A rising tide of restrictions on religion spread across the world between mid-2009 and mid-2010, according to a new study by the Pew Research Center’s Forum

on Religion & Public Life. Restrictions on religion rose in each of the five major regions of the world – including in the Americas and sub-Saharan Africa, the two regions where overall restrictions previously had been declining.

The share of countries with high or very high restrictions on religious beliefs and practices rose from 31% in the year ending in mid-2009 to 37% in the year ending in mid-2010. Because some of the most restrictive countries are very populous, three-quarters of the world’s approximately 7 billion people live in countries with high government restrictions on religion or high social hostilities involving religion, up from 70% a year earlier.

Restrictions on religion rose not only in countries that began the year with high or very high restrictions or hostilities, such as Indonesia and Nigeria, but also in many countries that began with low or moderate restrictions or hostilities, such as Switzerland and the United States. (See sidebar on the U.S..)

The rising tide of restrictions in the latest year studied is attributable to a variety of factors, including increases in crimes, malicious acts and violence motivated by religious hatred or bias, as well as increased government interference with worship or other religious practices. For instance, a November 2009 constitutional referendum in Switzerland banned the construction of minarets on mosques in the country. In Indonesia, more than two dozen churches were forced to close due to pressure from Islamist extremists or, in some instances, local officials. And in Nigeria, violence between Christian and Muslim communities, including a series of deadly attacks, escalated throughout the period.

During the latest year covered in the study, there also was an increase in harassment or intimidation of particular religious groups. Indeed, five of the seven major religious groups monitored by the study – Jews, Christians, Buddhists, adherents of folk or traditional religions, and members of other world religions – experienced four-year highs in the number of countries in which they were harassed by national, provincial or local governments, or by individuals or groups in society (for details, see Harassment of Specific Groups).

This is the third time the Pew Forum has measured restrictions on religion around the globe. The new study scores 197 countries and territories on the same two indexes used in the previous studies: ¹

• The Government Restrictions Index (GRI) measures government laws, policies and actions that restrict religious beliefs or practices. The GRI is comprised of 20 measures of restrictions, including efforts by governments to ban particular faiths, prohibit conversions, limit preaching or give preferential treatment to one or more religious groups.
• The Social Hostilities Index (SHI) measures acts of religious hostility by private individuals, organizations and social groups. This includes mob or sectarian violence, harassment over attire for religious reasons and other religion-related intimidation or abuse. The SHI includes 13 measures of social hostilities.

Over the four years studied, the number of countries with very high government restrictions on religion rose from 10 as of mid-2007 to 18 as of mid-2010, as a total of 10 countries (Afghanistan, Algeria, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Indonesia, Maldives, Russia, Syria, Tunisia and Yemen) were added to the “very high” category, while just two (Brunei and Turkey) were removed (see table on page 10). Meanwhile, 94 countries (48%) had low levels of government restrictions as of mid-2010, down from 117 (59%) in the first year of the study. (For a complete list of all countries in each category, see the Government Restrictions Index table PDF .)

The number of countries with very high social hostilities also rose, from 10 as of mid-2007 to 15 as of mid-2010, as five countries (Egypt, Nigeria, the Palestinian territories, Russia and Yemen) were added to the “very high” category and none were removed (see table above). Meanwhile, half of the 197 countries in the study (98) had low levels of social hostilities in mid-2010, down from 114 in mid-2007. (For a complete list of all countries in each category, see the Social Hostilities Index table PDF.)

Changes in Government Restrictions

In addition to scoring countries on both indexes, the study looks at the extent and direction of change within each country from the year ending in mid-2009 to the year ending in mid-2010.

Just six countries (3%) had large changes (2.0 points or more) in their scores on the 10-point Government Restrictions Index, and all six (Chad, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Fiji, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka and Tunisia) were in the direction of higher restrictions. Among countries with modest changes (1.0 to 1.9 points), there were many more increases (30) than decreases (13). And the same was true among countries with small changes (less than 1.0 point): 88 had increases, while 37 had decreases.

Considering all changes, regardless of magnitude, 63% of countries had increases in government restrictions from mid-2009 to mid-2010, while 25% had decreases. The level of increase in government restrictions during the latest year studied exceeds the increase over the previous three years, when 56% of countries had increases and 31% had decreases.

Changes in Social Hostilities

Increases in social hostilities involving religion also outnumbered decreases in each point range. Among the countries whose scores went up or down by 2.0 points or more on the 10-point Social Hostilities Index, four times as many had increases in hostilities (17) as had decreases (four).² Twenty-five countries had increases of between 1.0 and 1.9 points in their SHI scores, while just 15 had decreases in that range. And 55 countries had increases of less than 1.0 point, while 44 had decreases of that size.

Considering changes of any magnitude, 49% of countries had increases in hostilities from mid-2009 to mid-2010, while 32% had decreases. During the three previous years, by contrast, 44% of countries had increases in hostilities and 39% had decreases.

Changes in Overall Restrictions

Considering government restrictions and social hostilities together, increases outnumbered decreases in each point range from mid-2009 to mid-2010. Among countries whose scores went up or down by 2.0 points or more on either of the indexes after taking into account any offsetting change on the other index, six times as many countries had increases (18) as decreases (three).³

Overall, restrictions increased at least somewhat in 66% of countries and decreased in 28% between mid-2009 and mid-2010. As was the case when the two indexes were considered separately, this exceeds the increase during the preceding three years, when 56% of countries had increases and 39% had decreases.

Patterns among Specific Types of Restrictions and Hostilities

As noted in previous Pew Forum studies on religious restrictions, higher scores on the Government Restrictions Index are associated with higher scores on the Social Hostilities Index and vice versa. This means that, in general, it is rare for countries that score high on one index to be low on the other.

The new study finds that some government restrictions have a stronger association with social hostilities than others. Government policies or actions that clearly favor one religion over others have the strongest association with social hostilities involving religion. The average level of social hostilities among the countries with very high levels of government favoritism (SHI = 4.8) is much higher than the average level of social hostilities among countries with low levels of government favoritism (1.3), as shown in the chart on page 20. Other government actions that are strongly associated with social hostilities involving religion are (in descending order): the use of force against religious groups; failing to intervene to stop religious discrimination; and limiting conversion from one religion to another.⁴

As the chart below shows, social hostilities involving religion were lowest among countries where governments do not harass or intimidate religious groups; national laws and policies protect religious freedom; governments do not interfere with religious worship or practices; and governments do not use force against religious groups.

Likewise, certain types of social hostilities involving religion are more likely to be associated with higher government restrictions on religion. Sectarian or communal violence between religious groups has the strongest association with government restrictions on religion. The average level of government restrictions among the countries with sectarian violence (GRI = 5.0) is much higher than among countries without such violence (2.4), as shown in the chart on page 21. Other social hostilities that are strongly associated with government restrictions are (in descending order): hostilities over conversion from one religion to another; violence or the threat of violence to enforce religious norms; religion-related terrorist violence; and groups coercively dominating public life with their perspective on religion.⁵

As shown in the chart below, government restrictions are, on average, lowest in countries where there are no violent acts resulting from tensions between religious groups; there are no crimes or malicious acts motivated by religious hatred; there are no groups dominating public life with their perspective on religion; and there are no incidents of violence stemming from hostility over conversions.

Harassment of Specific Groups

The Government Restrictions Index and Social Hostilities Index each include a question about the harassment of specific religious groups (GRI Q.11 and SHI Q.1a). Harassment and intimidation by governments or social groups take many forms, including physical assaults, arrests and detentions, the desecration of holy sites and discrimination against religious groups in employment, education and housing. Harassment and intimidation also include such things as verbal assaults on members of one religious group by other groups or individuals.

