World Public Opinion

Full Report (PDF)

Positive views of the European Union and European nations have declined sharply over the last year--so much so that Germany has been overtaken by Japan as the world's most positively viewed major nation, a new 22-country global poll for BBC World Service suggests.

The poll also finds that views of China have improved significantly over the last year, in both the developing and industrialized world, and that the country has now overtaken both the EU and the US. Views of the US overall remained similar to 2011 despite large shifts in some regions.

The 2012 Country Ratings Poll, conducted by GlobeScan/PIPA among 24,090 people around the world, asks respondents to rate whether the influence of each of 16 countries and the EU is "mostly positive" or "mostly negative."

While in past years the EU has generally received quite positive ratings, this year positive views of the EU have dropped eight points on average, from 56 to 48 per cent, across the countries polled in 2011 and 2012. Ratings of other European nations dropped as well, with the UK down six points and France down four.

Germany, the most positively regarded nation last year, has seen its positive ratings drop from 60 to 56 per cent. This puts Germany in second place behind Japan, which is now rated most positively--by 58 per cent on average, up two points from last year. Canada (rated positively by 53%) and the UK (by 51%) are the third and fourth most positively viewed countries.

Positive views of China rose from 46 to 50 per cent on average. They jumped particularly sharply in the UK (up 19 points), as well as in Australia, Canada, and Germany (all up 18 points). These gains follow modest rises between 2010 and 2011. On average, views of the US have hardly changed, with 47 per cent expressing positive views and 33 per cent negative, compared to 48 and 31 per cent in 2010.

The most negatively rated countries were, as in previous years, Iran (55% negative), Pakistan (51% negative), and Israel and North Korea (both 50% negative).

GlobeScan President Chris Coulter comments: "The turmoil in the EU, long seen as an attractive bastion of political and economic stability, has raised doubts in people's minds about its continued ability to be a global leader. Hopes are turning to China."

Steven Kull, Director of PIPA, adds: "The fact that views of the EU itself had a sharper downturn than specific EU countries suggests doubts about how the EU is dealing with its collective problems."

A total of 24,090 citizens across 22 countries were interviewed face-to-face or by telephone between December 6, 2011 and February 17, 2012. Polling was conducted for BBC World Service by the international polling firm GlobeScan and its research partners in each country, together with the Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) at the University of Maryland. Countries were rated by half samples in all countries polled. In five of the 22 countries, the sample was limited to major urban areas. The margin of error per country ranges from +/- 2.9 to 4.9 per cent, 19 times out of 20.

Other Key Findings

Although views of the US were little changed since 2011, there have been some sharp regional swings, with positive views rising in Europe (France from 46 to 62%, UK from 38 to 57%, Spain 41 to 51% and Germany 37 to 44%), but dropping in South America (Chile 62 to 47%, Brazil 64 to 55%, and Peru 53 to 46%).

The falls in positive ratings of the EU since 2011 were particularly marked in some countries. There were particularly sharp falls in Ghana (down 26 points), Indonesia (down 20 points), Chile (down 18 points), and Australia and South Korea (down 17 points each).

Participating Countries

Findings

Full Report (PDF)
Questionnaire with Findings (PDF)
Video of the May 10th Event at the Stimson Center

In a unique study, a representative sample of Americans were shown the size of the defense budget from different perspectives and presented with arguments that experts make for and against cutting it. Three quarters of respondents favored cutting defense as a way to reduce the deficit, including two thirds of Republicans as well as nine in 10 Democrats.

(U.S. Air Force photo by Samuel King Jr.)

Respondents were also presented with information about the defense budget's nine major areas, including arguments for and against cutting each of them, and given the chance to increase or decrease the amount budgeted. Majorities made cuts in all nine areas, though majorities of Republicans made them only in six.

Overall, respondents composed a defense budget for 2013 that was significantly smaller than for 2012, with an average cut of 18%. Republicans cut an average of 12% and Democrats 22%.

The arguments for and against cutting were developed in consultation with experts, including advocates for opposite positions. In all cases both sets of arguments were found convincing by substantial majorities, suggesting that these arguments were strong and respondents considered them seriously.

