9 ms·

Global Citizenship a Growing Sentiment Among Citizens of Emerging Economies

70 points by f_allwein 10y ago

Havoc 10y ago
Not sure about "global citizen" but I certainly don't feel particularly tied to any country.
dang 10y ago
Please don't rewrite titles unless they are misleading or linkbait. The submitted title ('People see themselves as global citizens rather than citizens of their country') says something quite different than the original.
corv 10y ago
Generally a positive trend. I wonder what is keeping Germans from feeling global?
- maufl 10y ago
  (As a German) I think lot's of Germans feel global already. But I suspect it's limited to a certain demographic, namely young people with academic background. I don't know about the rest but recently it feels like more people just want to keep to themselves (especially with all the immigrants coming into our country).
  - alphydan 10y ago
    > all the immigrants coming into our country When sorted by % of population that is composed of immigrants, Germany does not have much immigration (it's country # sixty-something in the list) [0]) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_immigrant_population https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_immigrant...
    - ZoF 10y ago
      Yes, sorting that way does show that currently Germany doesn't have the largest immigrant population, but that is changing quickly. Today Germany is the second most popular migration destination in the world, after the United States[0] Not commenting on whether that's a good or bad thing(I feel it's pretty neutral), just pointing out that the parent commenter saying "all the immigrants coming into our country" isn't making a crazy statement. [0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_to_Germany https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_to_Germany
    - maufl 10y ago
      Yes, that's certainly true. And we always had waves of immigrants, it's nothing new. However, I think right now many perceive it as a large amount of immigrants that come quickly, maybe because of media coverage.
- RGamma 10y ago
  Germany is a country of assimilation and a very sizable portion of immigrants (I count esp. the Gastarbeiter that we have failed to repatriate) have not managed this and now even 2 or 3 generations later we have certain city districts with over 50% immigrants that mainly speak insufferable Kanakendeutsch or barely any at all (luckily I live in one of the better suburbs in that regard), in which you feel like a foreigner in your own country. If we have to wait 3 or more generations for assimilation to happen, if ever, no wonder that right-conservative parties can use this as a selling point. (and no I definitely don't feel global (I'm also young, with academic background), let all regions stay to themselves. Tourism is sufficient if you want to experience others)
- mxfh 10y ago
  I also wonder how the question was phrased, in my experience Kosmopolit/Weltbürger has a lot of cultural baggage in the German cultural sphere; that it requires some sort of personal refinement (Herder, Kant, Klaus Mann), a label most people won't assert to themselves. On the other hand the term was used as a negative propaganda term in the eastern bloc[1] In my experience German's are way more likely to call themselves Europeans first (more than most other European nationalities), and happily skip the world citizen part for convenience's sake. Even the E in PEGIDA stand for Europeans. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rootless_cosmopolitan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rootless_cosmopolitan
jdimov9 10y ago
Any move away from the stupidity of patriotism is good in my books.
- Dayshine 10y ago
  Nationalism, not patriotism. Nothing wrong with being proud of your culture. Thinking your culture is superior is the issue.
- vixen99 10y ago
  So an emotional emotional attachment to a nation which an individual recognizes as their homeland, is 'stupid'. The nation has provided that person with certain values which she/he deeply appreciates and feels strongly about: is that stupidity? Isn't it a good idea to determine what those values are and how they relate to other people before you generalize so crudely? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriotism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriotism
  - jdimov9 10y ago
    It is orders of magnitude beyond stupid - it's utterly brainless. So your nation has PROVIDED you with your values, huh? Yay. The objective of patriotism has been achieved. Now go and fight to the death for your beloved nation, because surely no other values should exist on Earth.
  - alanwatts 10y ago
    >The nation has provided that person with certain values which she/he deeply appreciates and feels strongly about: is that stupidity? Isn't it a good idea to determine what those values are and how they relate to other people before you generalize so crudely? Indeed it is important to understand how they relate to other people, but not just people within the artificial boundaries of a nation state. Those values weren't spontaneously and independently invented by the artificial lines drawn on a piece of paper, they were developed throughout all human history across the whole planet.
lsd5you 10y ago
