Jordan, like much of the rest of the world, has struggled to manage the challenges and difficulties 2020 delivered. The country’s reeling economy was dealt a crippling blow by the closures and restrictions related to the spread of the COVID-19 pandemic. The tradeoff between economic prosperity and public health seemed to have initially been worthwhile, as Jordan’s performance in combatting COVID-19 was stellar from March until early September. However, the country’s stamina was expended during those six months, and soon enough public efforts to combat the disease waned. October and November saw Jordan’s case count and daily death toll from COVID-19 shoot up, amidst one government’s literal resignation and the other’s figurative one. It is against this backdrop that less than thirty percent of Jordanians headed to the polls to elect members of the nineteenth parliament, a historically low participation rate that matched the predicted voter turnout.

For Jordanians and international observers alike, the government’s failure to battle the second wave of COVID-19 was swift—but in hindsight should not have been surprising. The previous Jordanian minister of health declared in June that COVID-19 “shriveled up and died,” thus reflecting the government’s shortcomings in communicating and managing expectations all at once. Moreover, the Jordanian government’s efforts were not squarely placed on combatting the disease. Like most authoritarian states, Jordan declared a state of emergency to pass defense laws that, while ostensibly aimed at addressing the COVID-19 challenge, significantly curtailed expression and dissent. With its political and social capacity overstretched, and in a hostile local and global political and public health climate, why did Amman insist on holding general elections for its lower house of parliament that were bound to entice less than a third of the electorate to vote?

(Arab Barometer)

November 16, 2020

Source: https://www.arabbarometer.org/2020/11/jordans-stubborn-insistence-on-business-as-usual/

SUMMARY OF POLLS

ASIA

(Thailand)

YouTube is YouGov Thailand’s Best Brand of 2020

Video-sharing platform YouTube has topped YouGov Best Brands list for the second year in a row on YouGov’s annual ranking of the healthiest brands in the nation. The rankings are based on the Index score from YouGov BrandIndex, which constantly measures overall brand health. The score takes into account consumers’ perception of a brand’s overall quality, value, impression, reputation, satisfaction and whether consumers would recommend the brand to others. (YouGov)

November 15, 2020

(India)

With 71% urban Indians playing online games, India ranks in the top 10 gaming countries in the world

The online gaming industry in India is a fast-growing business, evolving into competitive sports and professional gaming. With a growing community of active gamers, Gaming & Esports industry in India is likely to witness a boom in the coming years. YouGov’s new white paper, titled ‘Gaming and Esports: The Next Generation’, provides an analysis of the global video games and esports landscape across 24 markets. (YouGov)

November 04, 2020

(Malaysia)

Shopee shines in YouGov Malaysia’s Best Brand Rankings

Shopee has topped YouGov Best Brands list for the first time, on YouGov’s annual ranking of the healthiest brands in the nation. The rankings are based on the Index score from YouGov BrandIndex, which constantly measures overall brand health. The score takes into account consumers’ perception of a brand’s overall quality, value, impression, reputation, satisfaction and whether consumers would recommend the brand to others. (YouGov)

November 15, 2020

MENA

(Jordan)

Jordan’s Stubborn Insistence on “Business As Usual”

November 16, 2020

AFRICA

(South Africa)

The political party landscape in South Africa amidst Covid-19

This past Wednesday was called “Super Wednesday” in South Africa, as citizens in 95 wards across 55 municipalities went to the polls to elect new councillors. Due to Covid-19 the IEC organised all the by-elections that were due in municipalities to happen on the same day, and altogether 44 candidates from 40 political parties participated. (Ipsos)

November 13, 2020

EUROPE

(Sweden)

Who are the Swedish discount hunters?

57% of Swedes usually look for the lowest price when they shop, while just over a third always keep track of special offers. But what distinguishes the Swedes who are always looking for a good special offer? YouGov has examined the demographics and attitudes of Swedish discount hunters. The survey shows that there is a predominance of women and 18–29-year-olds. (YouGov)

November 13, 2020

(Spain)

The practice of sports in times of COVID

We have carried out a study to see what impact the pandemic is having on our sports monitoring and practice habits, as well as the possible impact on grassroots sports, that is, among the youngest, who will be the future of our teams. 70% of adult Spaniards say they follow some kind of sports through the media or in person. The percentage of the population that practices some sport on a regular basis is, however, somewhat lower, representing 60% of Spanish adults. (YouGov)

November 11, 2020

(Germany)

Germans are more likely to drink tea than Brits

Germany turns out to be a tea nation. Of all the countries surveyed, Germans say they drink tea most often (87 percent). Surprisingly, the British say this less often (78 percent), while the French are least likely to make this statement (71 percent). The most popular variety in this country is peppermint tea: every second (50 percent) German drinks it. The second most common drink is fruit tea (48 percent), followed by herbal tea (41 percent), chamomile tea and green tea (33 percent each). The Indian black tea Assam is the least common in Germany (14 percent). (YouGov)

November 13, 2020

(UK)

Has China’s Reputation Peaked?

With a recovering economy and Covid-19 controlled in his country, President Xi Jinping has been keen to emphasise how “the pandemic once again proves the superiority” of China in the world. According to in-depth polling, however, the country’s international reputation may be in decline. (YouGov)

November 13, 2020

(UK)

Scottish independence: Yes 51% - 49% No

The latest YouGov Scottish Independence research shows Yes narrowly ahead of No by 51% to 49%. This is slightly down from the six-point lead (53% to 47%) we saw in August, which was the biggest Yes lead of any YouGov poll. All these figures are within the margin of error of a dead-heat. (YouGov)

November 12, 2020

(UK)

The YouGov Disability study: Disability and COVID-19

Earlier this week we released Part 1 of a large study we conducted with BBC. This new research among people living with disabilities about the coronavirus pandemic finds that approaching half (47%) have been unable to socialise, a third (36%) are now unable to access medical appoints because of COVID-19 and just over a quarter (27%) have been unable to carry out essentials such as food shopping. (YouGov)

November 11, 2020

(UK)

Most workers from BAME communities worry COVID will affect career progression

Over half (56%) of workers from Black, Asian, and Minority Ethnic (BAME) communities are anxious that COVID will affect their job progression – a figure notably above that for White wage earners (45%), research from YouGov’s Debt Tracker shows. The data shows that employees from BAME backgrounds are almost twice as likely as White workers to be very worried (29% to 16%). (YouGov)

November 11, 2020

(UK)

British people think that their local councils use evidence more than local MPs in the response to Covid-19

Polling to be released today by Ipsos MORI as part of Evidence Week in Parliament, an annual event that brings together researchers, constituents, and MPs to discuss evidence, asked UK adults how much they believe government ministers, their local MP, and their local council are using evidence in the response to Covid-19. (YouGov)

November 09, 2020

NORTH AMERICA

In 2018, Government Restrictions on Religion Reach Highest Level Globally in More Than a Decade

In 2018, the global median level of government restrictions on religion – that is, laws, policies and actions by officials that impinge on religious beliefs and practices – continued to climb, reaching an all-time high since Pew Research Center began tracking these trends in 2007. The year-over-year increase from 2017 to 2018 was relatively modest, but it contributed to a substantial rise in government restrictions on religion over more than a decade. (PEW)

November 10, 2020

America is exceptional in the nature of its political divide

In his first speech as president-elect, Joe Biden made clear his intention to bridge the deep and bitter divisions in American society. He pledged to look beyond red and blue and to discard the harsh rhetoric that characterizes our political debates. It will be a difficult struggle. Americans have rarely been as polarized as they are today. (PEW)

November 13, 2020

5 facts about the QAnon conspiracy theories

More than a dozen 2020 U.S. House and Senate candidates have engaged with the collection of conspiracy theories known as QAnon. At least two of those candidates won their races and will be heading to Congress in 2021. Here are five facts about how much Americans have heard about the QAnon conspiracy theories and their views about them, based on Pew Research Center surveys and analysis. (PEW)

November 16, 2020

Support for Stricter U.S. Gun Laws at Lowest Level Since 2016

In the absence of a high-profile mass shooting in the U.S. in 2020 and amid the coronavirus pandemic, civil unrest related to racial justice issues and the contentious presidential election campaign, Americans are less likely than they have been since 2016 to call for increased gun control. The latest majority (57%) in the U.S. who call for stricter laws covering the sale of firearms marks a seven-percentage-point decline since last year. At the same time, 34% of U.S. adults prefer that gun laws be kept as they are now, while 9% would like them to be less strict. (Gallup USA)

November 16, 2020

Fewer Americans Call for Tougher Criminal Justice System

Americans' belief that the U.S. criminal justice system is "not tough enough" on crime is now half of what it was in Gallup's initial reading of 83% in 1992. The latest measure, at 41%, is the lowest on record and down slightly from the previous reading in 2016 -- although it remains the view of the plurality. At the same time, there has been a seven-percentage-point uptick among those who say the system is "too tough" (21%) and no change among those who think it is "about right" (35%). (Gallup USA)

November 16, 2020

MULTICOUNTRY STUDIES

How people around the world see the World Health Organization’s initial coronavirus response

The World Health Organization (WHO) has played a controversial role in the global response to the coronavirus pandemic. U.S. President Donald Trump has accused the organization of being too close to China and moved to withdraw the United States from it. At the same time, the WHO is helping coordinate the international rollout of potential vaccines and treatments for COVID-19. (PEW)

November 12, 2020

ASIA

664-43-01/Poll

YouTube is YouGov Thailand’s Best Brand of 2020

Digital brands like YouTube (+62.0) have historically fared well in the top ten. Social media giant Facebook remains second (+60.4) this year, after being overtaken as the Kingdom’s top brand last year by YouTube. Instant messaging platform LINE comes in third (+54.0), technology conglomerate Google in fourth (+53.7) and e-commerce platform in fifth (+49.6).

The rest of the brands in the list are no stranger to the top ten. Fastfood chain KFC comes in sixth (+49.2), convenience store chain 7-Eleven in seventh (+48.1), instant noodle brand Mama in eighth (+47.0) and sporting apparel Nike in ninth (+46.4). In spite of travel restrictions, low-cost airlines AirAsia appears in tenth place (+44.9), falling one spot from last year.

