2026-05-03 11:52:41
See more visualizations like this on the Voronoi app.
See visuals like this from many other data creators on our Voronoi app. Download it for free on iOS or Android and discover incredible data-driven charts from a variety of trusted sources.
Social media use across Europe varies sharply by country, creating a clear gap between the continent’s most and least connected populations.
This map shows the share of adults active on social networking sites across Europe, based on 2025 data from Eurostat and Ofcom. Being “active” in this case involves creating a profile, posting messages, sharing, commenting, or otherwise contributing to a social networking site.
While adoption exceeds 80% in several northern countries, it drops to 56% in Italy and 59% in Germany, two of Europe’s largest economies. Overall, the European average sits at 74%, masking these wide differences in usage.
Northern Europe stands out as the region with the highest social media adoption rates.
Denmark leads the continent in social media use (90%), followed closely by Norway (89%). Sweden and the Baltic states of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania trail slightly behind in the 70–79% range.
This data table shows social media usage rates across European countries.
| Rank | Country | Social Media Use (% of Adults) |
|---|---|---|
| 1 |
Denmark |
90 |
| 2 |
UK |
89 |
| 3 |
Norway |
89 |
| 4 |
Cyprus |
87 |
| 5 |
Montenegro |
84 |
| 6 |
Malta |
82 |
| 7 |
Finland |
81 |
| 8 |
Netherlands |
81 |
| 9 |
Turkey |
80 |
| 10 |
Ireland |
80 |
| 11 |
Romania |
80 |
| 12 |
Latvia |
79 |
| 13 |
Hungary |
79 |
| 14 |
North Macedonia |
78 |
| 15 |
Serbia |
76 |
| 16 |
Sweden |
75 |
| 17 |
Switzerland |
74 |
| 18 |
Greece |
73 |
| 19 |
Estonia |
73 |
| 20 |
Bulgaria |
71 |
| 21 |
France |
71 |
| 22 |
Portugal |
71 |
| 23 |
Lithuania |
70 |
| 24 |
Czechia |
70 |
| 25 |
Spain |
70 |
| 26 |
Austria |
68 |
| 27 |
Belgium |
68 |
| 28 |
Luxembourg |
67 |
| 29 |
Slovenia |
65 |
| 30 |
Poland |
63 |
| 31 |
Slovakia |
62 |
| 32 |
Croatia |
62 |
| 33 |
Germany |
59 |
| 34 |
Italy |
56 |
Northern Europe’s high usage reflects early and widespread adoption of digital technologies.
Estonia, for example, has earned the moniker “e-Estonia” due to its tech-savvy society and government, while companies ranging from Finland’s Nokia to Sweden’s Spotify rank among Europe’s leading digital success stories.
Even with this reputation, some Scandinavian governments are considering social media bans for children. Denmark, as the continental leader in online activity, is weighing a ban on children’s creation of social media profiles before age 15, or 13–14 with parental consent.
Western Europe has long included some of the continent’s most globalized countries. In 2005, university students in the United Kingdom were the first outside North America to join Facebook. Today, 89% of UK adults are active on social media.
However, beyond the UK, social media activity is more limited than in the Nordics. France counts 71% of its adult population on social networking sites, just ahead of Spain and Portugal (both 70%).
For their part, the Benelux countries show an interesting contrast: 81% of Dutch adults use social media, compared to 67–68% in Belgium and Luxembourg.
Italy has the lowest social media usage rate in Europe, with just 56% of adults active on social networks. This represents a gap of more than 30 percentage points compared to countries like Denmark, Norway, or the UK.
The contrast also appears generational, as over three-quarters of Italian teens self-report being addicted to their phones.
Germany (59%) is the only country near Italy’s low rate of social media usage. German society appears more divided on the benefits and drawbacks of social networking sites, with nearly half of surveyed Germans in 2025 saying they would rather live in a world without social media.
To learn more about this topic, check out the What are Gen Z’s Favorite Social Media Platforms? on Voronoi.
2026-05-03 00:21:48
See visuals like this from many other data creators on our Voronoi app. Download it for free on iOS or Android and discover incredible data-driven charts from a variety of trusted sources.
Recreational marijuana is now legal in nearly half of the United States—leaving the country almost evenly divided.
As of 2026, 24 states and Washington D.C. allow adult-use cannabis, while 26 states have yet to legalize it. This narrow gap underscores how legalization has expanded beyond early adopters, while still facing resistance across much of the South and parts of the Midwest.