The number of countries where harassment or intimidation of specific religious groups took place rose from 147 as of mid-2009 to 160 as of mid-2010. Moreover, five of the seven major religious groups included in this study – Christians, Jews, Buddhists, adherents of folk or traditional religions, and members of other world religions – experienced four-year highs with respect to the number of countries in which they were harassed by some level of government or by individuals or groups in society.

In the year ending in mid-2010, government or social harassment of Christians was reported in 111 countries; the previous high was 107 countries in the first year of the study. Government or social harassment of Jews was reported in 68 countries in the year ending in mid-2010, a figure that had been steadily rising across all four years of the study. Incidents of harassment involving members of other world religions – including Sikhs, ancient faiths such as Zoroastrianism, and newer faiths such as Baha’is and Rastafarians – occurred in 52 countries in the year ending in mid-2010, up from 39 countries the previous year. Members of groups that practice folk or traditional religions (including African traditional religions, Chinese folk religions, Native American religions and Australian aboriginal religions) faced harassment in 26 countries, compared with 24 in the previous year. Buddhists were harassed in 15 countries in the latest year studied; although this is far fewer than most other major religious groups, it represents a four-year high for this group. In the latest year of the study, Muslims were harassed in 90 countries and Hindus faced harassment in 16 countries – also more countries than in the previous year, though not four-year highs.

Overall, across the four years of this study, religious groups were harassed in a total of 184 countries at one time or another. Adherents of the world’s two largest religious groups, Christians and Muslims – who together comprise more than half of the global population – were harassed in the largest number of countries.⁶ Jews, who comprise less than 1% of the world’s population, experienced harassment in a total of 85 countries, while members of other world faiths were harassed in a total of 72 countries.

Some religious groups were more likely to be harassed by governments, while others were more likely to be harassed by individuals or groups in society. Christians, for example, were harassed by government officials or organizations in 95 countries in the year ending in mid-2010 and by social groups or individuals in 77 countries. Muslims also were more likely to be harassed by governments (74 countries) than by social groups or individuals (64 countries). Jews, by contrast, experienced social harassment in many more countries (64) than they faced government harassment (21).

Regions and Countries

Government restrictions on religion and/or social hostilities involving religion increased in each of the five major regions of the world between mid-2009 and mid-2010. In three regions – Europe, the Middle East-North Africa and sub-Saharan Africa – the median level of restrictions and hostilities both increased. In the Americas, the median level of government restrictions increased, while in the Asia-Pacific region, the median level of social hostilities increased.

Looking at the extent and direction of change on the Government Restrictions Index and the Social Hostilities Index together, increases of one point or more outnumbered decreases of that magnitude in all five regions, as shown in the chart on page 25. Sub-Saharan Africa had the largest share of countries with increases of one point or more (36%). Europe and the Americas had the lowest proportion of countries where overall restrictions increased by one point or more (22% and 23%, respectively).

Government Restrictions by Region

The median level of government restrictions on religion increased in four of the five regions demarcated in this study (the Middle East and North Africa, Europe, sub-Saharan Africa and the Americas); it stayed roughly the same in the Asia-Pacific region.

In the latest year studied, government restrictions were highest in the Middle East and North Africa. The median score on the Government Restrictions Index for the 20 countries in the region (5.8 as of mid-2010) was up from the previous year (5.2).

As of mid-2010, government restrictions on religion were high or very high in most of the countries that experienced the political uprisings known as the Arab Spring in late 2010 and early 2011. In Tunisia – where the uprisings began – government restrictions increased from the high category as of mid-2009 to the very high category as of mid-2010 (an increase of more than two points). In Egypt – where the violence spread shortly after – government restrictions already were in the very high category; still, the country’s score on the Government Restrictions Index edged slightly higher, from 8.6 in mid-2009 to 8.7 in mid-2010. And in Yemen – where violence erupted almost simultaneously with the uprising in Egypt – government restrictions on religion rose from the high category (6.4) as of mid-2009 to the very high category (7.0) as of mid-2010.

The 50 countries in the Asia-Pacific region had a median GRI score in the middle range (3.4) as of mid-2010, the same as the previous year. However, half of the 18 countries worldwide with very high government restrictions on religion are located in the region: Indonesia, Maldives, Afghanistan, Iran, Uzbekistan, China, Burma (Myanmar), Vietnam and Azerbaijan.

Median scores on the Government Restrictions Index for countries in Europe, sub-Saharan Africa and the Americas rose slightly from mid-2009 to mid-2010. Although the median level of government restrictions in the Americas was relatively low (1.2 as of mid-2010), one country, Cuba, had high restrictions. Eight other countries in the region, including the United States, were in the moderate category. (See sidebar on the Situation in the United States.)

Social Hostilities by Region

The median level of social hostilities involving religion also increased in four of the five regions (the Middle East and North Africa, Asia and the Pacific, Europe and sub-Saharan Africa); it stayed roughly the same in the Americas.

As with government restrictions, social hostilities involving religion were highest in the Middle East and North Africa. However, the region’s median score on the Social Hostilities Index rose only slightly, from 4.2 as of mid-2009 to 4.3 as of mid-2010.

The median level of social hostilities in the Americas remained low, unchanged from mid-2009 to mid-2010. Only one of the 35 countries in the region – Mexico – had high social hostilities, and 29 (83%) had low hostilities. Five countries in the region (United States, Brazil, Colombia, Haiti and Chile) were in the moderate category; however, all but one of these countries, Colombia, had increases of one point or more on the Social Hostilities Index. Columbia’s score decreased by 0.2. (See sidebar on the Situation in the United States.)

Restrictions and Hostilities in the Most Populous Countries

Among the world’s 25 most populous countries, Egypt, Indonesia, Russia, Burma (Myanmar), Iran, Vietnam, Pakistan, India, Bangladesh and Nigeria stand out as having the most restrictions on religion as of mid-2010 when government restrictions and social hostilities both are taken into account. Brazil, Japan, Italy, the United States and the Democratic Republic of the Congo have the least restrictions and hostilities.

None of the 25 most populous countries had low social hostilities involving religion as of mid-2010, while four had low government restrictions on religion: South Africa, Brazil, Philippines and Japan. As discussed in the sidebar on page 15, the United States moved from the low category of government restrictions in mid-2009 to the moderate category in 2010, based on the information in the sources consulted for this study.

[Note: this scatterplot has been updated to reflect scores from 2013, our latest report.]

About the Study

These are among the key findings of the Pew Forum’s new report on global restrictions on religion. The 197 countries and self-administering territories covered by the study contain more than 99.5% of the world’s population. They include 191 of the 192 member states of the United Nations as of mid-2010 plus six self-administering territories — Kosovo, Hong Kong, Macau, the Palestinian territories, Taiwan and Western Sahara.⁷ Each country or territory was scored on a total of 33 measures phrased as questions about government restrictions or social hostilities involving religion. (For the full question wording, see the Summary of Results.) The Government Restrictions Index is comprised of 20 questions; there are 13 questions on the Social Hostilities Index.

To answer the questions that make up the indexes, Pew Forum researchers combed through 19 widely cited, publicly available sources of information, including reports by the U.S. State Department, the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, the U.N. Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion or Belief, the Council of the European Union, the United Kingdom’s Foreign & Commonwealth Office, Human Rights Watch, the International Crisis Group, Freedom House and Amnesty International. (For the complete list of sources, see the Methodology.)