The study was conducted by the Program for Public Consultation (PPC) in collaboration with the Stimson Center's Budgeting for Foreign Affairs and Defense program and the Center for Public Integrity's National Security program. The study was fielded with a representative sample of 665 American adults who are part of the nationwide panel of Knowledge Networks.

Other polls on defense spending have mostly asked simply whether respondents favor or oppose defense cuts, and generally found smaller numbers favoring cuts. Steven Kull, director of PPC, comments, "This suggests that Americans generally underestimate the size of the defense budget and that when they receive balanced information about its size they are more likely to cut it to reduce the deficit."

Majorities said that defense spending was more than they expected when it was presented in comparison to other items in the discretionary budget (65%), to historical defense spending levels in constant dollars (60%), and to the defense spending of potential enemies and allies (56%).

However the amount of defense spending was more consistent with expectations when presented in comparison to Social Security and Medicare and in terms of historical trends as a percentage of GDP. From no perspective was it less than expectations.

The area cut by the greatest percentage was nuclear weapons, which respondents reduced an average of 27% (Republicans 18%, Democrats 35%). The area that was cut the most in dollar terms was for existing ground force capabilities which was cut an average of $36.2 billion (Republicans $23.8 billion, Democrats $44.5 billion) or 23%.

Steven Kull adds, "What is striking is that it appears that the American people, unlike Congress, are able to thoughtfully recognize the validity of arguments both for and against cutting defense spending and still come to hard and even bold decisions."

Eight in ten favored cutting the Obama administration's proposed budget of $88 billion for 2013 war spending in Afghanistan. Overall, on average it was cut 40% or $35 billion.

Modest majorities favored cutting specific weapon systems. Given arguments for and against cancelling these systems and information about the related costs, 54% favored cancelling the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (though 52% of Republicans were opposed). Fifty-two percent favored cancelling the development of a new long-range bomber (Republicans were divided) and 59% favored not building a new aircraft carrier and allowing the number to decline from 11 to 10.

However, 56% opposed cancelling the V-22 Osprey (Democrats were divided), and six in 10 opposed eliminating bombers as one of the three mean of delivering nuclear weapons.

Views were mixed on options for cutting military healthcare (TRICARE). Six in ten favored reducing healthcare costs by having military families and retirees increase their co-pay for drug prescriptions to a more typical level (cutting another $3 billion). However, there was not majority support for increasing the premiums of military retirees younger than 65, or raising the cap on out-of-pocket expenses for military retirees.

Views were also mixed on cutting personnel costs. Six in ten favored slowing the growth of (but not reducing) the tax-exempt allowances military families receive for housing and food (a $6 billion dollar savings). A slight majority (52%) favored a proposal for reducing military pension benefits (a $9 billion dollar savings), though Democrats were divided. Majorities of both parties opposed capping the rate of growth of military pay at half a percentage point below increases in private sector wages.

How the Study Was Conducted

The study was fielded April 12 to 18 with a sample of 665 American adults (margin of error plus or minus 3.8%, accounting for a design effect, plus or minus 4.8%). It was conducted using the web-enabled KnowledgePanel®, a probability-based panel designed to be representative of the U.S. population. Initially, participants are chosen scientifically by a random selection of telephone numbers and residential addresses. Persons in selected households are then invited by telephone or by mail to participate in the web-enabled KnowledgePanel®. For those who agree to participate, but do not already have Internet access, Knowledge Networks provides a laptop and ISP connection. More technical information is available at http://www.knowledgenetworks.com/ganp/reviewer-info.html.

Half Approve US Providing Air Cover, But Not Troops

Questionnaire with Findings (PDF)

Two thirds of Americans approve of the idea of the Arab League and Turkey establishing safe havens inside Syria, to provide Syrians who are at risk of being attacked by government forces a place to retreat.

Half (48%) approve of the US providing air cover, though nearly as many (45%) oppose the idea. A majority of Republicans and Democrats favor the idea--54% in both cases--while a plurality of independents are opposed (47% to 34%).

The idea of contributing US troops for the safe havens gets very low support, with three quarters opposed. The idea of providing weapons for the safe havens is only supported by 37%, with 56% opposed.

