Worldwide, both government restrictions on religion and social hostilities involving religion decreased modestly from 2013 to 2014 despite a rise in religion-related terrorism, according to Pew Research Center’s latest annual study on global restrictions on religion.¹

Of the 198 countries included in the study, 24% had high or very high levels of government restrictions in 2014 (the most recent year for which data are available), down from 28% in 2013.² There was a similar decline in the share of countries with high or very high social hostilities involving religion, which dropped from 27% to 23%. This is the second year in a row the number of countries with this level of religious restrictions has declined, after three years of steady increases.³

Although only about a quarter of the countries included in the study fall into the most religiously restrictive categories, some of the most restrictive countries (such as Indonesia and Pakistan) are very populous. As a result, roughly three-quarters of the world’s 7.2 billion people (74%) were living in countries with high or very high restrictions or hostilities in 2014, down slightly from 77% in 2013.

The modest declines in countries with high restrictions or hostilities took place despite a marked increase in the number of countries that experienced religion-related terrorist activities, including acts carried out by such groups as Boko Haram, al-Qaida and the Islamic State (also known as ISIS or ISIL). Of the nearly 200 countries and territories included in the study, 82 (41%) had religion-related terrorist activities in 2014, up from 73 (37%) in 2013. In some countries, the terrorist activities were limited to recruitment or fundraising. But in 60 countries, religion-related terrorism led to injuries or deaths, including at least 50 casualties in each of 28 countries. Casualties from religion-related terrorist activities have been rising in recent years. (See below for more details.)

The increase in the number of countries with religion-related terrorist activity – which is counted as a social hostility in this study – was offset by decreases in the number of countries that experienced other types of social hostilities involving religion.⁴ For example, there was a decline in the number of countries in which individuals were assaulted or displaced from their homes in retaliation for religious activities considered offensive or threatening to the majority faith in their country, state or province. There also was a decline in the number of countries where threats of violence were used to enforce religious norms and a global decline in the incidence of mob violence related to religion.

Several factors contributed to the overall decline in government restrictions on religion. For instance, there was a decrease in the number of countries where some level of the government – national, provincial or local – interfered with worship practices. There also was a sizable drop in the number of countries where governments used force against religious groups that resulted in individuals being killed, physically abused, imprisoned, detained or displaced from their homes.

Looking at the overall level of restrictions in 2014 – whether resulting from government policies and actions or from hostile acts by private individuals, organizations or social groups – the new study finds that restrictions were high or very high in 34% of countries, down from 39% in 2013 and 43% in 2012.

This is the seventh in a series of reports by the Center analyzing the extent to which governments and societies around the world impinge on religious beliefs and practices. The studies are part of the Pew-Templeton Global Religious Futures project, which analyzes religious change and its impact on societies around the world. The project is jointly funded by The Pew Charitable Trusts and the John Templeton Foundation.

To measure global restrictions on religion in 2014, the study ranks 198 countries and territories by their levels of government restrictions on religion and social hostilities involving religion. The new study is based on the same 10-point indexes used in the previous studies.

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

To track these indicators of government restrictions and social hostilities, researchers comb through more than a dozen publicly available, widely cited sources of information, including the U.S. State Department’s annual reports on international religious freedom and annual reports from the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, as well as reports from a variety of European and U.N. bodies and several independent, nongovernmental organizations. (See Methodology for more details on the sources used in the study.)

The new study looks at the prevalence of restrictions and hostilities by region and by country. The Middle East and North Africa region continued to have the highest median level of government restrictions on religion, although the region’s score on the GRI dropped slightly from 2013 to 2014. Median scores on the Government Restrictions Index also decreased modestly in Asia and the Pacific and in sub-Saharan Africa; scores stayed about the same in the Americas and Europe.

The Middle East and North Africa continued to have the highest median level of social hostilities involving religion, although the region’s median score on the Social Hostilities Index stayed roughly the same from 2013 to 2014. The median level of social hostilities also stayed about the same in the Americas and in the Asia-Pacific region. The median level of social hostilities decreased somewhat in sub-Saharan Africa and Europe. (See Chapter 3 for more regional details.)

Among the world’s 25 most populous countries, the highest overall restrictions on religion were in Egypt, Indonesia, Pakistan, Russia and Turkey, where both the government and society at large imposed numerous limits on religious beliefs and practices. China had the highest level of government restrictions in 2014, while Pakistan had the highest level of social hostilities involving religion. (See Chapter 4 for more details.)

