The Pew Research Center’s annual assessment of global religious restrictions reached a 16th-year milestone in its latest report, which tracks legal, social, and governmental limitations on faith-based practices through December 31, 2023. By utilizing a standardized analytical framework, researchers at the organization evaluate data across nearly 200 countries and territories to determine the intensity of state-sponsored interference and social hostilities involving religious groups. This methodology relies on a consistent set of indicators that allow for longitudinal comparisons of how religious freedom is governed or suppressed across diverse geopolitical landscapes, as detailed in the 2009 foundational framework established by the center.
Establishing the Analytical Framework
The core of the center’s research rests on two primary indices: the Government Restrictions Index (GRI) and the Social Hostilities Index (SHI). The GRI measures laws, policies, and actions by government officials that restrict religious beliefs and practices, including bans on specific groups, limitations on proselytizing, or the requirement of religious registration. According to the official methodology documentation, the GRI is calculated based on 20 specific indicators, ranging from the presence of a state religion to instances of harassment by law enforcement.
Conversely, the SHI tracks acts of religious hostility by private individuals, organizations, or social groups. This includes religiously motivated violence, mob attacks, and sectarian tension. By separating these two indices, analysts can observe how government policy often correlates with or diverges from the climate of tolerance within a population. Researchers collect this data by monitoring more than a dozen publicly available sources, including annual reports from the U.S. Department of State, the United Nations, and various international human rights organizations, ensuring that the findings are grounded in corroborating evidence from multiple, independent observations.
Consistency and Temporal Comparison
Maintaining a standardized approach for over a decade and a half is a critical component of the report’s credibility. By adhering to the same set of metrics since the inaugural study, the organization ensures that changes in the data reflect actual shifts in global conditions rather than alterations in how information is gathered. This longitudinal design is essential for policymakers, academics, and international observers who monitor trends such as the rise of nationalism or the decline of pluralism in specific regions.
The data collection process involves a multi-stage review. Initially, coders evaluate reports from the previous calendar year, assigning scores based on the 20 indicators for government restrictions and 13 indicators for social hostilities. These scores are then subjected to a rigorous verification process to ensure inter-coder reliability. As noted in the project’s technical notes, this process minimizes subjective bias and provides a transparent, repeatable path for measuring the complex, often opaque, nature of religious freedom on a global scale.
Why Methodology Matters for Global Policy
The value of this methodology lies in its ability to quantify qualitative experiences. Religious freedom is often cited as a fundamental human right under international law, specifically Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. By providing a numerical score for each country, the report allows for a comparative analysis that is frequently utilized by government agencies, such as the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, to inform diplomatic priorities and foreign policy decisions.
Critics and supporters alike acknowledge that while no index can capture the entirety of human experience, the standardized nature of this report provides a necessary baseline. It distinguishes between countries where restrictions are institutionalized through constitutional mandates and those where restrictions are the result of sporadic, though severe, social conflict. By distinguishing between these two types of pressure, the methodology helps stakeholders target interventions—whether through diplomatic pressure on state actors or the promotion of interfaith dialogue to mitigate social friction.
Data Limitations and Future Tracking
While the methodology is comprehensive, it is limited by the availability and accuracy of primary source material. In nations with strict press censorship or limited civil society activity, information regarding religious harassment may be underreported. The research team addresses this by cross-referencing reports from international NGOs and localized news outlets, though they remain transparent about the inherent difficulty of gathering data in closed societies.
The next iteration of this research will continue to utilize the established metrics, providing a rolling update on the state of religious freedom as of the end of the 2024 calendar year. For those interested in the raw data or the specific scoring rubrics, the organization provides access to its publicly available datasets, which allow users to perform their own secondary analysis. Readers are encouraged to review the upcoming annual updates to see how global trends in religious governance evolve. Share your thoughts on these findings or sign up for our newsletter to receive updates on our next financial and policy-focused analysis.