YouGov BrandIndex also reveals the brands that have noted the greatest improvement to their Index score over the past 12 months in Thailand. With the emphasis this year on good hygiene, it is no surprise that disinfectant brand Dettol comes up on top (with a +8.0 change in score). Dettol also appears in the top ten most improved brands in Singapore and Malaysia. Other personal care brands also have a strong presence in the top ten improvers. Protex and Care comes in joint fourth (up +6.0 points), Nivea in sixth (up +5.9), Garnier in seventh (up +5.4) and Clear in tenth (up +5.1).

Similar to the top ten, digital brands fare well in the improvers list. Southeast Asian e-commerce platform Shopee is the second (up +7.0) and subscription video-on-demand service Netflix in third (up +6.8) and Apple iPhone in joint eighth (up +5.3).

The improvers list is completed with local supermarket chain Makro in joint eighth (up +5.3).

Global Rankings

Google takes the top spot in YouGov’s annual global best brands ranking. Tech brands dominate the top of the list with the search and advertising giant followed by WhatsApp, YouTube, Samsung and Amazon.

With Netflix and Facebook in sixth and seventh respectively, the only non-tech-related brands in the top ten are Singaporean ecommerce platform Shopee (eighth), Swedish retailer IKEA (ninth) and US sportswear titan Nike (tenth).

(YouGov)

November 15, 2020

Source: https://th.yougov.com/en-th/news/2020/11/15/yougov-thailand-best-brand-2020-rankings/

664-43-02/Poll

With 71% urban Indians playing online games, India ranks in the top 10 gaming countries in the world

YouGov’s latest report provides an analysis of the global video games and esports landscape across 24 markets

YouGov’s new white paper, titled ‘Gaming and Esports: The Next Generation’, provides an analysis of the global video games and esports landscape across 24 markets.

Amongst the surveyed markets, India ranks among the top ten gaming countries in the world. At present, seven out of ten (71%) people in India claim to be gamers, playing video games or mobile games on any device.

The percentage of gamers in India is at par with US (71%) and Australia (72%), however, it is lower than the proportions in South East Asian countries.

In India, mobile gamers - playing on a smartphone or tablet clearly outnumber PC or console gamers. Just 12% play on consoles compared to 67% who use a smartphone or tablet.

South and South East Asian countries generally have a higher percentage of mobile gamers and a lower share of console gamers. On the other hand, the leading markets for console gamers are Hong Kong (32%), Spain (29%), the US (28%), the UK (28%), and Australia (27%).

When it comes to category of gamers, India is among the top 10 countries comprising of light to regular smartphone gamers- with 82% of its gaming population playing games on their smartphones up to 10 hours a week, and only 16% identified as heavy and intense gamers (playing more than 10 hrs a week).

China and Taiwan have the most dedicated smartphone gamers with 37% and 34%, respectively, of the countries’ mobile gaming population categorised as ‘heavy or intense gamers’.

Apart from playing games, for an important sub-section of players, watching video games online has become as much of a pastime as gaming itself.

Our data shows YouTube Gaming is significantly more popular among gamers than any of it’s competitors in several markets. Awareness is the highest in Vietnam (74%) and Indonesia (72%), followed by Thailand (68%), Philippines (66%) and India (59%). The same is true about engagement with YouTube Gaming, where once again we see South and South East Asian countries taking the lead.

India ranks fifth globally in terms of awareness and third in terms of engagement with YouTube Gaming. The highly aware gaming audience seems to be equally engaged with the platform, presenting a huge opportunity for game developers and console manufacturers.

Compared to YouTube Gaming, a small percentage have engaged with Twitch or Facebook Gaming (12% each). Twitch is more competitive in western markets such as the US and UK – where awareness for the platform is higher than that for YouTube Gaming.

When it comes to Esports, familiarity in India is low - at 31%. The greatest familiarity comes from consumers in East Asia, with seven in ten people in China (72%), Taiwan (71%) and Hong Kong (70%) describing it correctly as ‘competitive video gaming, primarily in the form of organised/ professional events’.

Large proportions in South East Asia also seem familiar with the term, although European countries’ familiarity with esports varies considerably.

Despite low familiarity, engagement with esports in India is much higher than in the highly aware markets such as the US, the UK, and several European countries. This suggests Indians are more likely to embrace these competitions, once they know more about them, hinting at a bright future for esports in the country.

Talking about the whitepaper, Nicole Pike, Global Sector Head of Esports & Gaming at YouGov, said, “This year the global video gaming industry has captured the attention of brands, marketers, and investors on a large scale. But this year has also highlighted just how quickly things can change in the gaming ecosystem, making it difficult for advertisers and sponsors to know if, when and how to spend wisely – and for gaming companies to determine how much more growth is on the horizon.

“YouGov is primed to play an important role in demystifying this industry for brands through data, which is why our first large-scale, global whitepaper on esports and gaming comes at the perfect time. Our breadth and depth of global tracking, profiling, and custom survey data is industry-leading, and I’m excited to showcase just how valuable the combination of daily performance tracking and nuanced analysis of the world’s gaming audience can be to stakeholders across the gaming ecosystem.

“This whitepaper offers a foundational understanding of gamers – which, given the number of countries, platforms, titles, streaming sites, and competitions at this audience’s fingertips is far from basic in today’s gaming landscape. Beyond our extensive industry expertise, we also explore key trends that will drive continued growth for gaming into 2021, all rooted in data from consumers around the world – the ultimate source of truth for understanding the next generation of gaming.”

(YouGov)

November 04, 2020

Source: https://in.yougov.com/en-hi/news/2020/10/29/71-urban-indians-playing-online-games-india-ranks-/

664-43-03/Poll

Shopee shines in YouGov Malaysia’s Best Brand Rankings

With governmental recommendations to stay at home, and shopping malls shut earlier this year when the nation was put under strict lockdown, it is no surprise that e-commerce platform Shopee takes the top spot this year (+62.9). Instant messaging platform WhatsApp which previously held the title of healthiest brand in Malaysia two years running falls to second place (+56.1). Chocolate malt drink Milo appears in the top ten for the first time, in third place (+55.7).

Other F&B brands also fare well in the top ten. Fast-food chains McDonalds and KFC come in fifth (+49.6) and ninth (+45.7) respectively. The list also sees new entrants like coffee brand Nescafé is in sixth (+46.6), and chocolate confectionary Kit Kat in tenth (+44.8).

Following the trend of people moving indoors and online, other digital brands also have a strong presence. Video-sharing platform YouTube is in fourth (+51.5) and social media giant Facebook in eighth (+46.3).

The top ten is completed with disinfectant and cleaning brand Dettol in seventh (+46.3), moving up three places from last year.

YouGov BrandIndex also reveals the brands that have noted the greatest improvement to their Index score over the past 12 months in Malaysia. Fast-food chain KFC is this year’s most improved brand, with a +12.3 change in score. Shopee comes in as the second most improved brand (up 11.4 points).

Homegrown brands feature prominently in this year’s improvers list. Digital wallet Touch N Go Pay comes in third (up +10.5), instant noodles Maggi and Mie Sedaap in joint third with automobile manufacturer Proton (+9.0) and satellite television provider Astro in joint ninth (+6.9) with government owned bank Bank Simpanan Nasional.

Ervin Ha, YouGov APAC Head of Data Products commented: “This year’s annual rankings highlight the impact the pandemic has had on consumer brand perceptions. While most industries were hit badly in 2020, e-commerce platforms like Shopee have thrived with consumers being stuck at home and itching to spend money. Being stuck at home also has gotten Malaysians hungry, with fast-food chains like McDonald’s and KFC and instant noodle brands like Maggi performing well.”

Global Rankings

(YouGov)

November 15, 2020

Source: https://my.yougov.com/en-my/news/2020/11/15/yougov-malaysia-best-brand-2020-rankings/

MENA

664-43-04/Poll

Jordan’s Stubborn Insistence on “Business As Usual”

(Arab Barometer)

November 16, 2020

Source: https://www.arabbarometer.org/2020/11/jordans-stubborn-insistence-on-business-as-usual/

AFRICA

664-43-05/Poll

The political party landscape in South Africa amidst Covid-19

At the time of writing, all results are not published yet and although these by-elections might be an indication of how the political wind blows currently, it will probably not be a strong indication of things to come in next year’s scheduled Local Government Elections.

Another view of the current opinions in the country can be found in an Ipsos poll conducted during July through to September 2020, using face-to-face and telephone interviewing methodologies (as allowed by the lockdown regulations). A total of 3,758 interviews were conducted with randomly selected South Africans, 18 years and older. The results of the study are representative of the views of South Africans of voting age.

Current political party choices

Respondents were asked which political party they would vote for if there were an election the next day - and they had a free choice to choose any political party. Half (50%) chose the ANC as their party of choice – a drop of 5 percentage points since the previous Ipsos Pulse of the People™ survey in November 2019. On the other hand, it seems as if support for both the DA and EFF slightly increased from November 2019.

It appears as if the DA, a party which faced a turbulent few months since the 2019 National Election, might slowly be recovering lost ground, while the EFF is building on their successes of the 2019 National Election.

For all three the biggest political parties in the country, the results from the next few Ipsos Pulse of the People™ studies, planned for the months before the next Local Government Elections, will be very interesting.¹

Half (50%) chose the ANC as their party of choice – a drop of 5 percentage points since the previous Ipsos Pulse of the People™ survey in November 2019. On the other hand, it seems as if support for both the DA and EFF slightly increased from November 2019.

Despite the existence of a plethora of parties in the country, still only 5 parties registered support of at least 1% on the National Ballot in the Ipsos Pulse of the People™ studies and are thus included in the table above.
In the IEC-administered elections many more parties received votes, but they are not included in the table above.
It has to be kept in mind that the results of the Ipsos Pulse of the People™ studies shown above are representative of all South Africans, 18 years and older, i.e. those eligible to vote. The election results refer to the actual elections and therefore show only the opinions of those voters who have turned out to cast their votes in the particular referenced elections.

