Search

41. From Bridge to Hinge: Rapprochement-Estrangement Pendulum of Turkish Foreign Policy

Author:
Mesut Özcan
Publication Date:
01-2026
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
All Azimuth: A Journal of Foreign Policy and Peace
Institution:
Center for Foreign Policy and Peace Research
Abstract:
The main motivation of this paper is to uncover the logic underlying the seemingly inconsistent and erratic foreign policy behavior of countries like Turkey, which are surrounded by different subsystems. The strategic cultures of the surrounding subsystems impose different modes of behavior on borderlands and create attract-repel elements for them. The responses to such elements appear as policies of rapprochement and estrangement, representing closer or cooling relations. Therefore, as part of the attract-repel dynamic, foreign policy behavior appears to oscillate between conflicting extremes. Consequently, the borderland position presents a combination of challenges and opportunities, depending on the comprehensive national power. It can be either reduced to a buffer zone caught between different and imposing entities, or transformed into a hinge state that can change regional or global balances. The underlying logic and ultimate goal of such policy swings, which may appear contradictory and erratic at times, is to become a hinge state in this process by capitalizing on advantages and opportunities, avoiding drawbacks and gaining more power at each step. In this process, Turkey appears as a borderland country that keeps moving between pivotal and linchpin positions, trying to confirm her linchpin status while aspiring to become a hinge state.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Borders, Rapprochement, and Strategic Autonomy
Political Geography:
Turkey and Middle East

42. Perception and Continuity: Active Non-Alignment in Turkish Foreign Policy

Author:
Burak Çakirca
Publication Date:
01-2026
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
All Azimuth: A Journal of Foreign Policy and Peace
Institution:
Center for Foreign Policy and Peace Research
Abstract:
This study analyses Turkish foreign policy between 2010 and 2025, asking whether this period marks a strategic rupture or reflects continuity with the long-standing Westernisation trajectory. Employing the emerging framework of Active Non-Alignment (ANA), the study examines how Turkey’s redefinition of strategic interests and alignments reflects shifting global and regional dynamics. The findings suggest that while institutional and ontological ties to the West persist, Turkish foreign policy demonstrates a perceptual shift characterised by strategic autonomy, diversified partnerships, and issue-based pragmatism. By applying ANA to this evolving policy orientation, the study offers both a reinterpretation of Turkish foreign policy continuity and a theoretical contribution to the emerging literature on alternative alignment strategies in global politics.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Partnerships, Diversification, Strategic Autonomy, Pragmatism, Continuity, and Westernization
Political Geography:
Turkey and Middle East

43. A pivot or a saga? How Turkish foreign policy is torn between domestic pressures and economic needs

Author:
Başak Alpan
Publication Date:
01-2026
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Centre for European Policy Studies (CEPS)
Abstract:
The EU must take proactive steps to address longstanding issues and cultivate a more trust-based and cooperative relationship with Turkey. Bilateral relations could be rejuvenated by addressing key issues such as democratic reforms, visa liberalisation, civil society engagement and the ongoing dispute over Cyprus. This CEPS Explainer explores the recent orientation of the Turkish foreign policy, focusing on its historical Western orientation and recent efforts to achieve ‘strategic autonomy’ by scrutinising the results of the fieldwork undertaken through the CATS Network project. Interviews conducted in Ankara, Istanbul and Brussels show that while Turkish policymakers aim to diversify the country’s foreign policy by forging security and economic partnerships with non-Western actors, such as the BRICS, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), China and Russia, its institutional and ideological foundation remains Western-oriented. Integrating Turkey into European security alignments, such as the SAFE framework, and modernising the Turkey-EU customs union would help to strengthen bilateral ties. Additionally, the EU should substantiate the people-to-people contact approach to rebuild trust and encourage further cooperation.
Topic:
European Union, Foreign Policy, Bilateral Relations, Civil Society, Partnerships, and Regional Politics
Political Geography:
Turkey, Middle East, and Europe