The researchers involved in this process recorded only concrete reports about specific government laws, policies and actions, as well as specific incidents of religious violence or intolerance by social groups; they did not rely on the commentaries or opinions of the sources. (For a more detailed explanation of the coding and data verification procedures, see the Methodology.) The goal was to devise a battery of quantifiable, objective measures that could be analyzed individually as well as combined into two comprehensive indexes, the Government Restrictions Index and the Social Hostilities Index.

Some of the increases in religious restrictions noted in this study could reflect the use of more up-to-date or better information sources, but there is no evidence of a general informational bias in the direction of higher restrictions. For instance, the social hostilities sections of the U.S. State Department’s annual reports on International Religious Freedom (one of the 19 primary sources used in this study) in general have gotten shorter in more recent years. Pew Forum staff carefully monitor the impact of source information variability each year. (See the Methodology for more details.)

Readers should note that the categories of very high, high, moderate and low restrictions or hostilities are relative – not absolute – rankings based on the overall distribution of index scores in the initial year of this study. As such, they provide a guide for comparing country scores and evaluating their direction of change over time. They also reflect the number and severity of different restrictions or hostilities that occurred in a given year in any part of the country. Accordingly, more populous countries may have a higher likelihood of scoring higher than less populous countries, though in practice, some countries with very high levels of restrictions or hostilities have relatively small populations, such as the Maldives and the Palestinian territories.

Finally, although it is very likely that more restrictions exist than are reported by the 19 primary sources, taken together the sources are sufficiently comprehensive to provide a good estimate of the levels of restrictions in almost all countries. The one major exception is North Korea. The sources clearly indicate that North Korea’s government is among the most repressive in the world with respect to religion as well as other civil and political liberties. (The U.S. State Department’s 2010 Report on International Religious Freedom, for example, says that “Genuine freedom of religion does not exist” in North Korea.) But because North Korean society is effectively closed to outsiders and independent observers lack regular access to the country, the sources were unable to provide the kind of specific, timely information that the Pew Forum categorized and counted (“coded,” in social science parlance) for this quantitative study. Therefore, the report does not include scores for North Korea.

---

Footnotes:

1 Previous reports provided a score for the territory of Northern Cyprus and therefore included 198 countries and territories. According to the U.S. State Department, only one country – Turkey – recognizes the separate status of Northern Cyprus. Thus, future reports will score Northern Cyprus as part of the Republic of Cyprus. The exclusion of Northern Cyprus in this report has a negligible effect on the global and regional findings. In addition, a single index score was recorded for all of Sudan for this report because South Sudan remained a part of Sudan until July 2011, which is after the period studied in this report. (Return to text)

2 The 17 countries that had increases of 2.0 points or more were: Cambodia, Central African Republic, Chad, Cyprus, France, Ivory Coast, Japan, Kenya, Kyrgyzstan, Laos, Lebanon, New Zealand, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Tanzania, Uganda and the United Kingdom. The four countries that had decreases of 2.0 points or more were Comoros, Denmark, Slovakia and Western Sahara. (Return to text)

3 The 18 countries that had an increase of 2.0 points or more were: Cambodia, Central African Republic, Chad, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Cyprus, Ivory Coast, Japan, Kenya, Kyrgyzstan, Lebanon, New Zealand, Nicaragua, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Tanzania, Tunisia, Uganda and the United Kingdom. The three countries that had decreases of 2.0 points or more were Comoros, Denmark and Slovakia. (Return to text)

4 Ordering is based on second decimal places when scores are tied. (Return to text)

5 Ordering is based on second decimal places when scores are tied. (Return to text)

6 For estimates of the size of the global Christian population, see the Pew Forum’s 2011 report, “Global Christianity: A Report on the Size and Distribution of the World’s Christian Population.” For estimates of the size of the global Muslim population, see the Pew Forum’s 2011 report, “The Future of the Global Muslim Population.” (Return to text)

7 As previously noted, this report does not include scores for the territory of Northern Cyprus or North Korea. (Return to text)

This is the third in a series of reports by the Pew Research Center’s Forum on Religion & Public Life analyzing the extent to which governments and societies around the world impinge on religious beliefs and practices. These reports have drawn widespread attention to the fact that a substantial portion of the world’s population – 75% as of mid-2010 – lives in countries where governments, social groups or individuals restrict people’s ability to freely practice their faith. The reports also have generated significant interest for how they bring social science research methods to bear on the study of religious restrictions. The methodology used in the reports provides a quantitative framework that those involved in the study of religious freedom can use to monitor changes in restrictions on religion over time, across the world, in specific geographical regions and in individual countries.

The new report looks at the extent and direction of change in religious restrictions from the year ending in mid-2009 to the year ending in mid-2010. Where appropriate, it also compares the situation as of mid-2010 with the situation in the baseline year of the study (mid-2006 to mid-2007).

The Pew Forum’s previous report on religious restrictions, published in August 2011, found that restrictions tended to increase the most in countries that already had high government restrictions on religion or high social hostilities involving religion. In the latest year, however, there were increases in restrictions even in countries that previously had low or moderate levels of restrictions – including the United States, which is examined in a sidebar starting on page 15. As the title of the report suggests, the overall level of restrictions was higher in the latest year studied than it was in the previous year.

As we have noted in the two previous reports, it is important to keep in mind some limitations of this study. The indexes of government restrictions and social hostilities that serve as the basis of the study are designed to measure obstacles to religious expression and practice. As a result, the report focuses on the constraints on religion in each country and does not look at the other side of the coin: the amount of free or unhindered religious activity that takes place in particular countries. The study also does not attempt to determine whether restrictions are justified or unjustified, nor does it attempt to analyze the many factors – historical, demographic, cultural, religious, economic and political – that might explain why restrictions have arisen. It simply seeks to measure the restrictions that exist in a quantifiable, transparent and reproducible way, based on published reports from numerous governmental and nongovernmental organizations.

As was the case in the two previous reports, North Korea is not included in this study. The primary sources used in this study indicate that North Korea’s government is among the most repressive in the world, including toward religion. But because independent observers lack regular access to the country, the sources are unable to provide the kind of specific, timely information that formed the basis of this analysis.

The Pew Forum’s work on global restrictions on religion is part of the Pew-Templeton Global Religious Futures project, which analyzes religious change and its impact on societies around the world. Previous reports produced under this initiative, funded by The Pew Charitable Trusts and the John Templeton Foundation, include “The World’s Muslims: Unity and Diversity” (August 2012), “Faith on the Move: The Religious Affiliation of International Migrants” (March 2012), “Global Christianity: A Report on the Size and Distribution of the World’s Christian Population” (December 2011), “Rising Restrictions on Religion” (August 2011), “Global Survey of Evangelical Protestant Leaders” (June 2011), “The Future of the Global Muslim Population: Projections for 2010-2030” (January 2011), “Tolerance and Tension: Islam and Christianity in Sub-Saharan Africa” (April 2010), “Global Restrictions on Religion” (December 2009), “Mapping the Global Muslim Population: A Report on the Size and Distribution of the World’s Muslim Population” (October 2009) and “Spirit and Power: A 10-Country Survey of Pentecostals” (October 2006).

The principal researcher for this report was Brian J. Grim, a senior researcher and director of cross-national data at the Pew Forum. He was assisted by Peter Henne, a former Pew Forum research analyst, and by several Georgetown University graduate and undergraduate students. For helping to recruit these very capable students, we are grateful to Georgetown’s Berkley Center for Religion, Peace, and World Affairs and its director, professor Thomas Banchoff.