The map above shows where recreational marijuana is legal for adults over 21, based on data from Encyclopaedia Britannica via NORML, highlighting a country approaching a potential tipping point.
As of 2026, 24 U.S. states have legalized recreational marijuana. Washington D.C. has also legalized recreational use, bringing the total to 25 jurisdictions.
The data table below shows which states have and have not legalized recreational marijuana as of May 2026.
| State | Marijuana is legal for recreational use |
|---|---|
| Alabama | No |
| Alaska | Yes |
| Arizona | Yes |
| Arkansas | No |
| California | Yes |
| Colorado | Yes |
| Connecticut | Yes |
| Delaware | Yes |
| District of Columbia | Yes |
| Florida | No |
| Georgia | No |
| Hawaii | No |
| Idaho | No |
| Illinois | Yes |
| Indiana | No |
| Iowa | No |
| Kansas | No |
| Kentucky | No |
| Louisiana | No |
| Maine | Yes |
| Maryland | Yes |
| Massachusetts | Yes |
| Michigan | Yes |
| Minnesota | Yes |
| Mississippi | No |
| Missouri | Yes |
| Montana | Yes |
| Nebraska | No |
| Nevada | Yes |
| New Hampshire | No |
| New Jersey | Yes |
| New Mexico | Yes |
| New York | Yes |
| North Carolina | No |
| North Dakota | No |
| Ohio | Yes |
| Oklahoma | No |
| Oregon | Yes |
| Pennsylvania | No |
| Rhode Island | Yes |
| South Carolina | No |
| South Dakota | No |
| Tennessee | No |
| Texas | No |
| Utah | No |
| Vermont | Yes |
| Virginia | Yes |
| Washington | Yes |
| West Virginia | No |
| Wisconsin | No |
| Wyoming | No |
Legal states include large population centers such as California, New York, Illinois, Michigan, and New Jersey, as well as smaller states like Vermont, Rhode Island, Maine, and Delaware.
Legalization is concentrated along the Pacific Coast and in the Northeast, while much of the South and parts of the Midwest remain holdouts. This divide reflects broader political and cultural differences shaping cannabis policy across the country.
In addition to all states with recreational legalization, 16 states that do not allow recreational use have comprehensive medical marijuana programs.
As a result, just 10 states do not allow marijuana use under any circumstances, aside from limited exceptions for CBD or low-THC products.
Over the past several years, many states have also moved to clear past criminal records for certain marijuana-related offenses.
The three most recent states to legalize recreational marijuana were Ohio, Minnesota, and Delaware in 2023.
These additions show how legalization is expanding beyond early markets in the West. Ohio and Minnesota brought more of the Midwest into the recreational market, while Delaware added to the already dense cluster of legalized states in the Northeast.
With the U.S. nearly split, even a small shift could tip the balance. If just two or three additional states pass legalization laws, the country would move into majority territory, potentially accelerating changes in taxation, enforcement, and federal policy debates.
If you enjoyed today’s post, check out Germany Joins List of Nations Legalizing Recreational Cannabis on Voronoi.Use This Visualization
2026-05-02 22:07:23
See visuals like this from many other data creators on our Voronoi app. Download it for free on iOS or Android and discover data-driven charts from a variety of trusted sources.
Your passport shapes how much of the world you can access. In 2026, the gap between the strongest and weakest passports spans nearly 170 destinations.
This graphic ranks global passport strength using data from the Henley Passport Index, based on how many destinations citizens can enter without a visa.
Singapore leads with access to 192 destinations. That’s nearly five times the access available to citizens of the lowest-ranked countries. Meanwhile, the weakest passports allow entry to fewer than 50 destinations. The disparity highlights how geography, diplomacy, and stability influence global mobility.
Following Singapore, there is a three-way tie for the second-strongest passports, with Japan, South Korea, and the United Arab Emirates each offering access to 187 destinations without a visa.