These are some of the findings of a new poll of 727 Americans, conducted March 3-7 by the Program on International Policy Attitudes. It has a margin of error (including sample design effects) of +/-4.5 percent.

Steven Kull, director of PIPA commented, "Clearly Americans are feeling concerned about the situation in Syria, favor US participation in sanctions and support outside countries in the region taking steps to protect civilians at risk. However, they are divided about US air power getting involved and clearly do not want to send ground troops."

He adds, "Interestingly, Republicans and Democrats are unified, with majorities approving safe havens and the US providing air cover, while the independents are much less supportive."

A very large majority favors US participation in sanctions against Syria. Respondents were given a brief description of the situation in Syria and told "the Arab League has called for pressuring Syria by cutting off economic trade with Syria; the US and other countries have joined in these sanctions." Seventy-one percent of respondents approved of the US participating in such sanctions, especially Republicans (85%) and Democrats (78%). Independents, however, were divided (44% approve, 40% disapprove).

Respondents were told that, "Members of the Arab League and Turkey are considering establishing safe havens on the border areas inside Syria to provide Syrians who are at risk of being attacked by government forces a place to retreat. Other nations would need to provide military aid to protect them." They were also introduced to the debate as follows, "Some say this would violate Syria's sovereignty, while others say that the international community has a responsibility to protect Syrians at risk."

Sixty-seven percent called such safe havens a good idea, while 27% disagreed. A large majority of Republicans (76%) and Democrats (73%) said safe havens are a good idea, while just a plurality of independents agreed (46% to 37%).

Respondents were asked to assume the Arab League decides to establish safe havens and asks the US for help in defending them. They were then asked about three different forms of military assistance: to provide air cover with US planes; to provide weapons; or to send US troops. As stated above, modest majorities of both Republicans and Democrats favored the idea--54% in both cases--but a plurality of independents are opposed, 47 to 34%. Thus about half of Americans (48%) say the US should be willing to provide air cover, but almost as many are opposed (45%).

On sending US troops to defend the safe havens, three quarters reject the idea. Overall, 77% say the US should not be willing to do this (Republicans 78%, Democrats 82%, independents 69%).

A majority thinks the US should not be willing to provide weapons to protect safe havens. Fifty-six percent are negative on this idea, while 37% are positive. This view is bipartisan, with Republicans negative by 53% to 43%; Democrats by 57% to 42%; and independents by 60% to 22%.

Views are divided as to whether other countries should provide weapons to opposition forces. Respondents were told that "members of the Arab League are considering providing weapons to the opposition forces in Syria." Forty-five percent said this is a good idea while 48% said it is not. However, views vary strongly by partisan affiliation. A solid majority of Republicans favor the idea (57%), as does a bare majority of Democrats (51%). But independents are clearly negative, with only 24% calling it a good idea (not a good idea, 56%).

The public is wary of US involvement in the conflict, even to the extent of assisting by sending weapons through an intermediary. Asked to assume that "the Arab League decides to provide weapons to the opposition forces in Syria and asks the US to help," a full two thirds (66%) said the US should not contribute weapons (Republicans 63%, Democrats 66%, independents 70%).

This study was conducted using the web-enabled KnowledgePanel®, a probability-based panel designed to be representative of the U.S. population. Initially, participants are chosen scientifically by a random selection of telephone numbers and residential addresses. Persons in selected households are then invited by telephone or by mail to participate in the web-enabled KnowledgePanel®. For those who agree to participate, but do not already have Internet access, Knowledge Networks provides a laptop and ISP connection. Additional technical information is available at http://www.knowledgenetworks.com/ganp/reviewer-info.html.

If Israel and Iran Have Military Conflict,
Americans Say US Should Stay Out

Full report(PDF)
Questionnaire with Findings (PDF)

A new poll finds that only one in four Americans favors Israel conducting a military strike against Iran's nuclear program. Seven in ten (69%) favor the US and other major powers continuing to pursue negotiations with Iran, a position that is supported by majorities of Republicans (58%), Democrats (79%) and Independents (67%).

Consistent with this emphasis on a diplomatic approach, three in four say that the US should primarily act through the UN Security Council rather than acting by itself in dealing with the problem of Iran's nuclear program.