Luis Lugo, Director Alan Cooperman, Associate Director for Research

This is the third time the Pew Forum has measured restrictions on religion around the globe.⁸  This report, which includes data through the year ending in mid-2010, follows the same methodology as the Pew Forum’s December 2009 report, “Global Restrictions on Religion,” and its August 2011 report, “Rising Restrictions on Religion,” with one major difference: Instead of reporting two-year averages, as the previous reports did, this report assesses restrictions on an annual basis. Future studies in this series also will report annual data.

The Pew Forum uses two 10-point indexes – the Government Restrictions Index (GRI) and the Social Hostilities Index (SHI) – to rate 197 countries and self-governing territories on their levels of restrictions.⁹ The August 2011 report assessed “substantial” changes in restrictions by comparing each country’s average scores for the two-year period from mid-2006 to mid-2008 with its average scores for the overlapping two-year period from mid-2007 to mid-2009.¹⁰ Using overlapping two-year periods was a precaution intended to minimize minor, annual fluctuations until the Pew Forum built up data from a sufficient number of years to be able to distinguish important, longer-term trends. That threshold has now been crossed. This report analyzes changes in restrictions on an annual basis, looking at four years, ending in mid-2007, mid-2008, mid-2009 and mid-2010. It categorizes the amount of change in each country’s scores in two ways, numerically and by percentile.

First, countries are grouped into categories depending on the size of the numeric change in their scores from year to year on the two indexes: changes of two points or more in either direction; changes of at least one point but less than two points; changes of less than one point; or no change at all. (See chart at right and three charts in the Summary of Findings: Changes in Government Restrictions, Changes in Social Hostilities and Changes in Overall Restrictions.)

Changes in overall levels of restrictions are calculated for each country by comparing its scores on both indexes (the GRI and the SHI) from year to year. When a country’s scores on the GRI and the SHI changed in the same direction (both increased or both decreased), the greater amount of change determined the category. For instance, if the country’s GRI score increased by 0.8 and its SHI score increased by 1.5, the country was put into the overall “1.0-1.9 increase” category. When a country’s score increased on one index but decreased on the other, the difference between the amounts of change determined the grouping. For example, if the country’s GRI score increased by 2.0 and its SHI score decreased by 1.5, the country went into the overall “0.1-0.9 increase” category. When a country’s score on one index stayed the same, the amount of change on the other index was used to assign the category.

Second, this report categorizes the levels of government restrictions and social hostilities in each country by percentiles. As the benchmark, it uses the results from the baseline year (the year ending in mid-2007). Scores in the top 5% on each index in mid-2007 were categorized as “very high.” The next highest 15% of scores were categorized as “high,” and the following 20% were categorized as “moderate.” The bottom 60% of scores were categorized as “low.” See the table above for the index score thresholds as determined from the mid-2007 data. These thresholds are applied to all subsequent years of data.

Overview of Procedures

The methodology used by the Pew Forum to assess and compare restrictions on religion was developed by senior researcher and director of cross-national data Brian J. Grim in consultation with other members of the Pew Research Center staff, building on a methodology that Grim and professor Roger Finke developed while at Penn State University’s Association of Religion Data Archives.¹¹ The goal was to devise quantifiable, objective and transparent measures of the extent to which governments and societal groups impinge on the practice of religion. The findings were used to rate 197 countries and self-governing territories on two indexes that are reproducible and can be periodically updated.

This research goes beyond previous efforts to assess restrictions on religion in several ways. First, the Pew Forum coded (categorized and counted) data from 19 published cross-national sources, providing a high degree of confidence in the findings. The Pew Forum coders looked to the sources for only specific, well-documented facts, not opinions or commentary.

Second, the Pew Forum staff used extensive data-verification checks that reflect generally accepted best practices for such studies, such as double-blind coding (coders do not see each other’s ratings), inter-rater reliability assessments (checking for consistency among coders) and carefully monitored protocols to reconcile discrepancies among coders.

Third, the Pew Forum coding took into account whether the perpetrators of religion-related violence were government or private actors. The coding also identified how widespread and intensive the restrictions were in each country.

Fourth, one of the most valuable contributions of the indexes and the questions used to construct them (see the section on The Coding Instrument) is their ability to chart change over time.

Countries and Territories

The 197 countries and self-administering territories covered by the study contain more than 99.5% of the world’s population. They include 191 of the 192 member states of the United Nations as of mid-2010 plus six self-administering territories – Kosovo, Hong Kong, Macau, the Palestinian territories, Taiwan and Western Sahara.¹² Reporting on these territories does not imply any position on what their international political status should be, only recognition that the de facto situations in these territories require separate analysis.

Although the 197 countries and territories vary widely in size, population, wealth, ethnic diversity, religious makeup and form of government, the study does not attempt to adjust for such differences. Poor countries are not scored differently on the indexes than wealthy ones. Countries with diverse ethnic and religious populations are not “expected” to have more social hostilities than countries with more homogeneous populations. And democracies are not assessed more leniently or harshly than authoritarian regimes.

Information Sources

The Pew Forum identified 19 widely available, frequently cited sources of information on government restrictions and social hostilities involving religion around the world. This study includes four sources that were not used in the baseline report on religious restrictions. (See Information Sources for more details on the new information sources.)

The primary sources, which are listed below, include reports from U.S. government agencies, several independent, nongovernmental organizations and a variety of European and United Nations bodies. Although most of these organizations are based in Western countries, many of them depend on local staff to collect information across the globe. As previously noted, the Pew Forum did not use the commentaries, opinions or normative judgments of the sources; the sources were combed only for factual information on specific policies and actions.

Primary Sources

1. Country constitutions 2. U.S. State Department annual reports on International Religious Freedom 3. U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom annual reports 4. U.N. Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion or Belief reports 5. Human Rights First reports in first and second years of coding; Freedom House reports in third and fourth years of coding 6. Hudson Institute publication: “Religious Freedom in the World” (Paul Marshall) 7. Human Rights Watch topical reports 8. International Crisis Group country reports 9. United Kingdom Foreign & Commonwealth Office annual report on human rights 10. Council of the European Union annual report on human rights 11. Amnesty International reports 12. European Network Against Racism Shadow Reports 13. United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees reports 14. U.S. State Department annual Country Reports on Terrorism 15. Anti-Defamation League reports 16. U.S. State Department Country Reports on Human Rights Practices 17. U.S. National Counterterrorism Center’s Worldwide Incident Tracking System 18. Uppsala University’s Uppsala Conflict Data Program, Armed Conflict Database 19. Human Rights Without Frontiers “Freedom of Religion or Belief” newsletters

U.S. government reports with information on the situation in the United States 20. U.S. Department of Justice “Religious Freedom in Focus” newsletters and reports 21. FBI Hate Crime Reports

As noted, this study includes four sources that were not included in the Pew Forum’s first report on global restrictions on religion: Freedom House reports; Uppsala University’s Armed Conflict Database; the “Freedom of Religion or Belief” newsletters of Human Rights Without Frontiers; and the U.S. government’s Worldwide Incident Tracking System (WITS).