The UAE has the strongest passport outside of East or Southeast Asia, though with a notable caveat: Emiratis lack visa-free access to the United States, unlike their peers in Singapore, Japan, or South Korea.
| Rank | Country | Visa-Free Destinations |
|---|---|---|
| 1 |
Singapore |
192 |
| 2 |
Japan |
187 |
| 2 |
South Korea |
187 |
| 2 |
UAE |
187 |
| 5 |
Norway |
185 |
| 5 |
Switzerland |
185 |
| 7 |
EU average |
183 |
| 7 |
Malaysia |
183 |
| 7 |
UK |
183 |
| 10 |
Australia |
182 |
| 10 |
Canada |
182 |
| 10 |
New Zealand |
182 |
| 13 |
Liechtenstein |
180 |
| 14 |
Iceland |
179 |
| 14 |
U.S. |
179 |
| 16 |
Monaco |
176 |
| 17 |
Chile |
174 |
| 17 |
Hong Kong |
174 |
| 19 |
Andorra |
169 |
| 20 |
Argentina |
168 |
| 20 |
Brazil |
168 |
From there, Europeans hold many of the strongest passports by visa-free access, led by Northern and Western European countries like Norway and Switzerland (both 185).
While the 27-member European Union has a unified passport system, individual member countries still vary in visa-free access, ranging from 177 destinations for Bulgaria and Romania to 186 for Sweden.
Taking the average across this range, the EU’s overall passport strength stands at 183 visa-free destinations, tied with countries like Malaysia and the United Kingdom and slightly ahead of North American counterparts like Canada (182) and the United States (179).
At the bottom of the ranking, mobility drops off dramatically. The weakest passports offer access to fewer than 50 destinations, less than a quarter of what top-ranked countries enjoy.
These countries often face political instability, high emigration, or recent conflict, which can limit access to many developed regions.
| Rank | Country | Visa-Free Destinations |
|---|---|---|
| 1 |
Afghanistan |
23 |
| 2 |
Syria |
26 |
| 3 |
Iraq |
29 |
| 4 |
Pakistan |
31 |
| 4 |
Yemen |
31 |
| 6 |
Somalia |
32 |
| 7 |
Nepal |
35 |
| 7 |
North Korea |
35 |
| 9 |
Bangladesh |
36 |
| 10 |
Eritrea |
38 |
| 10 |
Iran |
38 |
| 10 |
Palestine |
38 |
| 13 |
Libya |
39 |
| 13 |
Sri Lanka |
39 |
| 15 |
South Sudan |
41 |
| 15 |
Sudan |
41 |
| 17 |
Ethiopia |
42 |
| 17 |
Myanmar |
42 |
| 20 |
Lebanon |
43 |
| 20 |
Democratic Republic of the Congo |
43 |
| 22 |
Nigeria |
44 |
African countries like Nigeria (44), Somalia (32), and the Democratic Republic of the Congo (43) also rank low. Fast-growing populations and large diasporas have contributed to tighter visa restrictions for these nationalities.
Taken together, passport rankings reveal more than travel convenience—they map global inequality. Where you’re born can shape where you’re allowed to go, making passport power one of the clearest indicators of opportunity in a connected world.
African, Middle Eastern, and South Asian passports tend to rank lower than their European or Western Hemisphere counterparts. Even higher-ranking exceptions like Malaysia or the UAE can still face limits on visa-free access to major destinations, particularly the United States.
If you enjoyed today’s post, check out The United Arab Emirates has the World’s Most Affordable Passport on Voronoi.Use This Visualization
2026-05-02 19:32:43
This was originally posted on our Voronoi app. Download the app for free on iOS or Android and discover incredible data-driven charts from a variety of trusted sources.
Religious diversity ranges from highly mixed societies to countries where a single faith dominates almost entirely.
This map by Iswardi Ishak shows the Religious Diversity Index (RDI) across 201 countries, based on data from the Pew Research Center. The index measures how evenly populations are distributed across religions, with higher scores indicating a more balanced mix.
Singapore ranks #1 globally, with no single religious group forming a majority. At the other extreme, countries like Yemen and Afghanistan have near-zero diversity, highlighting how uneven religious distribution can be worldwide.