Volatile trust in political parties and questions about the direction of the country

2020 is by no means an easy year for most South Africans and about four in every ten (41%) said that the country was currently going in the wrong direction. Although this feeling that the country is going in the wrong direction is not as strong as it was during the last few years of the Zuma presidency, it is still not a positive finding.

Although ANC-supporters are a bit more optimistic than the supporters of the DA and the EFF, only about a third of them (37%) said that they thought South Africa was going in the right direction. More than half of the supporters of the DA and the EFF respectively feel that the country is going in the wrong direction.

It is not that South Africa is home to an overwhelming number of pessimists, but almost three in every ten are either saying that they do not know what to think about the direction of the country or that they are undecided about the question.

To add to the feelings of uncertainty, a third of South Africans (34%) felt that no single political party represented their views. This feeling was even prevalent amongst the three biggest parties in similar proportions, with the supporters of these parties indicating that they “Strongly Agree” or “Agree” that no current political party represented their views.²

To add to the feelings of uncertainty, a third of South Africans (34%) felt that no single political party represented their views. This feeling was even prevalent amongst the three biggest parties in similar proportions, with the supporters of these parties indicating that they “Strongly Agree” or “Agree” that no current political party represented their views.

Consequently, it should be no surprise that the level of trust expressed in political parties were quite low. This “trust score” was calculated by subtracting the proportion of those with negative trust in the party from the proportion of those who expressed positive trust in the party. From the table below, only the ANC currently has a quite low positive trust score, while the other two parties are showing a negative trust score.

Trust in political parties might be a key motivating factor in next year’s Local Government Elections, influencing the decision to decide to vote for a particular political party, but also influencing the decision on whether to vote at all. We have seen the number of voters who turn out to vote dwindle over the last few elections. This might have an influence on the legitimacy of the elections and opinions about whether the elections are free and fair, and expressing the will of the people.

Theoretical second choices

To give some perspectives on these issues, respondents were also asked to indicate which party they would vote for as a SECOND choice if their first-choice party were not available for whichever reason.
(This will not happen in an election, as a voter will not be offered a second choice.)

Three out of every ten ANC supporters (30%) indicated that their second choice will be the EFF and almost two out of every ten (19%) chose the DA as a second choice. A quarter of the EFF supporters chose the DA as a second choice, while only 11% of DA supporters chose the EFF as a second choice. The ANC was the second choice for 31% of EFF supporters and 21% of DA supporters.

It is clear that all political parties have their work cut out for them before the Local Government Elections – eligible voters are uncertain, and party loyalty is relatively fluid.

(Ipsos)

November 13, 2020

Source: https://www.ipsos.com/en-za/political-party-landscape-south-africa-amidst-covid-19

EUROPE

664-43-06/Poll

Who are the Swedish discount hunters?

YouGov has examined the demographics and attitudes of Swedish discount hunters. The survey shows that there is a predominance of women and 18–29-year-olds.

When looking at the demographics of Swedish discount hunters, women (60%) and young people between the ages of 18 and 29 (24%) dominate. 28% of the discount hunters are also single, while one tenth (11%) are students.

If you look at the finances of the Swedish discount hunters, a quarter (26%) have a household income of SEK 200,000 or less per year.

Compared to the general population, discount hunters are more aware of direct mail, ie. advertising in the mailbox, and if they see that a brand is on sale, they are likely to strike - even if they have another favorite brand.

Many of the discount hunters are also members of customer clubs. The three main customer clubs for discount hunters are Willys Plus (56%), Apotekets Klubb Hjärtat (51%) and H&M Club (42%).

In general, discount hunters want to be structured when shopping weekly. While 60% plan their purchases, 41% usually stay within a strict budget when shopping.

Just over half (53%) always read product reviews before buying something and just over half (55%) are motivated to buy goods and services online as it is cheaper compared to physical stores.

(YouGov)

November 13, 2020

Source: https://yougov.se/news/2020/11/13/vilka-ar-de-svenska-rabattjagarna/

The practice of sports in times of COVID

664-43-07/Poll

Is COVID 19 affecting the way we follow and play sports?

We have carried out a study to see what impact the pandemic is having on our sports monitoring and practice habits, as well as the possible impact on grassroots sports, that is, among the youngest, who will be the future of our teams.

70% of adult Spaniards say they follow some kind of sports through the media or in person. The percentage of the population that practices some sport on a regular basis is, however, somewhat lower, representing 60% of Spanish adults.

We have asked if in the homes where there is a presence of minors, they practice sports and we find that in only half of these (51%), children and adolescents practice some sport on a regular basis.

In the following graph we can see the relationship between following and practicing the most popular sports.

How could it be otherwise, the sport most followed by the adult population in Spain is Soccer, with almost half of Spaniards (46%) declaring that they follow it. Despite being the most followed sport, it is not the most practiced by adults, who only 7% say they play it.

Tennis (32%), Basketball and Motorsports with 23% and 20% respectively, occupy the next three places in the follow-up ranking.

The highest practice indicators among adults are in disciplines such as Cycling (10%), Swimming with the same percentage, Gymnastics and Tennis. However, other individual sports such as Fitness, Running or Trecking obviously do not have a media following, but have practice rates of around 10%.

Incidence of federations

The practice of sports does not necessarily entail the possession of a federative license, only sports such as Golf, whose practice is limited to more than 1% of the sample, the shooting disciplines (1%), or those that They involve competing officially, they require them, therefore, to be registered in a sports federation, it is something unusual among sports practitioners and only 12% of athletes declare to be so

Likewise among men, the percentage of federated practitioners is significantly higher than among women.

The Incidence of COVID 19 in sports

For most of those interviewed, the pandemic has negatively affected the practice of different sports, thus, 68% of those interviewed who practice some sport have seen the frequency with which they practice it reduced and for 22% it has meant leaving the practice.

This incidence has been reflected to a greater extent among those registered in any of the sports federations, among which COVID, has represented a reduction in their activity by almost 80%.

Perhaps this greater reduction in the practice of sports is caused by the fact that the sports more prone to “federationism” are practiced in more controlled environments, such as clubs, facilities, etc… and in many cases in official competitions that have been stopped.

Face-to-face monitoring of competitions

Despite the fact that most of the sporting events have returned to activity, there are still important limitations for attending the different competitions in person.

These limitations do not seem to be of great importance for sports fans, however, they have a greater impact on the collective of federated in some sports discipline, who in 36% consider that the limitation of attending events is quite or very important.

Despite the fact that for almost half of the adults interviewed (48%), continuing to celebrate major sporting events in the current COVID situation is not important, the survival of clubs and competitions (78%), the economy (76%) , or the simple fact that they lift the spirits of the country are the aspects for which the Spanish consider their celebration most important.

Only one in five interviewees in the study stated that they would feel very or somewhat comfortable attending live sporting events in person.

On the contrary, 60% of adults state that they would not feel comfortable attending stadiums or competitions.

This opinion confirms the low intention of attending live sporting events in person, if attendance was allowed.

In fact, only 18% of the study participants had a positive intention to attend events, if they were allowed to attend.

In any case, reducing the capacity of fields and stadiums is the most important preventive measure (28%) to be taken for potential spectators of sporting events.

COVID and sports among children and adolescents

As we saw at the beginning of this report, in 51% of the homes where children and adolescents are present, some of them practice a sport on a regular basis.

As might be expected, soccer is practiced by just over 1 in 3 children or adolescents, being in first place in the ranking.

Swimming (18%), basketball or martial arts occupy the first places on the list after soccer.

But, to what extent does COVID 19 affect the future of what is today grassroots sport?

In households where children or adolescents compete in children's or youth leagues or tournaments, 47% say that it is unlikely that children will resume competitive activity this season. Which, without a doubt, puts the future of our sport at relative risk.

Regarding the precautionary measures about COVID for children who practice sports, most of the homes in which children practice, think that all possible (19%) or sufficient protection measures (33%) are being taken

However, slightly more than 1 in five households with children are not aware of whether the necessary protection measures are being taken for children.

Sports Clubs are considered the main responsible for taking measures to protect children against COVID, federations and children's parents are attributed the responsibility in 53% and 52% respectively.

In conclusion, we have seen that the practice of sports by the population has been affected by the incidence of the pandemic in an important way, as well as that sports fans do not trust in attending sports events in person even in if it is allowed to do so.

Regarding the future of our sport, our children and young people are suffering in the same way the impact of COVID in relation to their sports practice and, it is in the hands of the clubs, the federations and the parents themselves the responsibility that they can continue growing sportily.

(YouGov)

November 11, 2020

Source: https://es.yougov.com/news/2020/11/11/la-practica-de-deportes-en-tiempos-de-covid/

664-43-08/Poll

Germans are more likely to drink tea than Brits

54 PERCENT OF BRITONS DRINK ENGLISH BREAKFAST TEA

Brits, on the other hand, are most likely to say they drink English breakfast tea (54 percent). Earl Gray ranks first in Sweden (52 percent) and Denmark (36 percent). The French are most likely to drink green tea (42 percent).

Germans' favorite variety, peppermint tea, is less valued in other countries: Swedes (11 percent) and Danes (12 percent) drink it least often.

TEEKANNE AND MESSMER ARE THE MOST POPULAR AMONG GERMAN TEA DRINKERS

Of those Germans who describe themselves as tea drinkers, 16 percent say they are current customers of the Teekanne brand. In the general population, 11 percent say this. 14 percent of tea drinkers currently buy Messmer tea (vs. 10 percent of the total population) and 8 percent say this about Lipton (vs. 5 percent of the total population).

(YouGov)

November 13, 2020

Source: https://yougov.de/news/2020/11/13/deutsche-trinken-eher-tee-als-briten/

664-43-09/Poll

Has China’s Reputation Peaked?

Now in its second year, the YouGov-Cambridge Globalism Project is an extended tracking survey of attitudes spanning 25 of the world’s largest countries, produced by YouGov in collaboration with researchers from the Tony Blair Institute for Global Change, as well as the University of Cambridge and the Guardian.