Without passing judgement, is this not just measuring the desire not be lumbered with the negative connotations of their respective countries? And possibly also showing a desire and entitlement to be able to move to a better off country? We have something similar at a different level here. People in Salford (a not well thought of connurbation of Manchester, UK) are 'from Manchester', where as people from Didsbury are 'from Didsbury'. That said China being on that list does surprise me.
- f_allwein 10y ago
  Maybe, but even then the differences between the countries are interesting. As a German, I am unpleasantly surprised we rank so low here.
  - kfk 10y ago
    You rank low because of your history. Germans are proud to be Germans, they just don't feel right to say it. An interesting and very good consequence of this feeling is that Germany has not only very open policies towards immigrants, but also an overall good attitude versus expats which you rarely find in Europe.
    - notahacker 10y ago
      The relatively small proportion of Germans willing to affirm support for intermarriage between ethnic groups suggests there's more than quiet national pride at play here. Although the country's history is almost certainly why Germans are more likely to answer "don't know" or "depends" than anyone else: even if much of the sample group is paranoid about immigrants and influence from other cultures following recent media coverage, there are still few people willing to commit to aligning themselves with the far right.
- notahacker 10y ago
  It's also highly likely that "global citizen" has been translated into terms which have subtly different connotations in different countries (that's the only real explanation I can think of for China).
simula67 10y ago
I had a running theory that the spread of Internet and virtual communities would force free exchange of ideas and bring the people of the world together. I am less inclined to believe that now. Developed and under-developed nations show no difference in nationalism. Nothing short of an alien invasion can possibly bring humankind together.
- brador 10y ago
  Give it time, it's inevitable, but not in your current lifetime. It takes generations.
  - cagenut 10y ago
    Yea the world is still run by pre-internet people and institutions. The first generation to 'grow up' with the internet in first-world countries is still largely waiting to take over. Farther down the tail, it'll be another decade before may in the 'third' world get their first smartphone. Defacto global/internet citizenship is still a full generation to generation and a half away, and who knows how long it'll take to actually reshape and reform the big institutions after that.
- seren 10y ago
  It is very paradoxical because access to Internet on one hand can expose you to new ideas and cultures, but, on the other hand, if you are inclined to, virtual communities can reinforce pre existing closed worldview (or at least pretty weird like otherkins). This is all the point of algorithms governing the Feed and filter bubbles. I really wonder in the end which effect will be more prevalent.
- x5n1 10y ago
  What does this bring together mean? At the end power is distributive and a zero sum game. Power can never be truly distributed because there is a limited amount of it. Therefore we really can't come together. That's what love is by the way a distributor of power. So as long as we have distributive systems that are resource limited like economics, there is no hope of love conquering all or power no longer playing a factor. Just because you know someone does not mean you love them, you really can't, because it will effect your own well being and resource utilization. At best you can learn to tolerate people because you understand them... and integrate them into the global slave economy to serve your desires. But there is no hope of ever being together. We don't have that level of capacity to love. Only our ideas do and they too often fail. At the end of the day why is the Middle East or Africa suffering simply because they are not willing to be a productive part of the global slave economy, therefore they get no respect and are exploited. It's not that we don't understand them. We don't like them because they don't work for us and consume and produce on our terms. Therefore, we don't respect them. We don't love them, and they don't love us. Their distribution of power is based in religion (the Middle East), ours is based on economics. Why are Jewish people and Israelis held in such high esteem. For the same reason, they produce and consume with us. They have contributed massively to the economy and many other fields. They serve our desires, and we are one with them.
kfk 10y ago
The 22% strongly agree in US worries me Edit. Wow, 44% in Spain? Seriously guys? 35% Greece. Somebody should correlate this with GDP per capita, I believe there is a negative correlation there to be found...
- ForHackernews 10y ago
  > The 22% strongly agree in US worries me Why does that worry you? I would generally consider greater global unity to be a positive trend.
  - Mendenhall 10y ago
    Lets say you had a neighbor who spent too much money and was always broke, would you want to tie their finances to yours and for you to be responsible for them ?
    - hartpuff 10y ago
      It isn't about money or tying finances together, it's about how people self-identify.
- geodel 10y ago
  Yea 22% seems high. I can think lots of upper middle class and other rich people who can consume cheap 3rd products and services without endangering their jobs / financial wellbeing and students under education loans would think of them as global citizens. It is like the call to workers of the world unite. But rich and well off workers will be less inclined when there is no upside.