Here’s a look at the full dataset on religious diversity by country:
| Rank | Country | RDI score | Diversity level |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 |
Singapore |
9.25 | Very high |
| 2 |
Suriname |
7.54 | Very high |
| 3 |
Taiwan |
7.46 | Very high |
| 4 |
South Korea |
7.33 | Very high |
| 5 |
Mauritius |
7.33 | Very high |
| 6 |
Guinea-Bissau |
7.17 | Very high |
| 7 |
Togo |
7.09 | Very high |
| 8 |
Benin |
7.05 | Very high |
| 9 |
Australia |
6.99 | High |
| 10 |
France |
6.93 | High |
| 11 |
Canada |
6.91 | High |
| 12 |
United Kingdom |
6.88 | High |
| 13 |
Belgium |
6.80 | High |
| 14 |
Ivory Coast |
6.76 | High |
| 15 |
Netherlands |
6.76 | High |
| 16 |
New Zealand |
6.67 | High |
| 17 |
Mongolia |
6.64 | High |
| 18 |
Mozambique |
6.57 | High |
| 19 |
Cuba |
6.48 | High |
| 20 |
Germany |
6.40 | High |
| 21 |
Malaysia |
6.31 | High |
| 22 |
Sweden |
6.30 | High |
| 23 |
Estonia |
6.21 | High |
| 24 |
Japan |
6.18 | High |
| 25 |
Chad |
6.18 | High |
| 26 |
Uruguay |
6.14 | High |
| 27 |
Switzerland |
6.09 | High |
| 28 |
South Sudan |
6.09 | High |
| 29 |
Eritrea |
6.01 | High |
| 30 |
Bosnia-Herzegovina |
5.98 | High |
| 31 |
Guyana |
5.90 | High |
| 32 |
United States |
5.85 | High |
| 33 |
Luxembourg |
5.81 | High |
| 34 |
Nigeria |
5.81 | High |
| 35 |
Macao |
5.76 | High |
| 36 |
Tanzania |
5.72 | High |
| 37 |
Ethiopia |
5.71 | High |
| 38 |
Vietnam |
5.62 | High |
| 39 |
Sri Lanka |
5.61 | High |
| 40 |
Austria |
5.58 | High |
| 41 |
Cyprus |
5.57 | High |
| 42 |
Laos |
5.49 | Moderate |
| 43 |
Slovenia |
5.46 | Moderate |
| 44 |
Jamaica |
5.45 | Moderate |
| 45 |
Burkina Faso |
5.43 | Moderate |
| 46 |
Trinidad and Tobago |
5.41 | Moderate |
| 47 |
Russia |
5.41 | Moderate |
| 48 |
North Macedonia |
5.38 | Moderate |
| 49 |
Lebanon |
5.38 | Moderate |
| 50 |
Fiji |
5.31 | Moderate |
| 51 |
Hong Kong |
5.23 | Moderate |
| 52 |
Cameroon |
5.22 | Moderate |
| 53 |
Spain |
5.21 | Moderate |
| 54 |
Ghana |
5.21 | Moderate |
| 55 |
Chile |
5.15 | Moderate |
| 56 |
Norway |
5.11 | Moderate |
| 57 |
United Arab Emirates |
5.06 | Moderate |
| 58 |
Bahrain |
4.91 | Moderate |
| 59 |
Finland |
4.84 | Moderate |
| 60 |
Belize |
4.83 | Moderate |
| 61 |
Albania |
4.75 | Moderate |
| 62 |
North Korea |
4.73 | Moderate |
| 63 |
Hungary |
4.71 | Moderate |
| 64 |
Czech Republic |
4.67 | Moderate |
| 65 |
Madagascar |
4.66 | Moderate |
| 66 |
Iceland |
4.65 | Moderate |
| 67 |
Qatar |
4.63 | Moderate |
| 68 |
Slovakia |
4.57 | Moderate |
| 69 |
Bhutan |
4.55 | Moderate |
| 70 |
Israel |
4.46 | Moderate |
| 71 |
Denmark |
4.42 | Moderate |
| 72 |
Montenegro |
4.39 | Moderate |
| 73 |
Latvia |
4.34 | Moderate |
| 74 |
Barbados |
4.21 | Moderate |
| 75 |
Dominican Republic |
4.18 | Moderate |
| 76 |
Kazakhstan |
4.14 | Moderate |
| 77 |
Bulgaria |
4.05 | Moderate |
| 78 |
India |
4.03 | Moderate |
| 79 |
Cape Verde |
4.02 | Moderate |
| 80 |
Kuwait |
3.94 | Moderate |
| 81 |
Italy |
3.88 | Moderate |
| 82 |
Nepal |
3.85 | Moderate |
| 83 |
Brazil |
3.83 | Moderate |
| 84 |
Aruba |
3.75 | Moderate |
| 85 |
Sierra Leone |
3.71 | Moderate |
| 86 |
Ireland |
3.68 | Moderate |
| 87 |
Oman |
3.68 | Moderate |
| 88 |
Brunei |
3.68 | Moderate |
| 89 |
Botswana |
3.51 | Moderate |
| 90 |
Gabon |
3.36 | Moderate |
| 91 |
French Guiana |
3.28 | Moderate |
| 92 |