Compared with 2019, this year’s findings show a marked drop in the number of people who think China plays a positive role in the world, with a difference of at least 20 per cent in numerous countries, including Britain, Australia, Turkey, India, Nigeria and South Africa, and at least 10 per cent in others, such as France, Germany, Sweden, Denmark, Poland, Canada, Brazil, Mexico and Saudi Arabia.

Evidently, the pandemic may have played a significant role in the process. In nearly all countries surveyed, more than 80 per cent of respondents were convinced that Covid-19 originated in China. The one exception was China itself, where just over half (52 per cent) believed the virus originated there, while a third said it came from the US.

Large numbers around the world also share the view that China seriously mishandled its initial response to the virus, in ways that helped to turn the Chinese outbreak into a global one. Clear majorities in all other countries agreed that Chinese authorities initially tried to hide the truth about coronavirus, and that the international spread of the virus could have been prevented if the country had responded more quickly. Majorities in nearly all countries further believed it was definite or likely that the Chinese government punished the doctors who first reported the outbreak.

Some analysts might argue that the downtrend in sentiment towards China is largely related to negative information campaigns in Western countries, and alleged efforts to seek a scapegoat for their own failures to handle the virus. This is challenged by several aspects of the data.

Firstly, these trends are more than a Western phenomenon and duly span the globe, from the Americas and Europe to the Middle East, Africa and Asia. Moreover, they feature in a number of countries where the mood is more positive and majorities of the public think their own government has generally handled the virus well, such as Indonesia (62 per cent), Nigeria (51 per cent), Germany (67 per cent) and Canada (70 per cent). They also include places that are hardly redoubts of a traditionally pro-American or pro-Western perspective, such as Greece and Turkey. In other words, if China has an image problem related to the pandemic, it looks decidedly international and independent of Western-centric perspectives.

As results further suggest, the Chinese narrative on global leadership currently finds limited public endorsement. Recent years have seen growing efforts on the part of Beijing to portray itself as an alternative source of direction for the international community. This has coincided with a notably more unilateralist phase of US foreign policy under the tutelage of Donald Trump. Yet still in many countries, the larger portion would choose America over China as the country they prefer to be the most powerful force in world politics, often by a substantial margin.

In France, for example, 43 per cent choose the US, compared with 21 per cent for China. This trend repeats across much of the sample, such as Nigeria (72 per cent versus 12 per cent), South Africa (68 per cent versus 16 per cent), Britain (58 per cent versus 4 per cent), Australia (60 per cent versus 9 per cent), Brazil (55 per cent versus 15 per cent), India (72 per cent versus 8 per cent) and Indonesia (35 per cent versus 17 per cent). Only in Turkey (23 per cent for the US versus 25 per cent for China), Egypt (26 per cent for both), and Saudi Arabia (26 per cent versus 20 per cent), do we see less of a clear inclination for America, with more of a balance between the two.

Interestingly, furthermore, in contrast to the question on China’s role in world affairs, most of these figures show limited change from last year, suggesting a certain stability in preference for global leadership. In which case, perhaps this points to a wider challenge for Beijing.

Few doubt the growing, hard power of modern China in economic or military terms. Yet the state of a country’s reputation still rests considerably on the soft power of perceived, common values and inherent, socio-political appeal. As other research from the Globalism Project indicates, for all our differences, many of us still covet a fundamentally liberal world, from the empowerment of individuals to the basic norms and institutions of international society. In which case, China may continue to face a notable disconnect between its desire for public admiration on the world stage and the perceived requirements of maintaining stability at home.

(YouGov)

November 13, 2020

Source: https://yougov.co.uk/topics/international/articles-reports/2020/11/13/has-chinas-reputation-peaked

664-43-10/Poll

Scottish independence: Yes 51% - 49% No

SNP maintain strong lead in Holyrood voting intention

Looking ahead to the Scottish Parliament elections next May, the Scottish National Party is still well ahead. The latest research finds the SNP is on 56% in the constituency vote, with the Conservatives on 19%, Labour on 15%, Liberal Democrats on 6% and the Green Party on 2%.

Looking at the regional list vote the SNP is on 47% with the Conservatives on 20%, Labour on 13%, the Greens on 7% and Liberal Democrats on 6%.

If next May’s Scottish elections reflect these figures, the SNP would be on course for a comfortable majority, increasing its number of seats at Holyrood.

YouGov’s latest politician approval ratings find that there has been a minor drop in the number of people thinking Nicola Sturgeon is doing well as First Minister, falling from 72% in August to 67% now (27% believe she is doing badly). Again, this small shift is within the margin of error.

Her ratings compare favourably to those of the Boris Johnson, who just 20% of Scots believe is doing well and 74% think is doing badly. Labour leader Keir Starmer sits between the Prime Minister and First Minister, with 41% saying he is doing a good job and 32% a bad job.

COVID-19 handling

It is a similar picture when looking specifically at how well the leaders have handled the coronavirus crisis. Seven in ten (70%) Scots think Nicola Sturgeon is handling the crisis well, down from nearly eight in ten (79%) in August. The Prime Minister’s numbers are largely unchanged, with 19% saying he is doing well and 76% believing he is doing badly.

Scots overwhelmingly prefer the approach to tackling the virus that has been taken in Scotland (69%) over the approach taken in England (8%). One in six (16%) say they favour neither. Scots are also very supportive of the devolved approach to decision making around COVID-19 (68%) rather than a UK-wide approach (23%).

They are also content with the current tier system in place in Scotland with 64% saying that lockdown rules should differ in certain areas if their level of spread of the virus is different. One in four (24%) would prefer the same restrictions to be applied across all of Scotland.

(YouGov)

November 12, 2020

Source: https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2020/11/12/scottish-independence-yes-51-49-no

664-43-11/Poll

The YouGov Disability study: Disability and COVID-19

New research among over 1,000 Britons living with disability reveals how they have been affected by the pandemic

Just under a quarter (24%) say that the pandemic has left them unable to use public transport due to the changes required to keep trains, buses, and other types of transport in line with social distancing measures. The same proportion (24%) say COVID-19 has prevented them from leaving their home, with the highest figures being among adults with learning, social, or memory disabilities, a third (32%) of whom say has left them house bound.

Among people living with disabilities who are in employment, nine in ten (91%) say that concern for their health during the pandemic has not forced them to leave work> The research finds that 8% have left their job due to the COVID-19 outbreak, a figure that doubles to 16% among 18-34 year-olds.

This number rises further still among adults living with disability who also receive paid care and support, 21% of whom have stepped back from their positions due to concerns about their health.

Most feel overlooked, and say the pandemic has worsened the rights of the disabled

YouGov’s data shows that approaching two in three (65%) of adults living with disability believe that the pandemic has had either a very (25%) or fairly (40%) a negative impact on the rights of disabled people living in the UK. One in six (18%) say it’s had no impact and one in twenty (5%) say the outbreak has had a positive impact on the rights of disabled people.

Seven in ten (71%) adults living with disability say they feel that the needs of disabled people have been overlooked either to some (36%) or a great (35%) extent during the coronavirus pandemic. One in ten (10%) believe that their needs have been overlooked to a minor extent and 7% think they have not been overlooked at all.

Adults living hearing and visual disabilities are the most likely (81%) to say that disabled adults have been overlooked as part of the country’s pandemic response, with almost as many (80%) adults with a social, learning, or memory disability feeling the same.

Has COVID-19 affected their care and access to treatment?

Nearly half (48%) of disabled adults say their regular treatments or therapies have deceased either significantly (33%) or slightly (15%) since the outbreak began in March. A quarter (25%) believe they have stayed the same and one in five (21%) think that they have increased either significantly (7%) or slightly (14%).

Furthermore, just over a quarter (27%) report that the number of visits they receive per week from carers and assistants has fallen since the start of the pandemic; at the other end of the scale however one in ten (10%) report more frequent visits from carers since the pandemic began.

When asked about amount of paid or professional care and support they receive overall, 22% of disabled adults who received paid professional care report that this care has also decreased since March, compared to 14% who say their overall care has increased.

The frequency and access to care is not the only issue; a third (34%) of disabled adults receiving paid care and support say they now feel less safe receiving this care than they did before the COVID-19 pandemic, however 10% say they feel more safe doing so.

These factors of decreased frequency and access to professional care may have a substantial on these adults’ lives, with 61% of them saying that this care gives them the freedom to be either very or fairly independent.

Further to this difficulty regarding care and support, over half (60%) of disabled adults receiving paid care and support report they have had difficulty sourcing medical and hygiene products since the beginning of the pandemic.

Three in ten (30%) say they have difficulty in getting their medications (including medical creams and ointments), among adults with a learning, social, or memory disability this number jumps to 43%.

Another 21% have struggled to get hold of personal protective equipment, and 19% have struggled to source other hygiene products during the pandemic.

Issues with finding and sourcing medical and health products has affected younger disabled adults more than their elders, overall 80% of disabled adults aged between 18 and 34 who receive care reporting difficulties, compared to 32% of those aged between 50 and 65.

(YouGov)

November 11, 2020

Source: https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2020/11/11/yougov-disability-study-disability-and-covid-19

664-43-12/Poll

Most workers from BAME communities worry COVID will affect career progression

Employees from BAME backgrounds are more anxious than White workers about the coronavirus crisis threatening job security and career progression

The data shows that employees from BAME backgrounds are almost twice as likely as White workers to be very worried (29% to 16%).

Employees from BAME communities are also more likely than White wage earners to be worried that the pandemic will affect their job security (54% to 47%). This includes a quarter of workers from BAME backgrounds (25%) who are very worried, compared with just under a fifth of White workers (18%).

Higher proportions of workers from BAME backgrounds struggle financially

When looking at people in work at the start of the pandemic, the Debt Tracker data shows that employees from BAME communities are more likely than White workers to be struggling financially. Higher numbers have experienced financial difficulties in the past 12 months (33% to 24%), find it hard to keep up with bills (16% to 11%) and have missed at least three payments for bills or other credit commitments (12% to 5%).

However, both groups share similar outlooks on how their financial circumstances will change in the next year. Three in ten people from BAME backgrounds working before the crisis (29%) expect their situation will improve, while 22% think it will worsen. This is in line with the view among White workers (26% improve and 24% get worse).