As in previous years, Christians and Muslims – who together make up more than half of the global population – faced harassment in the largest number of countries. The study also finds that harassment of Jews continued to increase in 2014. (See Chapter 2 for more details on harassment of specific religious groups.)

Rise in religion-related terrorist activity

Of the 198 countries included in the study, 82 (41%) had religion-related terrorist activities in 2014, up from 73 (37%) in both 2012 and 2013. In 22 of the 82 countries, the terrorist activities were limited to recruitment or fundraising. But in 60 countries, religion-related terrorism led to injuries or deaths, up from 51 countries in 2013 and 40 countries in 2012.⁵

For the purposes of this study, religion-related terrorism includes acts carried out by subnational groups that use religion as a justification or motivation for their actions, such as the Nigeria-based Islamist group Boko Haram; al-Qaida in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM); and the Islamic State, the militant group also known as ISIS or ISIL. Religion-related terrorism also includes terrorist acts carried out by individuals or groups with a nonreligious identity that deliberately target religious groups or individuals, such as clergy. (See Methodology for more details.)

In 2014, religion-related terrorism went up in all regions except sub-Saharan Africa, where the number and share of countries with this type of religious hostility stayed the same in 2013 and 2014 (17 of 48 countries, or 35%, in both years). The biggest increase was in Asia and the Pacific, where the number of countries with religion-related terrorist activities went from 18 in 2013 (36% of the region’s 50 countries) to 22 (44%) in 2014. The Middle East-North Africa region continued to have the highest share of countries with religion-related terrorism; such hostilities occurred in 18 of the region’s 20 countries in 2014 (90%), up from 17 in 2013 (85%). In Europe, 18 of the 45 countries (40%) had religion-related terrorism in 2014, up from 16 (36%) in 2013. Seven of the 35 countries in the Americas had this type of religious hostility (20%), up from five countries in 2013 (14%).

Looking at the severity of religion-related terrorism (as measured by the number of injuries or deaths), the biggest increase from 2013 to 2014 was in the category with one-to-nine casualties; the number of countries in this category rose from 14 in 2013 to 22 in 2014. By contrast, there was only one more country in the second-highest category (10 to 50 casualties) in 2014 than in 2013. And the number of countries with more than 50 injuries or deaths stayed the same (28 in each year).

While the number of countries with more than 50 casualties remained the same from 2013 to 2014, it has risen dramatically in recent years. In 2007, the first year for which Pew Research Center has data, only eight countries had this level of casualties. In 2014, 28 did. Readers should note that some of the increase in casualties from religion-related terrorism, especially from 2007 to 2009, could reflect the use of new sources that provide greater detail on terrorist activities than the sources used in the early years of the study. (See Methodology for more details.) Nevertheless, the number of countries experiencing more than 50 casualties as a result of religion-related terrorism was significantly higher in 2014 than it was in earlier years.

For the first time, several of the incidents of religion-related terrorism captured by the study involved actions reportedly inspired by the Islamic State in regions outside the Middle East and North Africa (or in the nearby country of Turkey).⁶ In October 2014, for example, a man stormed the Canadian Parliament after shooting and killing a soldier who was guarding Canada’s National War Memorial. According to Ottawa police, the man was planning to travel to Syria after undergoing a “radicalization process.”⁷ The gunman was shot and killed inside the Parliament building. A few days earlier, a different man – described by Canadian authorities as “an ISIL-inspired terrorist” – struck and killed a Canadian soldier with his car in Quebec.⁸

On Dec. 15, 2014, an Iranian-born Muslim living in Australia took 18 people hostage in a cafe in Sydney; two of the hostages were killed and several others were wounded when police stormed the cafe nearly 17 hours later. The man had had numerous run-ins with the police and immigration officials, but he was not known to have any direct ties to the Islamic State. ⁹ However, he pledged allegiance to the “caliph of the Muslims” on his website days before the attack; he displayed a flag similar to the one used by the Islamic State from the cafe window during the siege; and he was posthumously embraced by the Islamic State in its English-language propaganda magazine, Dabiq. ¹⁰

Religion-related terrorism by the Nigerian-based Islamist group Boko Haram also intensified in 2014. This included the April 2014 kidnapping of more than 200 schoolgirls from the Government Girls Secondary School in the largely Christian town of Chibok, located in Nigeria’s northern state of Borno.¹¹ The kidnapping captured media attention around the world and sparked a global social media campaign under the hashtag #BringBackOurGirls; the campaign was supported by U.S. first lady Michelle Obama and many other celebrities.¹²

Countries with the most extensive government restrictions on religion

Most countries in the world have some form of government restrictions on religion, but each year a few countries stand out as having particularly extensive restrictions.

