitely a goal). The US Predator drone attacks aimed at militant camps within the Pakistani border are rejected by 82 percent as unjustified. On the war in Afghanistan, 72 percent disapprove of the NATO mission and 79 percent want it ended now; 86 percent think most Afghans want the mission ended as well.

Asked about the nation's leaders, a large majority--68 percent--views President Zardari unfavorably (very, 50%), but--unlike the recent past--there are multiple national leaders whom most do view favorably. Prime Minister Gilani is seems untarred by negative views of Zardari and gets favorable ratings from 80 percent of Pakistanis. The restored Chief Justice Chaudry is very popular (82%), and opposition leader Nawaz Sharif is extremely popular (87%). The leader most associated with the Pakistani Taliban, Maulana Sufi Mohammad, is viewed positively by only 18 percent of Pakistanis.

WorldPublicOpinion.org is a project managed by the Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) at the University of Maryland. Funding for this research was provided by the Rockefeller Brothers Fund and the Calvert Foundation.

Country-by-Country Summaries (PDF)
Questionnaire/Methodology (PDF)

US President Barack Obama has the confidence of many publics around the world - inspiring far more confidence than any other world political leader according to a new poll of 20 nations by WorldPublicOpinion.org. A year ago, President Bush was one of the least trusted leaders in the world.

(Official White House Photo)

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin now have the most negative confidence ratings around the world. On average across all nations about half have little or no confidence that they will "do the right thing regarding world affairs" while just a third or less do have confidence.

WorldPublicOpinion.org conducted the poll of 19,224 respondents in nations that comprise 62 percent of the world's population. This includes most of the largest nations--China, India, the United States, Indonesia, Nigeria, Pakistan, and Russia--as well as Mexico, Germany, Great Britain, France, Poland, Azerbaijan, Ukraine, Kenya, Egypt, Turkey, Iraq, the Palestinian territories, and South Korea. Publics were also polled in Hong Kong, Macau, and Taiwan. The margins of error range from +/-3 to 4 percent.

WorldPublicOpinion.org, a collaborative research project involving research centers from around the world, is managed by the Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) at the University of Maryland. The survey was conducted between April 4 and June 12, 2009, prior to Obama's speech in Cairo but subsequent to his Ankara speech.

An average of 61 percent express a lot or some confidence in Obama to do the right thing in world affairs, across the nineteen nations polled (excluding the US). Thirty-one percent say they have not too much or no confidence at all. In 13 nations, a majority or plurality has confidence in Obama; in five nations they do not; one nation is divided. A majority of the American public (70%) also expresses confidence in Obama in world affairs.

No other leader has the confidence of more than an average of 40 percent across the publics polled. For most leaders, more express a lack of confidence than express confidence.

"At this moment Obama occupies a unique position in the eyes of the world" observes Stephen J. Weber of WorldPublicOpinion.org. "His communication skills and the change he represents create an open door for him to engage people around the world."

President Ahmadinejad has the confidence of an average of only 28 percent across the 20 nations, while 49 percent do not have confidence in the Iranian leader. Fourteen nations have a negative view, lead by the US (84%) Germany (81%), France (79%), and South Korea (67%). The public in six nations express confidence in Ahmadinejad led by two majority-Muslim nations; Pakistan (75%) and the Palestinian territories (57%). However, other majority-Muslim nations express a lack of confidence, including Iraq (56%), Azerbaijan (59%), Egypt (57%), and Turkey (48%). Indians also lean positive (42 to 30%) about Ahmadinejad.

Russian Prime Minister Putin has the confidence of publics in five nations (the lowest of any leader tested), but in 14 the public has little confidence. On average across 19 nations other than Russia, 34 percent of the public expresses confidence and 50 percent do not. Critics of Putin include France (78% little confidence), Poland (76%), Germany (72%), and the US (69%) as well as all of the nations of the Middle East that were polled.

However, Mr. Putin does elicit confidence in the world's two largest nations, China (64%) and India (65%). The public in Ukraine, where the current West-leaning President Yushchenko has had tense relations with the Kremlin, also has confidence in Putin (57%); notably, more Ukrainians express confidence Putin than in President Obama (35%). Russians themselves have confidence in their Prime Minister by a very large majority (82%).

Public confidence in President Hu Jintao of China presents a mixed picture around the globe. In most nations in the West--including Europe, the US and Mexico--President Hu receives low confidence scores. Low scores are also common in the Middle East including in Turkey, the Palestinian territories, and Iraq. However, in Asia, the publics in most nations express confidence in the Chinese leader such as in Pakistan (80%), India (50%) and in South Korea (by a narrow margin, 51% to 47%). Overall, seven nations express confidence in President Hu, 10 lack confidence, and two divided. On average across the nations polled, excluding China, 32 percent have confidence in him and 44 percent do not.

There are also large majorities reporting confidence in President Hu in separate surveys that were conducted in Taiwan (60%), Hong Kong (94%), and Macau (92%). "In his own backyard, President Hu seems to be using soft power very effectively," notes Stephen Weber.

Among the national leaders studied in this poll, Chancellor Merkel has the second-highest rating - on average 40 percent express confidence in her, while 38 percent do not. Nine nations have positive views, but eight show little confidence, and two are divided. Most nations in Asia, sub-Saharan Africa, and Europe report confidence in Merkel, but most majority-Muslim nations do not.

UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon receives the second-highest rating behind Obama. On average his ratings lean positive (40% to 35%) and 11 nations express confidence, seven do not, and two are divided. Views are especially positive in Asia and Africa. Only in the US and in some nations in the Middle East (Egypt, the Palestinian territories, and Turkey) does a majority express low confidence.

President Sarkozy of France has somewhat lower confidence ratings than his European compatriots, but has shown the most improvement- from 30 percent confidence in 2008 to 34 percent in 2009 across 14 trended nations. During the second half of 2008, France occupied the Presidency of the European Union. This platform may have helped his confidence ratings increase in the US, Great Britain, Ukraine, Nigeria, and India. There is, nonetheless, a robust 45 percent of the public polled that does not have confidence in him.

The Chinese public, however, expresses sharply lower confidence in Sarkozy in 2009 (23%) than in 2008 (42%). This fall in confidence was not evident for other Western leaders. The protests in France in April 2008 related to the Olympic torch and Tibet policy, and Mr. Sarkozy's threat to boycott the Beijing Olympics seems to have soured the Chinese public.

Prime Minister Brown has a profile similar to Chancellor Merkel, though with slightly lower scores overall. His global confidence average is 36 percent positive and 45 percent negative, and eight nations express confidence in him. Ten nations do not express confidence, notably all majority-Muslim nations polled except Azerbaijan, as well as France, Poland, Russia and Mexico.

Examining trends in nations that were surveyed in both 2008 and 2009 reveals that most leaders changed very little in their global average scores. The new American president receives dramatically different ratings than his predecessor. President Sarkozy received confidence ratings that on average were four points higher in 2009 than 2008, but at the same time saw his ratings by the Chinese public crash. No other leader changed by more than one point in their global average.

Funding for this research was provided by the Rockefeller Brothers Fund and the Calvert Foundation.

DETAILED ANALYSIS OF LEADERS WITH A GLOBAL PROFILE

US President Barack Obama

US President Barack Obama is the leader who inspires the most confidence in publics around the world by a very large margin. Across nations polled, an average of 61 percent of the public expresses confidence in Obama to do the right thing regarding world affairs, while 31 percent indicate little confidence. No other leader assessed in 2009 or 2008 approaches this level of public confidence.

Barack Obama was inaugurated in January 2009, approximately four months prior to this polling. His election campaign, covered widely by global media, was seen as a rejection of many unpopular policies of his predecessor George W. Bush. In the early months of his presidency he traveled to Europe and Turkey, making appearances and speeches to wide acclaim.

Majorities or pluralities in 13 nations polled, plus the US, have confidence in Obama. These include all European nations, the two African nations, and most Asian nations. Seventy percent of Americans express confidence in Obama as well.

People in most majority-Muslim nations do not express confidence in Obama including majorities in the Palestinian territories (67%), Pakistan (62%), Egypt (60%), and Iraq (57%). Turkey is divided. It is clear that Obama has challenges remaining in reaching the publics in majority-Muslim nations. A majority of Russians (55%) also express a lack of confidence.

Obama's ratings are far higher than the 2008 ratings of President Bush: France (+77 percentage points), Britain (+ 75 points), South Korea (+ 58 points), Mexico (+45 points), Turkey (+38 points), India (+35 points), Egypt (+31 points), and the Palestinian territories (+30 points). The publics in every nation polled in both 2008 and 2009 showed an increase in confidence in Obama compared to Bush--on average 37 points.

The dramatic increase in confidence occurs both among the publics of traditional allies who had been alienated by the policies and manner of the Bush administration such as Britain, France, and South Korea as well as nations where the standing of the US remains quite low such as those in the Middle East. Even in nations where a majority of the public does not express confidence in Obama, there has nonetheless been an increase in confidence with the new President, such as Turkey (rising from 7% to 45%) and Russia (rising from 14% to 23%).

A majority of the public now express confidence in President Obama in the two Asian nations that are the world's most populous: China (55%) and India (80%). President Bush enjoyed confidence among a plurality of public in these nations in 2008, but not a majority.

It is perhaps less surprising that Obama now does exceptionally well in Kenya (95% confidence) and Nigeria (85%), as well as having a 26 point increase in Indonesia relative to President Bush. His life story, no doubt, has special attractions in these nations.

Publics around the world seem to feel familiar with Obama, even though he was in office only four months at the time of the polling. Far fewer people across nations were unable or unwilling to express an opinion on Obama (8% don't know/depends) than on other global leaders whose non-answer scores ranged between 16-24 percent.

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

President Ahmadinejad has a predominantly negative image. Around the world, on average only 28 percent of publics expresses confidence in him - the lowest of any leader assessed on a global level. Forty-nine percent indicate that they have low confidence in the Iranian President. Fourteen out of 20 nations have a predominantly negative view. All of the polling was done prior to the June 12 Iranian presidential election.

Across Europe, both West and East, the public gives Mr. Ahmadinejad low confidence ratings, including large majorities in Germany (81%), France (79%), Britain (69%), Poland (64%). More moderately negative views are found in Russia (38% vs. 14% confidence), and Ukraine (24% vs. 9% confidence). These evaluations in Europe differ little from those in 2008. A very large majority of the US public (84%) indicate that they do not have confidence in Mr. Ahmadinejad as does a large plurality in Mexico (49%, with 9% expressing confidence).

Ahmadinejad's positive grades appear largely in Islamic nations - including Pakistan (75%), the Palestinian territories (57%), Indonesia (29% vs. 19% with little confidence), and Nigeria (50%, where approximately half of the population is Muslim). However in some his approval is low, including Turkey (33%), Egypt (39%), and Azerbaijan (27%).

Ahmadinejad also does relatively well in India and China. In India, a plurality (42%) of the public has confidence in him while 30 percent do not. In China, a somewhat larger percentage (29%) of the public expresses confidence in Ahmadinejad than expresses a lack of confidence (20%). Both India and China have better relations and stronger commercial ties with Iran than most of Western Europe and the US.

Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin

Vladimir Putin, now Prime Minister of Russia, is an extremely popular leader at home (82% of Russians have confidence in him), but most often receives negative evaluations abroad. On average, across the 19 nations polled other than Russia, 34 percent express confidence in Mr. Putin. A full 50 percent do not have confidence, the highest negative score of any global leader. Fourteen nations do not have confidence in him, while five do.

Across most of Europe, publics report little confidence, including large majorities in Britain (62%), Germany (72%), France (78%), and Poland (76%). Similarly, a majority in the US (69%) expresses a lack of confidence in the Russian leader. In Mexico, a sizable plurality (46% to 21%) says it has little confidence in Putin.

Ukraine is an interesting case. Its Western-oriented leader, President Yushchenko, has had tense relations with the Kremlin and Mr. Putin, but a majority of the Ukrainian public (57%) has confidence in Putin. This means that considerably more Ukrainians have confidence in the Russian leader than they do in Obama (35%) or in any European leaders studied here.