- hartpuff 10y ago
  Or correlate it with the level or sophistication of nationalistic/xenophobic propaganda in each country. Or with the level of real-life experience and awareness a population has with other countries.
  - geodel 10y ago
kfk 10y ago
The 22% strongly agree in US worries me
geodel 10y ago
Isn't it something similar that poor would want more equitable distribution of wealth and lower rungs in corporates would want a more normal salary rise all the way to CEOs. Pretty obvious thing. I would think that global citizens would not be so interested in nations with similar number of high aspirants.
lumberjack 10y ago
At first glance it seems to me that all globalism trends are also erosions of democracy. I dare say this is also what most Germans were thinking. Of course there are many ways to interpret the question.
twoarray 10y ago
The results on Germany have amazed me. Especially the huge white spaces.
known 10y ago
Patriotism is a favorite device of people with something to sell http://www.economist.com/node/21644538/ http://www.economist.com/node/21644538/ However I strongly support https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_quota https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_quota
- lumberjack 10y ago
  The same president is also pushing globalism (TPP, TTIP) so your implication is really a false dichotomy.
elcapitan 10y ago
What does "global citizen" even mean? I am quite happy to be a citizen of smaller entities. I would like them to be even smaller, not larger. I'm German, and I find the size of that entity in terms of democratic accountability almost too large already. Definitely constructs like the EU are overblown and have too many competencies. I would prefer a small state like Switzerland with a small population, but direct democracy and relatively direct accountability.
- staticelf 10y ago
  I agree, smaller is better. Just like big corporations, I am totally convinced that if countries get too big, there is an increasing risk for corruption and evilness. Just look at Russia, China and the US. Today, Putin is president (cough dictator cough) and he is kinda scary since he is so unpredictable. What if he gets cancer and wants to be remembered as someone who gave Russia more power and start WW3? I will be as scared for Trump if he gains power in the US. China feels kind of stable, but none of these mega nations feels safe for us living in a smaller country. When so few people gains so much power, corruption is inevitable due to our nature.
- philippnagel 10y ago
  Democratic accountability does not depend upon the size of an entity. Instead it relies on how said entity is internally structured (e.g. direct democracy vs. more representative models) and how prone to corruption it is. Personally I think nation states are rather burdensome. In business one has to handle countless different legal and tax frameworks while fundamentally every human has comparable needs. Why operate ~196 governments when one government would suffice? The inefficiency is just mind boggling in my opinion.
  - elcapitan 10y ago
    > "fundamentally every human has comparable needs" That assumption has been at the core of some wonderful experiments in the 20th century, and the people who had the fortune to live under regimes based on that assumption showed their preference for moving to exactly the alternatives that the assumption is trying to exclude. Or tried to do so and got killed by the people who knew what their true needs were.
jkldotio 10y ago
The full results in the report seem to me be somewhat more complex to interpret than the summary, or the original submission title, suggest. On the first question (Q18jt), a 4 point scale without a "don't know" neutral option, there are large numbers of people putting global citizenship before national citizenship (51%-49%). However, when you get to a later question (M2), that asks people what their most important identity is, national citizenship overtakes global citizenship overwhelmingly (52% national, 17% global, 11% local, 9% religious and 8% race/culture). National citizenship is the largest in all countries besides three, and it's the second largest in two of those. When given a variety of choices in M2 the level of people supporting global citizenship (17%) as a primary identity is even lower than even those who "strongly agree" to global citizenship being more important to national citizenship in first question (22%). In M2 it seems all of the "somewhat agree" and a few points of the "strongly agree" have gone elsewhere including back to national citizenship which creates a tension between the results of the two questions. It’s quite stark in the case of India where in the first question 67% place global citizenship over national citizenship but in M2 51% have national citizenship as their primary identity and only 6% have global citizenship. I think the first question (Q18jt) would be more interesting if it was a 5 point scale with a "don't know" option provided rather than trying to railroad people into an answer with a 4 point scale. Even then I think the M2 question is a better instrument as it provides a clear set of choices. For example Pakistan goes from 56% global in the first question to 2% global in the second. Most of those seem to move to religion as their primary identity (43% answer religion on M2). Many religions are globally oriented toward all humanity but the M2 question lets us see more clearly what they believe. Even though the second question (M2) is better it probably could still do with some examination. For example the only country where global citizenship was higher than national citizenship in M2 was Spain, but was that because many people in Catalonia and the Basque Country are choosing global over "Spanish" because the "local" option was translated in a particular way? If they used a word closer to "neighborhood" you could see how that might happen. Similarly was "local" translated more broadly in the Indonesian translation and became the dominant answer there (56%) as people could identify with an island/state/ethnic/linguistic group that was "local", like Bali for example. It's hard to tell without all the data and the exact translations of the questions.