(YouGov)

November 11, 2020

Source: https://yougov.co.uk/topics/economy/articles-reports/2020/11/11/most-workers-bame-communities-worry-covid-will-aff

664-43-13/Poll

British people think that their local councils use evidence more than local MPs in the response to Covid-19

The public perception that MPs don’t use evidence very much is at odds with their use of research and information services. The House of Commons library has previously reported that they receive 30,000 requests for information a year from MP’s offices. [4]

The top line findings from the poll are that:

UK adults think that Government ministers and their local council use evidence more than their local MP when deciding how to respond to COVID-19. Around half think ministers and local councils use evidence at least a fair amount, compared with a third who feel the same about MPs.
39% believe that government ministers use evidence too little compared with their own judgement.
By contrast, just over one in ten Brits (11%) believe that government ministers use evidence too much compared with their own judgement.
Councils are most likely to be seen to get their use of evidence right: 43% of Brits believe that their local council uses evidence ‘about the right amount’ compared to their own judgement (compared with three in ten who think ministers and MPs get the balance right)

The polling could represent frustration with the way that national policies have been decided and communicated. The opening of Evidence Week in Parliament on Monday revealed the extent of the demands placed on MPs to be across the range of constantly evolving Covid-19 evidence from epidemiology to revised economic forecasts, options for the protection of care homes, and mental health and educational effects of lockdowns, with only a fraction of the resources of the government departments they scrutinise. Hosted by Sense about Science, the Evidence Week opening event was led by voters questioning their MPs and chairs of Select Committees on use of evidence during Covid-19 and on a range of issues.

Tracey Brown, Director, Sense about Science said:

As their questions to MPs on Monday showed, voters care about good and accountable use of research and evidence in decisions. MPs don’t seem to be aware how much the public cares, but in turn the public needs to see a bit more of the evidence work MPs actually do. MPs have to be across all kinds of issues every day, from economic forecasts to the feasibility of supporting electric cars, to border controls on livestock, or inequalities in education, without a lot of resource. Maintaining public pressure is important as is ensuring the research community is supporting Parliament

Kelly Beaver, Managing Director of Public Affairs at Ipsos MORI said:

It’s clear that there’s a strong sense from the public that particularly when it comes to dealing with the COVID-19 pandemic, the need for evidence to be used as the basis for policy and decision making is key.

Select Committee chairs revealed that they had been seeking more evidence from government and urging its transparency for the public, including efforts by the Science and Technology Committee to secure publication of SAGE papers.

(YouGov)

November 09, 2020

Source: https://www.ipsos.com/ipsos-mori/en-uk/british-people-think-their-local-councils-use-evidence-more-local-mps-response-covid-19

NORTH AMERICA

664-43-14/Poll

In 2018, Government Restrictions on Religion Reach Highest Level Globally in More Than a Decade

The year-over-year increase from 2017 to 2018 was relatively modest, but it contributed to a substantial rise in government restrictions on religion over more than a decade. In 2007, the first year of the study, the global median score on the Government Restrictions Index (a 10-point scale based on 20 indicators) was 1.8. After some fluctuation in the early years, the median score has risen steadily since 2011 and now stands at 2.9 for 2018, the most recent full year for which data is available.

The increase in government restrictions reflects a wide variety of events around the world, including a rise from 2017 to 2018 in the number of governments using force – such as detentions and physical abuse – to coerce religious groups.

The total number of countries with “high” or “very high” levels of government restrictions has been mounting as well. Most recently, that number climbed from 52 countries (26% of the 198 countries and territories included in the study) in 2017 to 56 countries (28%) in 2018. The latest figures are close to the 2012 peak in the top two tiers of the Government Restrictions Index.

As of 2018, most of the 56 countries with high or very high levels of government restrictions on religion are in the Asia-Pacific region (25 countries, or half of all countries in that region) or the Middle East-North Africa region (18 countries, or 90% of all countries in the region).

Rising government restrictions in the Asia-Pacific region

Out of the five regions examined in the study, the Middle East and North Africa continued to have the highest median level of government restrictions in 2018 (6.2 out of 10). However, Asia and the Pacific had the largest increase in its median government restrictions score, rising from 3.8 in 2017 to 4.4 in 2018, partly because a greater number of governments in the region used force against religious groups, including property damage, detention, displacement, abuse and killings.

In total, 31 out of 50 countries (62%) in Asia and the Pacific experienced government use of force related to religion, up from 26 countries (52%) in 2017. The increase was concentrated in the category of “low levels” of government use of force (between one and nine incidents during the year). In 2018, 10 Asia-Pacific countries fell into this category, up from five the previous year. (For a full list of countries in the Asia-Pacific region, see Appendix C.)

In Armenia, for example, a prominent member of the Baha’i faith was detained on religious grounds, according to members of the community.1 And in the Philippines, three United Methodist Church missionaries were forced to leave the country or faced issues with visa renewals after they were involved in investigating human rights violations on a fact-finding mission.2

But the region also saw several instances of widespread use of government force against religious groups. In Burma (Myanmar), large-scale displacement of religious minorities continued. During the course of the year, more than 14,500 Rohingya Muslims were reported by Human Rights Watch to have fled to neighboring Bangladesh to escape abuses, and at least 4,500 Rohingya were stuck in a border area known as “no-man’s land,” where they were harassed by Burmese officials trying to get them to cross to Bangladesh.3 In addition, fighting between the Burmese military and armed ethnic organizations in the states of Kachin and Shan led to the displacement of other religious minorities, mostly Christians.4

Meanwhile, in Uzbekistan, it is estimated that at least 1,500 Muslim religious prisoners remained in prison on charges of religious extremism or membership in banned groups.5

Some countries in the Asia-Pacific region saw all-time highs in their overall government restrictions scores. This includes China, which continued to have the highest score on the Government Restrictions Index (GRI) out of all 198 countries and territories in the study. China has been near the top of the list of most restrictive governments in each year since the inception of the study, and in 2018 it reached a new peak in its score (9.3 out of 10).

The Chinese government restricts religion in a variety of ways, including banning entire religious groups (such as the Falun Gong movement and several Christian groups), prohibiting certain religious practices, raiding places of worship and detaining and torturing individuals.6 In 2018, the government continued a detention campaign against Uighurs, ethnic Kazakhs and other Muslims in Xinjiang province, holding at least 800,000 (and possibly up to 2 million) in detention facilities “designed to erase religious and ethnic identities,” according to the U.S. State Department.7

Tajikistan also stands out with a GRI score of 7.9, an all-time high for that country. In 2018, the Tajik government amended its religion law, increasing control over religious education domestically and over those who travel abroad for religious education. The amendment also requires religious groups to report their activities to authorities and requires state approval for appointing imams. Throughout the year, the Tajik government continued to deny minority religious groups, such as Jehovah’s Witnesses, official recognition. In January, Jehovah’s Witnesses reported that more than a dozen members were interrogated by police and pressured to renounce their faith.8

While these are examples of countries with “very high” government restrictions on religion in Asia and the Pacific, there also are several notable countries in the “high” category that experienced an increase in their scores. India, for example, reached a new peak in its GRI score in 2018, scoring 5.9 out of 10 on the index, while Thailand also experienced an all-time high (5.4).

In India, anti-conversion laws affected minority religious groups. For example, in the state of Uttar Pradesh in September, police charged 271 Christians with attempting to convert people by drugging them and “spreading lies about Hinduism.” Furthermore, throughout the year, politicians made comments targeting religious minorities. In December, the Shiv Sena Party, which holds seats in parliament, published an editorial calling for measures such as mandatory family planning for Muslims to limit their population growth. And law enforcement officials were involved in cases against religious minorities: In Jammu and Kashmir, four police personnel, among others, were arrested in connection with the kidnapping, rape and killing of an 8-year-old girl from a nomadic Muslim family, reportedly to push her community out of the area.9

In Thailand, as part of broader immigration raids in 2018, the government arrested hundreds of immigrants who allegedly did not have legal status, including religious minorities from other countries who were seeking asylum or refugee status. Among the detainees were Christians and Ahmadi Muslims from Pakistan as well as Christian Montagnards from Vietnam. During the year, Thai authorities also detained six leading Buddhist monks, a move that the government said was an effort to curb corruption but that some observers called a politically motivated attempt to assert control over temples.10

Government restrictions on religion in other regions

While Asia and the Pacific had the largest increases in their Government Restrictions Index scores, the Middle East and North Africa still had the highest median level of government restrictions, with a score of 6.2 on the GRI – up from 6.0 in 2017, more than double the global median (2.9), and at its highest point since the aftermath of the Arab Spring in 2012.

As in Asia, the rise in GRI scores in the Middle East and North Africa was partly due to more governments using force against religious groups. All but one country in the region had reports of government use of force related to religion in 2018, although many were at the lowest level (between one and nine incidents). In Jordan, for example, a media personality and an editor employed at his website were detained and charged with “sectarian incitement and causing religious strife” for posting on Facebook a cartoon of a Turkish chef sprinkling salt at Jesus’ Last Supper.11

But government force against religious groups was much more widespread in some countries in the region. In Saudi Arabia, for instance, more than 300 Shiite Muslims remained in prison in the country’s Eastern Province, where the government has arrested more than 1,000 Shiites since 2011 in connection with protests for greater rights.12

Aside from Asia-Pacific and the Middle East-North Africa, sub-Saharan Africa was the only other region to experience an increase in its median level of government restrictions in 2018 (from 2.6 to 2.7), reaching a new high following a steady rise in recent years. While government use of force against religious groups decreased in the region, both harassment of religious groups and physical violence against minority groups went up.

More than eight-in-ten countries in the sub-Saharan region (40 out of 48) experienced some form of government harassment of religious groups, and 14 countries (29%) had reports of governments using physical coercion against religious minorities. In Mozambique, for example, the government arbitrarily detained men, women and children who appeared to be Muslim in response to violent attacks on civilians and security forces by an insurgent group. According to media and local organizations, the government response to the attacks was “heavy-handed.”13

Europe experienced a small decline in its median level of government restrictions, falling from 2.9 in 2017 to 2.8 in 2018, although government use of force increased slightly (see Chapter 3 for details). The median level of government restrictions in the Americas, meanwhile, remained stable between 2017 and 2018, as the region continued to experience the lowest levels of government restrictions compared with all other regions.