Prime Minister Putin also does well among the public in the world's two largest nations. Clear majorities in India (65%) and in China (64%) have confidence in Mr. Putin. In China he outscores Obama in public confidence (64% vs. 55%), though India places more confidence in the American President (80% vs. 65%).

In the Middle East, a large proportion of the public in all nations polled has little confidence in Putin: in Azerbaijan 53 percent express low confidence, in Egypt 58 percent, in the Palestinian territories 63 percent, in Iraq 48 percent, and in Turkey 63 percent.

Chinese President Hu Jintao

Among the eight global leaders examined in this poll, President Hu Jintao stands sixth, with an average of 32 percent having confidence in him and 44 percent not having confidence. Seven nations give the Chinese president predominantly positive confidence ratings, 10 give him predominantly negative ratings, and two are divided. Clear patterns are apparent among global publics in their views of President Hu.

No nation in Europe gives the Chinese president predominantly positive confidence scores; most are clearly negative: Germany (72%), France (72%), Poland (60%), Britain (51% negative), while the public in Russia is slightly negative (31 % little confidence, 25 % confidence), and Ukraine is divided. In the US a large majority (70%) of the public lacks confidence in the Chinese leader, and in Mexico a clear plurality (48%) lacks confidence.

Elsewhere, the picture changes. In Africa, Nigeria and Kenya both express confidence in President Hu (63% and 59%, respectively). In the Middle East, views are mixed. Pluralities of the publics in Egypt (50%) and Azerbaijan (37%) express confidence in the Chinese leader, but in the Palestinian territories (57% negative), Iraq (46% negative) and Turkey (56% negative) the public predominantly expresses little confidence in him.

In Asia, President Hu scores very well among the public. His own public is immensely confident (94%) in his doing the right thing regarding world affairs. No other public studied in this survey is so confident in their leader. Confidence in President Hu is the predominant view in Pakistan (80%), India (50%) and South Korea (by a narrow 51% confident, 47% not confident margin). Most people in Indonesia were unable to give him a confidence rating; among those who did, they were divided with 24 percent confident and 22 percent not confident.

Separate surveys were also conducted in Taiwan, Hong Kong, and Macau. In each, large majorities express confidence in President Hu, in Taiwan 60 percent, in Hong Kong 94 percent, and in Macau 92 percent. President Hu appears to be a very reassuring figure among these publics.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel

Chancellor Merkel was studied for the first time in 2009, and she proves to be a leader who inspires relatively high confidence in other nations: among national leaders she has the most favorable views after Obama. Nine nations have positive views of Merkel; eight have negative views; and two are divided. An average of 40 percent of the publics, not including Germany, express confidence in her, and 38 percent do not.

In Europe, large majorities express a positive view in France (79%) and Britain (66%) as does a plurality in Ukraine (36% to 19%). Russians are divided with many not expressing a view, while Poles lean to the negative (35% to 50%).

Interestingly Americans are divided, while Mexicans lean to the negative (28% to 34%).

In Asia, most nations have more positive than negative views, including in South Korea (55%), India (47%) and China (35 to 19%). Indonesia (16% to 24%) and Pakistan (32% to 38%) lean negative .

Publics in the Middle East nations have the least confidence in Merkel, with large numbers expressing low confidence among the Palestinians (79%), Egyptians (75%), Turks (64%) and Iraqis (50%). Only in Azerbaijan does a majority (62%) express a positive view.

In Africa both Kenya (54%) and Nigeria (45%) have confidence in Chancellor Merkel.

UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon

The UN Secretary General generally receives better ratings than most other world leaders who are heads of nations. On average his evaluations across the 20 nations are positive (40% to 35%) and 11 nations express confidence, seven do not, and two are divided. This places him second among the leaders studied, below Obama, but slightly above Merkel.

Views of Ban Ki-moon are particularly positive in Africa and in Asia - nearly all Asian nations give him positive confidence scores led by South Korea (90%). Indonesia is an exception: views are divided. Large majorities in both Kenya (70%) and Nigeria (69%) express confidence in him.

Countries polled in Western Europe have confidence in the Secretary General, including Britain, Germany, and France, but Poland and Russia do not, and Ukraine is divided. A majority of Americans (57%) report little confidence in him, while Mexico leans toward having confidence (38% to 33%.)

British Prime Minister Gordon Brown

Gordon Brown has a profile similar to Chancellor Merkel, though his ratings across nations are slightly below hers. On average, 38 percent of the public express confidence in him, and 41 percent do not; eight nations are positive, 10 are not, and one is divided.

All majority-Muslim nations except Azerbaijan do not have confidence in Mr. Brown. In addition, a lack of confidence in Brown was the most frequent position in France (46%), Poland (46%), Russia (43%) and Mexico (37%).

Mr. Brown does inspire considerable confidence in Africa, both in Kenya and Nigeria, and a number of nations of Asia are predominantly positive, including South Korea (58%), India (57%), and China (42%). However, pluralities do not have confidence in Brown in both Pakistan (45%) and Indonesia (32%).

The US public by a clear majority (64%) has confidence in Prime Minister Brown.

French President Nicolas Sarkozy

President Sarkozy shows the most increase in confidence ratings of any leader studied in 2008 and 2009, from 30 to 34 percent across 14 trended nations. The Presidency of the European Union during the second half of 2008 and his activist manner may have increased the confidence that some people feel for him. His confidence ratings increased in India (35% to 58%), in Ukraine (18% to 34%), in Great Britain (35% to 44%) and in the US (38% to 46%).

Even with these increases, however, Mr. Sarkozy still ranks somewhat below other European leaders. On average, across the 19 nations polled in 2009 (other than France), 36 percent have confidence in him and 45 percent do not. Six nations lean positive, ten lean negative and three are divided.

Sarkozy receives low confidence scores from a majority of the public in all of the nations polled in the Middle East. He and Prime Minister Putin are the only world leaders for which this is true.

In Europe, Germans express confidence in him (50% to 43%), but Great Britain and Russia are divided. Poland is negative (49% to 34%) and Ukraine is positive (34% to 22%). Overall, Mr. Sarkozy's performance in his own region seems rather weak. Americans, are divided, though their views of the French President have improved.

Kenya and Nigeria both express majority confidence in Sarkozy. Indians (58%) and South Koreans (50%), too, indicate their confidence in him. However, Pakistanis (42%) and Indonesians (28%) are predominantly negative.

The views of the Chinese public are telling, however. In 2009, only 23 percent express confidence in Sarkozy (41% little confidence); confidence in the French president is down 19 points from 42 percent in 2008. No other Western leader experienced a similar decline in confidence in China. Several events may have contributed to this change: French protests related to the Olympic torch and Tibet policy, Sarkozy's threat to boycott the Beijing Olympics, and his meeting with the Dalai Lama in December 2008.

Six in 10 Americans approve of having an international convention saying that "governments should never use physical torture" as a means of trying to get information, while 39 percent say such a ban is too restrictive, according to a new WorldPublicOpinion.org/Knowledge Networks poll.

A majority also opposes nearly all methods for coercing detainees to give information, even when it might be critical to stopping a terrorist attack against the US. Respondents were presented a scenario in which a detainee is being held who is likely to have "information about a possible terrorist attack on the US that may prove critical to stopping the attack." They were then presented a series of methods for coercing the respondent to reveal the information.

Majorities opposed forcing the detainee to take stressful positions (56%), using threatening dogs (64%), exposing the detainee to extreme heat and cold (66%), making the detainee go naked (71%), holding the detainee's head under water (78%), punching or kicking the detainee (80%), and applying electric shocks (81%).

One method--sleep deprivation--received modest majority support (52%). Views were divided on putting a hood over a detainee's head for a long period of time, and bombarding the detainee with loud music. A very large majority (79%) favored offering detainees positive incentives for providing information.

Further, even many respondents who say that a prohibition against physical torture is too restrictive do not want to eliminate the international norm against it. Asked whether "the international conventions on the treatment of detainees should be changed to allow governments to use physical torture," only 21 percent of total sample say it should.

"Though other polls have shown that most Americans do not want to indict Bush administration figures for the interrogation methods used, a large majority does want to retain the international norm that bans torture," comments Steven Kull, director of WorldPublicOpinion.org.

More broadly, three-quarters support the general principle of having "treaties establishing international laws governing how a country, in the context of armed conflict, must treat an individual it has detained," though "these rules limit what the US can do to detainees" as well as "what other countries can do when they detain Americans."

The poll of 805 Americans was conducted May 27 through June 4. The margin of error was plus or minus 3.5 percent.

Asked about the international convention against "mental torture, such as making someone think that they or their family members will be killed," 61 percent favor the convention while 37 percent say it is too restrictive. Just 23 percent favor changing international conventions to allow mental torture.

Americans also overwhelmingly support giving detainees the right of habeas corpus. Eight in 10 support having an international treaty that requires that "detainees have a right to a hearing in which the government makes its case for why the detainee should be held and the detainee can challenge the government's right to hold him or her."

Trends

Compared to polling conducted in 2004, there have been some modest changes, though the changes do not all move in the same direction and most of the change occurs among Republicans.

The number favoring the ban on physical torture is down seven points from 66 to 59 percent, while those saying this is too restrictive has climbed from 30 to 39 percent.

This is almost entirely attributable to an extraordinary swing in Republican views from 68 percent favoring the ban in 2004 to 44 percent today. Republicans saying it is too restrictive have risen from 31 percent to a majority of 55 percent, though only 34 percent of Republicans favor changing international conventions to allow physical torture.

The number of specific coercive techniques that Republicans endorse is also quite limited and declining. Contrary to the trend in favor of allowing physical torture, in most cases Republicans have become more restrictive in what they regard as acceptable. Across the various scenarios, majorities support sleep deprivation (65%, down from 77%), hooding (63%, down from 66%), loud noise (57%, down from 66%), and stress positions (58%, unchanged). Views continue to be divided on using threatening dogs. For all other methods, clear majorities of Republicans oppose them, including 68 percent who oppose holding a detainee's head under water (though down from 79% in 2004).

Steven Kull, director of WorldPublicOpinion.org, comments on these Republican shifts: "The sharp decline in support for rules against physical torture among Republicans may stem from concerns about the possibility that they may be applied against leaders in the Bush administration for the interrogation techniques they authorized. At the same time, they have grown more opposed to the actual use of specific coercive methods in the future."

Another general trend is that opposition to using "mental torture, such as making someone think that they or their family members will be killed" has risen from 55 to 61 percent. This upward movement is mostly attributable to Democrats (rising from 61% to 70%). Curiously, Republicans are unchanged, so that now opposition to mental torture (53%) is higher than opposition to physical torture (44%).

While three-quarters support the general principle of having treaties govern the treatment of detainees, this number is down from 88 percent in 2004. This shift is mostly due to a shift in Republicans.

The poll was fielded by Knowledge Networks using its nationwide panel, which is randomly selected from the entire adult population and subsequently provided Internet access. For more information about this methodology, go to http://www.knowledgenetworks.com/ganp.

WorldPublicOpinion.org is a project managed by the Program on International Policy Attitudes at the University of Maryland. Funding for this research was provided by the Rockefeller Brothers Fund and the Calvert Foundation.

A new WorldPublicOpinion.org poll finds Egyptians continue to view US foreign policy quite negatively and see President Obama as closely aligned with it. At the same time, Obama has much better ratings than Bush had, and there are signs of thawing feelings toward the US.

President Barack Obama appearing on Al Arabiya TV on January 27, 2009 (Photo: Al Arabiya)

Asked how much confidence they have in Obama to do the right thing in international affairs, 39 percent say they have some or a lot of confidence--up sharply from the 8 percent who viewed George W. Bush positively in January 2008. Views of the United States government have also improved with favorable views rising to 46 percent from 27 percent in an August 2008 WorldPublicOpinion.org poll.

However, there has been little change in the views of US foreign policy. Sixty-seven percent say that the US plays a negative role in the world.