The Freedom House reports have replaced Human Rights First reports, which have not been updated since mid-2008. The Uppsala Armed Conflict Database provides information on the number of people affected by religion-related armed conflicts, supplementing other sources. The Human Rights Without Frontiers “Freedom of Religion or Belief” newsletters have partially replaced the Hudson Institute publication, “Religious Freedom in the World” (by Paul Marshall), which has not been updated since its release in 2008. Human Rights Without Frontiers is a nongovernmental organization based in Brussels, with affiliated offices throughout the world. The Hudson Institute publication still offers useful background on certain standing laws but no longer provides information on new or changing restrictions. The U.S. government’s WITS database has provided greater detail on the number of people affected by religion-related terrorism than either the State Department’s International Religious Freedom reports or the State Department’s annual Country Reports on Terrorism. Until May 2012, WITS was a publicly available database maintained by the U.S. National Counterterrorism Center, a government organization that is part of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence; it is no longer available online.

While some of the increases in religious restrictions noted in this study could reflect the use of more up-to-date and/or better information sources, Pew Forum staff monitor the impact of source information variability each year and have found no evidence of overall informational bias. (For additional discussion, see the Potential Biases section.)

The Coding Instrument

As explained in more detail below, Pew Forum staff developed a battery of questions similar to a survey questionnaire. Coders consulted the primary sources in order to answer the questions separately for each country. While the State Department’s annual reports on International Religious Freedom generally contained the most comprehensive information, the other sources provided additional factual detail that was used to settle ambiguities, resolve contradictions and help in the proper scoring of each question.

The questionnaire, or coding instrument, generated a set of numerical measures on restrictions in each country. It also made it possible to see how government restrictions intersect with broader social tensions and incidents of violence or intimidation by private actors. The coding instrument with the list of questions used for this report is shown in the Summary of Results.

The coding process required the coders to check all the sources for each country. Coders determined whether each source provided information critical to assigning a score; had supporting information but did not result in new facts; or had no available information on that particular country. Multiple sources of information were available for all countries and self-administering territories with populations greater than 1 million. More than three-in-four of the countries and territories analyzed by the Pew Forum were multi-sourced; only small, predominantly island, countries had a single source, namely, the State Department reports.

Coding the United States presented a special problem since it is not included in the State Department’s annual reports on International Religious Freedom. Accordingly, Pew Forum coders also looked at reports from the U.S. Department of Justice and the FBI on violations of religious freedom in the United States, in addition to consulting all the primary sources, including reports by the United Nations, Human Rights Watch, Freedom House, the International Crisis Group and the U.K. Foreign & Commonwealth Office, many of which contain data on the United States.

The Coding Process

The Pew Forum employed strict training and rigorous coding protocols to make its coding as objective and reproducible as possible. Coders worked directly under a senior researcher’s supervision, with additional direction and support provided by other Pew Forum researchers. The coders underwent an intensive training period that included a thorough overview of the research objectives, information sources and methodology.

Countries were double-blind coded by two coders (coders did not see each other’s ratings), and the initial ratings were entered into an electronic survey with details on each incident cataloged in Microsoft Excel spreadsheets. The coders began by filling out the coding instrument for each country using the information source that had the most comprehensive information, typically the State Department reports. The protocol for each coder was to answer every question on which information was available in the initial source. Once a coder had completed that process, he or she then turned to the other sources. As new information was found, this was also coded and the source duly noted. Whenever ambiguities or contradictions arose, the source providing the most detailed, clearly documented evidence was used.

After two coders had separately completed the coding instrument for a particular country, their scores were compared by a senior researcher. Areas of discrepancy were discussed at length with the coders and were reconciled in order to arrive at a single score on each question for each country. The data for each country were then combined into a master file, which was imported into a relational database.

Throughout this process, the coding instrument itself was continually monitored for possible defects. The questions were designed to be precise, comprehensive and objective so that, based on the same data and definitions, the coding could be reliably reproduced by others with the same results.

Pew Forum staff generally found few cases in which one source contradicted another. When contradictions did arise – such as when sources provided differing estimates of the number of people displaced due to religion-related violence – the source that cited the most specific documentation was used. The coders were instructed to disregard broad, unsubstantiated generalizations regarding abuses and to focus on reports that contained clear, precise documentation and factual details, such as names, dates and places where incidents occurred.

Inter-rater reliability statistics were computed by comparing the coders’ independent, blind ratings. The Pew Forum took scores from one coder for the 197 countries and compared them with another coder’s scores for the same questions, computing the degree to which the scores matched. These measures were very high, with an average score of 0.8 or above on the key variables. Scores above 0.8 on a zero-to-one scale are generally considered very good, and scores around 0.7 are generally acceptable. The Pew Forum’s overall inter-rater reliability average across all the variables coded was greater than 0.8 for each year.

The data-verification procedures went beyond the inter-rater reliability statistics. They also involved comparing the answers on the main measures for each country with other closely related questions in the data set. This provided a practical way to test the internal reliability of the data.

Pew Forum staff also checked the reliability of the coded data by comparing them with similar, though more limited, religious restrictions data sets. In particular, published government and social regulation of religion index scores are available from the Association of Religion Data Archives (for three years of data) and the Hudson Institute (for one year of data), which makes them ideal measures for cross-validation. The review process found very few significant discrepancies in the coded data; changes were made only if warranted by a further review of the primary sources.

Restriction of Religion Indexes

The Government Restrictions Index is based on 20 indicators of ways that national and local governments restrict religion, including through coercion and force. The Social Hostilities Index is based on 13 indicators of ways in which private individuals and social groups infringe on religious beliefs and practices, including religiously biased crimes, mob violence and efforts to stop particular religious groups from growing or operating. The study also counted the number and types of documented incidents of religion-related violence, including terrorism and armed conflict.

Government Restrictions Index

Coding multiple indicators makes it possible to construct a Government Restrictions Index of sufficient gradation to allow for meaningful cross-national comparisons. An additional advantage of using multiple indicators is that it helps mitigate the effects of measurement error in any one variable, providing greater confidence in the overall measure.

The Pew Forum coded 20 indicators of government restrictions on religion (see the Summary of Results). These 20 items were added together to create the GRI. In two cases, these items represent an aggregation of several closely related questions: Measures of five types of physical abuses are combined into a single variable (GRI Q.19); and seven questions measuring aspects of government favoritism are combined into an overall favoritism scale (GRI Q.20 is a summary variable showing whether a country received the maximum score on one or more of the seven questions).

A test of whether the 20 items were statistically reliable as a single index produced a scale reliability coefficient greater than 0.9 for each year. Since coefficients of 0.7 or higher are generally considered acceptable, it was appropriate to combine these 20 items into a single index.

The GRI is a fine-grained measure created by adding the 20 items on a 0-to-10 metric, with zero indicating very low government restrictions on religion and 10 indicating extremely high restrictions. This involved two general calculations. First, the 20 questions that form the GRI were standardized so that each variable had an identical maximum value of one point, while gradations among the answers allowed for partial points to be given for lesser degrees of the particular government restriction being measured. Second, the overall value of the index was proportionally adjusted – so that it had a maximum value of 10 and a possible range of zero to 10 – by dividing the sum of the variables by two.

Social Hostilities Index

In addition to government restrictions, violence and intimidation in societies also can limit religious beliefs and practices. Accordingly, Pew Forum staff tracked more than a dozen indicators of social impediments on religion. Once again, coding multiple indicators made it possible to construct an index that shows gradations of severity or intensity and allows for comparisons among countries. The Summary of Results contains the 13 items used by Pew Forum staff to create the Social Hostilities Index.

As with the Government Restrictions Index, various types of violence and intimidation were combined. A test of whether these 13 items were statistically reliable as a single index produced a scale reliability coefficient of 0.9 or higher for each year. Since coefficients of 0.7 or higher are generally considered acceptable, it was statistically appropriate to combine these items into a single index.

