Australia in the top five nations when it comes to the most inclusive view of Nationality

Australia is among the top five countries when it comes to having the most inclusive definition of nationality, an Ipsos Global Advisor survey shows.

Australia in the top five nations when it comes to the most inclusive view of Nationality

  • Who is and is not a “Real Australian”, “Real American”, or a “Real Briton”?
  • Ipsos’s ‘Inclusiveness Index’ compares countries’ acceptance of social and cultural diversity

Canada and the United States topped the list followed by South Africa, France, and Australia. These countries score highest on an “Inclusiveness Index” reflecting social acceptance of diversity as it applies to religion, immigration, sexual orientation and gender identity, political views, and criminal background.

Overall Inclusiveness Index

 

Canada

55

 

Great Britain

35

 

South Korea

9

United States

54

 

Mexico

33

 

Russia

9

South Africa

52

 

Belgium

30

 

Hungary

6

France

46

 

Poland

24

 

Turkey

-6

Australia

44

 

Italy

22

 

Japan

-6

Chile

42

 

Brazil

22

 

Serbia

-8

Argentina

40

 

Germany

20

 

Malaysia

-17

Sweden

38

 

Peru

19

 

Saudi Arabia

-28

Spain

36

 

 

 

 

 

 

                 

 

The Overall Inclusiveness Index is based on the findings of the Ipsos Global Advisor survey conducted in April and May 2018. Ipsos interviewed more than 20,700 men and women in 27 countries as many as 28 ‘types’ of people. For each type, respondents were asked if they consider such a person to be a “real” national (e.g., “a real Australian” in Australia, “a real American” in the U.S, etc.) or not. The Overall Inclusiveness Index is calculated by averaging the net scores (“real” percentage minus “not real” percentage) for six constructs:

  • Religious Inclusiveness (average of net scores for each of Christians, Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, and atheists) – led by France and Canada;
  • Naturalised-Citizen Inclusiveness (net score for naturalised citizens) – led by the U.S. and Australia;
  • Second Generation Inclusiveness (average of net scores for native-born people whose parents immigrated from nine different regions of the world) – led by Canada and Chile;
  • LGBT Inclusiveness (net score for gays, lesbians, bisexual and transgender people) – led by France and Canada;
  • Criminal Background Inclusiveness (net score for people who have been convicted and incarcerated) – led by Canada and South Africa;
  • Extreme Political Views Inclusiveness (net score for people with extreme political views) – led by South Africa and the U.S.

For benchmarking purposes, the study also explores inclusiveness of people who served in the country’s armed forces, which is highest in the U.S., and self-perception of locals as “real” nationals, which is most common in China and India.

The study also explores the nature and prevalence of international experience and international connections among people from each country. Serbia and Sweden stand out as the two countries in the study whose citizens are most likely to have lived or travelled abroad and to have personal or professional connections with people from or living in another country.

Commenting on the findings, David Elliott, Director Ipsos Social Research Institute – NSW, said: When you take into account all the components we covered and look at the Overall Inclusiveness Index, Australia comes out as one of the five most inclusive nations behind Canada, the US, South Africa, and France.  This is not that surprising given our multicultural society as it exposes Australians to a variety of cultures and religions which helps drive acceptance.  It also fits with previous Ipsos studies on immigration and refugees, which highlighted Australia as one of the more positive countries globally in terms of our views on immigration and refugees.

“However, while we are generally accepting of religious diversity and immigrants, we do show much less positive views of naturalised citizens when they aren’t fluent in English or don’t have a job, as well as lifelong immigrants who don’t become citizens and illegal immigrants who have lived here most of their lives.

“Interestingly, where we fall down the list in terms of our inclusiveness versus other nations is in regard to LBGTI people and those convicted of a criminal offence who have served time in prison, with our classification of these people as ‘real’ Australians placing us mid-table. 

“Another interesting finding was that while 80% of our Australian sample considered themselves ‘real’ Australians, that proportion puts us near the bottom of the list of 27 countries.  A number of things could be driving this finding such as our greater proportion of people born overseas - 32% versus and average of 16%, a negative perception of what a ‘real’ might be or mean and some wanting to distance themselves from that, or even the Australian preference for understatement, whereby we don’t like to classify or position ourselves positively but would rather someone else tell us that about ourselves.”