Large majorities continue to believe the US has goals to weaken and divide the Islamic world (76%) and control Middle East oil (80%). Eight in 10 say the US is seeking to impose American culture on Muslim countries (80%). Six in ten say it is not a goal of the US to create a Palestinian state. These numbers are virtually unchanged from 2008.

When asked about Obama's goals, Egyptians' views are almost exactly the same as their views of US goals. Sixty percent say they have little or no confidence that Obama will do the right thing in international affairs.

"Egyptians appear to be saying to Obama, 'Show me you are really different,'" comments Steven Kull, director of WorldPublicOpinion.org, a project managed by the Program on International Policy Attitudes at the University of Maryland.

The poll was conducted through face-to-face interviews from April 25-May 12 with 600 urban Egyptians. The margin of error is 4.1 percent.

Democracy in Egypt

When Obama gives his much-awaited speech in Cairo, many will be listening closely to how he addresses the sensitive question of democracy in Egypt. In 2005 George W. Bush called for greater democracy in the region, which was followed by some liberalization in Egypt. While the Islamist Muslim Brotherhood continued to be banned, some affiliated candidates were allowed to run for office independently. However, when these candidates did well in the elections, the Mubarak government reversed its movement toward liberalization and the Bush administration abruptly stopped pressing for it.

Egyptians view American support for democracy with a jaundiced eye. Only 6 percent think the US favors democracy in Muslim countries irrespective of a government's position toward the US, while 53 percent say the US only favors democracy if the government is cooperative with the US. Four in ten think the US opposes democracy in Muslim countries.

Obama has not strengthened the image of the US as committed to democracy in Muslim countries; indeed, the number saying that the US opposes democracy in Muslim countries is up 14 points, and the number saying that the US unequivocally supports democracy is down 10 points from August 2008.

The Egyptian public shows strong support for democracy. Three quarters say it is very important to live in a democracy and another 24 percent say it is somewhat important.

Sixty-three percent would like to have international observers monitor elections in Egypt, which in 2005 were marred by violence and widespread accusations of irregularities.

Muslim Brotherhood

A high-profile controversy in Egypt and the US is whether the Muslim Brotherhood should be allowed to participate in elections. Many critics have accused it of not being genuinely committed to democracy, but seeking to impose a fundamentalist Islamic state.

The Muslim Brotherhood insists that it is committed to democracy, though it has at times said that it seeks to have a body of Islamic scholars who would have the power to veto legislation that it deemed to be contrary to the Koran.

Among the Egyptian public, views of the Muslim Brotherhood are positive. Sixty-four percent express positive views, 19 percent say they have mixed views and just 16 percent express negative views.

An even larger majority (69%) believe that the Muslim Brotherhood favors democracy. Only 22 percent think that it is still too extreme and not genuinely democratic.

At the same time, the Egyptian public shows sympathy for some Islamist ideas about democracy. Six in ten think the Egyptian government should be based on a form of democracy unique for Islam, as compared to 39 percent who say it should be based on universal principles of democracy. Three-quarters agree with the Muslim Brotherhood's idea that a body of religious scholars should have veto power over laws it believes are contrary to the Koran. While two-thirds say a non-Muslim should be able to run for elected office, only 36 percent say a non-Muslim should be able to run for President.

Afghanistan

Another controversy Obama is likely to face concerns US troops in Afghanistan. Sixty percent say they want the operation in Afghanistan ended now and two-thirds disapprove of the recent increase in the number of US troops there.

However, these majority attitudes appears to be based on the assumption--held by 67 percent--that the Afghan people want NATO forces to leave now. Among those who hold this belief, 85 percent want NATO forces out, while among those who believe most Afghans want NATO troops to stay a while longer, a remarkable 92 percent say the troops should remain.

The most recent ABC/BBC/ARD poll of the Afghan public conducted in January of this year found that 63 percent of Afghanis continued to approve of the presence of US troops in Afghanistan while 59 percent approved of the NATO/ISAF forces. Though there has also been a decline in positive feelings toward the US, large majorities continued to oppose the return of the Taliban.

Published on June 4, 2009

Questionnaire/methodology (PDF)

According to a new WorldPublicOpinion.org poll of the German public, when President Obama speaks to Germans on Friday, he will encounter an audience that is not only positive about Obama himself, but is beginning to lean positively toward the US as well.

Barack Obama on a campaign visit to Berlin, Germany in July 2008 (Photo: David Katz/Obama for America)

At the same time, disagreements remain on US policies on climate change, the use of military force in general, and, most importantly, the operation in Afghanistan.

A striking 89 percent of Germans say they have confidence in Obama to "do the right thing in world affairs."

For the first time since the Iraq war a plurality of Germans express positive views of the US. Forty-four percent of Germans now say the US is playing a mainly positive role in the world, while 34 percent see it as playing a negative role. In 2008 BBC found only 20 percent thinking the US was a positive influence, and Pew found just 31 percent who viewed the US favorably.

The number of Germans who think the US treats Germany fairly has jumped to 48 percent from 33 percent in August 2008. Forty-two percent still say the US "abuses its greater power to make us do what the US wants," but this is down from 61 percent.

A modest majority (54%) currently sees the US as "generally cooperative with other countries"; while 27 percent say it is not (19 percent say "it depends" or do not answer).

At the same time, the German public's more benign view of the US does not extend to every global issue. A clear majority (56%) disapproves of how the US is dealing with climate change; only 25 percent approve. A full two-thirds think "the US uses the threat of military force to gain advantages." Fifty-four percent disapprove of the recent increase of US troops in Afghanistan.

And on the world financial crisis, a big majority (68%) thinks US economic policies have "contributed a lot" to the downturn in the German economy.

"Germans seem to clearly like Obama and are beginning to renew some of their warmth toward the US, but they still have concerns about some US policies, such as those on climate change and the operation in Afghanistan," comments Steven Kull, director of WorldPublicOpinion.org, an international project managed by the Program on International Policy Attitudes at the University of Maryland.

The poll of 1000 German adults was conducted by telephone from April 29 to May 14 by the German polling firm Ri*QUESTA GmbH, a member of the WorldPublicOpinion.org network. The findings have a margin of error of +/-3.2 percent.

Afghanistan

The area of strongest potential disagreement between Obama and the German people is likely to be the operation in Afghanistan, in which German troops are participating. Currently Germany contributes about 3,500 troops under NATO command, the third largest national contingent. Based in the north, German troops see intermittent combat and have suffered 30 combat deaths in the course of the operation.

Germans seem to have some conflict about the Afghan operation. A narrow plurality--49 to 45 percent--disapproves of the NATO mission in Afghanistan. A slight majority (52%) wants to end the mission now, while 42 percent want it to continue.

On the other hand an overwhelming majority of Germans say they would also be very concerned if the Taliban were to return to power. Asked how they would feel "If the Taliban were to regain power in Afghanistan," 78 percent say this would be "very bad," and another 15 percent call it "somewhat bad." Only 3 percent of Germans think this outcome might turn out to be neutral or good.

"Obama's biggest challenge and opportunity is to convert German concern about the potential return of the Taliban into support for continued German participation in the Afghan operation" comments Steven Kull.

One of the sources of opposition to the operation may be the assumption that most of the Afghan people want to the NATO mission to end. A majority of Germans (55%) thinks "most people in Afghanistan want NATO forces to leave now." Among those Germans who hold this belief, 74 percent want the mission ended. However among those who believe most Afghans want NATO to stay a while longer (33%), a remarkable 78 percent say the troops should remain.

The most recent ABC/BBC/ARD poll of the Afghan public (conducted in January of this year) found that 63 percent of Afghans approved of the presence of US troops in Afghanistan, while 59 percent approved of the NATO/ISAF forces.

Questionnaire/Methodology (PDF)

A new WorldPublicOpinion.org poll finds that three-quarters of Americans think that Israel should not build settlements in the Palestinian territories. This is up 23 points from when this question was last asked in 2002.

Israeli settlement of Ma'ale Adumim located in the West Bank (Photo: Decode Jerusalem)

One third of Americans show more sympathy for Israel than the Palestinians, substantially more than the 12 percent who express more sympathy for the Palestinians.

However the largest number--51 percent--expresses equal levels of sympathy for each side. The percentage expressing equal levels of sympathy is up 10 points from 2002.

Even those respondents who sympathize more with Israel feel that it should not be building settlements in the West Bank by a clear majority (64%), as do those who sympathize equally with Israel and the Palestinians (80%), and those who sympathize more with the Palestinians (96%).

"Americans are showing increasing impatience with Israel for building settlements," comments Steven Kull, director of WorldPublicOpinion.org. "Even the third of Americans who sympathize with Israel more than the Palestinians oppose the settlements."

Opposition to settlements is found among majorities of Republicans (65%), Democrats (83%) and independents (74%). However, more Republicans show more sympathy for Israel (50%) than sympathize with both equally (41%), while Democrats overwhelmingly express equal levels of sympathy (55%) as do independents (64%).

The poll of 1,004 respondents was fielded March 25 to April 6, 2009 by Knowledge Networks. The margin of error is plus or minus 3-4.5 percent.

Each respondent was also asked to evaluate an argument against and an argument in defense of Israel's building settlements in the Palestinian territories. These arguments were originally developed with the advice of the Israeli embassy in the US and the Palestinian Mission at the UN.

Both arguments were found convincing by a majority, but the argument against the settlements was found convincing by a larger margin. Sixty-two percent found convincing the argument against the settlements, that "UN resolutions 242 and 338, which were endorsed by nearly all members of the UN, including the US, called for Israel to withdraw from territories it invaded in the 1967 war. Thus, for Israel to build new settlements in these areas is illegal under international law." This is up five points from 2002.

At the same time a 54 percent majority also found convincing the argument in defense of the settlements, that "Israel has a right to build settlements in the West Bank and Gaza because Jews have lived in these areas for centuries and have legitimate historical claims to property there." This is unchanged from 2002.

After hearing the arguments, opposition to the settlements was 60 percent. While still a majority, this was substantially lower than it was without hearing the arguments. This is quite interesting because, though the argument against the settlements was found more convincing than the argument in their defense, the argument in defense of the settlements appears to have had more influence on attitudes. It may be that the argument in defense of the settlements was new for more people than was the argument against them.

A modest majority--53 percent--say that the US should make it a high priority (45%) or one of the highest priorities (8%) "to resolve the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians." This is down 16 points from 2003.

Twenty-nine percent say they follow the news on the issue at least fairly closely. Those who follow the issue closely are more likely to say that the US should make the issue a high priority (72%). They are also much less likely to express equal levels of sympathy for both sides (31% as compared to 51% for the whole sample). Correspondingly, they are more likely than the general sample to have more sympathy either for Israel (47%) or for the Palestinians (21%).

However, when it comes to the question of the settlements, those who followed the issue closely are not significantly different from the general sample: three-quarters of both groups oppose the settlements. Their response to the arguments about the settlements and their position after hearing the arguments are also approximately the same.

Those who both follow the issue closely and believe that the government should make it a high priority--what could be called the "issue public"--constitute 21 percent of the sample. This group is also less likely to say they sympathize with both sides equally (36%) and more likely to express more sympathy for Israel (43%) and for the Palestinians (20%), than the sample as a whole. However, they are just as likely to oppose the settlements as is the sample as a whole.

The poll was fielded by Knowledge Networks using its nationwide panel, which is randomly selected from the entire adult population and subsequently provided Internet access. For more information about this methodology, go to www.knowledgenetworks.com/ganp.

WorldPublicOpinion.org is a project managed by the Program on International Policy Attitudes at the University of Maryland. Funding for this research was provided by the Rockefeller Brothers Fund and the Calvert Foundation.

Full report (PDF)
Questionnaire/methodology (PDF)

Despite the economic downturn, a large majority of Americans support US efforts to improve health in poor countries. This support is grounded in altruistic concern for the poor, but it also comes from a sense that in today's interconnected world a health crisis anywhere could impact Americans and that with globalization, health is an increasingly global issue.