In 2014, 16 of the 198 countries included in the study had a “very high” level of government restrictions, down from 18 countries in 2013.¹³ Most of the countries in this category – including China, Egypt, Uzbekistan, Turkey and Indonesia – already had very high restrictions. However, four countries – Kazakhstan, Laos, Maldives and Turkmenistan – had very high government restrictions in 2014 but not in 2013. Six countries that had very high government restrictions in 2013 did not in 2014: Afghanistan, Burma (Myanmar), Sudan, Brunei, Eritrea and Singapore.

The number of countries with high government restrictions went down slightly between 2013 and 2014 (from 37 to 32). By contrast, the number of countries with moderate restrictions went up, from 45 to 57. Meanwhile, 93 countries (47%) had low levels of government restrictions in 2014, slightly less than in 2013 (98 countries, or 49%). For a complete list of all countries in each category, see the Government Restrictions Index table in Appendix A.¹⁴

Countries with the most extensive religious hostilities

As is the case with government restrictions, some countries stand out for having very extensive social hostilities involving religion.

The number of countries and territories with a “very high” level of social hostilities involving religion fell from 17 in 2013 to 11 in 2014.¹⁵

Many of the countries and territories in this category – including India, Israel, Pakistan, the Palestinian territories and Nigeria – already had very high social hostilities. Two countries – Lebanon and Yemen – had very high social hostilities in 2014 but not in 2013. Eight countries that had very high social hostilities in 2013 did not in 2014: Bangladesh, Central African Republic, Egypt, Indonesia, Kenya, Russia, Somalia and Tanzania.

The number of countries with a high level of social hostilities fell from 36 (18%) in 2013 to 34 (17%) in 2014. The number of countries with a moderate level of social hostilities stayed the same (55). Meanwhile, 98 countries (49%) had low levels of social hostilities in 2014, compared with 90 countries (45%) in 2013. For a complete list of all countries in each category, see the Social Hostilities Index table in Appendix B.¹⁶

Changes in government restrictions on religion

Each year, some countries experience significant changes in their scores on the Government Restrictions Index without necessarily rising into – or falling out of – the “very high restrictions” category. Looking only at countries with very high government restrictions would overlook these important dynamics. For this reason, Pew Research Center analyzes changes in government restrictions among all countries – not just those with a very high level of government restrictions – in order to provide greater insight into the nature of government restrictions on religion around the world.

Just one country – Angola – had a large change (2.0 points or more) on the Government Restrictions Index in 2014, and it was in the direction of lower restrictions. There was more government intervention in cases of discrimination or abuse against religious groups and less government violence toward minority religious groups.

Among the 26 countries with modest changes in their GRI scores (1.0 to 1.9 points), six had increases and 20 had decreases. Kazakhstan and the Czech Republic were among the six countries with modest increases; among other things, both countries experienced an increase in government regulation of religious dress.¹⁷ In western Kazakhstan, a court held that a preschool was within its rights when it prohibited a young girl from wearing a head-covering hijab because it violated the school’s dress code. The girl’s parents later removed her from the school.¹⁸ In the Czech Republic, women were banned from wearing hijabs in some circumstances. For instance, a school of nursing in Prague banned women from wearing headscarves in class. At least two women left the school as a result of the ban. One of them later filed a complaint with the Ministry of Education, whose ombudsman termed the ban discriminatory. The school did not abandon the policy, however, and, as recently as 2016, at least one lawsuit related to the ban was ongoing.¹⁹

Albania was one of 20 countries (10%) with modest decreases in their GRI scores in 2014, meaning changes of 1.0 to 1.9 points. Although the country continued to have issues regarding the return of religious properties seized by the government during the country’s decades-long Communist era, some progress was reported. For example, the government completed the return of four properties to the Orthodox Church; it restored one property to the Roman Catholic Church; and it compensated the Muslim community in the city of Shkoder for one property.²⁰ In addition, Albania’s Parliament passed a law in July 2014 allowing the creation of religious cemeteries, which had been banned by the government since the late 1960s.²¹

Among countries with small changes on the Government Restrictions Index (less than one point), 51 (26%) had increases and 71 (36%) had decreases.