andrewclunn 10y ago
Russians are nationalistic, Afghanis divide by religion, and Asian nations are racist. Not super surprising.
mark_l_watson 10y ago
As a US citizen, I identify strongly with being a world citizen, but I am very much against the neoconservative one world government movement. Even the democrats are marching in lock-step on the path to corporate lead world government (e.g., President Obama dutifully going to England and preaching against British EU exit, and of course democrat turned neoconservative Hilliary Clinton). I like very small countries. I recently spent 2 weeks in Singapore on business and loved it there. I am also drawn to tiny countries like Dominica that are off the usual path. Ordinary people do much better in local economies where money in return for services and resources circulates, largely staying in the local economy - local economies are I think more resilient to a future of sporadic, or no growth. The current economy relies on continuous growth, which is not sustainable.
allemagne 10y ago
I wonder if everyone in this thread and this study is using the same vocabulary. When I hear or use the term "global citizen" I think of someone who doesn't pledge loyalty to any government but instead recognizes the existence of a global human community that they are already a part of. Judging by some responses, however, it seems as if using the term "global citizen" is seen as implicit support for some kind of central world government.
- dunkelheit 10y ago
  Right. For me (and maybe other commenters as well) the term "citizen" implies paying taxes to an armed entity in exchange for some protection and rights. So "global citizen" in this sense definitely implies some form of a global government. But of course the article doesn't talk about anything like that. I guess it intentionally uses the flashy term "global citizen" when its main message could be expressed simply as "more and more people don't feel much loyalty for their respective states".
  - librvf 10y ago
    > "more and more people don't feel much loyalty for their respective states" The world will not be stable with that sentiment for long. At some point, the "global citizen" will seek to express their political will; a will that will inevitably conflict with the will of the Nation-State. To do that, the "global citizens" must have sponsors, leaders, and some way to organize. Would-be sponsors, leaders,and organizers will see the potential for gain here and will step in to sponsor, lead, and organize the "global citizens." And at that point, a central world government has been seeded and will begin to grow. Alternately, people will remain organized in Nation-states and the "Global Citizen" mentality will fade away since it won't have any relevant meaning.
    - dunkelheit 10y ago
      Haven't thought about it, kudos for taking a longer-term view :) But your scenario requires that some sizable majority of people share the same sentiment. E.g. the idea of "world proletarian revolution" rests on the assumption that the majority of people are workers who will be more loyal to their class than their state. On the other hand it is entirely possible for most people to be more loyal to numerous hypothetical global communities which are too small to oppose nation-states. Everything stays the same in this case.
henriquemaia 10y ago
From reading the comments, and having been born in Brazil, raised in Portugal, and for spending a lot of my allotted time on this wandering cosmic orbe on many countries, I feel that many don't get the _global citizenship_ concept. Nations are abstractions. I belong to a greater human community. Fortunately I could witness the advent of the internet and of massive information exchange between peoples. I rejoice with a untold pride when human beings make some amazing advancement in whatever field of knowledge we happen to strive for: the many fields of science, art, philosophy. I watch with amazement when a new boundary in space travel is surpassed; when we (humans) reach political agreements that make the world a bit less inhumane (insane) and more sustainable; when we stop thinking through the lenses of arbitrary divisions and reach to a higher goal. I am a citizen of the world (global citizenship) — and I am proud of it. I am glad I am able to learn and to share information with such a vast array of different peoples. I literally live on an utopia (no place) that is an information matrix inside my head. And I am glad to be here today typing this comment within an international community (HN). This is my interpretation. If you try to make global citizenship a dystopian political agenda then you're talking about something entirely different.