(Photo: Transaid)

The poll of 1,004 Americans, conducted from March 25 to April 6, finds that 64 percent want the US government to make efforts to improve health for people in developing countries. The poll was conducted by WorldPublicOpinion.org in collaboration with, and with financial support from, the Institute of Medicine at the National Academies of Science.

A key reason for making such efforts is altruism. Seventy-five percent say these programs "express Americans' key values--compassion, generosity and a desire to share knowledge."

However, an even larger number agrees that such efforts serve the interests of Americans as well as others. An overwhelming 85 percent endorse the view that "these programs are important for the health of Americans as well as people abroad," due to diseases like SARS and avian flu.

The American public shows equally strong support for programs to fight diseases that mostly strike abroad as for programs to fight diseases that strike at home. Eighty percent favor "conducting basic research on diseases, such as malaria and tuberculosis that primarily affect poor countries," while as many (79%) favor "supporting programs to reduce death and disability from chronic diseases like cancer and diabetes, which affect poor as well as rich countries."

"Most Americans see an overlap between problems of disease at home and problems of disease in poor countries," comments Clay Ramsay, research director of WorldPublicOpinion.org. "Though there's generosity at work as well, they primarily see global health issues as in everyone's interest to resolve."

More broadly, Americans appear to be thinking of health as an increasingly global phenomenon: 80 percent agree that because of "increased travel and trade in food products, we need to think of health as a global problem requiring a cooperative global response."

Interestingly, Americans' support for global health programs is apparently undiminished by the fact that nearly all Americans overestimate the overall amount of development aid the US gives compared to other donor countries, as a percentage of gross domestic product (GDP). Eighty-seven percent believe the US gives more (69%) or as much (18%) as other donor countries as a percentage of GDP. In reality, the US ranks at the bottom of 22 OECD donor countries in this regard.

There may in fact be support for higher levels of spending if Americans had more correct information about actual relative spending levels. Asked how much the US should spend as compared to other developed countries, a 57 percent majority say the US should spend about the same percentage.

Support for Specific Programs

Child and maternal health in developing countries has long been, and remains, a very popular cause with Americans. Seventy-seven percent favor programs for "improving the health of mothers and children in poor countries"; only 23 percent are opposed.

Though controversy always swirls in the US around funding family planning programs in poor countries, 68 percent favor programs for "helping poor countries provide family planning and reproductive health services to their citizens," with 31 percent opposed. Such majority support has been found in the past as well. In PIPA's 1995 study on foreign aid, 74 percent wanted to either maintain (38%) or increase (36%) funding for family planning programs in poor countries.

One kind of program divides public opinion down the middle--programs about tobacco use. Only 50 percent favored "supporting international programs to reduce tobacco use in poor countries" (17% strongly, 33% somewhat), while 49 percent opposed them (17% strongly, 32% somewhat). It may be that some are uncertain about the effectiveness of programs whose success depends on others' personal lifestyle choices.

Working Multilaterally

A majority thinks that in general, it is best to give aid through international efforts, rejecting arguments that when the US acts on its own it has more control over how aid is spent and gets more credit for results. Sixty-one percent agree that "When giving foreign aid, it is best for the US to participate in international efforts, such as through the UN. This way it is more likely that other countries will do their fair share and that these efforts will be better coordinated." Only 37 percent prefer the view that "When giving foreign aid it is best for the US to do so on its own, because that way the US has more control over how the money is spent and will get more credit and influence in the country receiving the aid.

Consistent with this, in the global health field, an overwhelming majority--79 percent--favors the United States contributing to the work of the World Health Organization in "seek[ing] to deal with diseases worldwide."

Support for New Strategies

Strengthening Poor Countries' Overall Health Systems

There are questions in the health policy community about the proper balance in US government global health programs. Programs addressing specific diseases such as HIV/AIDS or malaria may be more easily understood by the public and accordingly receive stronger public endorsement. Directing additional support to country health systems, though, could help developing countries address non-communicable diseases, injuries, and chronic diseases as well as HIV/AIDS.

It turns out, however, that the public prefers to distribute global health aid so that helping poor countries strengthen their general health systems receives more support than it does today. Respondents were offered a question that explained the issue and asked respondents to allocate $100 of aid across a) specific disease programs or b) to help poor countries build up their health systems.

Americans divide aid for these types of programs fairly evenly, slightly favoring programs targeted at overall health systems. On average, the public allocates $55 to programs supporting overall health systems and $45 to programs fighting specific diseases. Among respondents, 36 percent assigned more than $50 to health systems, 38 percent precisely $50, and 20 percent less than $50. For fighting specific diseases, 20 percent assigned more than $50, 38 percent $50, and 36 percent less than $50.

For the American public, both goals appear to merit receiving US aid. The public seems to favor more balance than is currently present in US programs, and most favor using a substantial share to build up health systems in poor countries.

Visa for Health Professionals from Developing Countries

The US benefits from a large number of trained medical professionals from developing countries who immigrate and work here. Though many appear to be interested in assisting their home countries by returning temporarily to practice there, US visa arrangements make this difficult for those who are not yet American citizens. A change in visa regulations has been discussed that would allow foreign doctors and nurses to return to their home country to work temporarily, and to later come back to the US

Americans support such a visa arrangement. By a very large majority, 81 percent, the public thinks that this visa proposal is a good idea; only 18 percent think it is a bad idea.

Programs to Support Creation of Successful Vaccines

Infectious diseases are responsible for the deaths of millions of people each year in developing countries, but because these countries are poor, pharmaceutical companies may not be able to recover their research and development costs, even when new vaccines prove to be successful.

An advance market commitment by governments in developed countries that subsidizes the purchase of a successful vaccine by poor countries would provide a reliable market for such new drugs. A group of developed countries has recently used such a mechanism successfully to encourage the development of a vaccine against a pneumonia-related disease.

Two thirds (65%) of Americans support the US government participating in "a program that ensures that drug companies are adequately compensated if they create a vaccine" that would be used primarily in poor countries. Thirty-three percent are opposed.

Small Tax on International Airline Travel

A group of eight countries led by France has developed a program which applies a modest tax on airline travel to help the UN's AIDS program purchase drugs for AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria. This provides a source of support for global health efforts based upon international travel and commerce. France charges one euro for an economy class intra-Europe flight and four euros for a flight beyond Europe. Other participating countries in the group apply the tax only to international flights.

Majorities of Americans favor such a tax at the lower price level tested (one or two dollars) and at the higher level as well. A majority (57%) says that the US should join the group of countries in charging such a tax ($1-2) on international flights to support UN efforts to provide drugs; 41 percent say the US should not. At the level of a five-dollar tax, a slimmer majority is also in favor--53 percent say that the US should participate, and 44 percent say it should not.

The poll was fielded by Knowledge Networks using its nationwide panel, which is randomly selected from the entire adult population and subsequently provided Internet access. For more information about this methodology, go to www.knowledgenetworks.com/ganp. The margin of error for this study is +/- 3.2 percent.

WorldPublicOpinion.org is a project managed by the Program on International Policy Attitudes at the University of Maryland.

A WorldPublicOpinion.org survey of people in 21 nations from around the world finds that people who get to know people from other countries or who travel outside their country are more likely to view themselves as global citizens.

(Photo: J. Aaron Farr)

Among those who say they do not know people from other regions of the world, only 29 percent say that they see themselves as a global citizen as much, or more than, as a citizen of their nation. The more people know people from different regions of the world, the more they see themselves as a global citizen--rising to 47 percent among those who know people from five or more regions.

Among those who have not travelled outside of their country in the last five years only 29 percent say that they see themselves as a global citizen as much, or more than, as a citizen of their nation. Among those who have travelled outside their country at least once in the last five years, 39 percent say they see themselves as a global citizen as much or more than as a citizen of their own country.

Asked "Do you consider yourself more a citizen of [your country], more a citizen of the world or both equally?" most people around the world said that they think of themselves primarily as citizens of their country. On average 66 percent say they primarily think of themselves as citizens of their country, 10 percent as citizens of the world and 20 percent as both equally.

Previous research by the World Values Survey revealed that many more people think of themselves as a "world citizen" to some extent. In a poll of 45 nations majorities in 42 said that they see themselves "as a world citizen," with an average of 72 percent taking this position. The WPO poll reveals that substantially fewer regard this identity as more primary than their identity as a citizen of their nation.

In the WPO poll the nations with the highest numbers saying they primarily think of themselves as a "citizen of the world" are Italy (21%) and Germany (19%).

Substantial numbers say they see themselves as either a citizen of the world, or as equally a citizen of the world and their country. These include France (51%), China (50%), Italy (48%), India (46%), and Mexico (44%). The lowest levels are found in Azerbaijan (9%), Kenya (12%), Jordan (15%) and South Korea (16%).

The publics with the lowest numbers identifying themselves primarily as citizens of their nation were Chinese. These included 35 percent of Chinese and also 36 percent of Taiwanese. However 61 percent of people in Macau said they identify with their nation.
Indians were also quite low in national identity at 40 percent.

Younger people tend to be more globally oriented than older people. Among those 60 and older, 24 percent see themselves as global citizens. This rises to 34 percent among those 18-29 years old.

Global identity also increases with education. Among those with less than a high school education, 28 percent think of themselves as a global citizen. This rises to 39 percent among those with education.

Steven Kull, director of WorldPublicOpinion.org comments, "These findings suggest it is likely that in the future people will increasingly think of themselves as global citizens. Young people are more prone to see themselves this way. Also, with economic development people travel more, meet foreigners more and become more educated; all these developments are related to greater tendencies for people to see themselves as global citizens."

Kull adds, "These findings also suggest international exchange programs, where people meet people from other countries, may increase the likelihood that people will think of themselves in more global terms."

The poll of 21,307 respondents was conducted in 21 nations between July 15 and November 4, 2008 by WorldPublicOpinion.org, a collaborative project of research centers around the world managed by the Program on International Policy Attitudes at the University of Maryland. Most of the world's largest nations were included--China, India, the United States, Indonesia, Nigeria, and Russia--as well as Argentina, Mexico, France, Germany, Great Britain, Italy, Egypt, Jordan, the Palestinian territories, Azerbaijan, Turkey, Kenya, Thailand, South Korea, and Ukraine. The nations polled represent 61 percent of the world population. Publics in Taiwan, Hong Kong, and Macau were also polled. Margins of error range from approximately +/-2 to 4 percent. Not all questions were asked in all nations.

By Alvin Richman, David B. Nolle and Elaine El Assal

Findings from an early 2008 World Public Opinion (WPO) survey in Iran¹ suggest that the Iranian public is far from monolithic in how it views important political and social issues that will likely play prominent roles affecting the outcome of the upcoming 2009 national elections. These findings also have considerable relevance for U.S. policy toward Iran during a period in which the U.S. government is exploring the possibility and usefulness of greater openness in its dealings with Iran.

Using a statistical clustering technique called Latent Class Analysis, we have identified three separate opinion groups within the Iranian public on the basis of their differing degrees of support of the Iranian government on three measures contained in the WPO survey.² All three measures, discussed below, tap the theoretical construct of "regime support." We have found that the three public groups identified by using these "regime support" measures mirror the diversity of views among Iran's political elites.

We are able to label these groups as Conservatives, Moderates and Reformers by examining the patterns of responses to these measures in each group and by borrowing from the research on factions among Iran's political elites.³ In WPO's January 2008 survey, we found that Conservatives comprised 45 percent of the total (N = approx. 319), compared to 24 percent for Moderates (N = approx. 168) and 18 percent for Reformers (N = approx. 124).⁴ The remaining 13 percent fell into a non-substantive, largely "no opinion" group (N = approx. 99). Demographically, Moderates and Reformers tend to be younger, better educated, have higher incomes, and live in larger urban areas than do Conservatives.

