placestats

Confidence in religious institutions vs. Gender Inequality Index

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 100 countries, Confidence in religious institutions and Gender Inequality Index rise and fall together at r = +0.55 (on a scale from −1 to +1, where 0 means no link). Comparing only countries with similar income (GDP per person) shrinks it to +0.30, which could easily be chance (q = 0.12, 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, 47.2% to 76.6% of respondents, gender inequality index is worse by 0.138 points at the top of that range than the bottom. Comparing only countries with similar national income, the gap is 0.0423 points.

Link before adjusting (r)+0.555p = 2.1e-9 · 100 countries
After adjusting for national income+0.304p = 0.002 · likely range [+0.11, +0.47]
p, allowing for regions0.026standard error 0.103 · 7 regions
Check for luck (q)0.125across 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
Gender Inequality Index · index, 0 to 1link with income -0.89 · 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 →Gender Inequality Index · index, 0 to 1 →7.91%99.8%0.0030.677Albania: 52.7% of respondents, 0.107 index, 0 to 1Argentina: 57.9% of respondents, 0.264 index, 0 to 1Armenia: 70.4% of respondents, 0.18 index, 0 to 1Australia: 31.3% of respondents, 0.056 index, 0 to 1Austria: 36.1% of respondents, 0.033 index, 0 to 1Azerbaijan: 69.6% of respondents, 0.315 index, 0 to 1Belgium: 36.2% of respondents, 0.031 index, 0 to 1Burkina Faso: 77.4% of respondents, 0.555 index, 0 to 1Bangladesh: 99.8% of respondents, 0.487 index, 0 to 1Bulgaria: 35.1% of respondents, 0.208 index, 0 to 1Bosnia and Herzegovina: 56.5% of respondents, 0.157 index, 0 to 1Belarus: 58.3% of respondents, 0.08 index, 0 to 1Bolivia: 49% of respondents, 0.419 index, 0 to 1Brazil: 66.9% of respondents, 0.39 index, 0 to 1Canada: 39.6% of respondents, 0.052 index, 0 to 1Switzerland: 33.7% of respondents, 0.01 index, 0 to 1Chile: 44.6% of respondents, 0.102 index, 0 to 1China: 20% of respondents, 0.132 index, 0 to 1Colombia: 55.4% of respondents, 0.393 index, 0 to 1Cyprus: 61.7% of respondents, 0.252 index, 0 to 1Czechia: 22.8% of respondents, 0.088 index, 0 to 1Germany: 31.5% of respondents, 0.057 index, 0 to 1Denmark: 59.1% of respondents, 0.003 index, 0 to 1Algeria: 67.8% of respondents, 0.443 index, 0 to 1Ecuador: 75% of respondents, 0.358 index, 0 to 1Egypt, Arab Rep.: 71.2% of respondents, 0.398 index, 0 to 1Spain: 32.6% of respondents, 0.043 index, 0 to 1Estonia: 34% of respondents, 0.061 index, 0 to 1Ethiopia: 92.2% of respondents, 0.497 index, 0 to 1Finland: 55% of respondents, 0.021 index, 0 to 1France: 38.9% of respondents, 0.034 index, 0 to 1United Kingdom: 36.9% of respondents, 0.083 index, 0 to 1Georgia: 77.4% of respondents, 0.257 index, 0 to 1Ghana: 89.3% of respondents, 0.514 index, 0 to 1Greece: 65.4% of respondents, 0.103 index, 0 to 1Guatemala: 70.5% of respondents, 0.48 index, 0 to 1Croatia: 37.2% of respondents, 0.074 index, 0 to 1Haiti: 9.28% of respondents, 0.618 index, 0 to 1Hungary: 40.1% of respondents, 0.213 index, 0 to 1Indonesia: 98.3% of respondents, 0.423 index, 0 to 1India: 89.1% of respondents, 0.403 index, 0 to 1Ireland: 52% of respondents, 0.054 index, 0 to 1Iran, Islamic Rep.: 78.1% of respondents, 0.482 index, 0 to 1Iraq: 54.1% of respondents, 0.558 index, 0 to 1Iceland: 47.3% of respondents, 0.024 index, 0 to 1Italy: 52.6% of respondents, 0.043 index, 0 to 1Jordan: 67.3% of respondents, 0.433 index, 0 to 1Japan: 7.91% of respondents, 0.059 index, 0 to 1Kazakhstan: 79% of respondents, 0.182 index, 0 to 1Kenya: 79.4% of respondents, 0.526 index, 0 to 1Kyrgyz Republic: 77.6% of respondents, 0.34 index, 0 to 1Korea, Rep.: 51.7% of respondents, 0.038 index, 0 to 1Kuwait: 75.9% of respondents, 0.188 index, 0 to 1Lebanon: 47.1% of respondents, 0.36 index, 0 to 1Libya: 82.5% of respondents, 0.253 index, 0 to 1Lithuania: 68.1% of respondents, 0.07 index, 0 to 1Luxembourg: 42.1% of respondents, 0.044 index, 0 to 1Latvia: 47.9% of respondents, 0.117 index, 0 to 1Morocco: 65.3% of respondents, 0.438 index, 0 to 1Moldova: 77.3% of respondents, 0.146 index, 0 to 1Maldives: 75.6% of respondents, 0.309 index, 0 to 1Mexico: 61.7% of respondents, 0.358 index, 0 to 1North Macedonia: 74.4% of respondents, 0.112 index, 0 to 1Mali: 90% of respondents, 0.612 index, 0 to 1Malta: 76.3% of respondents, 0.111 index, 0 to 1Myanmar: 84.1% of respondents, 0.478 index, 0 to 1Montenegro: 79.6% of respondents, 0.121 index, 0 to 1Mongolia: 21.8% of respondents, 0.284 index, 0 to 1Malaysia: 84.9% of respondents, 0.172 index, 0 to 1Nigeria: 88.2% of respondents, 0.677 index, 0 to 1Nicaragua: 67.3% of respondents, 0.408 index, 0 to 1Netherlands: 22.1% of respondents, 0.013 index, 0 to 1Norway: 50.2% of respondents, 0.004 index, 0 to 1New Zealand: 35.9% of respondents, 0.082 index, 0 to 1Pakistan: 97.2% of respondents, 0.536 index, 0 to 1Peru: 60.9% of respondents, 0.34 index, 0 to 1Philippines: 92.2% of respondents, 0.351 index, 0 to 1Poland: 55.2% of respondents, 0.081 index, 0 to 1Portugal: 59.6% of respondents, 0.076 index, 0 to 1Qatar: 86.2% of respondents, 0.195 index, 0 to 1Romania: 69.3% of respondents, 0.227 index, 0 to 1Russian Federation: 58.4% of respondents, 0.169 index, 0 to 1Rwanda: 60.2% of respondents, 0.394 index, 0 to 1Singapore: 58.3% of respondents, 0.031 index, 0 to 1Serbia: 55.7% of respondents, 0.117 index, 0 to 1Slovak Republic: 49.8% of respondents, 0.176 index, 0 to 1Slovenia: 22.5% of respondents, 0.042 index, 0 to 1Sweden: 47.4% of respondents, 0.007 index, 0 to 1Thailand: 69.9% of respondents, 0.288 index, 0 to 1Tajikistan: 76.4% of respondents, 0.258 index, 0 to 1Trinidad and Tobago: 65.3% of respondents, 0.262 index, 0 to 1Tunisia: 48.5% of respondents, 0.238 index, 0 to 1Turkiye: 70.4% of respondents, 0.227 index, 0 to 1Uruguay: 37.4% of respondents, 0.218 index, 0 to 1United States: 53.1% of respondents, 0.169 index, 0 to 1Uzbekistan: 86.7% of respondents, 0.291 index, 0 to 1Viet Nam: 89.3% of respondents, 0.299 index, 0 to 1South Africa: 77% of respondents, 0.388 index, 0 to 1Zambia: 86.3% of respondents, 0.524 index, 0 to 1Zimbabwe: 68.3% of respondents, 0.519 index, 0 to 1HTIIRQJPNMLIMNEMNGMYSNGANLDPAKQATSVN