If Israel goes ahead with a military strike against Iran's nuclear program and Iran retaliates, but not against American targets, only 25% favor the US providing military forces if Israel requests them (though support is a bit higher among Republicans at 41%). Another 14% favors the US providing diplomatic support only.

Few (6%) would support open opposition. The most popular position is for the US to take a neutral stance, which is supported by 49%, including 27% who would also favor active efforts to end the hostilities and 22% who think the US should simply not get involved.

Asked what they think the US government would do if Israel strikes, a slight majority (54%) thinks that the US would at least provide diplomatic support, including 22% who think that it would join the conflict militarily.

These are some of the findings of a new poll conducted by the Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) and the Anwar Sadat Chair for Peace and Development at the University of Maryland. The polling project was directed by Steven Kull, Director of PIPA, and Shibley Telhami, Anwar Sadat Professor at the University of Maryland and Nonresident Senior Fellow at the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at the Brookings Institution.

The poll of 727 Americans has a margin of error of +/-4.5% and was fielded March 3-7 by Knowledge Networks.

Only 14% of respondents said the US should encourage Israel to strike Iran's program, but views are mixed as to whether the US should openly discourage Israel or stay neutral.

Steven Kull, Director of PIPA, comments, "One of the reasons Americans are so cool toward the idea of Israel attacking Iran's nuclear program is that most believe that it is not likely to produce much benefit."

Only 18% believe that a military strike would delay Iran's abilities to develop a nuclear weapon for more than five years--with no partisan differences. As Shibley Telhami points out: "Interestingly, this result is barely different from the view of Israelis who were asked the same question in a February poll I conducted among Israelis, which was fielded by the Dahaf Institute."

A majority believes that a strike would delay Iran just 1-2 years (20%), will have no effect (9%), or will even have the effect of accelerating Iran's program (22%). One in five believes that it would delay Iran's program 3-5 years.

Less than half (42%) believe that a strike would weaken the Iranian government--again, Israelis were similar, with 45% holding this view. A slight majority believe that it would either have no effect (21%) or that the government would even be strengthened (31%).

Also, few Americans believe that a strike will involve a short exchange. A large majority believes an Israeli strike would lead to an armed conflict between Israel and Iran that would last months (26%) or even years (48%). A small number have the more optimistic view that it would last just weeks (12%) or days (9%). Israelis are a bit more optimistic, but still only a minority believes that a conflict would last weeks (19%) or days (18%).

Americans' reluctance to support a military strike does not appear to arise from a sanguine attitude about Iran's nuclear program. Americans show substantial pessimism about Iran and its nuclear program.

Fifty-eight percent believe that Iran has decided to try to produce nuclear weapons and is actively working to do so. Only 30 percent agree with the view of US intelligence services that Iran "is developing some of the technical ability necessary to produce nuclear weapons, but has not decided whether to produce them." Even fewer (6%) believe Iran's stated position that it is producing nuclear fuel strictly for its energy needs.

Nine in ten believe it at least somewhat likely that Iran will eventually develop nuclear weapons. If Iran were to develop nuclear weapons, 62% believe it likely that Iran would use them against Israel, while just 32% believe that Iran would be deterred for fear of being destroyed in a retaliatory strike.

If Iran develops nuclear weapons the largest concerns are that Iran would either use nuclear weapons (44%) or that Iran would feel emboldened to pursue aggressive policies toward the US and its allies (24%). A lesser concern (19%) is that it would engender a nuclear arms race in the region.

This study was conducted using the web-enabled KnowledgePanel®, a probability-based panel designed to be representative of the U.S. population. Initially, participants are chosen scientifically by a random selection of telephone numbers and residential addresses. Persons in selected households are then invited by telephone or by mail to participate in the web-enabled KnowledgePanel®. For those who agree to participate, but do not already have Internet access, Knowledge Networks provides a laptop and ISP connection. Spanish only speakers are provided with Spanish questionnaires. Additional technical information is available at http://www.knowledgenetworks.com/ganp/reviewer-info.html.

