placestats

Confidence in religious institutions vs. Fixed broadband

Fades after adjusting for income

A country is not a person. Countries where more people are counted as belonging to this group also tend to differ on the other measure, and that is all. It does not follow that the people in the group are the people with the different score. Making that leap is called the ecological fallacy: reading a pattern across places as a fact about individual people. It is the most common misuse of this kind of data. Religion also varies strongly with region, history and national income, so much of what looks religious here is really those. That is what the adjusted figures are for. The religion shares are estimates for two years only, and the survey questions are asked in rounds that can be ten years apart.

Across 106 countries, Confidence in religious institutions and Fixed broadband rise and fall together at r = -0.62 (on a scale from −1 to +1, where 0 means no link). Comparing only countries with similar income (GDP per person) shrinks it to -0.43, which could easily be chance (q = 0.076, allowing for the many pairs tested, and allowing for countries in the same region being alike). So the first figure mostly shows richer countries differing from poorer ones, not a link between these two things.

Comparing countries across the middle half of confidence in religious institutions, 47.3% to 76.2% of respondents, fixed broadband is worse by 13.1 per 100 people at the top of that range than the bottom. Comparing only countries with similar national income, the gap is 6.03 per 100 people.

Link before adjusting (r)-0.616p = 2.1e-12 · 106 countries
After adjusting for national income-0.429p = 5.0e-6 · likely range [-0.57, -0.26]
p, allowing for regions0.011standard error 0.118 · 7 regions
Check for luck (q)0.076across 12,497 pairs

How to read these.r runs from −1 (one goes up as the other goes down) to +1 (they rise together), and 0 means no link. Adjusting for national income means comparing countries with the same GDP per person, so differences in wealth can’t explain the link. Income is used in percentage terms, since an extra $1,000 means more to a poor country than to a rich one. p is how likely a link this strong would be if there were really none. Below 0.05 means it is unlikely to be chance. Very small values are written in short form: 1.1e-32 means a decimal point followed by 31 zeros and then 11, so very close to zero. The likely range is where the true figure probably lies, and a range that crosses zero means the link could easily be chance. Countries in the same region tend to resemble each other, so the third figure allows for that, which gives a fairer p. The standard error is the typical size of the error in r. Finally, testing this many pairs means some will look strong by luck alone. A q below 0.05 means this link is unlikely to be one of those.

Confidence in religious institutions · % of respondentslink with income -0.57 · moderate
Fixed broadband · per 100 peoplelink with income +0.88 · proxy

“Link with income” is how closely each measure tracks GDP per person across countries, from −1 to +1.