best-fit line line after adjusting

Four ways to measure the link

MethodrpCountries
Standard (Pearson), not adjusted+0.5552.1e-9100
By rank (Spearman), not adjusted+0.6169.0e-12100
Standard (Pearson), adjusted for national income+0.3040.002100
By rank (Spearman), adjusted for national income+0.2930.003100

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 100 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: +0.251 (a minus sign means it grew).

How solid is it?

Leaving out one country at a time, r ranges from +0.261 (without QAT) to +0.343 (without HTI). 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 (-0.043).

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 & Pacific13+0.65
Europe & Central Asia46+0.32
Latin America & Caribbean13+0.39
Middle East, North Africa, Afghanistan & Pakistan13+0.18

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 third34+0.04
Middle third33+0.14
Richest third33+0.52

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
Christians60+0.13
Muslims27+0.31

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+0.41
Spain12+0.01
United Kingdom25+0.30

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 = +0.304 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

index, 0 to 1
Years
Bangladesh BGD99.8%0.4872022, 2023
Indonesia IDN98.3%0.4232022, 2023
Pakistan PAK97.2%0.5362022, 2023
Ethiopia ETH92.2%0.4972022, 2023
Philippines PHL92.2%0.3512022, 2023
Mali MLI90%0.6122010, 2023
Viet Nam VNM89.3%0.2992022, 2023
Ghana GHA89.3%0.5142014, 2023
India IND89.1%0.4032022, 2023
Nigeria NGA88.2%0.6772022, 2023
Uzbekistan UZB86.7%0.2912022, 2023
Zambia ZMB86.3%0.5242010, 2023
Qatar QAT86.2%0.1952014, 2023
Malaysia MYS84.9%0.1722022, 2023
Myanmar MMR84.1%0.4782022, 2023

Haerpfer, C. et al., World Values Survey; EVS, European Values Study
United Nations Development Programme, Human Development Report 2025

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.

Gender Inequality Index

Gender Inequality Index

United Nations Development Programme, Human Development Report Office · via Our World in Data · CC BY 3.0 IGO · updated annual

Built from deaths in childbirth, births to teenagers, seats in parliament, secondary schooling, and the share of women and men in the workforce. Five of those inputs are on the site and flagged. It is kept out of the gender score, for the same reason the HDI is kept out of the economy score.

How this was computed

Data used: most recent value in 2010-2025; values come from 2010–2023. 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 Gender Inequality Index

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

More links with Confidence in religious institutions or Gender Inequality Index