Full report(PDF)
Questionnaire with Findings (PDF)

With President Obama presenting his proposed budget for 2013, the question of how to deal with the Bush-era tax cuts, scheduled to terminate at the end of 2012, is once again on the table.

(Image Credit: David Reber)

The Program for Public Consultation presented a representative sample of Americans with options for dealing with the tax cuts, including--for each option--a description of the budgetary consequences and two strongly-stated arguments in its favor.

In conclusion, seven in ten (71%) favored extending the cuts for income below $250,000. This included 22% who favored extending the cuts for all income levels, as well as 49% who favored limiting the extension to income below $250,000.

A similar margin (73%) favored terminating the cuts for income over $250,000. This included 24% who favored terminating them for all income levels, as well as the 49% who favored terminating them only for income above $250,000.

These positions were relatively consistent regardless of party affiliation. Extending cuts for household income below $250,000 was supported by 74% of Republicans, 65% of Democrats, and 76% of independents. Letting cuts expire for higher incomes was supported by 65% of Republicans, 83% of Democrats, and 67% of independents.

Interestingly, only a third of Republicans (33%) endorsed the position of making the tax cuts permanent at all levels. Among Republicans, having the cuts expire only for high incomes was the most common answer (39%). About as many Republicans (24%) as Democrats (28%) favored having the tax cuts simply expire for all income levels.

The study was conducted by the Program for Public Consultation, a joint program of the Center on Policy Attitudes and the School of Public Affairs at the University of Maryland. "Public consultation" seeks to reveal how the public responds when it hears the kind of information and arguments that policymakers hear when making decisions, thus eliciting a clearer expression of the public's values.

Respondents were also given the opportunity to modify the income threshold for terminating the tax cuts. The $250,000 level proved to be the most popular.

All respondents were asked to choose from three levels--$150,000, $250,000 and $500,000. The $250,000 threshold was the most common answer, with 43% choosing it. A greater number put the threshold to the lower level of $150,000 (28%) than put it at the higher level of $500,000 (23%), though not by a large margin.

There were significant partisan differences. A relatively large 39% of Republicans favored the higher threshold of $500,000, though a majority favored $250,000 or less. A relatively large number of independents (41%) and Democrats (32%) favored the lower threshold of $150,000, but in both cases a majority favored $250,000 or more.

Respondents were also presented, and asked to evaluate, two arguments in favor of each proposal. Almost all arguments were found persuasive by majorities, and by majorities of both parties. "In the public, most people see some validity in a range of different arguments," commented Clay Ramsay, research director. "The fact that people in the study found many arguments persuasive shows they were really deliberating and pondering tradeoffs."

For the most popular position--ending tax cuts only for incomes above $250,000--the strongest argument was based on concerns about reducing demand and hurting the economic recovery: "People with low to middle incomes shouldn't be hit with a tax increase in an economic downturn. If they suddenly have less, this will reduce demand...but this isn't true of the 1-2% with household incomes above $250,000--they aren't going to change their spending because of a tax increase that represents only a small percentage of their overall income." This was found convincing by 73%, including 71% of Republicans, 77% of Democrats, and 69% of independents.

The poll was fielded from December 3 to 9, 2011 with a sample size of 680 respondents. Thus, with a design effect of 1.6431, the margin of error was 4.8%. Please contact PPC if you would like a detailed sample design.

The poll was conducted using the web-enabled KnowledgePanel®, a probability-based panel designed to be representative of the U.S. population. Initially, participants are chosen scientifically by a random selection of telephone numbers and residential addresses. Persons in selected households are then invited by telephone or by mail to participate in the web-enabled KnowledgePanel®. For those who agree to participate, but do not already have Internet access, Knowledge Networks provides a laptop and ISP connection. More technical information is available at http://www.knowledgenetworks.com/ganp/reviewer-info.html.

By Steven Kull

This article was originally published in tandem with an article by R. Jeffrey Smith on IWatch, a publication of the Center for Public Integrity.

What do average Americans say when they are faced with the budget tradeoffs on national security that policymakers face today? When polls ask in the abstract about defense spending, Americans are often reluctant to cut it. However when Americans are asked to consider the deficit and presented with tradeoffs, majorities cut defense and cut it more than any other area of the budget. Furthermore when they learn how much of the budget goes to defense, large majorities cut it, on average quite deeply.