Changes in social hostilities involving religion

Some countries may experience significant changes in their scores on the Social Hostilities Index irrespective of whether they have “very high” levels of social hostilities. This section looks at the extent and direction of those changes from 2013 to 2014.

Among the seven countries with large changes (2.o points or more) in their scores on the 10-point Social Hostilities Index between 2013 and 2014, three had increases and four had decreases. The three countries with large increases were Jordan, Malaysia and the United States.²²

In Jordan, tensions over religious conversions sometimes led to violent clashes. In May 2014, for example, a man from the northern city of Ajloun confessed to killing his daughter after she converted from Christianity to Islam. The murder, and subsequent disputes over whether the woman should be buried in a Muslim or Christian cemetery, set off two days of protests and violent encounters in which protestors burned several houses. Clashes subsided only after tribal leaders intervened and the government dispatched security forces.²³ In several other instances, people who had converted reported being ostracized, threatened or physically abused by their families or religious leaders.²⁴

Among the factors that contributed to the increase in social hostilities in the United States was an uptick in anti-Semitic activities. For example, the Anti-Defamation League reported that members of the Ku Klux Klan increased their distribution of racist and anti-Semitic fliers.²⁵ There also were reports of Jewish establishments being vandalized in several parts of the country, including several incidents in February 2014 involving a Jewish delicatessen and bakery in Albuquerque, New Mexico.²⁶ More than half of the incidents of anti-religious hate crimes in the U.S. in 2014 (58%) were motivated, in whole or in part, by anti-Jewish bias, according to the FBI; 16% of the incidents were motivated by anti-Muslim bias. ²⁷

The four countries where social hostilities declined by two points or more from 2013 to 2014 were Bangladesh, Nepal, Romania and Tanzania. In Bangladesh, for instance, incidents of sectarian violence, religion-related mob violence and harassment of women for religious dress all declined.

Of the 40 countries (20%) that had modest changes (1.0 to 1.9 points) in their scores in 2014, 12 had increases and 28 had decreases. One of the countries that had a modest increase was Laos, where the growth of Christian congregations, coupled with scarce resources in rural communities, led to increasing tensions with the country’s Buddhist majority. In March 2014, for instance, six families that had converted to Christianity were forced to leave the southern village of Natahall after their religious practices caused friction with village elders.²⁸

In the 97 countries (49%) that had small changes in their scores (less than one point), 48 (24%) had increases and 49 (25%) had decreases.

Changes in overall restrictions on religion

In addition to analyzing government restrictions and social hostilities separately, Pew Research Center also considers government restrictions and social hostilities together. This provides insight into the overall extent of religious restrictions in a country.

Looking at changes in overall restrictions, more countries experienced decreases than increases between 2013 and 2014. Among the six countries whose scores changed by 2.0 points or more on either of the indexes, one had an increase and five had decreases. And among countries whose scores changed by 1.0 to 1.9 points, 16 had increases and 34 had decreases.

Overall, restrictions increased at least somewhat in 71 countries (36%) and decreased in 101 (51%).

Harassment or intimidation of specific religious groups occurred in 159 countries in 2014, down somewhat from 2013 (164). The world’s two largest religious groups, Christians and Muslims, continued to be harassed in the most countries, and there was a notable increase in the number of countries in which Jews and Hindus were harassed.

Harassment of specific religious groups takes many forms, including physical assaults; arrest and detentions; desecration of holy sites; and discrimination against religious groups in employment, education and housing. Harassment and intimidation also include things such as verbal assaults on members of one religious group by other groups or individuals.

Christians and Muslims were harassed in the most countries in 2014. The total number of countries where Christians were harassed increased, while it stayed about the same for Muslims. Christians were harassed in 108 countries in 2014, up from 102 in 2013. Muslims were harassed in 100, compared with 99 in 2013.

The number of countries in which Jews were harassed continued to increase. Jews, who make up 0.2% of the world’s population, were harassed in 81 countries (up from 77 in 2013 and 71 in 2012).

There was an increase in the number of countries in which Hindus were harassed, from nine in 2013 to 14 in 2014. The number of countries in which Buddhists were harassed stayed roughly the same (12 in 2013, compared with 10 in 2014).