Ukraine |
3.28 | Moderate |
| 93 |
Vanuatu |
3.26 | Moderate |
| 94 |
Sao Tome and Principe |
3.20 | Moderate |
| 95 |
South Africa |
3.08 | Moderate |
| 96 |
New Caledonia |
3.08 | Moderate |
| 97 |
Nicaragua |
3.07 | Moderate |
| 98 |
Liberia |
3.01 | Moderate |
| 99 |
Portugal |
3.00 | Moderate |
| 100 |
Belarus |
2.99 | Moderate |
| 101 |
Channel Islands |
2.96 | Moderate |
| 102 |
Kenya |
2.96 | Moderate |
| 103 |
St. Vincent and the Grenadines |
2.87 | Moderate |
| 104 |
Colombia |
2.86 | Moderate |
| 105 |
Indonesia |
2.72 | Moderate |
| 106 |
Guinea |
2.71 | Moderate |
| 107 |
Reunion |
2.68 | Moderate |
| 108 |
Zimbabwe |
2.66 | Moderate |
| 109 |
Grenada |
2.66 | Moderate |
| 110 |
El Salvador |
2.65 | Moderate |
| 111 |
Malawi |
2.61 | Moderate |
| 112 |
Costa Rica |
2.54 | Moderate |
| 113 |
Uganda |
2.53 | Moderate |
| 114 |
Venezuela |
2.49 | Moderate |
| 115 |
Georgia |
2.47 | Moderate |
| 116 |
Malta |
2.46 | Moderate |
| 117 |
Equatorial Guinea |
2.44 | Moderate |
| 118 |
Argentina |
2.44 | Moderate |
| 119 |
Ecuador |
2.43 | Moderate |
| 120 |
Honduras |
2.42 | Moderate |
| 121 |
Haiti |
2.38 | Moderate |
| 122 |
Myanmar |
2.36 | Moderate |
| 123 |
Puerto Rico |
2.33 | Moderate |
| 124 |
Bolivia |
2.33 | Moderate |
| 125 |
Greece |
2.27 | Moderate |
| 126 |
China |
2.26 | Moderate |
| 127 |
Mexico |
2.26 | Moderate |
| 128 |
Namibia |
2.05 | Moderate |
| 129 |
Curacao |
2.04 | Moderate |
| 130 |
Central African Republic |
2.02 | Moderate |
| 131 |
Croatia |
1.98 | Low |
| 132 |
Panama |
1.92 | Low |
| 133 |
Bangladesh |
1.92 | Low |
| 134 |
Poland |
1.88 | Low |
| 135 |
Philippines |
1.85 | Low |
| 136 |
Serbia |
1.85 | Low |
| 137 |
Kyrgyzstan |
1.81 | Low |
| 138 |
St. Lucia |
1.80 | Low |
| 139 |
Guatemala |
1.76 | Low |
| 140 |
Republic of the Congo |
1.71 | Low |
| 141 |
Lithuania |
1.70 | Low |
| 142 |
Saudi Arabia |
1.61 | Low |
| 143 |
Angola |
1.52 | Low |
| 144 |
Eswatini |
1.48 | Low |
| 145 |
French Polynesia |
1.45 | Low |
| 146 |
Paraguay |
1.43 | Low |
| 147 |
Seychelles |
1.36 | Low |
| 148 |
Guam |
1.34 | Low |
| 149 |
Maldives |
1.33 | Low |
| 150 |
Mali |
1.31 | Low |
| 151 |
Syria |
1.30 | Low |
| 152 |
Kosovo |
1.26 | Low |
| 153 |
Turkmenistan |
1.26 | Low |
| 154 |
Thailand |
1.25 | Low |
| 155 |
U.S. Virgin Islands |
1.23 | Low |
| 156 |
Peru |
1.22 | Low |
| 157 |
Azerbaijan |
1.17 | Low |
| 158 |
Burundi |
1.13 | Low |
| 159 |
Solomon Islands |
1.11 | Low |
| 160 |
Egypt |
1.07 | Low |
| 161 |
Uzbekistan |
0.99 | Very low |
| 162 |
Guadeloupe |
0.94 | Very low |
| 163 |
Martinique |
0.90 | Very low |
| 164 |
Democratic Republic of the Congo |
0.85 | Very low |
| 165 |
Pakistan |
0.79 | Very low |
| 166 |
Gambia |
0.68 | Very low |
| 167 |
Rwanda |
0.68 | Very low |
| 168 |
Cambodia |
0.66 | Very low |
| 169 |
Jordan |
0.66 | Very low |
| 170 |
Turkey |
0.66 | Very low |
| 171 |
Armenia |
0.62 | Very low |
| 172 |
Lesotho |
0.61 | Very low |
| 173 |
Senegal |
0.56 | Very low |
| 174 |
Kiribati |
0.55 | Very low |
| 175 |
Bahamas |
0.55 | Very low |
| 176 |
Samoa |
0.54 | Very low |
| 177 |
Djibouti |
0.53 | Very low |
| 178 |
Tonga |
0.51 | Very low |
| 179 |
Niger |
0.43 | Very low |
| 180 |
Zambia |
0.40 | Very low |
| 181 |
Comoros |
0.39 | Very low |
| 182 |
Algeria |
0.37 | Very low |
| 183 |
Romania |
0.34 | Very low |
| 184 |