(Image Credit: Greg West)

This issue has become confused in public discussion, because many polls simply ask Americans whether they favor cutting defense, increasing it, or keeping it the same. These find that more favor cuts than increases, but those favoring cuts are still fewer than half of those surveyed. A February 2011 Pew poll found only 30% ready to cut, while fewer (13%) favored increases, and most (53%) said they accepted current levels.

When pollsters frame the issue in terms of the budget deficit, the number ready to cut defense may rise to about half. Most recently, an October Washington Post/Bloomberg Poll asked respondents whether they supported or opposed "reducing military spending" to help reduce the nation's budget deficit. Fifty-one percent supported it and 42 percent were opposed. Some polls have found lower numbers in support.

As respondents are given more information, support for reductions rises. When Quinnipiac University in March simply told respondents that defense, Social Security and Medicare together constitute more than half of the federal budget, 54% favored cutting defense spending.

And when they are asked to choose between defense and other programs, defense is consistently the most popular program to cut. When CBS/NY Times, on several occasions over the least year asked respondents to choose where they would prefer to cut Medicare, social security or the military, 45-55 percent chose the military, 16-21 percent Medicare, 13-17 percent Social Security.

If respondents are given choices between large and small cuts, overall support for cutting rises even more. In a Kaiser Foundation poll conducted in September, 67% favored some reduction in defense to address the deficit, with 28% favoring a major reduction and 39% a minor reduction.

So how much is a minor cut and how much is a major cut? Two other polls have given respondents some actual numbers. A National Journal poll last September asked respondents whether they favored the plan for "reducing the growth of defense spending by about $350 billion over 10 years," and 55% said they favored it.

A unique poll conducted in December 2010 by my colleagues and I at the Program for Public Consultation, affiliated with the University of Maryland, went much further. It informed respondents how much was being spent on 31 of the largest categories in the federal discretionary budget, and asked whether and how much they wanted to adjust those amounts. As they made choices, it gave them constant feedback about the effect of their decisions on the deficit. In this information-rich context, 70 percent cut defense spending. The average respondent cut defense $109 billion, or 18 percent of the department's annual spending (outside of the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan). This was by far the largest cut, constituting two-thirds of all the cuts made.

Many observers may find it bewildering that these responses vary, depending on the different ways the questions were asked. But this is not a chaotic process. There is a fairly clear pattern: The more Americans are asked to think like policymakers -- where they consider the deficit, make trade-offs against other budget priorities and, perhaps above all, when they understand the relative amount devoted to defense -- the more they cut defense. When respondents have less information or are asked the question in isolation, they mostly tend to endorse the status quo.

It should be noted, though, that such endorsements can be misinterpreted or misrepresented as a public endorsement of recent policy. Over the years, including over the entire last decade, a steady rise in the defense budget has not conformed to the public's preference, in which only small minorities favored such increases. Possibly because the public was unaware of what was happening, most embraced the new status quo in later polls. But they reiterated that they opposed further increases, which subsequently occurred.

The tendency of public officials to muddle their discussion of projected budget changes has contributed to this confusion. For example, the President's newest defense budget is most often depicted as a cut of $487 billion over ten years. To many Americans, this means the United States will be spending less than it is now. But the plan actually calls for increases, above inflation -- just smaller than those planned earlier.

The fact that the number of Americans who favor lower defense spending rises so dramatically with more complete information about the size of the defense budget strongly suggests that most Americans do not have this information. Indeed, when I have conducted focus groups and described the make-up of the federal budget, they often express astonishment at the relative share devoted to defense.

So what does this tell us about how the American public is likely to respond this year and next year? These findings show there is an underlying conservatism and a readiness to accept what the military establishment supports (the status quo) -- and that a politician who wants to portray another as weak on defense for bucking the establishment may be able to make some political hay. However, they also suggest that as Americans become more fully engaged with the challenge of deficit cutting, and especially as they seek to make tradeoffs with other spending, support for defense cuts will likely rise.

Steven Kull, a political psychologist who has conducted polls on public policy for two decades, is director of the Program for Public Consultation, affiliated with the School of Public Policy at the University of Maryland.