Every country as a dot

Confidence in religious institutions · % of respondents →Fixed broadband · per 100 people →7.91%99.8%0.078752.4Albania: 52.7% of respondents, 24.9 per 100 peopleAndorra: 28.4% of respondents, 52.4 per 100 peopleArgentina: 57.9% of respondents, 26.1 per 100 peopleArmenia: 70.4% of respondents, 20.3 per 100 peopleAustralia: 31.3% of respondents, 36.5 per 100 peopleAustria: 36.1% of respondents, 30.1 per 100 peopleAzerbaijan: 69.6% of respondents, 21.8 per 100 peopleBelgium: 36.2% of respondents, 44.2 per 100 peopleBurkina Faso: 77.4% of respondents, 0.851 per 100 peopleBangladesh: 99.8% of respondents, 8.09 per 100 peopleBulgaria: 35.1% of respondents, 37 per 100 peopleBosnia and Herzegovina: 56.5% of respondents, 29.4 per 100 peopleBelarus: 58.3% of respondents, 36.3 per 100 peopleBolivia: 49% of respondents, 12.1 per 100 peopleBrazil: 66.9% of respondents, 24.1 per 100 peopleCanada: 39.6% of respondents, 42.5 per 100 peopleSwitzerland: 33.7% of respondents, 47 per 100 peopleChile: 44.6% of respondents, 23.7 per 100 peopleChina: 20% of respondents, 47.2 per 100 peopleColombia: 55.4% of respondents, 17.2 per 100 peopleCyprus: 61.7% of respondents, 37.6 per 100 peopleCzechia: 22.8% of respondents, 38.9 per 100 peopleGermany: 31.5% of respondents, 45.6 per 100 peopleDenmark: 59.1% of respondents, 43.4 per 100 peopleAlgeria: 67.8% of respondents, 13.3 per 100 peopleEcuador: 75% of respondents, 17.2 per 100 peopleEgypt, Arab Rep.: 71.2% of respondents, 11.7 per 100 peopleSpain: 32.6% of respondents, 39.2 per 100 peopleEstonia: 34% of respondents, 35.4 per 100 peopleEthiopia: 92.2% of respondents, 0.594 per 100 peopleFinland: 55% of respondents, 36.5 per 100 peopleFrance: 38.9% of respondents, 48.9 per 100 peopleUnited Kingdom: 36.9% of respondents, 42.2 per 100 peopleGeorgia: 77.4% of respondents, 30.4 per 100 peopleGhana: 89.3% of respondents, 0.665 per 100 peopleGreece: 65.4% of respondents, 44.7 per 100 peopleGuatemala: 70.5% of respondents, 5.34 per 100 peopleHong Kong SAR, China: 53.2% of respondents, 40.3 per 100 peopleCroatia: 37.2% of respondents, 29.6 per 100 peopleHaiti: 9.28% of respondents, 0.307 per 100 peopleHungary: 40.1% of respondents, 37.5 per 100 peopleIndonesia: 98.3% of respondents, 4.92 per 100 peopleIndia: 89.1% of respondents, 3.15 per 100 peopleIreland: 52% of respondents, 32.3 per 100 peopleIran, Islamic Rep.: 78.1% of respondents, 12.1 per 100 peopleIraq: 54.1% of respondents, 17.6 per 100 peopleIceland: 47.3% of respondents, 37.5 per 100 peopleItaly: 52.6% of respondents, 31.8 per 100 peopleJordan: 67.3% of respondents, 7.02 per 100 peopleJapan: 7.91% of respondents, 38.6 per 100 peopleKazakhstan: 79% of respondents, 15.3 per 100 peopleKenya: 79.4% of respondents, 3.04 per 100 peopleKyrgyz Republic: 77.6% of respondents, 7.8 per 100 peopleKorea, Rep.: 51.7% of respondents, 47.8 per 100 peopleKuwait: 75.9% of respondents, 1.01 per 100 peopleLebanon: 47.1% of respondents, 7.29 per 100 peopleLibya: 82.5% of respondents, 4.52 per 100 peopleLithuania: 68.1% of respondents, 27.8 per 100 peopleLuxembourg: 42.1% of respondents, 40.3 per 100 peopleLatvia: 47.9% of respondents, 25.8 per 100 peopleMacao SAR, China: 52.8% of respondents, 29.9 per 100 peopleMorocco: 65.3% of respondents, 7.3 per 100 peopleMoldova: 77.3% of respondents, 29.6 per 100 peopleMaldives: 75.6% of respondents, 19.6 per 100 peopleMexico: 61.7% of respondents, 21.7 per 100 peopleNorth Macedonia: 74.4% of respondents, 29.9 per 100 peopleMali: 90% of respondents, 0.774 per 100 peopleMalta: 76.3% of respondents, 44.5 per 100 peopleMyanmar: 84.1% of respondents, 2.87 per 100 peopleMontenegro: 79.6% of respondents, 32.3 per 100 peopleMongolia: 21.8% of respondents, 15.8 per 100 peopleMalaysia: 84.9% of respondents, 13.5 per 100 peopleNigeria: 88.2% of respondents, 0.0787 per 100 peopleNicaragua: 67.3% of respondents, 5.78 per 100 peopleNetherlands: 22.1% of respondents, 43 per 100 peopleNorway: 50.2% of respondents, 45.2 per 100 peopleNew Zealand: 35.9% of respondents, 38 per 100 peoplePakistan: 97.2% of respondents, 1.47 per 100 peoplePeru: 60.9% of respondents, 11.7 per 100 peoplePhilippines: 92.2% of respondents, 7.14 per 100 peoplePoland: 55.2% of respondents, 25.4 per 100 peoplePuerto Rico (US): 68.2% of respondents, 28 per 100 peoplePortugal: 59.6% of respondents, 45.2 per 100 peopleWest Bank and Gaza: 68.1% of respondents, 8.16 per 100 peopleQatar: 86.2% of respondents, 11.8 per 100 peopleRomania: 69.3% of respondents, 35.8 per 100 peopleRussian Federation: 58.4% of respondents, 27.1 per 100 peopleRwanda: 60.2% of respondents, 0.596 per 100 peopleSingapore: 58.3% of respondents, 27.8 per 100 peopleSerbia: 55.7% of respondents, 33.4 per 100 peopleSlovak Republic: 49.8% of respondents, 33.8 per 100 peopleSlovenia: 22.5% of respondents, 34.2 per 100 peopleSweden: 47.4% of respondents, 40.6 per 100 peopleThailand: 69.9% of respondents, 14.9 per 100 peopleTajikistan: 76.4% of respondents, 0.984 per 100 peopleTrinidad and Tobago: 65.3% of respondents, 27 per 100 peopleTunisia: 48.5% of respondents, 15 per 100 peopleTurkiye: 70.4% of respondents, 23.4 per 100 peopleUkraine: 65.9% of respondents, 21.7 per 100 peopleUruguay: 37.4% of respondents, 33 per 100 peopleUnited States: 53.1% of respondents, 38.9 per 100 peopleUzbekistan: 86.7% of respondents, 34.7 per 100 peopleViet Nam: 89.3% of respondents, 23.7 per 100 peopleSouth Africa: 77% of respondents, 5.35 per 100 peopleZambia: 86.3% of respondents, 0.79 per 100 peopleZimbabwe: 68.3% of respondents, 1.94 per 100 peopleANDCHNETHGRCHTIIDNJPNLBNMLTMNGPAKUZB

best-fit line line after adjusting

Four ways to measure the link

MethodrpCountries
Standard (Pearson), not adjusted-0.6162.1e-12106
By rank (Spearman), not adjusted-0.6467.7e-14106
Standard (Pearson), adjusted for national income-0.4295.0e-6106
By rank (Spearman), adjusted for national income-0.3796.5e-5106

The rank version uses only each country’s place in line, from lowest to highest, so a few extreme countries count for less. The adjusted and unadjusted versions use the same 106 countries: those that report both measures and GDP per person. So the gap between them comes from the adjustment, not from a change in which countries are counted. Drop in the size of r after adjusting: +0.187 (a minus sign means it grew).