44. How the EU can pursue strategic cooperation on secondary raw materials with the Western Balkans

Author:
Edoardo Righetti, Deniz Tekin, and Vasileios Rizos
Publication Date:
01-2026
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Centre for European Policy Studies (CEPS)
Abstract:
Europe’s green and digital transitions are increasing demand for critical raw materials (CRMs), just as geopolitical risks and trade tensions are reshaping global supply chains. In recent years, the EU has taken steps to secure and diversify supplies through building strategic partnerships with resource-rich countries, which also includes recovering CRMs from mine waste and tailings. The Western Balkans region stands out as a natural partner, given their already close integration with EU markets and transport networks, and their legacy of old industrial sites and mine tailings. Such a partnership could lead to several mutual benefits – for the EU, more resilient and circular CRM value chains which correspond with its strategic autonomy and sustainability objectives, and for the Western Balkans, by rehabilitating legacy sites and advancing green and circular policies tied to the Green Agenda and the enlargement framework. This CEPS Policy Brief dives into three priority areas for EU-Western Balkans cooperation on secondary raw materials that policymakers should pay more attention to.
Topic:
Regional Cooperation, European Union, Supply Chains, Green Transition, Digital Transition, and Critical Minerals
Political Geography:
Europe and Western Balkans

45. Economic implications for Europe of a potential reintegration of Iran into the world economy

Author:
Gabriel Felbermayr, Mahdi Ghodsi, Heider Kariem, Robert Stehrer, and Yoto V. Yotov
Publication Date:
02-2026
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
The Vienna Institute for International Economic Studies (WIIW)
Abstract:
How would fundamental political change in Iran, leading to a democratic system with a free and rules-based economic order, affect Germany and the EU economically? In the event of change, sanctions could be scaled back, allowing Iran to rejoin the global economy. This study quantifies the economic effects of such a transformation. It neither advocates for nor legitimises the lifting or easing of sanctions under the current regime or without far-reaching and credible reforms that fully address the concerns underlying the sanctions currently in place. Using the newest available data and quantitative methods, the results indicate that lifting EU sanctions alone could raise Iran’s real GDP by more than 80% in the long run while generating moderate but economically meaningful gains for Germany and the EU of around 0.3-0.4% of GDP. These gains are driven by expanded trade, lower energy and input prices, and improved allocative efficiency. When sanctions removal is combined with plausible scenarios of productivity catch-up with Turkey or South Korea, Iran’s GDP would increase by 240-388% and the gains for Europe would increase further, underscoring the strong complementarity between trade integration and productivity growth. Moreover, Iran’s reintegration would reduce energy price volatility, improve the security of maritime trade routes, and lower migration pressures. Overall, the findings suggest that a negotiated transition and rules-based reintegration of Iran would generate substantial mutual economic benefits while contributing to regional and global stability.
Topic:
Markets, Political Economy, Foreign Direct Investment, Sanctions, European Union, Economy, Inflation, Energy, and Trade Integration
Political Geography:
Europe, Iran, and Germany

46. Structural dependencies and choke points in GVCs: An industry-level analysis

Author:
Robert Stehrer
Publication Date:
02-2026
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
The Vienna Institute for International Economic Studies (WIIW)
Abstract:
Global value chains (GVCs) are intricate international networks in which the production and distribution of goods and services across multiple economies and industries is coordinated. Their complexity introduces strategic dependencies when economies or industries rely heavily on a limited number of foreign suppliers. Such dependencies can also create additional vulnerabilities, particularly at choke points (i.e. key links or nodes in the chain) whose disruption – whether due to political instability and geopolitical tensions, natural disasters, pandemics or policy shocks and trade restrictions – can halt production. This study builds on previous research by examining two factors: (i) size dependencies arising when an importing economy-industry pair relies largely on the inputs of a partner economies, and (ii) choke dependencies, where imports from one economy pass through another, creating potential choke points. Choke dependency is particularly concerning, as disruptions in the choke economy can impact not only its direct exports but also the flow of goods from other suppliers. Using the multi-country input-output tables (MC IOTs), this study introduces two indicators to assess dependencies: (i) ‘size dependency’, based on the share of an economy-industry’s foreign output sourced from a specific partner, and (2) ‘choke dependency’, based on the pass-through frequency (ptf) indicator, which reveals how often inputs from third economies are routed through a particular partner. An economy-industry pair is considered dependent if it meets thresholds for size dependency, choke dependency or both. This comprehensive approach aims to offer a deeper understanding of systemic vulnerabilities in global trade networks.
Topic:
International Trade and Finance, Global Value Chains, Vulnerability, Dependency, and Choke Points
Political Geography:
Global Focus