Federated States of Micronesia |
0.28 | Very low |
| 185 |
Mayotte |
0.27 | Very low |
| 186 |
Sudan |
0.26 | Very low |
| 187 |
Tajikistan |
0.25 | Very low |
| 188 |
Palestinian territories |
0.24 | Very low |
| 189 |
Libya |
0.23 | Very low |
| 190 |
Papua New Guinea |
0.21 | Very low |
| 191 |
Mauritania |
0.19 | Very low |
| 192 |
Tunisia |
0.16 | Very low |
| 193 |
Iraq |
0.12 | Very low |
| 194 |
Moldova |
0.11 | Very low |
| 195 |
Timor-Leste |
0.11 | Very low |
| 196 |
Western Sahara |
0.10 | Very low |
| 197 |
Morocco |
0.08 | Very low |
| 198 |
Iran |
0.05 | Very low |
| 199 |
Somalia |
0.04 | Very low |
| 200 |
Afghanistan |
0.03 | Very low |
| 201 |
Yemen |
0.03 | Very low |
Singapore leads the ranking with a score of 9.25, while several countries at the bottom have near-zero diversity, underscoring how wide the global gap is.
Singapore stands apart globally, with no single religion accounting for more than a third of its population. This balance across Buddhism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, and unaffiliated groups gives it the highest diversity score in the dataset, well ahead of most countries.
Other highly diverse countries include Suriname and Taiwan, where multiple religions coexist relatively evenly. These countries often share histories shaped by migration, trade, or colonial influence, which help sustain a more diverse mix of religious identities.
At the other end of the spectrum, several countries in the Middle East and North Africa have diversity scores close to zero. In places like Yemen and Afghanistan, a single religion accounts for nearly the entire population, leaving little variation in religious identity.
In addition, relatively low immigration levels mean fewer new religious communities are introduced over time. Countries like Yemen and Afghanistan also tend to have more ethnically and culturally homogeneous populations, which historically align with a single dominant faith.
By contrast, highly diverse countries typically combine open migration patterns, legal protections for religious freedom, and urban, trade-driven histories that bring multiple belief systems into close contact.
Globally, religious diversity is rising, but unevenly. Between 2010 and 2020, more countries moved into moderate and high diversity categories, driven largely by migration and shifting religious affiliation. North America saw some of the fastest increases, with both the U.S. and Canada becoming more religiously mixed.
The number of countries classified as having “very low” diversity fell from 48 to 41, while those in the “moderate” category rose from 81 to 89.
Here are the top 10 countries with the biggest increases in religious diversity from 2010 to 2020:
| Country | RDI Score 2010 | RDI Score 2020 | RDI Score Change |
|---|---|---|---|
Chile |
2.8 | 5.1 | +2.3 |
Ireland |
1.8 | 3.7 | +1.9 |
Malta |
0.7 | 2.5 | +1.8 |
Austria |
3.9 | 5.6 | +1.7 |
Oman |
2.1 | 3.7 | +1.6 |
Belarus |
1.4 | 3 | +1.6 |
United States |
4.2 | 5.8 | +1.6 |
Brazil |
2.3 | 3.8 | +1.5 |
Ecuador |
1 | 2.4 | +1.4 |
Italy |
2.5 | 3.9 | +1.4 |
North America experienced the most significant shift, with an average RDI increase of 1.40. Both the U.S. and Canada moved further into the “high” diversity category, driven by immigration and changing religious affiliation patterns.