70 points by f_allwein 10y ago

Havoc 10y ago

Not sure about "global citizen" but I certainly don't feel particularly tied to any country.

dang 10y ago

Please don't rewrite titles unless they are misleading or linkbait. The submitted title ('People see themselves as global citizens rather than citizens of their country') says something quite different than the original.

corv 10y ago

Generally a positive trend. I wonder what is keeping Germans from feeling global?

maufl 10y ago
(As a German) I think lot's of Germans feel global already. But I suspect it's limited to a certain demographic, namely young people with academic background. I don't know about the rest but recently it feels like more people just want to keep to themselves (especially with all the immigrants coming into our country).
- alphydan 10y ago
  > all the immigrants coming into our country When sorted by % of population that is composed of immigrants, Germany does not have much immigration (it's country # sixty-something in the list) [0]) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_immigrant_population https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_immigrant...
  - ZoF 10y ago
    Yes, sorting that way does show that currently Germany doesn't have the largest immigrant population, but that is changing quickly. Today Germany is the second most popular migration destination in the world, after the United States[0] Not commenting on whether that's a good or bad thing(I feel it's pretty neutral), just pointing out that the parent commenter saying "all the immigrants coming into our country" isn't making a crazy statement. [0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_to_Germany https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_to_Germany
  - maufl 10y ago
    Yes, that's certainly true. And we always had waves of immigrants, it's nothing new. However, I think right now many perceive it as a large amount of immigrants that come quickly, maybe because of media coverage.
RGamma 10y ago
Germany is a country of assimilation and a very sizable portion of immigrants (I count esp. the Gastarbeiter that we have failed to repatriate) have not managed this and now even 2 or 3 generations later we have certain city districts with over 50% immigrants that mainly speak insufferable Kanakendeutsch or barely any at all (luckily I live in one of the better suburbs in that regard), in which you feel like a foreigner in your own country. If we have to wait 3 or more generations for assimilation to happen, if ever, no wonder that right-conservative parties can use this as a selling point. (and no I definitely don't feel global (I'm also young, with academic background), let all regions stay to themselves. Tourism is sufficient if you want to experience others)
mxfh 10y ago
I also wonder how the question was phrased, in my experience Kosmopolit/Weltbürger has a lot of cultural baggage in the German cultural sphere; that it requires some sort of personal refinement (Herder, Kant, Klaus Mann), a label most people won't assert to themselves. On the other hand the term was used as a negative propaganda term in the eastern bloc[1] In my experience German's are way more likely to call themselves Europeans first (more than most other European nationalities), and happily skip the world citizen part for convenience's sake. Even the E in PEGIDA stand for Europeans. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rootless_cosmopolitan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rootless_cosmopolitan

jdimov9 10y ago

Any move away from the stupidity of patriotism is good in my books.

Dayshine 10y ago
Nationalism, not patriotism. Nothing wrong with being proud of your culture. Thinking your culture is superior is the issue.
vixen99 10y ago
So an emotional emotional attachment to a nation which an individual recognizes as their homeland, is 'stupid'. The nation has provided that person with certain values which she/he deeply appreciates and feels strongly about: is that stupidity? Isn't it a good idea to determine what those values are and how they relate to other people before you generalize so crudely? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriotism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriotism
- jdimov9 10y ago
  It is orders of magnitude beyond stupid - it's utterly brainless. So your nation has PROVIDED you with your values, huh? Yay. The objective of patriotism has been achieved. Now go and fight to the death for your beloved nation, because surely no other values should exist on Earth.
- alanwatts 10y ago
  >The nation has provided that person with certain values which she/he deeply appreciates and feels strongly about: is that stupidity? Isn't it a good idea to determine what those values are and how they relate to other people before you generalize so crudely? Indeed it is important to understand how they relate to other people, but not just people within the artificial boundaries of a nation state. Those values weren't spontaneously and independently invented by the artificial lines drawn on a piece of paper, they were developed throughout all human history across the whole planet.