47. Restraint and Diplomacy in Arctic Policy: Cooperation Amid U.S.-Russia-China Tensions

Author:
Pavel Devyatkin
Publication Date:
01-2026
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft
Abstract:
In recent years, the Arctic has become the site of both great-power cooperation and competition. While the 2025 Alaska summit between Presidents Putin and Trump reflected a thaw in U.S.–Russia relations, U.S. interest in acquiring Greenland has cast doubt on continued U.S. cooperation with both Russia and China in the region. This brief details how a combination of restraint and proactive diplomacy in the Arctic — built upon shared interests and a recognition of competitive coexistence — will best serve the United States. The second Trump administration has called for American Arctic dominance, viewing the region as an energy source and as an opportunity to monopolize resources and to establish its Western Hemisphere force posture. Russia views the Arctic through a similar lens of resources and sovereignty, as it ramps up its military presence while intensifying efforts to extract natural resources. China’s influence in the region has steadily increased, as it collaborates with Russia, while advancing scientific research, sustainable development, and multilateral climate cooperation. The United States has come to see increasing Russia–China collaboration in the Arctic as a threat to U.S. national interests. But rather than responding to this deepening relationship through unilateralism, the U.S. should recognize that competitive coexistence and trilateral cooperation are more beneficial. This approach avoids zero-sum confrontation and minimizes accidental escalation while maintaining U.S. force projection, maximizing resource extraction, and promoting scientific collaboration. Toward this end, this brief recommends that the Trump administration: Establish trilateral maritime safety and search-and-rescue, SAR, operations, a system that exchanges real-time information, conducts joint training exercises, and invests in port and coast guard infrastructure. Such cooperation would lower shipping costs, improve safety, and encourage economic development — goals shared by the United States, Russia, and China. Institutionalize direct, reliable U.S.–Russia–China communication channels, including a dedicated Arctic hotline for incident reporting and a security digital platform for real-time vessel tracking. Such transparency minimizes the chances of miscalculation, particularly with nuclear assets in the region. Revitalize the Arctic Council to enable communication among the three major powers, the eight Arctic states, and Indigenous representatives. Initiate a trilateral arms control framework, using reductions in Arctic military exercises as a springboard for broader arms control and security arrangements.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Diplomacy, International Cooperation, Strategic Competition, and Great Powers
Political Geography:
Russia, China, Asia, North America, Arctic, and United States of America

48. Prospects and Problems for Reinvigorating Superpower Nuclear Cooperation

Author:
Ariel Petrovics
Publication Date:
01-2026
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft
Abstract:
A three-way nuclear arms race between the United States, China, and Russia looms — an escalation that would erode global nonproliferation and usher in an era of unchecked nuclear proliferation. This brief offers a path to preventing this destabilizing outcome through pragmatic nuclear cooperation — an approach that has strong historical precedent and accords with the strategic interests of all three nuclear superpowers. Superpower cooperation historically underpinned the global nuclear nonproliferation regime, but increasing great power competition erodes this entire system of international security. China and Russia have each modernized and expanded their nuclear programs and adopted more aggressive nuclear postures. The United States, in turn, has approved a nearly $2 trillion nuclear modernization program. This burgeoning arms race heightens risks of inadvertent escalation, as each of the superpowers become increasingly reliant on nuclear brinkmanship to hold off the growing capabilities of their adversaries. The deteriorating nuclear security environment places pressure on other states to similarly seek their own nuclear arsenals while weakening the nonproliferation tool kit that previously prevented these states from breaking out. As more armed states join the fray, they in turn multiply the number of potential nuclear flashpoints around the world. Reinvesting in superpower cooperation on nuclear security is not an idealistic bid for goodwill. Rather, halting unchecked competition is a pragmatic strategy that serves the interests of the United States, Russia, and China. It preserves a global nuclear system that has safeguarded the superpowers’ dominance for decades. Weakening it, on the other hand, undermines the international marketplace that has preserved U.S. dominance in private industry and innovation. Russia and China, in turn, risk a multifront nuclear competition, as proximate U.S. allies choose uncontrolled independent arsenals over existing security umbrellas. The superpowers can still step back from the abyss by reviving nuclear cooperation. Toward that objective, this brief recommends that the Trump administration: Accept Russia’s offer to extend New START for a year, paired with verification pathways and transparency measures. Reinvigorate existing direct lines of communication (i.e., hotline systems) with both Russia and China. Initiate trilateral nuclear discussions with Russia and China toward the goal of capping arsenals at parity on specific warheads and delivery systems.
Topic:
Security, International Cooperation, Nuclear Weapons, Nonproliferation, and Great Powers
Political Geography:
Russia, China, and United States of America