While less pronounced than the increases, a few countries did experience declines in religious diversity. Here are the top 10 decreases:
| Country | RDI Score 2010 | RDI Score 2020 | RDI Score Change |
|---|---|---|---|
Kazakhstan |
5.1 | 4.1 | -1.0 |
Syria |
2.2 | 1.3 | -0.9 |
Vietnam |
6.2 | 5.6 | -0.6 |
Madagascar |
5.3 | 4.7 | -0.6 |
Fiji |
5.8 | 5.3 | -0.5 |
Ivory Coast |
7.3 | 6.8 | -0.5 |
Bahrain |
5.4 | 4.9 | -0.5 |
Albania |
5.3 | 4.8 | -0.5 |
Mozambique |
7.1 | 6.6 | -0.5 |
Zimbabwe |
3.2 | 2.7 | -0.5 |
Overall, the data shows a gradual shift toward greater religious mixing worldwide, though the divide between highly diverse and highly uniform countries remains stark.
To explore how religions are distributed globally, check out The World’s Three Largest Religions Have a Combined 5 Billion Followers on the Voronoi app.
2026-05-02 11:22:11
In Europe, monarchs are far more popular than the politicians who govern.
Data from Morning Consult, visualized by The European Correspondent, shows that monarchs hold an approval advantage of nearly 30 points over national leaders. The gap appears in every country analyzed.
The pattern reveals a clear divide: leaders making policy decisions often face public backlash, while ceremonial figures largely avoid it.
Below, we break down approval ratings across eight European countries.
| Name | Position | Country | Approval Rating (April 2026) |
|---|---|---|---|
| King Charles III |
Monarch |
UK |
53% |
| Keir Starmer |
National leader |
UK |
27% |
| King Willem-Alexander |
Monarch |
Netherlands |
63% |
| Rob Jetten |
National leader |
Netherlands |
28% |
| King Harald V |
Monarch |
Norway |
61% |
| Jonas Gahr Støre |
National leader |
Norway |
31% |
| King Philippe |
Monarch |
Belgium |
66% |
| Bart de Wever |
National leader |
Belgium |
35% |
| King Carl XVI Gustaf |
Monarch |
Sweden |
55% |
| Ulf Kristersson |
National leader |
Sweden |
38% |
| King Felipe VI |
Monarch |
Spain |
76% |
| Pedro Sánchez |
National leader |
Spain |
38% |
| King Frederik X |
Monarch |
Denmark |
80% |
| Mette Frederiksen |
National leader |
Denmark |
43% |
| Grand Duke Henri |
Monarch |
Luxembourg |
69% |
| Luc Frieden |
National leader |
Luxembourg |
49% |
From the UK to Luxembourg, monarchs outperform politicians across the board. Spain stands out with the largest gap, while even the narrowest differences still favor royalty.
One key explanation lies in the fundamentally different roles these figures play. Monarchs are typically nonpartisan, symbolic heads of state, largely removed from day-to-day political decision-making. This helps them avoid the scrutiny and backlash that elected leaders inevitably face.
By contrast, national leaders are directly responsible for policy decisions on issues like inflation, immigration, and public services. These decisions often divide public opinion, dragging down approval ratings.
Spain has the widest popularity divide, with King Felipe VI outpacing Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez by nearly 40 points. This reflects broader dissatisfaction with political leadership, alongside relatively stable support for the monarchy.
The Netherlands also shows a notable gap, with King Willem-Alexander maintaining a significant lead despite historically low approval ratings for the monarchy itself. This highlights how unpopular political leadership can become by comparison.
Even in countries where monarchs have more modest approval ratings, such as the UK, their standing still surpasses that of elected leaders. This underscores a broader trend: monarchy as an institution retains a degree of public goodwill that politicians struggle to match.
As this data shows, in modern Europe, it’s often the figureheads, not the decision-makers, who win the popularity contest.
2026-05-02 01:33:46
The space economy is expanding beyond rockets and satellites. By 2035, it could power industries far beyond orbit, from logistics to agriculture and national defense.
In partnership with Global X Canada, this graphic is the first of three in the Investing in Space series. It shows the fastest-growing space sectors by 2035 using data from McKinsey.