The three measures of "regime support" -- The three major substantive groups within Iran's public are separated and defined by their sharp and consistent divergence on three WPO questions relating to support of the Iranian government ("regime support"): (1) Satisfaction with the Iranian election process, (2) support for a free press versus the government's right to censor destabilizing news, and (3) trust in Iran's national government. (See Table 1 in Appendix I for the exact wording of each of these questions.) On all three questions, support for the regime declines sharply and progressively from the highest regime support (Conservatives) to the least regime support (Reformers). For example, nearly all Conservatives (97%) trust the Iranian national government "most of the time," most Moderates (85%) trust it "some of the time," and most Reformers (64%) trust it "rarely" or "never." (See Table 1A in Appendix I)

The three groups also differ in the assessment of the process by which authorities generally are elected in Iran: Most Conservatives (83%) and Moderates (70%) are satisfied with the Iranian election process, while most Reformers (74%) are clearly dissatisfied with it. This is an example of sharp divergence of Reformers from the majority views of Conservatives and Moderates (Table 1B).

The three groups also differ considerably in their preferences on having media freedom versus the government's right to censor potentially destabilizing news. Conservatives favor the government's right to censor (by a 67-17% majority); Moderates are closely divided (48% for the government's right to censor vs. 39% for media freedom); and Reformists favor media freedom by a large 73-18 percent majority - a reversal of the preference shown by Conservatives (Table 1C).

These sharp differences in basic attitudinal orientation among the three groups may partly reflect their differences in age, education and income. Majorities of both Moderates (58%) and Reformers (55%) are between 18-29 years of age, compared to 36 percent of Conservatives who fall into this youngest age group. Also, two-thirds or more of Moderates (66%) and Reformers (71%) have completed high school, compared to half of the Conservatives. (See Table 2)

Additional issues on which these three distinct Iranian opinion groups diverge are discussed below. These include other questions relating to Iran's domestic institutions (e.g., approval of President Ahmadinejad) and perceptions of the United States and the American people. Two cases of "partial divergence" will also be examined, in which two of the groups, Moderates and Reformers, share fairly similar views on an issue, but these views differ sharply from those of the third group, Conservatives. An example of "partial divergence" is satisfaction with Iran's economy, in which a majority of Conservatives voice satisfaction while most Moderates and Reformers express dissatisfaction. Then a number of areas are examined in which the views of the three groups converge, including sizeable majority opposition within all groups to Iran developing nuclear weapons and predominant support within all groups to U.S.-Iranian governmental talks on a range of issues, including Iraq.

Click here to continue reading the full report

² Latent Class Analysis (LCA) segments the sample into relatively homogeneous groups based on respondents' answers to three questions relating to "regime support". Additional details on our analytical approach are contained in Appendix IIA, Obtaining the Basic LCA Results.

³ The labeling for each group is based on the response distributions within each group and the logic for our labels will become evident in our subsequent analyses in the main text. Our analytical discussion is focused on these three substantively important groups. A small fourth group (approximately 13% of the sample), characterized by scattered substantive responses and disproportionately high "Don't Know" responses, is ignored in order to concentrate on the main features of the public's political landscape. Although many researchers have written about the major political subdivisions or factions among the Iranian elites (see, for example, the works of Shahram Chubin, Akbar Ganji, and Sanam Vakil), comparable empirical analyses of the major political orientations in representative national samples of the Iranian public seem to be in short supply. Thus, our work aims to contribute to a better understanding of this aspect of the Iranian public.

⁴ Our analytical strategy depends on examining patterns in the data rather than on constructing tests of significance using margins of error. Thus, most of the tables in Appendix I contain multiple, consistent measures of the single concept being addressed. Obtaining useful approximations of the margins of error (i.e., sampling errors) for our analyses covering each of the three substantive groups is not a simple process, requiring consideration of the multi-stage nature of the sampling design, as well as the magnitudes of the percentages and numerical size of each group being examined. Nevertheless, some very tentative indications of the possible margins of error can be derived by using computations based on a simple random sample formula and increasing the results by a factor of 1.41 to estimate the effects of the complex sampling design. Applying this admittedly arbitrary approach, the following margins of error are offered as tentative suggestions for the maximum variability at the 95 percent confidence level: 7.7% for Conservatives; 10.7% for Moderates; and 12.4% for Reformers.

But Many Muslims and Russians Accept Press Restrictions to Preserve Political Stability

Country-by-Country Summaries (PDF)
Questionnaire/methodology (PDF)
Full PDF Version

This report presents an updated analysis of a poll of 20 nations originally released in advance of International Press Freedom Day in 2008, a year that marked the 60th anniversary of the UN General Assembly's adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

In all nations polled there is robust support for the principle that the media should be free of government control and that citizens should even have access to material from hostile countries. With just a few exceptions majorities say that the government should not have the right to limit access to the internet. But while most publics say the government should not have the right to prohibit publishing material it thinks will be politically destabilizing, a majority in several predominantly Muslim countries and nearly half of Russians say that governments should have such a right. In many countries, majorities want more media freedom.

(Photo: Stefano Corso)

The poll of 20,512 respondents was conducted by WorldPublicOpinion.org, a collaborative research project involving research centers from around the world and managed by the Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) at the University of Maryland. Polling was conducted between January 10 and October 24, 2008.

Interviews were conducted in 22 nations, though in three of them not all questions were asked. Those nations interviewed include most of the world's largest nations --China, India, the United States, Indonesia, Nigeria, and Russia--as well as Argentina, Azerbaijan, Britain, Egypt, France, Iran, Jordan, Kenya, Mexico, Peru, Poland, South Korea, Thailand, Turkey, Ukraine, and the Palestinian territories. The public in Hong Kong was also polled. These nations represent 61 percent of the world population.

Worldwide Support for Principle of Media Freedom

The broad principle of media freedom gets very robust support. Majorities in all nations asked say that it is important "for the media to be free to publish news and ideas without government control."

On average, 81 percent said it is "important," with 53 percent saying it is "very important." In no country did more than 29 percent say that media freedom is "not very important" or "not important at all."

Citizens are also seen as having the right to read publications from hostile countries. Respondents were asked whether people in their country should "have the right to read publications from all other countries including those that might be considered enemies." Once again, majorities in all countries affirmed this right; on average 80 percent.

The only country with fewer than seven in 10 agreeing was India, where 56 percent agreed. India also had the highest percentage (33%) saying that access to such publications should be limited.

Internet Censorship

The Internet is a significant new medium for news, information, and ideas. As some governments have sought to regulate access to the Internet, it has also become a new arena for conflict about media freedom.

Presented the issue of Internet censorship, a majority in all but two of the countries that were asked this question said that "people should have the right to read whatever is on the Internet." On average 62 percent endorsed full access, while 30 percent said that the government should have the right to "prevent people from having access to some things on the Internet."

In China, a country whose Internet censorship policies have received a great deal of international attention, 71 percent of the public said that "people should have the right to read whatever is on the Internet;" only 21 percent of Chinese endorsed their government's right to limit access.

The only two publics to not endorse full access were Jordan and Iran. In Jordan 63 percent supported government regulation of the Internet, as did 44 percent in Iran (32% favor unlimited access).

However majorities in other Middle Eastern nations favored the right to full Internet access, including Egypt (65%), Turkey (60%), and the Palestinian territories (52%). Two other majority-Muslim countries polled also endorsed this right: Indonesia (65%) and Azerbaijan (79%).

Though majorities in all countries except Jordan and Iran favored the right, there is also significant minority support for some government control of access to information on the Internet in France (44%), the Palestinian territories (44%), Kenya (38%), India (36%), and Great Britain (35%).

Controlling Potentially Destabilizing Information

Presented with a choice between an argument in favor of media freedom without government control and the argument that "government should have the right to prevent the media from publishing things it thinks will be politically destabilizing," majorities or pluralities in 15 publics polled felt that that the risk of political instability does not justify government control.

However, in six predominantly Muslim nations and in Russia this scenario prompted considerable support for government control. Majorities in Jordan (66%), the Palestinian territories (59%), and Indonesia (56%) supported government control of the media when the government thinks that publishing some things might be politically destabilizing. In Iran, a plurality (45%) supported government control under such circumstances (31% felt the media should be able to publish freely). Views were divided in Russia (45% to 44%), Egypt (49% to 52%), and Turkey (45% to 42%).

This does not, however, mean that any of these publics favor greater government regulation in general. Rather, in four of these cases majorities favored greater media freedom--Egypt (64%), the Palestinian territories (62%), Jordan (56%), and Indonesia (53%). Only small minorities favored less freedom in Iran (9%), Turkey (30%), and Russia (17%).

Those countries with strong majorities continuing to favor media freedom even when it may be destabilizing include Peru (83%), Argentina (80%), Poland (78%), Mexico (77%), the US (72%), South Korea (72%), Nigeria (71%), France (70%), Great Britain (69%), and Kenya (67%). Smaller majorities or pluralities in three other countries also preferred media freedom over government control: Ukraine (59%), Azerbaijan (55%), China (53%), Thailand (48%), and India (42%).

Widespread Desire for More Freedom

In 12 nations a majority favored more media freedom and in another six their publics leaned in that direction. Just three countries are largely content and in no country did more than one in three favor less freedom.

The 12 nations with a majority calling for more freedom included Mexico (75%), Kenya (75%), Nigeria (70%), China (66%), South Korea (65%), Egypt (64%), the Palestinian territories (62%), Azerbaijan (57%), Argentina (75%), Jordan (56%), Indonesia (53%), and Peru (51%).

An additional five countries had substantial numbers favoring greater freedom. These included Ukraine (45%), Thailand (44%), France (43%), Russia (39%), Turkey (38%), and India (36%). It should be noted, though, that in Turkey and India there was an unusually large number calling for less freedom (30 and 32%, respectively).

Three countries expressed relative contentment. Only small minorities called for more freedom in the United States (25%), Great Britain (25%) and Iran (34%). Majorities in Britain (59%) and the United States (52%) said that they have the right amount of freedom, as did 43 percent in Iran. In the United States an unusually large 22 percent called for less freedom--approximately the same number of those calling for more (25%). This is in contrast to Britain and Iran where those calling for more freedom were significantly more numerous than those calling for less (Britain: 25 to 15%; Iran: 34 to 9%).

On average, across all nations polled, 51 percent said that they would like their media to have more freedom, 14 percent favored less freedom, and 30 percent favored the same amount of freedom.

Perceived Status of Media Freedom in Country

This poll also assessed public views of how free the media are in their own country. In all nations polled, a majority said that media in their country have either "a lot" of freedom (30% across countries) or "some" freedom (41%). In no country polled did a majority say "not very much" or "none at all."

This may not be surprising. Even when governments, or other forces, do exercise control over the media, they usually create an environment where control is not complete, where "some freedom" is present.

In only three countries polled did 50 percent or more say that the media in their country have a "lot of" freedom: Great Britain (71%), the United States (66%), and France (50%).

The largest percentages saying the media have either not very much or no freedom were found in Nigeria (44%), Azerbaijan (41%), the Palestinian territories (36%), and China (32%).

There is a clear correspondence between how people perceive media freedom in their country and outside evaluations. For example, the organization Reporters Sans Frontieres (RSF, or Reporters without Borders) ranked 169 countries in terms of their media freedom (see www.rsf.org for details of their measures). There is a correlation of 0.64 between the 2007 RSF rankings of countries in terms of media freedom and the proportion of the public in those countries saying in the poll that there was a lot of freedom.

In the poll, the three countries rated by at least half of their citizens as having "a lot" of media freedom also had three of the four highest ranks in the RSF 2007 Index: Great Britain (24th), France (31st), and the United States (48th). South Korea had a ranking of 39 among the 169 RSF-ranked countries, but only 27 percent of Koreans said there was a lot of media freedom in their country.

Those nations where very few citizens polled said that there was "a lot" of media freedom also got low rankings among the 169 countries in the RSF index: the Palestinian territories 158th, China 163rd, Azerbaijan 139th, Nigeria 131st, Iran 166th, and Ukraine 92nd.