Some religious groups are more likely to be harassed by governments, while others are more likely to be harassed by individuals or groups in society (see table below). Jews, for example, were harassed by individuals or groups in society in many more countries (80) than they were by governments (31) in 2014. The number of countries with social harassment of Jews was up sharply from 2013. There was a big increase in the number of countries where Muslims were harassed by some level of government (80 countries in 2014, up from 73 in 2013). There also was a big increase in the number of countries where Christians were harassed by individuals or groups in society (85 countries in 2014, up from 71 in 2013).

Government restrictions by region

The median level of government restrictions on religion decreased in three of the five regions (Asia and the Pacific, the Middle East and North Africa, and sub-Saharan Africa) and stayed roughly the same in two regions (the Americas and Europe).

In the latest year studied, the Middle East and North Africa continued to have the highest median level of government restrictions. The median score on the Government Restrictions Index for the 20 countries in the region decreased modestly, from 6.0 in 2013 to 5.4 in 2014, but it remained much higher than the global median (2.5). Many government restrictions that were present in the region in 2013 continued to occur in 2014. For example, government limits on public preaching were reported in 16 of the region’s 20 countries, about the same as in 2013 (17 countries). Similarly, government interference with worship practices occurred in 18 of the 20 countries, compared with 19 in 2013.

In the Asia-Pacific region, the median score on the GRI decreased from 4.2 in 2013 to 3.7 in 2014. Government harassment of religious groups was reported in 33 of the region’s 50 countries, down from 36 in 2013. In the Philippines, for instance, the government signed a peace accord with a militant separatist group known as the Moro Islamic Liberation Front. Violent conflicts between the Christian-dominated government and Muslim separatist groups in the southern part of the island nation have claimed more than 100,000 lives in recent decades. The peace agreement created an autonomous Muslim-dominated area in the southern island of Mindanao.²⁹

Sub-Saharan Africa’s median GRI score declined from 1.9 in 2013 to 1.6 in 2014, below the global median. Among the factors contributing to the decline were a decrease in government interference with religious worship practices and declines in deaths, physical abuse, detentions, displacements and property damage resulting from government actions.

The Americas’ median score on the GRI stayed about the same in 2014 (1.6), considerably below the global median (2.5). Europe’s median GRI score (2.5) also held steady in 2014.

Social hostilities by region

The median level of social hostilities involving religion decreased somewhat in two of the five regions in 2014 (Europe and sub-Saharan Africa) and stayed roughly the same in three (the Americas, Asia and the Pacific, and the Middle East and North Africa).

As in previous years, social hostilities involving religion remained the highest in the Middle East and North Africa. The median score for the region’s 20 countries stayed roughly the same (6.0 in 2014 vs. 5.8 in 2013), but it was well above the global median (1.5). Religious hostilities decreased in seven countries in the region and increased in 10.

Iraq was one of the 10 countries in the region where social hostilities increased. Violent acts by both Sunni- and Shia-dominated groups and militias – including the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) – led to killings, suicide bombings, kidnappings, robberies, harassment, intimidation and the displacement of people from their homes.³⁰

Europe’s median score on the SHI fell from 2.4 in 2013 to 1.9 in 2014. In nine of the 45 countries in the region, individuals were assaulted or displaced from their homes in retaliation for religious activities considered offensive or threatening to the majority faith – a noticeable decrease from 19 countries in 2013. The number of European countries where women were harassed for violating local customs or societal norms concerning religious dress also decreased, from 20 to 17. This includes cases in which women were harassed for not wearing religious dress (such as a Muslim woman being harassed for not wearing a hijab) as well as cases in which women were harassed for wearing religious attire (such as a woman being harassed for wearing a hijab).³¹

Sub-Saharan Africa’s median SHI score fell from 1.3 in 2013 to 1.0 in 2014, continuing a trend from 2012-2013. For instance, the number of countries in the region where individuals or social groups used violence or the threat of violence to enforce religious norms dropped from 15 in 2013 to nine in 2014. And the number of countries where individuals were assaulted or displaced from their homes for religious activities considered offensive to the majority faith dropped from 18 to nine.

In the Asia-Pacific region, the median SHI score stayed at 2.2. While the region’s overall score remained unchanged, there was a sizable decrease in the number of countries where women were harassed for violating religious dress norms (from 16 in 2013 to 11 in 2014). At the same time, the number of countries in the region with active terrorist groups increased from 18 to 22. In Australia, for instance, an Iranian-born Muslim, Man Haron Monis, took 18 people hostage in a Lindt Chocolate Cafe in Sydney in December 2014. The siege ended when police stormed the building, resulting in the deaths of two hostages.³² (See the Overview of this report for more details.)