The global space economy could nearly triple from C$871 billion in 2023 to C$2.5 trillion by 2035.
Here is a table that shows which sectors are adding the most value by 2035.
| Industry | 2023 ($CAD Billions) | 2035 ($CAD Billions) |
|---|---|---|
| Supply chain and transportation | 121 | 566 |
| Food and beverage supply chain logistics | 137 | 459 |
| State sponsored defence | 129 | 345 |
| Retail, consumer goods and lifestyle | 77 | 234 |
| Media, entertainment and sports | 197 | 216 |
| State sponsored civil | 85 | 201 |
| Digital communications | 26 | 96 |
| Space | 30 | 92 |
| Other | 69 | 252 |
Source: McKinsey.
Growth is not evenly distributed across sectors. Instead, industries like supply chain, which rely on satellite data and connectivity, are expanding the most.
Supply chain and transportation lead all sectors, adding C$445 billion in growth by 2035. This surge reflects the increasing importance of real-time tracking via Earth observation and satellite navigation as essential tools for logistics networks.
Meanwhile the food and beverage sector follows closely, driven by advances in precision agriculture and monitoring.
State-sponsored defense ranks third, highlighting rising demand for surveillance, communications, and security. As a result, defense spending continues to accelerate globally.
By 2035, a C$2.5 trillion space economy could evolve into a broad, multi-industry ecosystem where opportunities are emerging across logistics, agriculture, defense, and communications.
Investors looking to capture this growth may consider exposure to companies enabling these trends. In particular, solutions focused on satellites, data infrastructure, and space-enabled services are becoming increasingly critical.
To learn more, explore the Global X Space Tech Index ETF (ORBX), which targets companies at the forefront of the space economy.

Get invested with ORBX, a new frontier for diversification.
Commissions, management fees, and expenses all may be associated with an investment in products (the “Global X Funds”) managed by Global X Investments Canada Inc. The Global X Funds are not guaranteed, their values change frequently and past performance may not be repeated. Certain Global X Funds may have exposure to leveraged investment techniques that magnify gains and losses which may result in greater volatility in value and could be subject to aggressive investment risk and price volatility risk. Such risks are described in the prospectus. The prospectus contains important detailed information about the Global X Funds. Please read the relevant prospectus before investing.
Certain statements may constitute a forward-looking statement, including those identified by the expression “expect” and similar expressions (including grammatical variations thereof). The forward-looking statements are not historical facts but reflect the author’s current expectations regarding future results or events. These forward-looking statements are subject to a number of risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results or events to differ materially from current expectations. These and other factors should be considered carefully and readers should not place undue reliance on such forward-looking statements. These forward-looking statements are made as of the date hereof and the authors do not undertake to update any forward-looking statement that is contained herein, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise, unless required by applicable law.
This communication is intended for informational purposes only and does not constitute an offer to sell or the solicitation of an offer to purchase investment products (the “Global X Funds”) managed by Global X Investments Canada Inc. and is not, and should not be construed as, investment, tax, legal or accounting advice, and should not be relied upon in that regard. Individuals should seek the advice of professionals, as appropriate, regarding any particular investment. Investors should consult their professional advisors prior to implementing any changes to their investment strategies. These investments may not be suitable to the circumstances of an investor.
All comments, opinions and views expressed are generally based on information available as of the date of publication and should not be considered as advice to purchase or to sell mentioned securities. Before making any investment decision, please consult your investment advisor or advisors.
Global X Investments Canada Inc. (“Global X”) is a wholly owned subsidiary of Mirae Asset Global Investments Co., Ltd. (“Mirae Asset”), the Korea-based asset management entity of Mirae Asset Financial Group. Global X is a corporation existing under the laws of Canada and is the manager, investment manager and trustee of the Global X Funds.

See the 24 U.S. states that have legalized recreational marijuana and where adult-use cannabis remains illegal in 2026.

See how homeownership rates vary by job in the U.S.—and why income alone doesn’t determine who owns homes.

From chips in the West to oil in Texas, this map shows what every U.S. state exports—and why it matters for jobs and global trade.

When did U.S. net interest costs overtake defense spending? This chart shows the surge in U.S. net interest payments compared to defense spending.

The United States is known as the world’s largest import market. But even far smaller markets carry their own weight as importers.

Nearly $1 trillion in foreign direct investment has flowed into the U.S. since 2020. See which states are attracting the most investment.