The SHI was constructed by adding together the 13 indicators based on a 0-to-10 metric, with zero indicating very low social impediments to religious beliefs and practices and 10 indicating extremely high impediments. This involved two general calculations. First, the various questions that form the index were standardized so that each variable had an identical maximum value of one point, while gradations among the answers allowed for partial points to be given for lesser degrees of the particular hostilities being measured. Second, the indicators were added together and set to have a possible range of zero to 10 by dividing the sum of the variables by 1.3.

Notes on Fluctuations in Certain Results

Some fluctuations on individual measures have resulted from minor variations in coding procedures and are not as significant as they may appear. This was especially the case for GRI Q.3 and SHI Q.4.

As shown in the Summary of Results for GRI Q.3 (“Taken together, how do the constitution/basic law and other national laws and policies affect religious freedom?”), the number of countries with a score of zero on that question (indicating no restrictions) increased from 63 in the year ending in mid-2007 to 96 in the year ending in mid-2009. It then dropped to 75 countries in the year ending in mid-2010. However, these fluctuations may be largely attributable to variations in the coding procedures across the years. Retrospective analysis indicates that during the first year coded (year ending in mid-2007), the coders were more likely to give countries a partial score (0.33) on this question than in subsequent years. Some recalibration in the most recent year brought the coding closer to the criteria used in the initial year. The retrospective analysis suggests that in the year ending in mid-2009, the coders had a higher bar for assigning a score of 0.33 (they considered restrictive laws or policies alone to be insufficient; there had to be clear harassment or abuses of religious groups or individuals). In the most recent year (year ending in mid-2010), coders assigned 0.33 if there were restrictive laws or policies only at the local level, which is consistent with the intent of the question. The effect of these variations in coding criteria is relatively small: A difference of 0.33 from year to year on this question produces a change of just 0.17 on the Government Restrictions Index because each question on the GRI is worth a half point (0.33/2 = 0.17).

As noted earlier in the methodology, some of the increase in religion-related terrorism (SHI Q.4) found in this study could reflect the use of new source material that provided greater detail on terrorist activities than the sources used in the baseline report. Specifically, in coding terrorist activities that occurred from mid-2008 to mid-2009 and from mid-2009 to mid-2010, coders used the Worldwide Incidents Tracking System (WITS), the U.S. National Counterterrorism Center’s database of terrorist incidents. Because the same sources were used for both periods, these are the most appropriate years to compare.

Finally, it is important to note that situations within countries may have changed since the end of the periods studied. For instance, the Arab Spring uprisings in the Middle East and North Africa occurred in late 2010 and 2011, after the period covered by this study. Also, the formal division of Sudan into two separate countries took place in 2011. Subsequent Pew Forum reports on global restrictions on religion will assess Sudan and South Sudan separately, but this report covers the formerly undivided country.

Note on New Analysis in This Report

An analysis of government restrictions and social hostilities confirms a pattern initially discussed in the baseline report of this study. When all 197 countries and self-administering territories are plotted on a chart comparing their average scores on the Government Restrictions Index and the Social Hostilities Index for the four-year period from mid-2006 to mid-2010, it is apparent that the two measures tend to move together. Running through the graph is the so-called regression line, which plots how scores on one index are related to scores on the other index.

As in the baseline report, the upward slope of the line indicates that higher scores on one index generally are associated with higher scores on the other. Many countries are clustered in the lower left corner, showing that they are low on both types of restrictions. Though the remaining countries are fairly dispersed, most still follow the direction taken by the regression line, and very few are located in the upper left or lower right corners of the graph. This means that, in general, it is rare for countries that are high in social hostilities to be low on government restrictions, or for those that are high on government restrictions to be low in social hostilities.

The association between government restrictions and social hostilities is also visible when comparing how each question on the indexes relates to the overall level of restrictions or hostilities. As shown in the chart in the Summary of Findings of the report, the average level of social hostilities involving religion for the four-year period from mid-2006 to mid-2010 tends to be higher in countries with each type of government restriction on religion than in countries without the government restrictions. The average level of social hostilities among the countries with very high levels of government favoritism toward a particular religion or religions (SHI = 4.8) is much higher than the average level of social hostilities among countries without high levels of government favoritism (1.3). Other government actions that are strongly associated with social hostilities involving religion are the use of force against religious groups (SHI = 4.7), failing to intervene to stop religious discrimination (4.7) and limiting conversion from one religion to another (4.1).¹³ This same pattern is present to varying degrees for all 20 GRI questions. (See further discussion on GRI Q.20 below.)

The chart also provides information on situations where social hostilities are lowest. Specifically, the right-hand column shows that social hostilities were lowest among countries where governments do not harass or intimidate religious groups (SHI = 0.7), national laws and policies protect religious freedom (0.8), governments do not interfere with religious worship or practices (0.9) and governments do not use force against religious groups (1.0).

Likewise, certain types of social hostilities involving religion are more likely to be associated with higher government restrictions on religion. Sectarian or communal violence between religious groups has the strongest association with government restrictions on religion. The average level of government restrictions among the countries with sectarian violence (GRI = 5.0) is much higher than among countries without such violence (2.4), as shown in the chart in the Summary of Findings. Other social hostilities that are strongly associated with government restrictions are hostilities over conversion from one religion to another (GRI = 4.9), violence or the threat of violence to enforce religious norms (4.8), religion-related terrorist violence (4.8) and groups coercively dominating public life with their perspective on religion (4.8).¹⁴

This chart also provides information on situations where government restrictions are lowest. Specifically, the right-hand column of the chart shows that government restrictions are, on average, lowest in countries where there are no violent acts resulting from tensions between religious groups (GRI = 1.4), no crimes or malicious acts motivated by religious hatred (1.6), no groups dominating public life with their perspective on religion (1.8) and no incidents of violence stemming from hostility over religious conversion (1.9).

These charts show that the presence of any of the 20 types of government restrictions on religion is, on average, associated with higher overall social hostilities involving religion. Likewise, the presence of any of the 13 types of social hostilities is, on average, associated with higher overall government restrictions. Given the general association between government restrictions and social hostilities discussed at the beginning of this section, some association between the different types of government restrictions and social hostilities was expected. But it was not necessarily expected to find such a consistent pattern among all the questions. This does not necessarily mean that increased government restrictions cause social hostilities or that increased hostilities cause government restrictions. It may be that increases in government restrictions trigger social hostilities, and that increases in social hostilities trigger government restrictions.¹⁵

As part of this new analysis, the study also introduces a new way of analyzing GRI Q.20, which is an overall government favoritism scale created by combining seven questions measuring aspects of government favoritism of religion. Since GRI Q.20 is a scale with many possible values rather than a single question with distinct categories, it is not possible to conduct the types of comparisons described in this section unless the scale is converted into categories. Following the example of putting GRI and SHI into categorical levels, GRI Q.20 is also treated as a Government Favoritism Index. Accordingly, the study categorizes the levels of government favoritism by percentiles. For this analysis, countries with average scores across the four years of the study in the top 5% on GRI Q.20 (11 countries) were categorized as “very high.” The next highest 15% of scores (30 countries) were categorized as “high,” and the following 20% were categorized as “moderate” (39 countries). The bottom 60% of scores were categorized as “low” (188 countries). This categorization permits the same analysis of this question as for the other component questions of the indexes, as shown in the following chart.