49. Conceptualizing Compartmentalization in International Relations: The Case of Turkish Foreign Policy

Author:
Şaban Kardaş and Bayram Sinkaya
Publication Date:
01-2026
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
All Azimuth: A Journal of Foreign Policy and Peace
Institution:
Center for Foreign Policy and Peace Research
Abstract:
How do we conceptualize compartmentalization as a foreign policy behavior? This paper will argue that compartmentalization is a practical and cognitive approach to foreign policy decision-making and behavior at times of contradictory pressures arising from domestic or external realities, when actors need to make stark choices between different alternatives. Having delineated the boundaries of this concept, the article will engage in an extensive review of the literature employing the concept of compartmentalization in the study of Turkish foreign policy. It will trace how Turkish foreign policy conduct increasingly adopted this behavior in at least two distinct forms: issue-based and actor-based. The paper will argue that the widening scope of this practical-cognitive behavior is a result of a number of systemic and domestic-state level factors, which are closely related to the evolution of Türkiye’s domestic realities and international positioning against the background of a changing international system. Moreover, the paper will argue that at the individual-ideational level as well, compartmentalization has been part of a set of cognitive priors which affect the Turkish foreign policy makers’ formulation of alternative foreign policy strategies.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, International Cooperation, and Compartmentalization
Political Geography:
Turkey and Middle East

50. Rights-Based Alternatives to Incarceration for Women Lessons from Colombia’s Public Utility Law and the International Guidelines on Human Rights and Drug Policy

Author:
Claudia Cardona, Julie Hannah, Isabel Pereira-Arana, and Rebecca Schleifer
Publication Date:
01-2026
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Dejusticia
Abstract:
Women’s incarceration in Colombia is deeply linked to the disproportionate application of drug laws and to the gendered inequalities women face in poor and care demanding contexts. A novel law introduced in 2023 addresses these issues and allows certain women heads of household living in conditions of marginality to exchange prison for public service in freedom. Law 2292 - the Public Utility Law, is an expression of the International Guidelines on Human Rights and Drug Policy, and of normative shifts in Colombia around criminal policy and drug control. This paper documents how Mujeres Libres, the Center for Law, Justice and Society (Dejusticia), and the International Centre for Human Rights and Drug Policy, based at the University of Essex, came together to use the Guidelines as a shared advocacy and technical framework to strengthen the implementation of Law 2292. Aimed at policymakers, judges, public defenders, and civil society in Latin America and beyond, this paper offers a practical account of our implementation efforts: how our partnership formed, how we engaged strategic actors and identified key pathways of change, what tools we produced, what results we are beginning to see, and what should happen next.
Topic:
Human Rights, Women, Inequality, Participation, Drug Policy, and Incarceration Alternatives
Political Geography:
Colombia and South America

51. La inteligencia artificial en la Unión Europea

Author:
Cristina Puente, Celia Fernández Aller, Antoni Farriols Solá, Katherin Corredor, and Elisa Gutiérrez García
Publication Date:
02-2026
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Fundación Alternativas
Abstract:
La inteligencia artificial se ha consolidado como una tecnología de impacto sistémico, acelerada en los últimos años por la irrupción de la IA generativa y los grandes modelos de lenguaje, con efectos transversales en la economía, los servicios públicos y la vida social, y con profundas implicaciones éticas, laborales y geopolíticas. En este contexto de competencia estratégica entre Estados Unidos, China y la Unión Europea, el informe analiza la evolución tecnológica, los modelos fundacionales, las aplicaciones sectoriales y los riesgos asociados, subrayando la dependencia europea de infraestructuras y hardware externos, así como su posición de liderazgo normativo frente a un rezago en inversión, escalabilidad y talento. A partir de este diagnóstico, se examinan las iniciativas europeas emergentes, los desafíos de gobernanza global y las oportunidades para que la UE impulse un modelo de IA confiable, sostenible y centrado en las personas, que combine innovación, soberanía tecnológica, protección de derechos fundamentales y cooperación internacional en un entorno global cada vez más inestable.
Topic:
Science and Technology, European Union, Youth, and Artificial Intelligence
Political Geography:
Europe and Spain