Social hostilities involving religion declined slightly in 2018

This is the 11th annual report in this continuing study, which looks not only at government restrictions on religion but also at social hostilities involving religion – that is, acts of religion-related hostility by private individuals, organizations or groups in society.

The new analysis finds that globally, social hostilities declined slightly in 2018 after hitting an all-time high the prior year. The median score on the Social Hostilities Index (a 10-point scale based on 13 measures of social hostilities involving religion) fell from 2.1 in 2017 to 2.0 in 2018. This small decline was partly due to fewer reports of incidents in which some religious groups (usually of a majority faith in a particular country) attempted to prevent other religious groups (usually of minority faiths) from operating. There also were fewer reports of individuals being assaulted or displaced from their homes for religious expression that goes against the majority faith in a country (see Appendix D for full details).

The number of countries with “high” or “very high” levels of social hostilities involving religion also declined slightly from 56 (28% of all 198 countries and territories in the study) to 53 (27%). This includes 16 European countries (36% of all countries in Europe), 14 in the Asia-Pacific region (28% of all Asia-Pacific countries) and 11 in the Middle East and North Africa (55% of MENA countries).

Taken together, in 2018, 40% of the world’s countries (80 countries overall) had “high” or “very high” levels of overall restrictions on religion — reflecting either government actions or hostile acts by private individuals, organizations or social groups – down slightly from 42% (83 countries) in 2017. This remains close to the 11-year peak that was reached in 2012, when 43% (85 countries) had high or very high levels of overall restrictions. By this combined measure, as of 2018, all 20 countries in the Middle East-North Africa region have high overall restrictions on religion, as do more than half of Asia-Pacific countries (27 countries, or 54% of the region) and more than a third of countries in Europe (17 countries, 38%).

For full results, see Appendix F.

How do restrictions on religion vary by regime type?

How the Democracy Index works

The Democracy Index, compiled by the Economist Intelligence Unit, measures the state of democracy in 165 independent countries and two territories around the world. The Index assesses states based on 60 questions that broadly cover five themes: electoral process and pluralism, civil liberties, the functioning of government, political participation, and political culture. Each state is given a numeric score between
0 and 10 on the index and is classified into four regime types.

• Full Democracies: scores greater than 8

• Flawed Democracies: scores greater than 6, and less than or equal to 8

• Hybrid Regimes: scores greater than 4, and less than or equal to 6

• Authoritarian Regimes: scores less than or equal to 4

In this report, for the first time, Pew Research Center combined its data on government restrictions and social hostilities involving religion with a classification of regime types, based on the Democracy Index compiled by the Economist Intelligence Unit.14 Researchers did this to discern whether there is a link between different models of government and levels of restrictions on religion – in other words, whether restrictions on religion tend to be more or less common in countries with full or partial democracies than in those with authoritarian regimes.15

The analysis finds a strong association between authoritarianism and government restrictions on religion. While there are many exceptions to this pattern, authoritarian regimes are much more common among the countries with very high government restrictions on religion – roughly two-thirds of these countries (65%) are classified as authoritarian. Among countries with low government restrictions on religion, meanwhile, just 7% are authoritarian.

There is less of a clear pattern when it comes to social hostilities involving religion. There are no countries classified by the Economist Intelligence Unit as full democracies that have very high levels of social hostilities involving religion (just as there are no full democracies with very high levels of government restrictions involving religion). At the same time, there are many authoritarian countries with low levels of social hostilities involving religion, suggesting that in some cases, a government may restrict religion through laws and actions by state authorities while limiting religious hostilities among its citizens.

When looking at countries with very high government restrictions on religion, Pew Research Center found that of the 26 countries in this category whose regimes were scored by the EIU on its Democracy Index in 2018, 17 (65%) were classified as authoritarian, three were hybrid regimes (12%) and three were flawed democracies (12%). There were no countries with very high government restrictions that were full democracies.16 The three countries with very high government restrictions that were classified as flawed democracies – Malaysia, Indonesia and Singapore – all are regionally clustered in Southeast Asia.

Of the 30 countries with high government restrictions on religion, there were 12 authoritarian states (40%), 11 hybrid regimes (37%) and six flawed democracies (20%), according to the EIU Democracy Index. One full democracy, Denmark, also was in this category. In 2018, Denmark fell into the high government restrictions category for the first time, with its score driven partly by a ban on face coverings, which included Islamic burqas and niqabs, that went into effect that year.17

At the other end of the spectrum, among the 74 countries with low government restrictions, just five were classified as authoritarian (7%), 13 were hybrid regimes (18%), 27 were flawed democracies (36%) and seven were full democracies (9%). The countries with low government restrictions on religion that were also classified as authoritarian by the Democracy Index are all in sub-Saharan Africa: Gabon, Guinea-Bissau, Republic of the Congo, Swaziland and Togo. There was no Democracy Index classification of regime type for 22 countries with low government restrictions (for a full list, see Appendix E).

In terms of social hostilities involving religion, the picture is more mixed – which makes sense given that social hostilities look at actions by private individuals or social groups and do not directly originate from government actions.

Among the 10 countries with very high levels of social hostilities, there were four authoritarian states, three hybrid regimes and three flawed democracies – India, Israel and Sri Lanka. Again, like countries with very high government restrictions, there were no full democracies with very high levels of social hostilities.

Among the 43 countries with high levels of social hostilities, nine were classified as authoritarian (21%), 14 were hybrid regimes (33%), 13 were flawed democracies (30%) and five were full democracies (12%).18

The five countries categorized as full democracies with high levels of social hostilities are all in Europe – Denmark, Germany, the Netherlands, Switzerland and the United Kingdom – and all had reports of anti-Muslim and anti-Semitic incidents. In Switzerland, for instance, Muslim groups reported growing anti-Muslim sentiments due to negative coverage by the media and hostile discourse on Islam by right-leaning political parties. During the year, for instance, a journalist who had initiated a local ban on face coverings handed out a “Swiss Stop Islam Award” of about $2,000 USD to three recipients.19

Among the 81 countries with low levels of social hostilities in 2018, there were 24 with no data on regime types (mostly small island nations the Democracy Index does not cover). Those with data are most commonly classified as flawed democracies (26 countries, or 32% of the 81 countries with low social hostilities).

But, strikingly, 17 countries (21%) with low social hostilities involving religion were classified as authoritarian – including countries like Eritrea and Kazakhstan, which have very high government restrictions on religion. In addition, several other authoritarian states with very high government restrictions on religion – such as China, Iran and Uzbekistan – have only moderate levels of social hostilities involving religion. In these cases, high levels of government control over religion may lead to fewer hostilities by nongovernment actors.

The rest of this report looks more closely at other changes in religious restrictions in 2018, including the countries with the most extensive government restrictions or social hostilities and the extent of changes in restrictions on religion since 2017 (Chapter 1); details about the harassment of specific religious groups (Chapter 2); and additional analysis on restrictions on religion by region (Chapter 3) and among the most populous countries in the world (Chapter 4).

(PEW)

November 10, 2020

Source: https://www.pewforum.org/2020/11/10/in-2018-government-restrictions-on-religion-reach-highest-level-globally-in-more-than-a-decade/

664-43-15/Poll

America is exceptional in the nature of its political divide

It will be a difficult struggle. Americans have rarely been as polarized as they are today.

Both Trump and Biden supporters say if the other wins, it would result in lasting harm to the country

The studies we’ve conducted at Pew Research Center over the past few years illustrate the increasingly stark disagreement between Democrats and Republicans on the economy, racial justice, climate change, law enforcement, international engagement and a long list of other issues. The 2020 presidential election further highlighted these deep-seated divides. Supporters of Biden and Donald Trump believe the differences between them are about more than just politics and policies. A month before the election, roughly eight-in-ten registered voters in both camps said their differences with the other side were about core American values, and roughly nine-in-ten – again in both camps – worried that a victory by the other would lead to “lasting harm” to the United States.

The U.S. is hardly the only country wrestling with deepening political fissures. Brexit has polarized British politics, the rise of populist parties has disrupted party systems across Europe, and cultural conflict and economic anxieties have intensified old cleavages and created new ones in many advanced democracies. America and other advanced economies face many common strains over how opportunity is distributed in a global economy and how our culture adapts to growing diversity in an interconnected world.

Majorities of governing party supporters say their country has dealt with coronavirus outbreak well

But the 2020 pandemic has revealed how pervasive the divide in American politics is relative to other nations. Over the summer, 76% of Republicans (including independents who lean to the party) felt the U.S. had done a good job dealing with the coronavirus outbreak, compared with just 29% of those who do not identify with the Republican Party. This 47 percentage point gap was the largest gap found between those who support the governing party and those who do not across 14 nations surveyed. Moreover, 77% of Americans said the country was now more divided than before the outbreak, as compared with a median of 47% in the 13 other nations surveyed.

Trump and Biden supporters differ over importance of the economy, health care – and particularly the coronavirus

Much of this American exceptionalism preceded the coronavirus: In a Pew Research Center study conducted before the pandemic, Americans were more ideologically divided than any of the 19 other publics surveyed when asked how much trust they have in scientists and whether scientists make decisions solely based on facts. These fissures have pervaded nearly every aspect of the public and policy response to the crisis over the course of the year. Democrats and Republicans differ over mask wearing, contact tracing, how well public health officials are dealing with the crisis, whether to get a vaccine once one is available, and whether life will remain changed in a major way after the pandemic. For Biden supporters, the coronavirus outbreak was a central issue in the election – in an October poll, 82% said it was very important to their vote. Among Trump supporters, it was easily the least significant among six issues tested on the survey: Just 24% said it was very important.