Note on the Effects of Consolidating to a New Database

For all four years of this study, information on the number, types and locations of incidents of government force and social violence toward religious groups as well as deference to religious authorities in matters of law were coded at the province level. (See example of data coding for India (PDF) from the December 2009 baseline report.) Each year, the province numbers were summed and put into separate country-level files. Since the publication of the August 2011 report, Pew Forum staff have created a database that integrates all four years of province- and country-level data on religious restrictions. During this process, Pew Forum staff reviewed any discrepancies between province files and the sums that had been transferred to the country files and made appropriate corrections. The adjustments made were relatively minor and had small effects on index scores for countries, on average less than 0.005 points on the 10-point indexes. Consolidating the four years of data into a database also entailed a review of the data on harassment of religious groups. In particular, instances of harassment from the year ending in mid-2007 were stored as open-ended questions, and in a few cases they were recoded to match the categories used in the subsequent years.

Additional Analysis in the Study

As in the 2011 report, this study reports a further summary of the number of countries where specific religious groups faced government or social harassment. This is essentially a cross-tabulation of GRI Q.11 (“Was there harassment or intimidation of religious groups by any level of government?”) and the first type of religious hatred or bias measured in SHI Q.1a. (“Did individuals face harassment or intimidation motivated by religious hatred or bias?”). For purposes of this study, the definition of harassment includes any mention in the primary sources of an offense against an individual or group based on religious identity. Such offenses may range from physical attacks and direct coercion to more subtle forms of discrimination. But prejudicial opinions or attitudes, in and of themselves, do not constitute harassment unless they are acted upon in a palpable way.

As noted above, this study provides data on the number of countries in which different religious groups are harassed or intimidated. But the study does not assess either the severity or the frequency of the harassment in each country. Therefore, the results should not be interpreted as gauging which religious group faces the most harassment or persecution around the world.

Religion-Related Terrorism and Armed Conflict

Terrorism and war can have huge direct and indirect effects on religious groups, including destroying religious sites, displacing whole communities and inflaming sectarian passions. Accordingly, the Pew Forum tallied the number, location and consequences of religion-related terrorism and armed conflict around the world, as reported in the same primary sources used to document other forms of intimidation and violence. However, war and terrorism are sufficiently complex that it is not always possible to determine the degree to which they are religiously motivated or state sponsored. Out of an abundance of caution, this study does not include them in the Government Restrictions Index. They are factored instead into the index of social hostilities involving religion, which includes one question specifically about religion-related terrorism and one question specifically about religion-related war or armed conflict. In addition, other measures in both indexes are likely to pick up spillover effects of war and terrorism on the level of religious tensions in society. For example, hate crimes, mob violence and sectarian fighting that occur in the aftermath of a terrorist attack or in the context of a religion-related war would be counted in the Social Hostilities Index, and laws or policies that clearly discriminate against a particular religious group would be registered on the Government Restrictions Index.

For the purposes of this study, the term “religion-related terrorism” is defined as premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents that have some identifiable religious ideology or religious motivation. It also includes acts carried out by groups that have a nonreligious identity but target religious personnel, such as clergy. Readers should note that it is the political character and motivation of the groups, not solely the type of violence, that is at issue here. For instance, a bombing would not be classified as religion-related terrorism if there was no clearly discernible religious ideology or bias behind it unless it was directed at religious personnel. Religion-related war or armed conflict is defined as armed conflict (a conflict that involves sustained casualties over time or more than 1,000 battle deaths) in which religious rhetoric is commonly used to justify the use of force, or in which one or more of the combatants primarily identifies itself or the opposing side by religion.

Potential Biases

As noted earlier, the primary sources indicate that the North Korean government is among the most repressive in the world, including toward religion. Because of independent observers’ lack of regular access to North Korea, however, the sources are unable to provide the kind of specific, timely information that forms the basis of this report. Therefore, North Korea is not included on either index.

This raises two important issues concerning potential information bias in the sources. The first is whether other countries that limit outsiders’ access and that may seek to obscure or distort their record on religious restrictions were adequately covered by the sources. Countries with relatively limited access have multiple primary sources of information that the Pew Forum used for its coding. Each is also covered by other secondary quantitative data sets on religious restrictions that have used a similar coding scheme, including earlier years of coded State Department report data produced by Grim at Penn State’s Association of Religion Data Archives (ARDA) project (three data sets); independent coding by experts at the Hudson Institute’s Center for Religious Liberty using indexes also available from ARDA (one data set); and content analysis of country constitutions conducted by the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty (one data set). Pew Forum staff used these for cross-validation. Thus, contrary to what one might expect, even most countries that limit access to information tend to receive fairly extensive coverage by groups that monitor religious restrictions.

The second key question – the flipside of the first – is whether countries that provide freer access to information receive worse scores simply because more information is available on them. As described more fully in the methodology in the baseline report, Pew Forum staff compared the length of State Department reports on freer-access countries with those of less-free-access countries. The comparison found that the median number of words was approximately three times as large for the limited-access countries as for the open-access countries. This suggests that problems in freer-access countries are generally not overreported in the State Department reports.

Only when it comes to religion-related violence and intimidation in society do the sources report more problems in the freer-access countries than in the limited-access ones. However, the Social Hostilities Index includes several measures – such as SHI Q.8 (“Did religious groups themselves attempt to prevent other religious groups from being able to operate?”) and SHI Q. 11 (“Were women harassed for violating religious dress codes?”) – that are less susceptible to such reporting bias because they capture general social trends or attitudes as well as specific incidents. With these limitations in mind, it appears that the coded information on social hostilities is a fair gauge of the situation in the vast majority of countries and a valuable complement to the information on government restrictions.

Data on social impediments to religious practice can more confidently be used to make comparisons among countries with sufficient openness, which includes more than nine-in-ten countries covered in the coding. An analysis by Grim and Richard Wike, associate director of the Pew Research Center’s Global Attitudes Project, tested the reliability of the State Department reports on social impediments to religious practice by comparing public opinion data with data coded from the reports in previous years by Grim and experts at Penn State. They concluded that “the understanding of social religious intolerance embodied in the State Department reports is comparable with the results of population surveys and individual expert opinion.”¹⁶

---

Footnotes:

8 See the methodology of the Pew Forum’s 2009 report, “Global Restrictions on Religion,” for a discussion of the conceptual basis for measuring restrictions on religion. (return to text)

9 Previous reports provided a score for the territory of Northern Cyprus and therefore included 198 countries and territories. According to the U.S. State Department, only one country – Turkey – recognizes the separate status of Northern Cyprus. Thus, future reports will score Northern Cyprus as part of the Republic of Cyprus. The exclusion of Northern Cyprus in this report has a negligible effect on the global and regional findings. (return to text)

10 The 2011 report referred to a change in a country’s score as “substantial” only if it was at least 1.5 standard deviations above or below the mean amount of change among all countries and territories. The change also had to be in the same direction, meaning that it had to rise or fall both in the period from mid-2006 to mid-2008 and in the overlapping period from mid-2007 to mid-2009. See the methodology in the Pew Forum’s August 2001 report “Rising Restrictions on Religion” for more details. (return to text)

11 See Grim, Brian J. and Roger Finke. 2006. “International Religion Indexes: Government Regulation, Government Favoritism, and Social Regulation of Religion.” Interdisciplinary Journal of Research on Religion, vol. 2, article 1. (return to text)

12 The one member state of the United Nations not included in the study is North Korea. The sources clearly indicate that North Korea’s government is among the most repressive in the world with respect to religion as well as other civil and political liberties. (The U.S. State Department’s 2010 Report on International Religious Freedom, for example, says that “Genuine freedom of religion does not exist” in North Korea.) But because North Korean society is effectively closed to outsiders and independent observers lack regular access to the country, the sources were unable to provide the kind of specific, timely information that the Pew Forum categorized and counted (“coded,” in social science parlance) for this quantitative study. Therefore, the report does not include scores for North Korea. (return to text)