There also appears to be a relationship between the actual level of freedom--perceived by respondents or outside evaluators--and expressed dissatisfaction. In the three countries where half or more of the public said that there is "a lot" of media freedom, and who scored relatively high on the RSF Index, the public tended to indicate that they want the media to have the "same amount of freedom." This was the case in Britain (59%), the United States (52%), and France (44%), though in France another 43 percent said they want more freedom.

In the 14 nations where the publics characterized their country as having "some" rather than "a lot" of media freedom, majorities in nine said that there should be more media freedom: Mexico (75%), Nigeria (70%), China (66%), South Korea (65%), Egypt (64%), the Palestinian territories (62%), Azerbaijan (57%), Jordan (56%), and Indonesia (53%).

Argentina displayed a similar pattern: a slim plurality (41%) said their country had "a lot" of media freedom and 36 percent said it had "some" freedom. A majority of Argentines (57%) did think the country should have more freedom than it currently has.

In six other countries that said they had "some" media freedom, the view was more mixed: Russia, Ukraine, Turkey, Thailand, India, and Iran. In none of the six did a majority say there was a lot of media freedom, and each of the six countries received low RSF Index rankings on media freedom. However, in none of the six did majorities say that there should be more media freedom.

In five of the countries, support for more media freedom is the most common response, but not a majority: Russia (39%), Ukraine (45%), Turkey (38%), Thailand (44%), and India (36%). Here, the publics seem to recognize that media freedom is at least somewhat limited; they also said that media freedom was important, but a majority of the people were not demanding more.

Among Iranians, only 17 percent of the public said there is a lot of media freedom, but only 34 percent said there should be more freedom in their country, and the most common response (43%) was that there should be the same amount of freedom as there is currently.

People with greater education tend to support media freedom more than those with less education. This pattern is evident in response to questions on the importance of media freedom, whether the media should be free to publish without government control, whether people should be able to read publications from other countries even those considered enemies, and whether people should have the right to read whatever is on the Internet. Those with a college degree supported media freedom across each of these issues more so than those with less than high school educations by magnitudes ranging between 7-14 points. However, even those with the lowest level of education supported media freedom on all these questions.

Education has no effect, however, on people's view of how much media freedom their country has or how much it should have.

The effect of age showed a different pattern. Older and younger people showed little difference in the importance of media freedom, whether the media should be free of government control, or on whether people should have the right to read publications from other countries. But people 60 years and older (though still a majority of 52%) were less likely than younger respondents (66%) to feel that people should have the right to read whatever is on the Internet.

The oldest respondents (40%) also were more likely to say that their country has "a lot" of media freedom than the youngest (26%); and the oldest (42%) were less likely to feel that their country should have "more" media freedom than the youngest (53%).

These findings were also published in the December 2008 report World Public Opinion and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

As the Obama administration has sought to cut farm subsidies for next year's budget they have encountered strong resistance, especially in farm states. However a new WorldPublicOpinion.org poll finds that the American public, including in farm states, would favor eliminating most farm subsidies.

(Photo: Eric Allix Rogers)

Eighty percent of US subsidies go to large farming businesses, however only 36 percent of Americans favor such subsidies while 61 percent oppose them. Opposition to subsidies for large farms was not substantively or statistically different among Republicans (62%), Democrats (60%), and independents (59%).

Seventy-seven percent of Americans do, however, favor providing subsidies to small farms (i.e. farms under 500 acres). Support is highest among Democrats (82%), followed by Republicans (73%) and then Independents (69%). Most small farms do not receive subsidies.

The public in farm states has views of farm subsidies that are little different than residents of non-farm states. In the 17 states that receive the largest amount of farm subsidies, just 35 percent of the public favors subsidies to large farming businesses, compared to 37 percent in non-farm states. There is support for subsidies for small farms in both farm states (79%) and non-farm states (75%).

Americans are also at odds with the way that farm subsidies are provided. Most subsidies are provided on a regular annual basis, independent of whether it was a good year or a bad year for the farmer. However only minorities of Americans think that subsidies should be provided on a regular annual basis, whether for small farms (37%) or large farms (15%).

Here again views in farm states are not significantly different from the rest of the country. Only minorities approve of providing subsidies on a regular annual basis to small farms (39%) or large farms (13%).

Steven Kull, director of WorldPublicOpinion.org comments, "Clearly, US policy on farm subsidies is far out of step with the preferences of the American public. The vast majority of US subsidies go to large farming businesses on a regular annual basis. However only one in three Americans approve of subsidies to large farming businesses and less than one in six approve doing so on a regular annual basis."

US farm subsidies have been a major stumbling block in trade negotiations, with developing countries refusing to open their markets any further as long as the US and other developed countries continue to give their farmers the advantage of subsidies. Steven Kull comments, "While the public would oppose eliminating all farm subsidies, the scope of subsidies the public supports is so much narrower than is currently provided that, if the public's preferences were followed, this would largely remove the current obstacle in trade negotiations."

The poll was conducted with a nationwide sample of 765 from March 25 to April 6, 2009. The margin of error is plus or minus 3.7 percent.

The poll was fielded by Knowledge Networks using its nationwide panel, which is randomly selected from the entire adult population and subsequently provided Internet access. For more information about this methodology, go to www.knowledgenetworks.com/ganp.

WorldPublicOpinion.org is a project managed by the Program on International Policy Attitudes at the University of Maryland. Funding for this research was provided by the Rockefeller Brothers Fund and the Calvert Foundation.

Questionnaire/Methodology (PDF)
Full PDF version

A majority of Americans feel that it is time to try a new approach to Cuba, according to a national poll by WorldPublicOpinion.org. More specifically, the public favors lifting the ban on travel to Cuba for Americans and re-establishing diplomatic relations as well as other changes.

By a wide margin the American public believes that increasing trade and travel will lead Cuba to become more open and democratic rather than having the effect of strengthening the Communist regime.

These are among the findings of a new national poll of Americans on the subject of Cuba policy conducted March 25 - April 6, 2009 among 765 adults (margin of error +/- 3.7 percentage points).

Time for Changing US Policies

A majority (59%) of the American public endorses the view that it is "time to try a new approach to Cuba, because Cuba may be ready for a change". Thirty-nine percent of Americans endorsed the opposing position on this issue, that "the Communist Party is still in control; therefore the US should continue to isolate Cuba."

A clear majority of Democrats (71%) favor trying a new approach while Republicans are divided with 52 percent favoring continued isolation and 47 percent favoring a new approach. Independents are also divided (50% - new approach, 45% continued isolation).

The public, by a large majority, feels that US government leaders should be ready to meet with Cuban leaders. Overall 75 percent of those interviewed feel that US leaders should be willing to meet their Cuban counterparts; only 23 percent feel this is a bad idea. On this issue, partisan groups agree. A majority of Republicans (66%), independents (64%), and Democrats (86%) all have the view that US leaders should be ready to meet with Cuban leaders.

Travel to Cuba

The American public (70%) feels that in general Americans should be free to visit Cuba, and only a minority (28%) feels that Americans should be prohibited from visiting the island. Freedom for Americans to visit Cuba is broadly supported by Republicans (62%), by independents (66%), and by Democrats (77%). Lifting the prohibition on visiting Cuba would require a change in US policy that has been in place since 1963.

The public by a very large majority approves of this Obama Administration policy announced on March 11, 2009 which relaxed restrictions on travel to Cuba for the purpose of visiting relatives (79% approve, 19% disapprove). Republicans show substantial majority support (71%) even though the policy change is clearly linked in the question and in press treatments to the new Democratic president. Independents (70%) and Democrats (90%) by large margins also support the policy change.

Diplomatic Relations

Americans likewise favor re-establishing diplomatic relations with Cuba by a clear majority - 69 percent favor, only 28 percent are opposed. All partisan groups support re-establishing diplomatic relations, though Democrats do so in larger numbers (82%) than Republicans (57%) or independents (58%).

To understand trends in American opinion, the diplomatic relations question was drawn from a question used by the Gallup organization in 2002, 04, 06, and 08. Over this period, the proportion of Americans which favors re-establishing diplomatic relations with Cuba has increased from 55% (2002, 2004), to 67% in 2006, 61% in 2008 and currently 69%. The Program on International Policy Attitudes asked a quite similar question in 1998 and found that 56% of Americans supported re-establishing relations. Other organizations (CNN, Associated Press) have also reported that a majority of Americans support diplomatic relations with Cuba, and the trend favoring diplomatic relations seems to be increasing.

Impact of US Travel and Trade

One of the core arguments in Cuba policy is whether increasing all kinds of contact between the US and Cuba - travel, trade, diplomacy - will strengthen the Castro regime or will have a liberalizing effect on the system.

Americans feel, by wide margins, that increasing travel and trade between Cuba and the United States is more likely to have the effect of leading "Cuba in a more open and democratic direction" (71%) than to "strengthen the Communist regime in Cuba" (26%). Clear majorities of Democrats (80%), independents (69%) as well as Republicans (59%) share this view.

The public is almost evenly divided, however, when asked specifically about the desirability of continuing the US trade embargo of Cuba or ending the embargo: 48% favor continuing the embargo and 49% favor ending it. Underlying this division is majority Democratic support (58%) for ending the embargo, independents who are divided (46% end the embargo, 49% continue), and majority support for continuing the embargo on the part of Republicans (59%).

Differences between partisan Democrats and Republicans on some aspects of Cuba policy should not be surprising in that they reflect central tendencies within the parties. While Cuba policy was not one of the major issues of the 2008 presidential campaign, the platforms of the two parties, and the positions of the candidates, differed on Cuba. The Democratic platform supported unlimited family visits and remittances; the Republican platform largely reiterated the policies of the Bush Administration. Obama-Biden campaign materials and comments by Senator McCain during the campaign tended to reflect these differences and were generally consistent with their respective party platforms.

The Associated Press - IPSOS poll posed an identical question on lifting the trade embargo in 2007 and found that 40 percent of the public favored ending the embargo. The 49% support for ending the embargo in the current 2009 study is a statistically significant increase from 2007. It appears that American public opinion is trending towards support for lifting the embargo, though it is not presently a majority view.

Appraisal of the Cuban Threat and American Policy

Few Americans feel that Cuba is a very serious threat (7%) to the United States, or even a moderately serious threat (27%). The majority sees Cuba as just a slight threat (33%) or no threat at all (30%) to the US.

This assessment is common across partisan groups: 51 percent of Republicans think Cuba poses little danger to the US, labeling it as "just a slight threat" or "no threat at all" and a clear majority of independents and Democrats (both 70%) see Cuba as being either a slight threat or no threat.

To gauge the public's assessment of the impact of US Cuba policy, respondents were told, "after Fidel Castro came to power, the US ended diplomatic relations, imposed a trade embargo, and prohibited Americans from traveling to Cuba" and were asked what effect they felt these policies have had on the Castro government. Only 29 percent of Americans overall feels that these policies have weakened the Castro government. About half of all Americans (52%) say the policies "neither weakened nor strengthened" the Castro government, and another16 percent say that the policies have strengthened the government. The assessment that US policies towards Cuba have been ineffective, that is, the policies have neither weakened nor strengthened the Castro government, or that they have strengthened it, is by far the most common view across each partisan group - Republicans (63%), Democrats (70%), and independents (73%).

US policies towards Cuba, particularly the embargo and the associated Helms-Burton Act which subjects to legal action non-US companies who trade with Cuba, have provoked ill feelings and criticism in Europe and among friendly countries in the Americas. Americans are divided on whether lifting restrictions on trade and travel with Cuba will affect the image of the US. While 42 percent say that lifting such restrictions would have mainly a positive effect on America's image in the world, 46 percent say it would have neither a positive or negative effect. Only 10 percent say it would have a mainly negative effect. Democrats are more likely (57%) to say lifting these restrictions would have a mainly positive effect than independents (31%) or Republicans (29%).

Among demographic variables, the respondent's education has the largest and most consistent effect on attitudes. People with more education (a bachelor's degree or higher vs. less than a bachelor's degree) are significantly more likely to favor a new Cuba policy 77 percent with a bachelor's degree or higher support re-establishing diplomatic relations, and 65 percent with less education. Similarly, 62 percent of the most educated favor ending the trade embargo and only 44 percent do so with less education.