Why is America cleaved in this way? Once again, looking across other nations gives us some indication. The polarizing pressures of partisan media, social media, and even deeply rooted cultural, historical and regional divides are hardly unique to America. By comparison, America’s relatively rigid, two-party electoral system stands apart by collapsing a wide range of legitimate social and political debates into a singular battle line that can make our differences appear even larger than they may actually be. And when the balance of support for these political parties is close enough for either to gain near-term electoral advantage – as it has in the U.S. for more than a quarter century – the competition becomes cutthroat and politics begins to feel zero-sum, where one side’s gain is inherently the other’s loss. Finding common cause – even to fight a common enemy in the public health and economic threat posed by the coronavirus – has eluded us.

Over time, these battles result in nearly all societal tensions becoming consolidated into two competing camps. As Ezra Klein and other writers have noted, divisions between the two parties have intensified over time as various types of identities have become “stacked” on top of people’s partisan identities. Race, religion and ideology now align with partisan identity in ways that they often didn’t in eras when the two parties were relatively heterogenous coalitions. In their study of polarization across nations, Thomas Carothers and Andrew O’Donohue argue that polarization runs particularly deep in the U.S. in part because American polarization is “especially multifaceted.” According to Carothers and O’Donohue, a “powerful alignment of ideology, race, and religion renders America’s divisions unusually encompassing and profound. It is hard to find another example of polarization in the world,” they write, “that fuses all three major types of identity divisions in a similar way.”

Of course, there’s nothing wrong with disagreement in politics, and before we get nostalgic for a less polarized past it’s important to remember that eras of relatively muted partisan conflict, such as the late 1950s, were also characterized by structural injustice that kept many voices – particularly those of non-White Americans – out of the political arena. Similarly, previous eras of deep division, such as the late 1960s, were far less partisan but hardly less violent or destabilizing. Overall, it’s not at all clear that Americans are further apart from each other than we’ve been in the past, or even that we are more ideologically or affectively divided – that is, exhibiting hostility to those of the other party – than citizens of other democracies. What’s unique about this moment – and particularly acute in America – is that these divisions have collapsed onto a singular axis where we find no toehold for common cause or collective national identity.

Trump, Biden supporters say their candidate should address concerns of all Americans if they win

Americans both see this problem and want to address it. Overwhelming majorities of both Trump (86%) and Biden (89%) supporters surveyed this fall said that their preferred candidate, if elected, should focus on addressing the needs of all Americans, “even if it means disappointing some of his supporters.”

In his speech, President-elect Biden vowed to “work as hard for those who didn’t vote for me as those who did” and called on “this grim era of demonization in America” to come to an end. That’s a sentiment that resonates with Americans on both sides of the fence. But good intentions on the part of our leaders and ourselves face serious headwinds in a political system that reinforces a two-party political battleground at nearly every level.

(PEW)

November 13, 2020

Source: https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/11/13/america-is-exceptional-in-the-nature-of-its-political-divide/

664-43-16/Poll

5 facts about the QAnon conspiracy theories

Here are five facts about how much Americans have heard about the QAnon conspiracy theories and their views about them, based on Pew Research Center surveys and analysis.

Americans’ awareness of the conspiracy theories called QAnon increased dramatically from early to late 2020. In a Feb. 18-March 2 survey, about a quarter (23%) of U.S. adults said they had heard “a lot” or “a little” about QAnon. By September, that number had increased to 47%. At the same time, though, very few Americans have heard a lot about it: 9% as of September, up from 3% in February.

About half of Americans say they’ve heard about QAnon conspiracy theories

Knowledge of QAnon grew on both sides of the political aisle, though Democrats’ awareness continues to outpace that of Republicans. As of September, more than half (55%) of Democrats and those who lean Democratic say they have heard at least a little about the conspiracy theories, compared with 39% of Republicans.

The same U.S. adults were sampled for the March survey and September survey. This raises the possibility that some of the increase in QAnon awareness is attributable to re-asking the same people.

Americans with high political knowledge are more likely than others to have heard of the conspiracy theories. Within both parties, political knowledge correlates closely with awareness of these theories.

Those with high political knowledge are far more likely than others to have heard of QAnon conspiracy theories

Among Democrats, those with high political knowledge are more than three times as likely to say they have heard about QAnon (85%) as those with low political knowledge (25%). And though fewer Republicans overall have heard of QAnon, those with high political knowledge are more than twice as likely (59%) as those with low political knowledge (24%) to have heard at least a little about QAnon. (You can find more details of the political knowledge index here.)

High or low political knowledge is a stronger factor in awareness of the conspiracy theories than differences in ideology within each party. The differences seen between Democrats with high and low knowledge are much larger than the differences seen between liberal Democrats and conservative or moderate Democrats, and the same is true among Republicans.

The majority of Americans who have heard of QAnon think it’s a bad thing for the country. Among those who have heard of the conspiracy theories, 57% say QAnon is a “very bad” thing for the country. Another 17% say it is “somewhat bad.” That compares with 20% who say it is a somewhat or very good thing, while 6% did not answer.

A majority of Americans who have heard of the QAnon conspiracy theories say QAnon is bad for the country

Democrats who have heard of QAnon are more likely than their Republican counterparts to say it’s bad for the country. Almost eight-in-ten Democrats who have heard of QAnon (77%) say it is a “very bad” thing for the country, and another 13% say it is a somewhat bad thing. On the other hand, only about a quarter of Republicans who have heard of QAnon (26%) feel it is very bad for the country, while 24% say it is somewhat bad. Indeed, roughly four-in-ten Republicans who have heard of QAnon (41%) say it is a good thing for the country (32% somewhat good and 9% very good).

Most describe QAnon as a ‘conspiracy’ or ‘group’ while some mention ‘right-leaning’ or ‘child trafficking’

When asked to describe QAnon, people most often mentioned that it was a group of some kind (41%) or a conspiracy group or theory (44%). When Americans who said they had heard at least a little about QAnon were asked to write in their own words what they thought it was, they were most likely to describe it as a group of some kind or include a more specific description of it as a conspiracy group or theory.

Far fewer wrote in other kinds of descriptions. Two-in-ten mentioned that it is a right-wing group or theory (20%) or that it is a theory about child abuse or trafficking (20%). Another 16% connected it directly to President Donald Trump, either by saying that Trump supports the group or that the group views him as a hero, savior or victim. (Responses could fit into more than one of these categories.)

A separate content study of YouTube by the Center found that in December 2019, mentions of “QAnon” were concentrated in a very small number of the most viewed news channels. Overall, 5% of videos published by the 100 most viewed YouTube news channels at the time of the study included the word “QAnon.” The vast majority of those mentions came from just a handful of YouTube news channels: 11 of these channels studied produced 80% of the videos mentioning QAnon.

As of late 2019, most YouTube videos mentioning ‘QAnon’ were created by a small portion of news channels studied

In a subsequent content analysis conducted in September 2020, eight of these 11 YouTube news channels were still producing videos that mentioned QAnon. What’s more, four of them mentioned QAnon in half or more of the videos they published that month.

Some of these channels clearly advertised their orientation around these conspiracy theories, including one that put the word “QAnon” in the thumbnail of all of its videos. Other channels were more subtle in their mentions, using euphemisms such as “our favorite anon.”

Several of the 11 channels were terminated by YouTube in October, including some channels that mentioned QAnon the most in September 2020.

(PEW)

November 16, 2020

Source: https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/11/16/5-facts-about-the-qanon-conspiracy-theories/

664-43-17/Poll

Support for Stricter U.S. Gun Laws at Lowest Level Since 2016

Line graph. Percentages of Americans since 1990 who want the laws covering the sale of firearms to be more strict, less strict or kept as they are now. The latest data find a seven-point decline in the percentage of U.S. adults (to 57%) who want stricter laws, 34% who want them kept as they are and 9% less strict. The highest percentage for those supporting stricter laws was 78% in 1990.

Gallup has been tracking the public's views on this measure since 1990, when a record-high 78% of Americans supported stricter laws for gun sales as the nation's crime rate was rising. A majority of Americans held that position until 2008. Support then fell to a low of 43% in 2011, when an equal number said gun laws should be kept as is, but calls for stricter laws increased sharply to 58% in 2012 after the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut.

Since the early 1990s, Americans' preferences for tougher gun control have generally peaked in the wake of prominent mass shootings and waned as the memory of each fades. A recent example was the 2018 school massacre in Parkland, Florida, after which support for increased gun control hit 67%. Support remained near that level last year in two readings taken after mass shootings in Dayton, Ohio, and El Paso, Texas, on consecutive days in August.

Americans' Preferences for Gun Control Vary by Demographic Group

There are sharp differences in views of gun control within a number of key demographic groups in the latest findings from Gallup's annual Crime poll, conducted Sept. 30-Oct. 15. Majorities of women, Democrats, independents, those who do not own guns, residents of the Eastern and Western U.S., and city and suburban residents all support stricter gun laws. At the same time, these groups' counterparts are more supportive of keeping gun laws as they are now or making them less strict.

Americans' Preferences for Gun Laws, by Demographic Groups

In general, do you feel that the laws covering the sale of firearms should be made more strict, less strict or kept as they are now?

	More strict	Less strict	Kept as now
	%	%	%
Gender
Men	46	15	39
Women	67	4	29
Party identification
Republicans	22	16	62
Independents	60	11	28
Democrats	85	2	13
Gun ownership
Gun owners	26	17	57
Not a gun owner	72	5	22
Region
East	68	10	22
Midwest	50	9	40
South	49	6	45
West	63	14	23
Urbanicity
City residents	65	6	29
Suburban residents	58	9	33
Rural residents	46	15	39
GALLUP, SEPT. 30-OCT. 15, 2020

Among these groups, the largest gap in support for more stringent gun laws is for partisans. The current 22% of Republicans favoring stricter laws for gun sales is the lowest for the group over the past 20 years and represents a 14-point drop since 2019. Meanwhile, the percentages of Democrats and independents calling for more gun control are near the highest recorded by Gallup since 2000. The 63-point gap between Republicans and Democrats is the highest on record over the past two decades.

Line graph. Percentages of Republicans, Democrats and independents who want the laws covering the sale of firearms to be more strict, since 2001. The latest data find 85% of Democrats, 60% of independents and 22% of Republicans want stricter laws. This is the lowest reading for Republicans in the trend.