 

Topline Survey Results

 

 

% is “a real” (national)^

 

Global Average

Australian Result

Highest

Lowest

Self

84

80

China, India (98)

Great Britain (59)

 

 

 

 

 

Religious Groups

 

 

 

 

A Buddhist*

40

55

Canada, France (61)

Saudi Arabia (5)

A Christian*

63

70

France (82)

Saudi Arabia (6)

A Hindu*

35

53

South Africa (61)

Saudi Arabia (4)

A Jew*

40

56

France, U.S. (67)

Saudi Arabia (6)

A Muslim*

40

48

Malaysia (81)

Japan (8)

An atheist*

50

62

France (79)

Saudi Arabia (6)

 

 

 

 

 

Other Characteristics

 

 

 

 

Gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender*

53

65

France (81)

Saudi Arabia (8)

Served in the country’s armed forces*

73

80

U.S. (86)

Japan (32)

Has a criminal background*

41

45

South Africa, Canada (60)

Japan (12)

Has extreme political views*

35

42

South Africa (63)

Japan (7)

 

 

 

 

 

Immigration

 

 

 

 

Lifelong undocumented immigrant**

19

25

Mexico (45)

Japan (6)

Lifelong legal immigrant not naturalised **

30

38

Mexico (44)

Japan (8)

Naturalised citizen**

48

68

U.S. (76)

Hungary (21)

Naturalised citizen fluent in country’s language**

53

72

U.S. (77)

Japan (25)

Naturalised citizen not fluent in country’s language**

31

42

U.S. (58)

Malaysia (6)

Naturalised citizen with a job**

52

72

U.S. (79)

Serbia (24)

Naturalised citizen without a job**

39

53

U.S. (64)

Malaysia, Hungary, Japan (12)

Immigrant married to a native**

31

46

Australia, U.S. (46)

Hungary (12)

Born and raised abroad by parents from the country

41

50

Malaysia (74)

Japan (20)

 

 

 

 

 

Second Generation (born and raised in the country whose parents immigrated from…)

 

Europe or North America

59

79

Chile (85)

Japan (17)

Latin America

58

76

Chile (86)

Japan (16)

East Asia

58

76

South Africa (83)

Japan (16)

The Caribbean

58

76

Chile (84)

Japan (16)

Southeast Asia

58

75

Canada (82)

Japan (16)

South Asia

57

75

Chile (83)

Japan (17)

Pacific Islands

57

77

Chile (83)

Japan (16)

Africa (excl. North Africa)

57

75

Canada (84)

Japan (16)

Middle East and North Africa

56

74

Canada (82)

Japan (16)

Average all regions

58

76

Chile (83)

Japan (16)

 

 

 

 

 

International Experience

 

 

 

 

Born or lived outside of country

16

32

Australia (32)

Brazil (6)

Traveled outside of country

62

64

Serbia (84)

Brazil (28)

Any of these

69

78

Sweden (95)

Brazil (32)

 

 

 

 

 

International Connections

 

 

 

 

Immediate family member born abroad

15

36

Australia (36)

Japan (3)

Close friends born abroad

19

34

Sweden (36)

Japan, South Korea (6)

Casual acquaintance born abroad

27

42

Sweden (53)

Japan (7)

In contact with relatives abroad

33

37

Serbia (63)

Japan (4)

In contact with friends abroad

36

40

Serbia (58)

Japan (9)

Communicate professionally with people abroad

18

17

India (35)

Japan (3)

Any of these

32

22

Serbia (86)

Japan (81)

^ demonym for respondent’s country of residence, e.g., “American” in the U.S., “Briton” in Great Britain, etc.

* Not asked in China and India

** Not asked in China

 

GLOBAL SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

Religious Diversity

To assess attitudes toward religious diversity, respondents were asked whether they consider each of a Christian, a Muslim, a Jew, a Buddhist, a Hindu and an atheist as a “real” national of their country. Of the 25 countries where questions on religion were asked*, Canada, France, South Africa, and the U.S. are the only four countries where full majorities (i.e., at least 50% of adults surveyed) consider members of all six religious groups as “real” nationals.

Other countries, where members of at least three religious groups are seen by at least 50% or respondents as “real” nationals, are: Australia (all groups except Muslims), Malaysia (all groups except Jews and atheists), and Argentina, Great Britain and Sweden (Christians, Jews and atheists for all three).

In Belgium, Chile, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Mexico, Poland, Russia, and Spain, only Christians and atheists are seen by majorities as “real” nationals.

Members of only one religious group are thought of as “real” nationals by majorities in five countries: Christians in Brazil, Peru and Serbia; Muslims in Saudi Arabia and Turkey.
In both Japan and South Korea, the most common answer for members of all religious groups is “not sure”.

Based on the overall religious inclusiveness score (an average of the net scores for “real” percentage minus “not real” percentage), Australia comes in fifth (42), behind Canada (52), France (51), South Africa 949) and the US (44).