The median level of social hostilities involving religion in the Americas remained low (0.3 in 2014 compared with 0.1 in 2013).

Among the world’s 25 most populous countries (which contain 74% of the world’s population), Egypt, Indonesia, Pakistan, Russia and Turkey stand out as having the highest levels restrictions on religion (as of the end of 2014) when both government restrictions and social hostilities are taken into account.³³ Brazil, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Japan, the Philippines and South Africa have the lowest levels of restrictions and hostilities.

Seven of the most populous countries had low government restrictions in 2014: Brazil, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Italy, Japan, South Africa, the Philippines and the United Kingdom. The Democratic Republic of the Congo and Japan were the only countries to have low social hostilities. They also were the only countries that had both low social hostilities and low government restrictions.

Among the 25 most populous countries, Mexico was the only one with a score on the Government Restrictions Index that increased by one point or more from 2013 to 2014. Ethiopia, Germany and Burma (Myanmar) were the only ones with a GRI score that decreased by one point or more in that span (although Burma still had high government restrictions on religion). In the United States, Italy and South Africa, scores on the Social Hostility Index increased by one point or more over the previous year. The SHI score decreased by one point or more in Bangladesh, China, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Ethiopia, Germany, India, Japan, Nigeria, Philippines, Russia and the United Kingdom.

Restrictions and Hostilities in the Most Populous Countries

This is the seventh in a series of reports by Pew Research Center analyzing the extent to which governments and societies around the world impinge on religious beliefs and practices. As part of the original study, published in 2009, the Center developed two indexes – a Government Restrictions Index and a Social Hostilities Index – that were used to gauge government restrictions on religion and social hostilities involving religion in nearly 200 countries and territories.

The initial report, published in 2009, established a baseline for each country and five major geographic regions. Follow-up reports looked at changes in the level of restrictions and hostilities in these countries and territories.

The new report focuses on countries and regions that had the most extensive restrictions and hostilities in 2014, as well as countries and regions that had large changes in their scores on the Government Restrictions Index and Social Hostilities Index from 2013 to 2014. Where appropriate, it also looks at changes since the baseline year of the study.

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. (See Methodology for more details.) As such, they provide a guide for comparing country scores and evaluating their direction over time. However, Pew Research Center has not attached numerical rankings to the countries because there are many tie scores and the differences between the scores of the countries that are close to each other are not necessarily as meaningful as they might appear.

As we have noted in 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 simple 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 all 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 information that formed the basis of the analysis.

This report was produced by Pew Research Center as part of the Pew-Templeton Global Religious Futures project, which analyzes religious change and its impact on societies around the world.

Pew Research Center is a subsidiary of The Pew Charitable Trusts, its primary funder. This report was made possible by The Pew Charitable Trusts, which received support for the project from the John Templeton Foundation. This project/publication does not necessarily reflect the views of the John Templeton Foundation.

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

Primary Researcher

Peter Henne, Research Associate

Research Team

Alan Cooperman, Director of Religion Research Juan Carlos Esparza Ochoa, Data Manager Katayoun Kishi, Research Associate Dennis R. Quinn, Research Assistant Claire Gecewicz, Research Assistant           Angelina E. Theodorou, Research Analyst

Coders Kady Arthur Elizabeth Dean Brittni Fine Sarah Kelly Brandan Martini Aryeh Mellman Piyusha Mittal Faraz Salahuddin Andrew Small

Editorial and Graphic Design

Sandra Stencel, Associate Director, Editorial Michael Lipka, Editor Aleksandra Sandstrom, Copy Editor Bill Webster, Information Graphics Designer Diana Yoo, Art Director

Communications and Web Publishing

Stacy Rosenberg, Digital Project Manager Travis Mitchell, Digital Producer Anna Schiller, Communications Manager Stefan S. Cornibert, Communications Associate

This is the seventh time Pew Research Center has measured restrictions on religion around the globe.³⁴ This report, which includes data for the year ending Dec. 31, 2014, generally follows the same methodology as previous reports.

Pew Research Center uses two 10-point indexes – the Government Restrictions Index (GRI) and the Social Hostilities Index (SHI) – to rate 198 countries and self-governing territories on their levels of restrictions.³⁵ This report analyzes changes in restrictions on an annual basis, focusing on the period from 2013 to 2014.

The study 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.)