lsd5you 10y ago

Without passing judgement, is this not just measuring the desire not be lumbered with the negative connotations of their respective countries? And possibly also showing a desire and entitlement to be able to move to a better off country? We have something similar at a different level here. People in Salford (a not well thought of connurbation of Manchester, UK) are 'from Manchester', where as people from Didsbury are 'from Didsbury'. That said China being on that list does surprise me.

f_allwein 10y ago
Maybe, but even then the differences between the countries are interesting. As a German, I am unpleasantly surprised we rank so low here.
- kfk 10y ago
  You rank low because of your history. Germans are proud to be Germans, they just don't feel right to say it. An interesting and very good consequence of this feeling is that Germany has not only very open policies towards immigrants, but also an overall good attitude versus expats which you rarely find in Europe.
  - notahacker 10y ago
    The relatively small proportion of Germans willing to affirm support for intermarriage between ethnic groups suggests there's more than quiet national pride at play here. Although the country's history is almost certainly why Germans are more likely to answer "don't know" or "depends" than anyone else: even if much of the sample group is paranoid about immigrants and influence from other cultures following recent media coverage, there are still few people willing to commit to aligning themselves with the far right.
notahacker 10y ago
It's also highly likely that "global citizen" has been translated into terms which have subtly different connotations in different countries (that's the only real explanation I can think of for China).

simula67 10y ago

I had a running theory that the spread of Internet and virtual communities would force free exchange of ideas and bring the people of the world together. I am less inclined to believe that now. Developed and under-developed nations show no difference in nationalism. Nothing short of an alien invasion can possibly bring humankind together.

brador 10y ago
Give it time, it's inevitable, but not in your current lifetime. It takes generations.
- cagenut 10y ago
  Yea the world is still run by pre-internet people and institutions. The first generation to 'grow up' with the internet in first-world countries is still largely waiting to take over. Farther down the tail, it'll be another decade before may in the 'third' world get their first smartphone. Defacto global/internet citizenship is still a full generation to generation and a half away, and who knows how long it'll take to actually reshape and reform the big institutions after that.
seren 10y ago
It is very paradoxical because access to Internet on one hand can expose you to new ideas and cultures, but, on the other hand, if you are inclined to, virtual communities can reinforce pre existing closed worldview (or at least pretty weird like otherkins). This is all the point of algorithms governing the Feed and filter bubbles. I really wonder in the end which effect will be more prevalent.
x5n1 10y ago
What does this bring together mean? At the end power is distributive and a zero sum game. Power can never be truly distributed because there is a limited amount of it. Therefore we really can't come together. That's what love is by the way a distributor of power. So as long as we have distributive systems that are resource limited like economics, there is no hope of love conquering all or power no longer playing a factor. Just because you know someone does not mean you love them, you really can't, because it will effect your own well being and resource utilization. At best you can learn to tolerate people because you understand them... and integrate them into the global slave economy to serve your desires. But there is no hope of ever being together. We don't have that level of capacity to love. Only our ideas do and they too often fail. At the end of the day why is the Middle East or Africa suffering simply because they are not willing to be a productive part of the global slave economy, therefore they get no respect and are exploited. It's not that we don't understand them. We don't like them because they don't work for us and consume and produce on our terms. Therefore, we don't respect them. We don't love them, and they don't love us. Their distribution of power is based in religion (the Middle East), ours is based on economics. Why are Jewish people and Israelis held in such high esteem. For the same reason, they produce and consume with us. They have contributed massively to the economy and many other fields. They serve our desires, and we are one with them.

kfk 10y ago

The 22% strongly agree in US worries me Edit. Wow, 44% in Spain? Seriously guys? 35% Greece. Somebody should correlate this with GDP per capita, I believe there is a negative correlation there to be found...