How solid is it?

Leaving out one country at a time, r ranges from -0.468 (without UZB) to -0.381 (without QAT). The bar above shows that range on a scale from −1 to +1, with the solid line at the full result. The single country that moves r most: QAT (+0.048).

Within each region

Countries are not separate, unrelated cases, and neighbors share a lot. A link that holds inside each region is far more believable than one that shows up only when comparing regions.

nr
East Asia & Pacific15-0.63
Europe & Central Asia48-0.25
Latin America & Caribbean14-0.56
Middle East, North Africa, Afghanistan & Pakistan14-0.27

By income third

If the link shows up only in the richest third of countries, it is a feature of rich countries, not a general pattern.

nr
Poorest third36-0.14
Middle third35-0.34
Richest third35-0.56

By largest religious group

Countries grouped by a label they share, such as main religion, rather than by a number. Groups of fewer than twelve countries are not shown. These groups differ in income, region and history all at once. So a gap between them is a place to start asking questions, not an answer.

nr
Christians62-0.17
Muslims28-0.37

By last european coloniser

Countries grouped by a label they share, such as main religion, rather than by a number. Groups of fewer than twelve countries are not shown. These groups differ in income, region and history all at once. So a gap between them is a place to start asking questions, not an answer.

nr
Never a European colony15-0.33
Spain12-0.31
United Kingdom25-0.74

Without outliers (countries far outside the middle half of countries on either measure, by more than one and a half times the width of that middle half): r = -0.429 after dropping 0 countries.

Two series, one country

Both measures over the years for one country you pick. The two charts are stacked so they share only the years along the bottom.

Loading…

Over time, within countries

Everything above compares countries with each other at one moment. This section compares each country only with itself over 0years. So a link here can’t come from anything about a country that stays the same, such as its history, geography, institutions or culture.

Not enough history inside each country to look at this over time. That needs countries measured for several years in a row, and at least one of these measures is measured too rarely.

The data


% of respondents
per 100 people		Years
Bangladesh BGD99.8%8.092022, 2024
Indonesia IDN98.3%4.922022, 2024
Pakistan PAK97.2%1.472022, 2024
Ethiopia ETH92.2%0.5942022, 2024
Philippines PHL92.2%7.142022, 2024
Mali MLI90%0.7742010, 2022
Viet Nam VNM89.3%23.72022, 2024
Ghana GHA89.3%0.6652014, 2024
India IND89.1%3.152022, 2024
Nigeria NGA88.2%0.07872022, 2024
Uzbekistan UZB86.7%34.72022, 2024
Zambia ZMB86.3%0.792010, 2024
Qatar QAT86.2%11.82014, 2024
Malaysia MYS84.9%13.52022, 2024
Myanmar MMR84.1%2.872022, 2024

Haerpfer, C. et al., World Values Survey; EVS, European Values Study
World Bank, World Development Indicators

Sources

Confidence in religious institutions

Share with confidence in churches and religious organisations

World Values Survey Association and European Values Study · via Our World in Data · Free for non-commercial use with attribution · updated irregular (survey waves, roughly every 5 years)

"A great deal" or "quite a lot" of confidence, as against "not very much" or "none". Confidence in an institution is not belief in what it teaches. The gap between this and the importance of religion shows how far religious people trust their clergy. No "better" direction is set.

Fixed broadband

Fixed broadband subscriptions (per 100 people)

International Telecommunication Union · CC BY 4.0 · updated quarterly

Subscriptions, not people. A household line counts once, however many people use it. A country that went straight to mobile data can be well connected with few of these lines. Internet users, already on the site, is the measure of people.

How this was computed

Data used: most recent value in 2010-2025; values come from 2010–2024. To adjust for income, each measure is first predicted from GDP per person (in percentage terms, on a log scale) with a straight-line fit. Only what is left over is then compared. This is called a partial correlation. The line is drawn the standard way (ordinary least squares), which picks the line that comes closest to all the countries at once. The error margins allow for countries in the same region resembling each other, using 7 World Bank regions. The q-value corrects for testing all 12,497 pairs at once, using the Benjamini–Hochberg method. Underlying data last updated DYB 2024. How the country data works · explore Confidence in religious institutions and Fixed broadband

This page shows that two measures go together. It does not show that Confidence in religious institutions changes Fixed broadband, or the reverse. These figures also describe countries, not individual people. See the ecological fallacy.

More links with Confidence in religious institutions or Fixed broadband