Naturalised Citizens

Just under half (48%) of adults asked across 25 countries* think that an immigrant who has become a citizen of their country is a “real” national while 31% consider that he or she is not a “real” national and 21% are not sure.

A majority of adults in 13 countries (including three quarters in the U.S. and two thirds in Canada and Australia) consider that a naturalised citizen is a “real” national. However, a majority in Malaysia, Hungary, Serbia, and Turkey, disagree. A majority in Japan were unsure (55%).

Globally, the odds for a naturalised citizen to be perceived as a “real” national increase by an average of five points when it is specified that he or she is employed or that he or she is fluent in the local language. The odds drop by significantly steeper margins when it is specified that the naturalised citizen does not have a job (nine points lower) and most of all, that he or she is not fluent in the local language (by 17 points). People in France, Belgium, and Australia are especially prone to differentiating naturalised citizens based on both their employment status and their fluency in the local language.

While in Australia 72% consider naturalised citizens who are fluent in English, as “real” Australians, only 42% think so when they aren’t fluent in English.  We are similarly critical of those without a job, with only 53% considering them “real” Australians whereas 72% think they are when they do have a job.

Legal and Undocumented Non-Citizens

At 31%, the average global percentage of adults who consider a lifelong legal immigrant who has not become a citizen as a “real” national is 17 points lower than for an immigrant who is a naturalised citizen. The non-citizenship penalty for a legal immigrant is highest in the three countries most likely to view naturalised citizens as “real” nationals: the U.S., Canada, and Australia (30 points or more).  In Australia, we drop from 68% for a naturalised citizen, to only 38% for someone who has lived here most of their life but not become a citizen.

Globally, the percentage of adults who consider an undocumented immigrant who has lived in the country most of their life to be a “real” national is 29 points lower than for an immigrant who is a naturalised citizen. The penalty for being undocumented is highest in the three countries most likely to view naturalised citizens as “real” nationals: the U.S., Canada, South Africa, Australia, and South Korea (42 points or more). The only country where people in this situation are viewed as “real” nationals by a plurality is Mexico (45%), possibly taking into consideration the status of “Dreamers” in the United States).  In Australia, we drop from 68% for a naturalised citizen, to only 25% for an illegal or undocumented immigrant who has lived here most of their life.

In every country surveyed, an immigrant who is married to a native (without any mention of their legal status) is less likely to be viewed as a “real” national than is an immigrant who has become a citizen (32% vs. 48%, a 16-point difference). The difference is highest in the U.S., Canada, and South Africa (25 points or more).  On this measure, at least, Australia (46%) is the most likely nation to consider these citizens as “real” nationals.

“Second Generation”

Across the 27 countries surveyed, 58% view locally born and raised children of immigrants as “real” nationals, while 21% say they are “not real” nationals and another 21% are not sure. Views about those who are often referred to as “second generation” people vary widely across countries.

In 15 countries (chief among them Chile, Canada, and South Africa), at least 50% of adults surveyed view people born and raised in that country whose parents immigrated from every one of nine world regions as “real” nationals.  In Australia, the figure is around three quarters for every one of nine world regions as “real” Australians.  On the other hand, in seven countries (chief among them Japan and China), fewer than 50% of adults surveyed view people born and raised in that country whose parents immigrated from any one of nine world regions as “real” nationals.

Views do not vary much depending on the parents’ region of origin: with few exceptions, the percentage of respondents who consider native-born children of immigrants from a neighboring or culturally similar country tends to be no more than a few points higher than for native-born children of immigrants from a more remote or culturally different part of the world. For example, 63% of all respondents across Europe and North America (not including Mexico) consider native-born children of immigrants from Europe or North America as “real” nationals vs. 58% who think the same of native-born children of immigrants from the Middle East or North Africa – a five-point difference.

Children of Expatriates

Globally, only 41% consider someone born and raised abroad by parents from their own country is a “real” national.  This is seven points lower than for a naturalised citizen and 17 points lower than for someone born and raised in the country by immigrant parents (average for all regions of origin of immigrant parents).  In Australia, the figure is 50%, which is 18 points lower than for a naturalised citizen and 26 points lower for than for someone born and raised in the country by immigrant parents.

In Malaysia (by 51 points), Serbia, Turkey and Hungary, children of expatriates are more likely to be viewed as “real” nationals than are naturalised immigrants. Furthermore, in Malaysia (by 38 points), Serbia, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, China, and Japan, children of expatriates are more likely to be viewed as “real” nationals than are native-born children of immigrants.