ForHackernews 10y ago
> The 22% strongly agree in US worries me Why does that worry you? I would generally consider greater global unity to be a positive trend.
- Mendenhall 10y ago
  Lets say you had a neighbor who spent too much money and was always broke, would you want to tie their finances to yours and for you to be responsible for them ?
  - hartpuff 10y ago
    It isn't about money or tying finances together, it's about how people self-identify.
geodel 10y ago
Yea 22% seems high. I can think lots of upper middle class and other rich people who can consume cheap 3rd products and services without endangering their jobs / financial wellbeing and students under education loans would think of them as global citizens. It is like the call to workers of the world unite. But rich and well off workers will be less inclined when there is no upside.
hartpuff 10y ago
Or correlate it with the level or sophistication of nationalistic/xenophobic propaganda in each country. Or with the level of real-life experience and awareness a population has with other countries.
- geodel 10y ago

kfk 10y ago

The 22% strongly agree in US worries me

geodel 10y ago

Isn't it something similar that poor would want more equitable distribution of wealth and lower rungs in corporates would want a more normal salary rise all the way to CEOs. Pretty obvious thing. I would think that global citizens would not be so interested in nations with similar number of high aspirants.

lumberjack 10y ago

At first glance it seems to me that all globalism trends are also erosions of democracy. I dare say this is also what most Germans were thinking. Of course there are many ways to interpret the question.

twoarray 10y ago

The results on Germany have amazed me. Especially the huge white spaces.

known 10y ago

Patriotism is a favorite device of people with something to sell http://www.economist.com/node/21644538/ http://www.economist.com/node/21644538/ However I strongly support https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_quota https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_quota

lumberjack 10y ago
The same president is also pushing globalism (TPP, TTIP) so your implication is really a false dichotomy.

elcapitan 10y ago

What does "global citizen" even mean? I am quite happy to be a citizen of smaller entities. I would like them to be even smaller, not larger. I'm German, and I find the size of that entity in terms of democratic accountability almost too large already. Definitely constructs like the EU are overblown and have too many competencies. I would prefer a small state like Switzerland with a small population, but direct democracy and relatively direct accountability.

staticelf 10y ago
I agree, smaller is better. Just like big corporations, I am totally convinced that if countries get too big, there is an increasing risk for corruption and evilness. Just look at Russia, China and the US. Today, Putin is president (cough dictator cough) and he is kinda scary since he is so unpredictable. What if he gets cancer and wants to be remembered as someone who gave Russia more power and start WW3? I will be as scared for Trump if he gains power in the US. China feels kind of stable, but none of these mega nations feels safe for us living in a smaller country. When so few people gains so much power, corruption is inevitable due to our nature.
philippnagel 10y ago
Democratic accountability does not depend upon the size of an entity. Instead it relies on how said entity is internally structured (e.g. direct democracy vs. more representative models) and how prone to corruption it is. Personally I think nation states are rather burdensome. In business one has to handle countless different legal and tax frameworks while fundamentally every human has comparable needs. Why operate ~196 governments when one government would suffice? The inefficiency is just mind boggling in my opinion.
- elcapitan 10y ago
  > "fundamentally every human has comparable needs" That assumption has been at the core of some wonderful experiments in the 20th century, and the people who had the fortune to live under regimes based on that assumption showed their preference for moving to exactly the alternatives that the assumption is trying to exclude. Or tried to do so and got killed by the people who knew what their true needs were.

jkldotio 10y ago

The full results in the report seem to me be somewhat more complex to interpret than the summary, or the original submission title, suggest. On the first question (Q18jt), a 4 point scale without a "don't know" neutral option, there are large numbers of people putting global citizenship before national citizenship (51%-49%). However, when you get to a later question (M2), that asks people what their most important identity is, national citizenship overtakes global citizenship overwhelmingly (52% national, 17% global, 11% local, 9% religious and 8% race/culture). National citizenship is the largest in all countries besides three, and it's the second largest in two of those. When given a variety of choices in M2 the level of people supporting global citizenship (17%) as a primary identity is even lower than even those who "strongly agree" to global citizenship being more important to national citizenship in first question (22%). In M2 it seems all of the "somewhat agree" and a few points of the "strongly agree" have gone elsewhere including back to national citizenship which creates a tension between the results of the two questions. It’s quite stark in the case of India where in the first question 67% place global citizenship over national citizenship but in M2 51% have national citizenship as their primary identity and only 6% have global citizenship. I think the first question (Q18jt) would be more interesting if it was a 5 point scale with a "don't know" option provided rather than trying to railroad people into an answer with a 4 point scale. Even then I think the M2 question is a better instrument as it provides a clear set of choices. For example Pakistan goes from 56% global in the first question to 2% global in the second. Most of those seem to move to religion as their primary identity (43% answer religion on M2). Many religions are globally oriented toward all humanity but the M2 question lets us see more clearly what they believe. Even though the second question (M2) is better it probably could still do with some examination. For example the only country where global citizenship was higher than national citizenship in M2 was Spain, but was that because many people in Catalonia and the Basque Country are choosing global over "Spanish" because the "local" option was translated in a particular way? If they used a word closer to "neighborhood" you could see how that might happen. Similarly was "local" translated more broadly in the Indonesian translation and became the dominant answer there (56%) as people could identify with an island/state/ethnic/linguistic group that was "local", like Bali for example. It's hard to tell without all the data and the exact translations of the questions.