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 of the study (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 to the right 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 Pew Research Center to assess and compare restrictions on religion was developed by former Pew Research Center 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.³⁶ 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 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, Pew Research Center coded (categorized and counted) data from more than a dozen published cross-national sources, providing a high degree of confidence in the findings. The coders looked to the sources for only specific, well-documented facts, not opinions or commentary.

Second, Pew Research Center 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 Research Center 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” on page 36) is their ability to chart change over time.

Countries and territories

The 198 countries and self-administering territories covered by the study contain more than 99.5% of the world’s population. They include 192 of the 193 member states of the United Nations as of 2014 plus six self-administering territories – Kosovo, Hong Kong, Macau, the Palestinian territories, Taiwan and Western Sahara.³⁷ 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 198 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

In the latest year of the study, Pew Research Center identified 17 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 page 35 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, Pew Research Center 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 for 2014

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 subsequent years of coding
6. Human Rights Watch topical reports
7. International Crisis Group country reports
8. United Kingdom Foreign & Commonwealth Office annual report on human rights
9. Council of the European Union annual report on human rights
10. Global Terrorism Database
11. European Network Against Racism Shadow Reports
12. United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees reports
13. U.S. State Department annual Country Reports on Terrorism
14. Anti-Defamation League reports
15. U.S. State Department Country Reports on Human Rights Practices
16. Uppsala University’s Uppsala Conflict Data Program, Armed Conflict Database
17. Human Rights Without Frontiers “Freedom of Religion or Belief” newsletters

U.S. government reports with information on the situation in the United States

• U.S. Department of Justice “Religious Freedom in Focus” newsletters and reports
• FBI Hate Crime Reports

As noted, this study includes four sources that were not included in the Pew Research Center’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 Global Terrorism Database.

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 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 that has affiliated offices throughout the world.

Since 2013, the Pew Research Center has used data from the Global Terrorism Database, maintained by the University of Maryland’s National Consortium for Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism (START), along with the International Crisis Group’s country reports, Uppsala University’s Armed Conflict Database and the State Department’s annual Country Reports on Terrorism, for information on religion-related terrorism. (One source used in earlier reports, the U.S. government’s Worldwide Incident Tracking System (WITS), is no longer available online.) Prior to 2013, the report relied only on the International Crisis Group reports, the Uppsala database and the State Department reports for information on religion-related terrorism. The Global Terrorism Database is one of the most comprehensive sources on terrorism around the world and is the source for the U.S. State Department’s Country Reports on Terrorism. The addition of this source thus provides greater context and information on terrorism without biasing the reporting through the addition of information that was not previously available.

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 Research Center 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 in the 2014 report “Religious Hostilities Reach Six-Year High.”)

The coding instrument

As explained in more detail below, Pew Research Center 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 in Appendix D.

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. Most of the countries and territories analyzed by Pew Research Center 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 Research Center 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 Research Center employed strict training and rigorous coding protocols to make its coding as objective and reproducible as possible. Coders worked directly under an experienced researcher’s supervision, with additional direction and support provided by other Pew Research Center 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 document (coding instrument) including details on each incident. The coders began by filling out the coding instrument for each country using the information source that had the most comprehensive information. 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 research associate. 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, and the answers and substantiating evidence were entered into a database.

After data collection for all countries was completed, Pew Research Center coders and researchers compared the scores from calendar year 2014 with those from the previous year, ending Dec. 31, 2013. They identified scores that had changed and analyzed the substantiating evidence for each year to make sure the change was substantive and not the result of coder error. 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. At the same time, the Pew Research Center has attempted to minimize changes to the coding instrument as much as is possible to ensure all changes between years are the result of actual changes in restrictions and hostilities, not changes in methodology.

Pew Research Center 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.

Pew Research Center staff compared coders’ scores for all questions for each of the 198 countries and territories included in the study, computing the degree to which the scores matched. The inter-rater reliability score across all variables was 0.66, slightly lower than in previous years. (Scores above 0.7 are generally considered good, while scores above 0.6 are acceptable.) The lower score could be due, in part, to the need to conduct multiple waves of coding during this cycle. (See page 44 for more on a change in data collection procedure.)

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.

In previous years, Pew Research Center 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 Research Center 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).

The GRI is a fine-grained measure created by adding the 20 items on a 0-to-10 metric, with zero indicating very low levels of government restrictions on religion and 10 indicating very high levels of restrictions. The 20 questions that form the GRI are coded in a standard scale from zero to one point, while gradations among the answers allowed for partial points to be given for lesser degrees of the particular government restriction being measured. The overall value of the index was calculated and 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.