LGBT People

Majorities in 16 of the 25 countries* where the question was asked (including 75% or more in France, Canada, Chile, Belgium, and Sweden) consider someone who is gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender to be a “real” national (for Australia the figure is 65%). However, a majority or a plurality in four countries (Japan, Serbia, South Korea and Turkey) are not sure and a majority in two countries (Saudi Arabia and Malaysia) think an LGBT person is not a “real” national.

People with Extreme Political Views

A majority of people in four countries surveyed (South Africa, the U.S., France, and Canada) and a plurality in six other countries think someone with extreme political views is a “real” national. A majority in Saudi Arabia and a plurality in five countries think someone with extreme political views is “not a real” national. In Japan and five other countries, the prevailing response is “not sure”.  In Australia, 42% considered those with extreme political views are “real” Australians.

People with a Criminal Background

The view that someone who has been convicted of a crime and incarcerated is a “real” national is shared by a majority of adults in only seven countries surveyed (chief among them South Africa and Canada) and by a plurality in ten other countries. A plurality in Saudi Arabia and a majority in Malaysia consider that a felon is “not a real” national of their country. A majority in two countries (Japan and Serbia) and a plurality in four other countries say they are not sure if that is the case.  In Australia, 45% considered those convicted of a crime and incarcerated as “real” Australians.

Armed Forces Veterans

Three out of four adults globally (73%), including at least 65% of adults in all but three of 25 countries*, think that someone who has served in the armed forces is a “real” national. This view is most widespread in the U.S. (86%) as well as Malaysia and Canada (85% each). However, it is shared by only three in five adults in Serbia and Germany (59% each) while a majority in Japan (62%) are not sure.  In Australia, 80% considered someone who has served in the armed forces is a “real” Australian.

Self-Perception as a “Real” National

China and India are the two countries in the study where the sense of being an integral part of the nation is most widely shared: In China, 98% consider themselves as “real” Chinese and the same percentage in India view themselves as “real” Indians.  While the vast majority in Australia (80%) consider themselves “real” Australians, were are one of the least likely (in the bottom 10).

Self-perception as a “real” national is least prevalent in Saudi Arabia (where 28% do not view themselves as “real” Saudis and 7% are not sure), Great Britain (where 17% say they don’t view think of themselves as “real” Britons and 24% are not sure) and Japan (where 7% don’t think of themselves as “real” Japanese and 29% are not sure). 

International Experience and Connections

On average across the 27 countries surveyed, 70% have been in another country during their lifetime. Above-average levels of international experience are seen in all European countries (excluding Russia), Australia (78%), Canada, and China. Overall, 16% were born abroad or have lived abroad with the highest proportions (around three in ten) in Australia (32%), Saudi Arabia, and Sweden and the lowest (6%) in Brazil. Globally, 62% have travelled outside of their country (64% Australia) with wide variations across countries – from 80% or more in Serbia, Sweden and Belgium to less than 40% in Brazil and Mexico. 

Overall, 68% across the 27 countries have some international connection, i.e., interactions with relatives, friends or work contacts who live abroad or with relatives, friends or casual acquaintances who were born abroad. Countries with the largest percentages of people having some international contacts (80%+) are Serbia, Sweden, South Africa, and India. The country where it is by far the lowest is Japan. 

  • 33% globally (37% in Australia) have relatives abroad with whom they keep in touch (from 63% in Serbia, 54% in Peru and 51% in Mexico to 4% in Japan, 14% in China and 17% each in the U.S. and Brazil).
  • 36% globally (40% in Australia) have personal friends abroad with whom they keep in touch (from 58% in Serbia, 52% in South Africa, and 47% each in India and Turkey to 9% in Japan, 25% each in South Korea and the U.S., and 26% in Russia).
  • 18% globally (17% in Australia) often communicate with people abroad as part of their job (from 35% in India, 29% in South Africa, 27% in Malaysia and 26% in China to 3% in Japan, 9% in Brazil, and 10% in France and South Korea.)
  • 15% have immediate family members who were born abroad (from 36% in Australia, 27% in Sweden, and 26% in Canada to 3% in Japan and 6% in China.)
  • 19% have close friends where they live who were born abroad (from 36% in Sweden and 34% in Australia to 6% in each of Japan and South Korea.)
  • 27% have casual acquaintances where they live who were born abroad (from 53% in Sweden, 42% in Australia to 7% in Japan and 11% in Brazil.)

With 64% of Australians having travelled outside of Australia, we have a propensity to travel which is higher than we might expect given our comparative isolation to countries in say Europe.

* Not asked in China and India

** Not asked in China