Digest of International Opinion on World Order
Digest of US Opinion on World Order
Public Opinion on Global Issues homepage
Stewart Patrick analysis

As the World Economic Forum begins its annual meeting in Davos, Switzerland, amid concerns that the economic slowdown in the wealthy countries is undermining public support for economic aid, newly updated digests of American and international public opinion reveal continued underlying public support for development assistance to poor countries, though there has been a slight softening of support in the United States.

In the European Union, very large majorities in all 27 member states support aid to people in developing countries, and majorities in 25 of them say that the EU should fulfill its past pledge to increase aid, despite the economic downturn. In the United States support for economic aid in principle has softened a bit but still commands the backing of a large majority. At the same time, public support for aid levels continues to be weakened by extreme overestimations about the amount of the U.S. budget that actually goes to aid.

These digests have been developed by the Council on Foreign Relations' International Institutions and Global Governance program and the Program on International Policy Attitudes. They provide comprehensive analyses of international and U.S. polls on the world's most pressing challenges -- and the institutions designed to address them. The digest of international polling on economic development can be found here and the digest of U.S. polling here. Analysis of these findings by CFR's Stewart Patrick can be found on his blog.

Very large majorities in all twenty-seven European Union member states think it is important to "help people in developing countries" (Eurobarometer 2010). On average, 89 percent took this position while only nine percent said it was not important. Publics most supportive of aid included those in Sweden (96 percent), Ireland (95 percent), as well as Denmark, Finland, and Spain (all 94 percent). The lowest majority among countries polled was a still robust 79 percent in Bulgaria.

Most significant, majorities of Europeans are willing to stand behind past pledges to increase aid, even in the midst of the financial crisis. Respondents were told "The European Union has promised to increase the level of its aid towards developing countries" and asked "Given the current economic situation" whether the E.U. should increase aid to the level promised, increase it above the level promised, not increase aid, or reduce it. Majorities in 25 of the 27 countries favored keeping the pledge. On average, 64 percent said the EU should keep its promise by increasing aid (50%), with some (14%) saying aid should be increased beyond promised levels. Fifteen percent said aid should not be increased and 14 percent said it should be reduced.

In the United States, majorities continue to support economic aid in principle, though the size of the majorities appears to have diminished. In a 2010 poll by the Chicago Council on Global Affairs (CCGA), as compared to 2004, those favoring the provision of "food and medical assistance" abroad slipped from 82 to 74 percent support, and "aid to help needy countries develop their economies" from 70 to 62 percent support in 2010 poll by the Council on Global Affairs.

As in years past, Americans tend to say that their government should cut back on economic aid, but this attitude seems to rest on persistent, extreme overestimations of how much the United States is spending. Sixty percent of Americans said in the 2010 CCGA poll said that their government should cut back on economic aid to other nations--up from 55 percent in 2008.

But when a 2010 WorldPublicOpinion.org poll asked respondents to estimate the percentage of the federal budget going to foreign aid, respondents on average reckoned 27 percent (median 25 percent). Most significantly, when asked what an appropriate percentage would be, the average response was 13 percent (median: 10 percent)--or ten times the actual percentage. Similar responses have been found in previous polls for decades now.

When Americans were asked to deal with the budget in some detail as part of a larger exercise for reducing the deficit, they did not single out foreign aid, especially its more altruistic forms for cuts. A representative sample of Americans in an online exercise was presented with the U.S. discretionary budget, broken out into 31 areas, and given the opportunity to make changes as they saw fit, getting constant feedback about the impact of their decisions on the deficit (Program for Public Consultation 2011). Respondents actually increased levels of humanitarian aid by 18 percent on average, and only lightly nicked global health (cut 2 percent); development assistance received a bit more in cuts (14 percent). Combined, respondents cut these three programs just 3 percent--even in the context of seeking to reduce the federal budget deficit. This was significantly less than the average cut of 11 percent they advocated across the 31 programs. Respondents did make substantial cuts, however, to U.S. aid programs with less altruistic and more strategic objectives: the Economic Support Fund (cut 23 percent) and military aid (cut 15 percent).