A similar education effect appears in the public's views that: Cuba is just a slight threat or no threat to the US (rather than a serious threat); it is time to try a new approach to Cuba; it is a good idea for US leaders to be ready to meet with Cuban leaders; Americans in general should be free to visit Cuba; increasing travel and trade will lead Cuba in a more democratic direction; relaxing restrictions on travel and trade with Cuba will have a mainly positive effect on America's image in the world. The impact of higher education on attitudes about Cuba policy is consistent and fairly robust; those with more education show greater support for change and liberalization.

Overview of Partisan Differences and Similarities on Cuba Policy

Cuba policy has been an issue where the political parties have sometimes clashed. In this study, on nearly all questions one can observe statistical differences in views between Republican and Democratic partisans. Republicans do oppose lifting the trade embargo, whereas, Democrats favor ending it. However, on most of the other issues polled concerning Cuba policy, the majority of Republicans and the majority of Democrats agree.

•  US government leaders should be ready to meet with Cuban leaders (Republicans 66%, Democrats 86%).
• The Obama Administration's relaxation of Cuban American travel restrictions are supported (Republicans 71%, Democrats 90%).
• Americans in general should be able to visit Cuba (Republicans 62%, Democrats 77%).
• Diplomatic relations with Cuba should be re-established (Republicans 57%, Democrats 82%).
• Increased travel and trade will lead Cuba in a more open, democratic direction (Republicans 59%, Democrats 80%).
•  Cuba is "just a slight threat" or "no threat at all" to the US (Republicans 51%, Democrats 70%).

While issues related to Cuba are deeply felt and polarizing for some Americans, there appears to be a broad consensus in favor of more normal relations with the island.

The findings in this study are based upon a nationwide survey conducted March 25 - April 6, 2009 among 765 American adults (margin of error +/- 3.7 percentage points). This WorldPublicOpinion.org study was fielded by Knowledge Networks using its nationwide online panel. This panel is randomly selected from the entire adult population and Internet access is provided to households that need it. For more information about this methodology, go to www.knowledgenetworks.com/ganp.

WorldPublicOpinion.org is a project of the Program on International Policy Attitudes at the University of Maryland. Funding for this research was provided by the Rockefeller Brothers Fund and the Calvert Foundation.

Major reform of the international economic system is needed in order to solve the current crisis, according to a new global poll of over 29,000 people carried out for BBC World Service.

As G20 leaders prepare to meet in London this week, 70 per cent of those across the 24 countries polled by GlobeScan think 'major changes' are required to the way the global economy is run. Only 4 per cent think no significant changes are needed.

Majorities in most countries - on average 68 per cent - also see the need for major changes to their own country's economy.

Of the 24 countries polled, 15 are part of the G20 and among those countries, 65 per cent think major changes are required to the international economic system, while 62 per cent see the need for major changes to their own country's economy.

When asked whether the downturn in the global economy has negatively affected them and their family over six in ten (62%) said it had affected them at least 'a fair amount'. Thirty-one per cent say that it has affected them 'a great deal'. Both these figures are little changed from a BBC poll in mid-2008.

More than two in five (44%) say that they have been personally affected by shortage of credit for mortgages and other loans at least a fair amount, with one in five saying it has affected them a great deal.

The findings suggest that people in developing countries are being harder hit by the economic downturn than those in richer nations. People in Kenya (74%), Egypt (64%), the Philippines (55%) and Turkey (50%) are most likely to say that the global economic downturn is affecting them personally 'a great deal'. Mexico (55%) and Nigeria (39%), meanwhile, have among the highest proportions of people saying they have been negatively affected 'a great deal' by the credit shortage.

Asked when they expected their situation to improve, those personally affected by the economic downturn were divided between those who think it will last more than two years (45%) and those who say it will recover sooner than that (46%).

The poll also shows that despite recent price falls, the high cost of food continues to negatively affect a much higher proportion of people than the economic downturn. Three in four families (76%) across the 24 countries say it is affecting them at least a fair amount, with 47 per cent saying it is affecting them a great deal, down from 59 per cent six months ago. Again, citizens of developing countries are most likely to report negative impacts from food prices.
The results are drawn from a survey of 29,913 adult citizens across 24 countries, conducted for BBC World Service by the international polling firm GlobeScan, together with the Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) at the University of Maryland. GlobeScan coordinated fieldwork between 24 November 2008 and 27 February 2009.

GlobeScan Chairman Doug Miller commented, "The poll reveals a global mandate for bold action at this week's G20 leaders summit. Results suggest most people see the global economic system as flawed."

He added: "The poll also highlights the 'forgotten crisis' of high food prices that is still having the most negative impact on many people's lives."

Participating Countries

Detailed Findings

Majority support for fundamental reform of the international economic system is found in 20 of the 24 countries polled, led by Portugal (92%), the Philippines (88%), Kenya and Spain (both 84%). The only countries where less than half call for major changes are Russia (47%), Japan (45%), Mexico (42%), and India (40%).

Majorities in 19 of the 24 countries also see the need for major changes to their own country's economic system. On average 68 per cent think their own country's economy needs major changes in response to the economic crisis. Some of the largest majorities are found in developed economies that have been particularly affected by the economic crisis, such as Portugal (90%), Spain (82%), the US (75%) and the UK (73%). Japan and India have the smallest numbers calling for major change (both 39%).

Rising food prices continue to be a major concern across many countries, but are a particularly acute problem in the developing world, with very large majorities in countries such as Kenya (91%), Egypt (85%) and the Philippines (83%) saying they are being affected a great deal.

In total 29,913 citizens in Australia, Brazil, Canada, Chile, China, Central America (Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua and Panama), Egypt, France, Germany, Ghana, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Kenya, Mexico, Nigeria, the Philippines, Portugal, Russia, Spain, Turkey, the United Kingdom and the USA, were interviewed face-to-face or by telephone between 24 November, 2008 to 27 February, 2009. Polling was conducted for BBC World Service by the international polling firm GlobeScan and its research partners in each country. In 9 of the 24 countries, the sample was limited to major urban areas. The margin of error per country ranges from +/-2.3 to 3.5 per cent, 19 times out of 20.

For more details, please see the full report (PDF).

Full report (PDF)
Questionnaire/methodology(PDF)

Read an analysis of this poll by Peter Singer

This report presents an updated analysis of a poll of 16 nations originally released in advance of International Women's Day in 2008, a year that marked the 60th anniversary of the UN General Assembly's adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

According to a WorldPublicOpinion.org poll, publics around the world express a widespread consensus that it is important for "women to have full equality of rights" and most say it is very important. This is true in Muslim nations as well as Western nations.

(Photo: Carmen Crow/ARC)

In nearly all nations most people perceive that in their lifetime women have gained greater equality. Nonetheless, large majorities would like their government and the United Nations to take an active role in preventing discrimination.

The poll of 20,227 respondents was conducted between January 10 and October 24, 2008 by WorldPublicOpinion.org, a collaborative research project involving research centers from around the world and managed by the Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) at the University of Maryland. The primary funder of the study was the Oak Foundation.

Interviews were conducted in 22 nations including most of the largest nations: Argentina, Azerbaijan, China, Egypt, France, Great Britain, India, Indonesia, Iran, Jordan, Kenya, Mexico, Nigeria, the Palestinian territories, Peru, Russia, Spain, South Korea, Thailand, Turkey, Ukraine, and the US. The public in Hong Kong was also polled. Not all questions were asked in all nations. The nations included represent 60 percent of the world population. Margins of error range from +/-2 to 4 percent.

Importance of Equality for Women

An overwhelming majority of people around the world say that it is important for "women to have full equality of rights compared to men." Large majorities in all nations polled took this position, ranging from 60 percent in India to 98 percent in Mexico and Britain. On average, across the 20 nations polled, 86 percent said women's equality is important, with 59 percent saying it is very important.

Attitudes vary about whether such equality is very important or somewhat important. Large majorities said it is very important in Mexico (89%), Britain (89%), Turkey (80%), US (77%), China (76%), France (75%), Indonesia (71%), and Argentina (71%). Smaller percentages said it is very important in Egypt (31%), Russia (35%), India (41%), South Korea (43%), Ukraine (44%), and Iran (44%).

Support for equal rights is also robust in all Muslim nations. Large majorities said it is important in Iran (78%), Jordan (83%), Azerbaijan (85%), Egypt (90%), Indonesia (91%), Turkey (91%), and the Palestinian territories (93%).

Men and women differ strikingly little on this question. On average, across all nations, 84 percent of men as well as 89 percent of women said equality is important. However a substantially larger percentage of women said that equality is very important (women 65%, men 53%). This pattern--women slightly more likely to say that equality is important, but substantially more likely to say it is very important--appears in nearly every country.

"The idea that women should have equal rights is fairly new in the context of human history." said Steven Kull, director of WorldPublicOpinion.org. "It is quite extraordinary that there is now such a global consensus across cultures not only that women should have equal rights but also that it is the responsibility of the government to prevent discrimination."

Perceived Changes in Women's Rights

Very large majorities in nearly all nations polled perceive that over the course of their own lifetime women have gained more equality of rights as compared to men. On average 72 percent perceived that women have gained greater equality of rights with 31 percent saying that they have gained much more equality and 41 percent saying they have a little more equality.

The two exceptions were the Palestinian territories and Nigeria. Among Palestinians a slight majority (51%) said that women's rights have become less equal, while 41 percent said they have grown more equal. Nigeria was divided, with 46 percent perceiving greater equality and 46 percent perceiving less equality.

While the countries of the former Soviet Union had majorities saying that women's rights had improved, relatively large numbers said that there has been no real change or that women now have less equality, including 29 percent of Russians, and 28 percent of Ukrainians and Azerbaijanis. This may be due to the declining influence of Marxist-Leninist ideology that called for women's rights.

India is unique in that only 53 percent said that women have gained greater equality, but an additional 14 percent volunteered the response that women now have more rights than men, implying that a significant change has occurred.

There is also considerable variation among nations in the belief that women have gained "much more" equality. Majorities in Egypt (57%), Britain (52%), and Thailand (52%) said women have gained much more equality. In contrast, only 9 percent of Nigerians, 11 percent of Palestinians, and 15 percent of Jordanians had this perception.

Men and women overall differ little on the question of whether women have gained greater equality--74 percent of men and 70 percent of women agreed that this has occurred.

Considering the advances in women's rights in recent history, one might expect older respondents to more widely perceive women having much greater equality. Indeed among those over 60, 39 percent said women have much more equality, while only 28 percent said this among respondents from 18 - 29 years old.

Government Intervention

There is very strong support for the government taking an active role to further women's rights. Majorities in all nations--with very large majorities in nearly all cases--said that "the government should make an effort to prevent discrimination against women." Only small minorities endorsed the view that "the government should not be involved in this kind of thing."

On average, 81 percent said the government should try to prevent discrimination against women, while 15 percent said the government should not be involved in this kind of thing.

Kenya and Mexico had the largest majorities (97% and 96%, respectively) endorsing such intervention. India was the only country without a large majority favoring government action (53%) and the one with the largest minority saying the government should not be involved (38%).

Respondents who said their government should try to prevent discrimination were then asked whether it was doing enough in this regard. On average, 53 percent (of the full sample) felt that the government should do more, while 24 percent that the government is doing enough.

However there is substantial variation between nations. In 14 nations the most common view was that the government should do more. Majorities in 12 nations believed this: Mexico (83%), South Korea (73%), Thailand (72%), China (70%; Hong Kong, 57%), Indonesia (69%), Kenya (69%), France (68%), Turkey (60%), Nigeria (61%), Palestinian territories (56%), Britain (52%), and Argentina (51%). Pluralities believed it in two countries: Ukraine (46%) and Russia (39%).