A test of whether the 20 items were statistically reliable as a single index produced a scale reliability coefficient of 0.9 for calendar year 2014. Since coefficients of 0.7 or higher are generally considered acceptable, it was statistically appropriate to combine these 20 items into a single index.

Social Hostilities Index

In addition to government restrictions, violence and intimidation in societies also can limit religious beliefs and practices. Accordingly, Pew Research Center 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 Research Center staff to create the Social Hostilities Index.

The SHI was constructed by adding together the 13 indicators based on a 0-to-10 metric, with zero indicating very low impediments to religious beliefs and practices and 10 indicating very high impediments. The various questions that form the index are coded in a standard scale from zero to one point, while gradations among the answers allow for partial points to be given for lesser degrees of the particular hostilities being measured. 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.

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 0.89. Since coefficients of 0.7 or higher are generally considered acceptable, it was statistically appropriate to combine these items into a single index.

How examples are coded

Examples of each type of government restriction or social hostility are generally counted in a single measure on the GRI or SHI. For instance, a restriction on proselytizing (sharing one’s faith with the intent of persuading another to join the faith) is not also counted as a restriction on conversion (an individual changing his/her religion). In some situations, however, an individual restriction or hostility may be part of a broader set of restrictions or hostilities. For instance, a mob attack by members of one religious group on an individual of another religion may be an isolated event and counted just under question SHI Q.2: Was there mob violence related to religion? (See the Summary of Results.) However, if such an attack triggers repeated attacks between religious groups, it also might be an indication of sectarian or communal violence, which by definition involves two or more religious groups facing off in repeated clashes. In such a case, the mob attack also would be counted under question SHI Q.3: Were there acts of sectarian or communal violence between religious groups? (See the Summary of Results.)

Effects of consolidating to a new database

For the first few 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 on pages 45-48 of the December 2009 baseline report.) Each year, the province numbers were summed and put into separate country-level files. Following the publication of the August 2011 report, Pew Research Center staff created a database that integrated all province- and country-level data on religious restrictions. During this process, Pew Research Center 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 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 subsequent years.

Beginning with data covering 2012, Pew Research Center stopped collecting data at the province-level; all data is coded at the country level.

Changing time period of analysis

This is the fourth time Pew Research Center has analyzed restrictions on religion in a calendar year. Previous reports analyzed 12-month periods from July 1-June 30 (e.g., July 1, 2009-June 30, 2010). The shift to calendar years was made, in part, because most of the primary sources used in this study are based on calendar years.

Because of the shift in time frame, previous studies did not report directly on incidents that occurred during the period from July 1-Dec. 31, 2010. While this misses some incidents that occurred during the second half of 2010, events that had an ongoing impact – such as a change to a country’s constitution or the outbreak of a religion-related war – were captured by the coding. Researchers for the study carefully reviewed the situation in each country and territory during this six-month period and made sure that restrictions with an ongoing impact were not overlooked.

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, Pew Research Center 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 noncombatants 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 affect religious personnel, such as clergy. Readers should note that it is the political character and motivation of the groups, not 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.

Changes to Somalia’s coding

Starting with data covering 2013, researchers changed the way they coded government restrictions in Somalia. In previous years of the study, researchers had coded actions by the al-Shabaab rebel group as government restrictions, largely because the group effectively controlled large swathes of Somali territory. The extent of al-Shabaab control over Somali territory decreased in calendar year 2013, so researchers did not code their actions as government restrictions but rather as social hostilities. Researchers continued to follow this policy when coding data for 2014.

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. But because independent observers lack regular access to North Korea, 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 Research Center 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 (four 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 Research Center 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 Research Center 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, the Pew Research Center’s director of global attitudes research, 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.”³⁸

Coding harassment of specific religious groups

As in previous reports, this study provides a 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.1.a. (“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.

Change in data collection procedure

The data collection period for the latest religious restrictions study had to be altered slightly. Normally, all sources used in the study are released by the time data coding begins in the summer. However, the U.S. State Department reports for 2014 (including the agency’s 2014 International Religious Freedom Report) were released much later than usual. As a result, data coding took place in three waves: summer 2015, fall 2015 and winter 2016. Pew Research Center staff compared the data collected in each wave with data collected in the other two waves, and with data collected for 2013, to make sure no systematic problems arose as a result of the extended data collection period, and to ensure consistency across all data collected.