andrewclunn 10y ago

Russians are nationalistic, Afghanis divide by religion, and Asian nations are racist. Not super surprising.

mark_l_watson 10y ago

As a US citizen, I identify strongly with being a world citizen, but I am very much against the neoconservative one world government movement. Even the democrats are marching in lock-step on the path to corporate lead world government (e.g., President Obama dutifully going to England and preaching against British EU exit, and of course democrat turned neoconservative Hilliary Clinton). I like very small countries. I recently spent 2 weeks in Singapore on business and loved it there. I am also drawn to tiny countries like Dominica that are off the usual path. Ordinary people do much better in local economies where money in return for services and resources circulates, largely staying in the local economy - local economies are I think more resilient to a future of sporadic, or no growth. The current economy relies on continuous growth, which is not sustainable.

allemagne 10y ago

I wonder if everyone in this thread and this study is using the same vocabulary. When I hear or use the term "global citizen" I think of someone who doesn't pledge loyalty to any government but instead recognizes the existence of a global human community that they are already a part of. Judging by some responses, however, it seems as if using the term "global citizen" is seen as implicit support for some kind of central world government.

dunkelheit 10y ago
Right. For me (and maybe other commenters as well) the term "citizen" implies paying taxes to an armed entity in exchange for some protection and rights. So "global citizen" in this sense definitely implies some form of a global government. But of course the article doesn't talk about anything like that. I guess it intentionally uses the flashy term "global citizen" when its main message could be expressed simply as "more and more people don't feel much loyalty for their respective states".
- librvf 10y ago
  > "more and more people don't feel much loyalty for their respective states" The world will not be stable with that sentiment for long. At some point, the "global citizen" will seek to express their political will; a will that will inevitably conflict with the will of the Nation-State. To do that, the "global citizens" must have sponsors, leaders, and some way to organize. Would-be sponsors, leaders,and organizers will see the potential for gain here and will step in to sponsor, lead, and organize the "global citizens." And at that point, a central world government has been seeded and will begin to grow. Alternately, people will remain organized in Nation-states and the "Global Citizen" mentality will fade away since it won't have any relevant meaning.
  - dunkelheit 10y ago
    Haven't thought about it, kudos for taking a longer-term view :) But your scenario requires that some sizable majority of people share the same sentiment. E.g. the idea of "world proletarian revolution" rests on the assumption that the majority of people are workers who will be more loyal to their class than their state. On the other hand it is entirely possible for most people to be more loyal to numerous hypothetical global communities which are too small to oppose nation-states. Everything stays the same in this case.

henriquemaia 10y ago

From reading the comments, and having been born in Brazil, raised in Portugal, and for spending a lot of my allotted time on this wandering cosmic orbe on many countries, I feel that many don't get the _global citizenship_ concept. Nations are abstractions. I belong to a greater human community. Fortunately I could witness the advent of the internet and of massive information exchange between peoples. I rejoice with a untold pride when human beings make some amazing advancement in whatever field of knowledge we happen to strive for: the many fields of science, art, philosophy. I watch with amazement when a new boundary in space travel is surpassed; when we (humans) reach political agreements that make the world a bit less inhumane (insane) and more sustainable; when we stop thinking through the lenses of arbitrary divisions and reach to a higher goal. I am a citizen of the world (global citizenship) — and I am proud of it. I am glad I am able to learn and to share information with such a vast array of different peoples. I literally live on an utopia (no place) that is an information matrix inside my head. And I am glad to be here today typing this comment within an international community (HN). This is my interpretation. If you try to make global citizenship a dystopian political agenda then you're talking about something entirely different.