In six countries the most common view was that governments are either already doing enough to prevent discrimination or that they should not get involved; four of these were predominantly Muslim. More than four out of five Egyptians (82%) said that their government is either doing enough (59%) or that it should not do anything (23%). Sixty-four percent of Jordanians said that the government is doing enough (42%) or that it should not make an effort (22%). Pluralities were also opposed to greater intervention in Azerbaijan (30% doing enough, 15% should not be involved), and Iran (doing enough 24%, should not be involved 18%).

Interestingly two of the largest democracies also showed low support for greater efforts. Sixty-three percent of Indians said that the government should not be involved (38%), is doing enough (21%), or volunteered that the government is doing too much (4%). A more modest majority of Americans (52%) also thought that government efforts are already sufficient (35%) or should stop (17%).

Overall, women were only slightly more likely than men to say that the government should make an effort to prevent discrimination (83% to 78%). However, they were substantially more likely to say that the government should do more than it is to prevent discrimination against women (58% to 48%).

The Role of the United Nations

Very large majorities in nearly every nation said that the United Nations should try to further women's rights even when presented the argument that this would conflict with national sovereignty. Respondents were asked, "Do you think the UN should make efforts to further the rights of women or do you think this is improper interference in a country's internal affairs?"

In 17 out of the 19 publics polled most favored UN efforts, including large majorities in Kenya (91%), Mexico (88%), China (86%; Hong Kong, 67%), Argentina (78%), South Korea (78%), France (74%), and Great Britain (70%) as did substantial majorities in the Ukraine (69%), Nigeria (66%), Thailand (64%) and the United States (59%). Support was more modest in Russia (52%) and India (48% favor, 28% opposed and 24% uncertain).

The two exceptions were Egypt, where most of those polled (70%) thought the United Nations should not get involved in efforts to improve women's rights, and the Palestinian territories where views were evenly divided.

In the other predominantly Muslim nations most supported UN efforts on women's rights, including Indonesia (74%), Turkey (70%), Azerbaijan (66%), and Iran (52%).

Overall on average, 66 percent approved of UN efforts to further the rights of women, while 26 percent said this would be improper interference.

Respondents with a bachelor's degree equivalent or higher tended to more widely support UN efforts in this area (70%) compared to those with less than a high school education (64%).

To read more about opinion in the individual countries surveyed, click here to view the full report (PDF).

These findings were also published in the December 2008 report World Public Opinion and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

This report presents an updated analysis of a poll of 17 nations originally released in advance of International Widows Day (June 23) in 2008, a year that marked the 60th anniversary of the UN General Assembly's adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

A WorldPublicOpinion.org poll of 18 nations around the world finds a widespread perception that widows and divorced women are treated worse than other women. In only two countries do a majority say that there is no discrimination against widows and in only one country does a majority say there is no discrimination against divorced women.

A Thai widow with one of her children in a 2004 photo (USAID/Suzanne Ross)

In 12 of the 18 nations polled, about 4 in 10 perceived that there is some or a great deal of discrimination against widows. The same was true for discrimination against divorced women.

On average across all 18 nations, just 29 percent said there is no discrimination against widows at all, while 20 percent said there is a little, 27 percent some, and 16 percent a great deal. Similarly, for divorced women, an average of 27 percent said there is no discrimination, 21 percent said a little, 27 percent some, and 17 percent a great deal.

"Discrimination against widows and divorced women appears to be a phenomenon of many countries, not just some traditional cultures," says Steven Kull, director of WorldPublicOpinion.org. "People in most countries, including developed ones, recognize there is at least some discrimination."

Poorer treatment may take a variety of forms. In less developed nations, women's rights and development experts have long noted that wherever the wife has trouble securing her property rights after her husband's death, the widow and her children can become impoverished--in extreme cases by being stripped of her land or goods and expelled from the household. Divorce laws that do not recognize the wife's labor as constituting an economic stake in the household can have the same result. In developed nations, since women live longer, gaps in a country's social safety net are more likely to affect women. In the United States, for example, poverty rates for widows and divorced or separated women are far above the average.¹

Steven Kull adds, "While there have been no large-scale studies quantifying the scope of discrimination against widows and divorced women, the thousands of respondents in the poll report that the problem is quite widespread."

WorldPublicOpinion.org is a collaborative research project of research centers from around the world, managed by the Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) at the University of Maryland. The primary funder of the study was the Oak Foundation.

Interviews with 16,103 respondents were conducted in 18 nations representing 59 percent of the world's population. This includes most of the largest nations in the world--China, India, the United States, Indonesia, Nigeria, and Russia--as well as Argentina, Mexico, Britain, France, Azerbaijan, Ukraine, Egypt, Iran, Turkey, the Palestinian territories, Thailand and South Korea. Margins of error range from +/-2 to 4 percent. The survey was fielded between Jan. 10 and September 10, 2008.

Treatment of Widows

In six nations the dominant view was that there is "some" or a "great deal" of discrimination against widows. This included majorities in South Korea (81%), Turkey (70%), the Palestinian territories (61%), Nigeria (58%) and China (54%). In India, a substantial plurality agreed (42 to 35%), though India is a country that has received substantial international attention over the mistreatment of widows.

In Mexico and Great Britain views were divided, with nearly half of those who answered saying that widows are often treated unfairly in their country.

Only two countries had a majority saying that there is no discrimination against widows-Ukraine (53%) and Indonesia (54%).

Six more countries had a majority saying there is little or no discrimination. French (71%), Argentines (65%), Russians (58%), Americans (58%), Azerbaijanis (55%), and Egyptians (53%) were relatively sanguine about the treatment of widows in their societies. In Thailand half said there is little or no discrimination.

Interestingly, in China more thought widows are mistreated (54%) than thought divorced women are mistreated (46%). This pattern was also present in Nigeria and the Palestinian territories.

Treatment of Divorced Women

Majorities said divorced women are treated worse than others in six nations: South Korea (82%), and in most of the largely Muslim nations polled--Egypt (80%), Turkey (72%), the Palestinian territories (53%), Iran (51%), and Azerbaijan (54%). Pluralities agreed in India (46%).

Out of 18 nations, only one--Ukraine--had a majority (56%) saying that divorced women are not discriminated against at all.

Another seven had majorities who thought there is no more than a little discrimination against divorced women in their country. These include the French (74%), Russians (58%), Indonesians (63%), Argentines (62%), Americans (60%), Nigerians (56%), and Thais (55%).

Analysis of Variations Between Countries

Perceptions of the extent of discrimination vary widely between countries. The breadth or intensity of the perception does not necessarily correlate with the actual magnitude of discrimination. In countries where discrimination is customary and unchallenged people may find it so lacking in salience that they do not readily note it. On the other hand, in countries where there have recently been efforts to mitigate such discrimination people may be more aware of it, even though it is improving.

For example, South Korea had the largest majorities believing that widows (81%) and divorcees (82%) are mistreated in their country. Recently South Korea enacted legal reforms advancing women's status, and in 2005 its high court granted women for the first time the right to claim an equal share in jointly owned family property. Jeong Han Wool of the East Asian Institute (Seoul) adds: "Up until this year Korea employed a family registry system under which the status of "widow or divorcee" could cause some complications." Such changes may well have raised the salience of the issue in the minds of Koreans.

Similarly, a large majority in Turkey (70%) perceived discrimination against widows with the largest number (52%) of any of the nations polled saying that they are mistreated a great deal. The same pattern applies to divorced women--72 percent of the Turkish public thought divorced women are mistreated, with 51 percent saying a great deal. This issue may have gained a greater profile in Turkish society as part of the process of Turkey seeking accession into the European Union. The European Parliament said that while women have officially had full political rights in Turkey since the 1930s, customary treatment of women in the country's southeast has varied from the legal ideal.²

In Egypt, an overwhelming majority (80%) thought that divorced women are mistreated (a great deal, 38%; some, 42%), though a substantially lower number (48%) perceived this level of discrimination of widows. Egyptian law has been criticized by Human Rights Watch for its differing forms of initiating divorce for men and women, for denying the woman property rights in the marital home unless she has a specific legal title, and for the "obedience law" which conditions alimony on obedience to the ex-husband.³

In the Palestinian territories, majorities thought that both widows and divorced women are discriminated against (61% and 53%, respectively). Of the two, widows were more widely viewed as being mistreated. The perception that widows are discriminated against was stronger among the young (18-29 years, 60%; 60 years and older, 38%), among low-income people, and interestingly, among men (men 65%, women 56%). Family relations in the territories are still governed by Egyptian legal codes (in Gaza) or Jordanian ones (in the West Bank), because no unified Palestinian law has been finalized. The territories have been criticized for having differing forms of initiating divorce for women and men, and for having inheritance laws that discriminate against women. ⁴

In Nigeria, a clear majority (58%) thought widows experience at least some mistreatment in their country, while a lesser 41 percent thought that divorced women are mistreated. Those living in rural areas, having lower income, or advanced in years were more likely to think widows are mistreated. Majorities of both Christians (62%) and Muslims (54%) held this view. Recently, a new law banning traditional practices harmful to widows was passed in one of Nigeria's eastern states, gaining attention for the issue across Nigeria. ⁵

In China, a 54-percent majority saw widows as discriminated against, while a lesser 46 percent saw this as being the case for divorced women. This view of widows' situation is stronger among women (60%) than among men (48%), and slightly stronger among the young (18-29 years, 60%). The Chinese government has engaged in significant legal reforms to protect women's rights since the 1990s. Inheritance laws today guarantee the inheritance rights of widows, but a traditional stigma on widows' remarrying has not entirely faded away. ⁶

Variations may also be affected by personal experience of widowhood. The Iran-Iraq War of the 1980s greatly increased the number of widows in Iran in the population at that time. Their children are now adults, and the age gap on this issue is extraordinary. Among those aged 60 and over only 18 percent thought widows are mistreated in Iran, while 67 percent do not. But among those aged 18 to 29, 53 percent did think widows are mistreated, and only 37 percent did not.

India seems to follow a different pattern. The national government has enacted numerous laws to protect women's rights, including complete prohibitions against traditional practices for which India is famous, such as the burning of widows (Sati) and the giving or receiving of dowries of any size. However, enforcement has been challenging, and there are many regional, religious and caste variants of family law which tend to escape government jurisdiction.

Despite the prominence of the issue, perceptions of discrimination were relatively modest, with a plurality of 42 percent saying that widows are discriminated against (though those with more education were more likely to see widows as mistreated). This may be related to a relatively low level of consensus about the importance of women's rights, or the need for action against discrimination: lower than in any of the other nations polled.

In other polling on women's rights in general, WorldPublicOpinion.org has found that while the majority (60%) of the public in India felt that women's rights are important, this is less than in any of the other 15 nations surveyed (global average 86% important). Furthermore, fewer Indians felt the government should have a role in preventing discrimination against women (53%) than the global average (80%) or that the government should do more to prevent discrimination against women (India 44%, global average 77%).

These findings were also published in the December 2008 report World Public Opinion and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

² "Women's Rights in Turkey: Improvements Still Needed," European Parliament Press Service, Feb. 13, 2007, at http://www.europarl.europa.eu/comparl/femm/press/2007/20070213_press_release_en.pdf.

³ Human Rights Watch, "Divorced from Justice: Women's Unequal Access to Divorce in Egypt," December 2004, http://www.hrw.org/reports/2004/egypt1204.

⁴ Human Rights Watch, "A Question of Security: Violence Against Palestinian Women and Girls," November 2006, http://www.hrw.org/reports/2006/opt1106/7.htm#_Toc148851357. See also Freedom House, "Palestine (Palestinian Authority and Israeli-Occupied Territories)," http://www.freedomhouse.org/template.cfm?page=180.

⁵ Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, Responses to Information Requests (RIR) NGA43282E (Nigeria), Jan. 12, 2005, http://www.irb-cisr.gc.ca/en/research/rir/?action=record.viewrec&gotorec=433946

⁶ Hsiang-Ming Kung, "Tradition--Persistence and Transition," http://family.jrank.org/pages/254/China-Tradition-Persistence-Transition.html. See also the U.S. Congressional-Executive Commission on China, "Women and the Law," October 10, 2007, http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgibin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=110_house_hearings&docid=f:40784.pdf.