13 Ordering is based on second decimal place when scores are tied. (return to text)

14 Ordering is based on second decimal place when scores are tied. (return to text)

15 For a more advanced statistical analysis of the association between government restrictions and social hostilities, see Grim, Brian J. and Roger Finke. 2011. “The Price of Freedom Denied: Religious Persecution and Conflict in the 21st Century.” New York: Cambridge University Press, and their related 2007 article, “Religious Persecution in Cross-National Context: Clashing Civilizations or Regulated Economies?” American Sociological Review, vol. 72, no. 3: 633-658. (return to text)

16 See Grim, Brian J. and Richard Wike. 2010. “Cross-Validating Measures of Global Religious Intolerance: Comparing Coded State Department Reports with Survey Data and Expert Opinion.” Politics and Religion, vol. 3, issue 1: 102-129. (return to text)

Government Restrictions on Religion

To assess the level of restrictions on religion by governments around the world, the Pew Research Center’s Forum on Religion & Public Life selected the following 20 questions for the Government Restrictions Index (GRI). The Pew Forum’s staff then combed through 19 published sources of information, including reports by the U.S. State Department, the United Nations and various nongovernmental organizations, to answer the questions on a country-by-country basis. (For more details, see the Methodology.)

This summary shows the questions, followed by various possible answers and the number and percentage of countries that fell into each category, according to the multiple sources analyzed by the Pew Forum. For example, on Question No. 5 – “Is public preaching by religious groups limited by any level of government?” – the study found that for the latest year, ending in mid-2010, 137 countries (70%) had no reported limits on preaching, 31 countries (16%) had limits on preaching for some religious groups and 29 countries (15%) had limits on preaching for all religious groups. (Percentages do not total to 100 due to rounding.)

Additionally, the summary shows whether particular religious restrictions occurred during the previous year, ending in mid-2009, or in the study’s baseline year, ending in mid-2007.

To see how each country scored on each question, see the Results by Country.

When comparing these results with the Pew Forum’s previous reports, readers should keep in mind that previous reports showed the number of countries in which particular religious restrictions occurred at any time during two overlapping periods: July 1, 2006, through June 30, 2008, and July 1, 2007, through June 30, 2009. Because this report presents data on an annual basis, the incidents for a single year may be less than when two years were taken into account.

Some differences from year to year might not be as significant as they appear due to minor changes in coding procedures and changes in the amount of information available between years. For example, sources for the most recent period studied sometimes had more information on incidents in a country than sources previously had reported. Such additional information may reflect either an actual increase in restrictions in a country, improved reporting for that country or both.

Percentages may not add to 100 due to rounding.

Social Hostilities Involving Religion

To assess the level of social hostilities involving religion around the world, the Pew Research Center’s Forum on Religion & Public Life used the following 13 questions for the Social Hostilities Index (SHI). The Pew Forum’s staff then combed through 19 published sources of information, including reports by the U.S. State Department, the United Nations and various nongovernmental organizations, to answer the questions on a country-by-country basis. (For more details, see the Methodology.)

This summary shows the questions, followed by various possible answers and the number and percentage of countries that fell into each category, according to the multiple sources analyzed by the Pew Forum. For example, on Question No. 12 – “Were there incidents of hostility over proselytizing?” – the study found that for the latest year, ending in mid-2010, 161 countries (82%) had no reported incidents of hostility over proselytizing, 17 countries (9%) had incidents that fell short of physical violence and 19 countries (10%) had incidents involving violence. (Percentages do not total to 100 due to rounding.)

Additionally, the summary shows whether particular religious hostilities occurred during the previous year, ending in mid-2009, or in the study’s baseline year, ending in mid-2007. To see how each country scored on each question, see the Results by Country.

When comparing these results with the Pew Forum’s previous reports, readers should keep in mind that previous reports showed the number of countries in which particular religious hostilities occurred at any time during two overlapping periods: July 1, 2006, through June 30, 2008, and July 1, 2007, through June 30, 2009. Because this report presents data on an annual basis, the incidents for a single year may be less than when two years were taken into account.

Some differences from year to year might not be as significant as they appear due to minor changes in coding procedures and changes in the amount of information available between years. For example, sources for the most recent period studied sometimes had more information on incidents in a country than sources previously had reported. Such additional information may reflect either an actual increase in restrictions in a country, improved reporting for that country or both.

Percentages may not add to 100 due to rounding.

The tables below show the results for each of the 197 countries and territories on the 20 questions that comprise the Pew Forum’s Government Restrictions Index and the 13 questions that comprise the Social Hostilities Index.

Although each question is weighted equally, many of the questions contain gradations, allowing partial scores depending on intensity or severity. For example, on SHI Question No. 2 – Was there mob violence related to religion? – a country that had no religion-related mob violence would receive 0 points, a country that had mob violence in which no deaths were reported would receive 1/2 point (0.50), and a country that had mob violence in which deaths were reported would receive a full point (1.00).

The scores are presented for three years: the latest year, ending in mid-2010 (July 1, 2009 through June 30, 2010); the previous year, ending in mid-2009 (July 1, 2008 through June 30, 2009); and the baseline year, ending in mid-2007 (July 1, 2006 through June 30, 2007). Scores for the year ending in mid-2008 are not presented due to space constraints.

Both the GRI and the SHI are scales of 0 to 10. Readers wishing to independently calculate a country’s index score from the tables below should note that the sum total of a country’s scores on all 20 GRI questions must be divided by two and the sum total of its scores on all 13 SHI questions must be multiplied by 10/13 (0.77) to convert them to the 10-point scale. For more detail on the indexes, see the Methodology.

Download the Results by Country PDF (294KB, 47 pages)

Download the full report PDF (5.59MB, 86 pages)

This report was produced by the Pew Research Center’s Forum on Religion & Public Life. The Pew Forum delivers timely, impartial information on issues at the intersection of religion and public affairs. The Pew Forum is a nonpartisan, nonadvocacy organization and does not take positions on policy debates. Based in Washington, D.C., the Pew Forum is a project of the Pew Research Center, which is funded by The Pew Charitable Trusts.

This report is part of the Pew-Templeton Global Religious Futures project, which is jointly and generously funded by The Pew Charitable Trusts and the John Templeton Foundation. The project analyzes religious change and its impact on societies around the world.

The report is a collaborative effort based on the input and analysis of the following individuals:

Primary Researcher Brian J. Grim, Senior Researcher and Director of Cross-National Data, Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life

Pew Forum Luis Lugo, Director

Research Alan Cooperman, Associate Director, Research Juan Carlos Esparza Ochoa, Data Manager Chris Gao, Database Consultant Anne Shi, Research Associate Peter Henne, Research Analyst Fatima Ghani and Angelina Theodorou, Research Assistants Russell Ballard, Caroline Crouch, Timothy Kennedy, Daniel Scarborough and Catherine Walsh, Coders

Editorial Sandra Stencel, Associate Director, Editorial Diana Yoo, Graphic Designer Tracy Miller, Editor Hilary Ramp, Assistant Editor

Communications and Web Publishing Erin O’Connell, Associate Director, Communications Stacy Rosenberg, Digital Project Manager Liga Plaveniece and Jemila Woodson, Communications Associates Joseph Liu, Web Producer

Pew Research Center Andrew Kohut, President Paul Taylor, Executive Vice President Elizabeth Mueller Gross, Vice President Scott Keeter, Director of Survey Research