Support for Handgun Ban Remains Weak

Americans' support for a ban on the possession of handguns, at 25%, is near the lowest on record in Gallup's 40-year trend. The latest reading, which is down 18 points from its 1991 high, is a slight decline from last year's 29%. Currently, 74% of U.S. adults say such a ban should not be put in place.

Line graph. Percentage of Americans who think there should be a ban on the possession of handguns except by the police and other authorized persons, since 1980. The latest finding, 25%, is near the record low of 23% in 2016.

While there is a 31-point gap between the views of Republicans and Democrats on this measure, less than half of Democrats (41%) support a handgun ban.

Gallup's update of gun ownership in the same poll finds essentially no change in the trend from recent years. The 32% saying they personally own a gun is up slightly, but not statistically significantly, from the 30% average rate of personal gun ownership from 2017-2019.

This may seem contrary to recent news that an estimated 5 million Americans have become new gun owners thus far in 2020 amid surging gun sales; however, that number represents about 2% of the U.S. adult public, which is not enough to detect in a poll of roughly 1,000 U.S. respondents, with the standard 4-percentage-point margin of sampling error. Gallup will be looking at whether today's slightly higher rates continue in future measurements.

Bottom Line

In a year that has seen record-high gun sales, Americans' appetite for gun control is the lowest it has been since 2016, before mass shootings in Las Vegas, Nevada, and Parkland, Florida. There has not been a major mass shooting in the U.S. since mid-2019 -- which may explain the decline in support for stricter gun laws, given that the trend on this measure has shown that such events tend to drive public opinion. In addition, there has been a sharp drop in Republicans' support for stricter gun laws over the past year as the nation has dealt with the pandemic, civil unrest and the presidential election.

(Gallup USA)

November 16, 2020

Source: https://news.gallup.com/poll/325004/support-stricter-gun-laws-lowest-level-2016.aspx

664-43-18/Poll

Fewer Americans Call for Tougher Criminal Justice System

Line graph. Americans' perceptions of whether the criminal justice system in the U.S. is too tough, not tough enough or about right in its handling of crime since 1992. The percentage saying it is not tough enough has fallen from 83% in 1992 to 41% now. At the same time, the percentage saying it is about right has risen from 12% in 1992 to the current 35%, and those who think it is too tough has increased from 2% in 1992 to 21% now.

Across the five times Gallup has asked this question since 1992, when public perceptions of national and local crime rates were at or near their highest points, there has been a steady decrease in the percentage saying the system is not tough enough and increases in the percentages saying it is too tough or about right. These changes coincide with declines in crime rates in the U.S.

The latest reading is from Gallup's annual Crime poll, conducted Sept. 30-Oct. 15, 2020.

Americans' faith in the U.S. criminal justice system remains low according to Gallup's 2020 Confidence in Institutions poll conducted earlier this year, and confidence in one element of that system -- the police -- fell to a record-low level in the same poll. This decline in confidence in the police followed several high-profile deaths of Black Americans at the hands of police officers, including George Floyd, Breonna Taylor and Rayshard Brooks.

Views of the criminal justice system vary by party identification and racial background. A 58% majority of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents say the criminal justice system is not tough enough. However, this view is shared by less than half as many Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents (25%), while 37% think the system is about right and 35% too tough.

More White Americans than non-White Americans say the justice system is not tough enough on crime (45% vs. 31%, respectively). The plurality of non-White adults, 40%, think it is about right, while 26% believe it is too tough.

Americans across these four party and racial subgroups have become significantly less likely to say the criminal justice system is not tough enough, but it has declined the most among Democrats, falling from 62% in 2000 to 25% today. Over the same period, Democrats' view that the system is too tough has grown from 6% to 35%.

Views of the U.S. Criminal Justice System's Handling of Crime, by Party and Race

In general, do you think the criminal justice system in this country is too tough, not tough enough or about right in its handling of crime?

	Too tough	About right	Not tough enough
	%	%	%
Republicans/Republican-leaning independents
2020	6	34	58
2016	2	30	65
2003	2	25	72
2000	1	16	79
Democrats/Democratic-leaning independents
2020	35	37	25
2016	22	42	29
2003	9	29	58
2000	6	27	62
White adults
2020	19	33	45
2016	10	32	53
2003	6	25	67
2000	3	21	72
Non-White adults
2020	26	40	31
2016	23	40	30
2003	8	28	57
2000	7	28	57
GALLUP

More Want to Cut Crime by Focusing on Social Problems Than Law Enforcement

Given two options for approaches to lowering the U.S. crime rate, more Americans prefer putting money and effort into addressing social and economic problems such as drug addiction, homelessness and mental health (63%) rather than putting money and effort into strengthening law enforcement (34%).

While almost nine in 10 Democrats and Democratic leaners favor focusing on social and economic problems, more than six in 10 Republicans and Republican leaners would rather strengthen law enforcement.

Majorities of White and non-White adults favor addressing the systemic problems that contribute to crime; however, White adults are less likely than non-White adults to prioritize this approach.

Americans' Preference for Lowering the Crime Rate

Which of the following approaches to lowering the crime rate in the United States comes closer to your own view -- more money and effort should go to addressing social and economic problems such as drug addiction, homelessness and mental health OR more money and effort should go to strengthening law enforcement?

	Address social problems	Strengthen law enforcement
	%	%
U.S. adults	63	34
Republicans/Republican-leaning independents	34	62
Democrats/Democratic-leaning independents	87	11
White adults	59	39
Non-White adults	73	24
GALLUP, SEPT. 30-OCT. 15, 2020

As would be expected, those who think the criminal justice system is too tough or about right in its handling of crime strongly favor putting money and effort into tackling social and economic problems to cut the crime rate (88% and 69%, respectively). That view is shared by 45% of those who do not think the system is tough enough in its handling of crime. The majority of this group, 53%, supports strengthening law enforcement.

Bottom Line

At a time when confidence in the criminal justice system is low and perceptions that crime in the U.S. are up, Americans are divided in their views of how the criminal justice system is handling crime. Although a plurality still think the system is not tough enough, the percentage who say it is too tough has risen in the past year. This is likely attributable, at least in part, to the backlash that has resulted from several highly publicized deaths of Black Americans at the hands of police officers.

Recent Gallup polling shows that Americans favor a number of reforms to policing in the U.S., and the public widely supports putting money and effort into addressing social and economic problems that can lead to crime over putting those resources into strengthening law enforcement.

(Gallup USA)

November 16, 2020

Source: https://news.gallup.com/poll/324164/fewer-americans-call-tougher-criminal-justice-system.aspx

MULTICOUNTRY STUDIES

664-43-19/Poll

How people around the world see the World Health Organization’s initial coronavirus response

As the WHO holds its 73rd World Health Assembly – remotely this year, due to the pandemic – here is a look at how people in 14 advanced economies viewed the organization’s initial COVID-19 response, based on surveys conducted in June through August by Pew Research Center.

How we did this

In most surveyed countries, majorities approved of the WHO’s handling of the pandemic, though there were some notable exceptions. A median of 63% of adults across 14 nations said this summer that the WHO had done a good job dealing with the coronavirus outbreak. In 12 of these countries, half or more thought the WHO had managed the pandemic well.

Japan and South Korea – two early hotspots for the virus – were notable outliers. Only about a fifth of South Koreans (19%) and a quarter of Japanese (24%) were convinced the WHO had dealt with the pandemic well. In May, South Korean President Moon Jae-In pushed for the organization to be tougher on member nations, particularly with regard to sharing data about the virus. And Japanese Deputy Prime Minister Taro Aso has panned the organization for its close ties to China, a nation viewed negatively by nearly nine-in-ten Japanese.

People in most surveyed countries were more likely to approve of their own nation’s handling of the pandemic than the WHO’s response. But that wasn’t the case everywhere. In Sweden, Belgium, France and the U.S., similar shares said their country and the WHO had done a good job. Elsewhere, more said the WHO had handled the outbreak well than said the same of their own country. (The survey was conducted in summer, before a second surge in coronavirus cases began across Europe.) In the UK, fewer than half (46%) said their own country had done a good job dealing with the virus, but 64% said the same about the WHO. Similarly, in Spain, 54% said their country had dealt with the virus well, but two-thirds said the same of the WHO.

Americans have grown slightly more positive about the WHO’s handling of the pandemic. Only 53% of Americans said this summer that the organization had handled the outbreak well, but that represented an increase since the spring, when only 46% said this.

Democrats and independents who lean Democratic were more likely than Republicans and Republican leaners to assess the WHO’s pandemic response positively. Seven-in-ten Democrats said the organization had done a good job dealing with the outbreak, compared with only 32% of Republicans. There was a similar partisan divide in the spring, but the share of Democrats who rated the WHO’s response positively increased by 8 percentage points by summer (from 62% to 70%).

In all surveyed nations, those who have a favorable opinion of the United Nations were more likely to think the WHO – which is part of the UN – had done a good job dealing with the virus. In Australia, for example, 69% of adults with a favorable view of the UN saw the WHO’s handling of the pandemic as effective, compared with only 26% of those with an unfavorable opinion of the UN.

In some countries, including the U.S., political ideology and support for political parties were also connected with views of the WHO. In half the countries surveyed, those on the left of the ideological spectrum were more likely than those on the right to think the WHO had handled the pandemic well.

Similarly, Europeans who support left-wing populist parties were more likely to think the WHO had done a good job managing the outbreak when compared with those who do not support these parties. Conversely, supporters of some right-wing populist parties were less likely than nonsupporters to think the organization’s response to the coronavirus outbreak had been effective.

In most surveyed countries, women and younger adults were more likely to say the WHO had handled the virus well. The gender divide was largest in Italy, where two-thirds of women said this summer that the organization had been effective in dealing with the pandemic, compared with fewer than half of men (44%).

Similarly, in nine countries, adults ages 18 to 29 were more likely than those 50 and older to say the WHO had done a good job dealing with the outbreak. For example, in the U.S., 68% of younger adults said the WHO’s response to the outbreak had been effective, compared with only 49% of older adults.

(PEW)

November 12, 2020

Source: https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/11/12/how-people-around-the-world-see-the-world-health-organizations-initial-coronavirus-response/