52. Criterios para una fiscalidad saludable: Especial consideración a los productos con alto contenido en azúcar

Author:
Julio César Muñiz Pérez
Publication Date:
01-2026
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Fundación Alternativas
Abstract:
Especial consideración a los productos con alto contenido en azúcar La forma en que compramos y consumimos alimentos está cambiando, y la fiscalidad se ha convertido en una importante herramienta para promover la salud pública. Sin embargo, ¿Está funcionando adecuadamente la tributación actual sobre la alimentación? Recientemente hemos publicado un informe que analiza cómo debe diseñarse una «fiscalidad saludable» que sea verdaderamente efectiva, coherente con la normativa europea y justa para el consumidor. Lo que descubrirás en este informe: Ingredientes, no productos: Por qué habría que poner el acento en el “ingrediente objetivo” y no en penalizar categorías completas de alimentos. El IVA como mejor alternativa: Las ventajas de usar tramos de IVA diferenciados según el etiquetado, frente al empleo impuestos especiales. Evidencia vs. Recaudación: La necesidad de evaluar si estas medidas son eficaces para mejorar la salud o si solo generan un rechazo social. El papel de la industria: Cómo la colaboración y la innovación (I+D+i) pueden ser tanto o más eficaces que la simple aplicación de impuestos
Topic:
Political Science, Legislation, Public Policy, Public Health, Sugar, and Value-Added Tax (VAT)
Political Geography:
Global Focus

53. África ante la crisis de financiación para el desarrollo

Author:
Andrea Chamorro, Jaume Portell, Olga Namasembe, Luis García Blanch, and Romeo Gbaguidi
Publication Date:
03-2026
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Fundación Alternativas
Abstract:
La Fundación Alternativas les invita a debatir en Casa África en torno al Informe África 2026. En esta edición nos centramos en los retos y oportunidades que plantea un nuevo modelo de financiación al desarrollo a resultas de factores como la retirada de EEUU del sistema de la ayuda, con el desmantelamiento de la USAID y de las agencias de Naciones Unidas; la presencia creciente de China a través de su proyecto de la Franja y la Ruta; o nuevas prioridades en Europa como el aumento del gasto en defensa. Nuestro Informe ofrece un estudio en profundidad que reflexiona y elabora propuestas en torno a un nuevo modelo de financiación del desarrollo sostenible. Estamos en un momento crítico donde la UE y España deberían contribuir a la articulación de un nuevo modelo, más horizontal, participativo y eficaz. Abordaremos cuestiones como el estado actual de la deuda y el desarrollo en África: el nexo entre seguridad y desarrollo; las tensiones entre las agendas externas y los intereses africanos en el Sahel y África Occidental; el nuevo escenario de la cooperación española y europea; el papel del sector privado, o las perspectivas para el desarrollo africano tras la IV Cumbre de Financiación de Sevilla.
Topic:
Development, European Union, Geopolitics, Economy, and Financing
Political Geography:
Africa

54. Irán entre protestas y geopolítica

Author:
Xavier Villar
Publication Date:
01-2026
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Fundación Alternativas
Abstract:
Análisis de las protestas en Irán surgidas en un contexto de fuerte inflación y depreciación del rial —que perdió cerca de la mitad de su valor frente al dólar en 2025— y que, tras iniciarse como una movilización de carácter económico encabezada por comerciantes y pequeños empresarios, derivaron rápidamente en expresiones de descontento político más amplio. Aunque las manifestaciones se han extendido a numerosas ciudades y han adquirido una notable visibilidad social, su escala y composición difieren de ciclos previos, como los de 2009 o 2019, y hasta ahora no se han producido deserciones significativas en las fuerzas de seguridad que permitan hablar de un cambio de régimen inminente. El artículo subraya además las dificultades para verificar cifras de víctimas debido al bloqueo informativo, matiza la idea de un rechazo político unánime al régimen y sitúa las protestas en un marco político-estratégico más amplio, marcado por la posición geográfica de Irán, sus recursos energéticos y la competencia internacional entre Estados Unidos y China.
Topic:
Regime Change, Sanctions, Economy, Protests, Inflation, Transatlantic Relations, and Strategic Competition
Political Geography:
China, Iran, Middle East, and United States of America

55. Universidad dual: Formación innovativa para el futuro profesional

Author:
Vicent Climent-Ferrando
Publication Date:
01-2026
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Fundación Alternativas
Abstract:
El dinámico mercado laboral actual exige una formación universitaria más ágil y relevante. A menudo, la evolución curricular de las universidades no sigue el ritmo de la innovación empresarial, generando una brecha entre la academia y las necesidades del sector productivo. La Universidad Dual surge como una solución clave, integrando la formación académica con la experiencia práctica en empresas. Este modelo no solo impulsa la actualización de los currículos, sino que también eleva la empleabilidad de los estudiantes al ofrecerles un entorno de aprendizaje real y aplicado. Sin embargo, su implementación presenta desafíos importantes: asegurar la calidad educativa, invertir en la capacitación del personal docente en las empresas y garantizar el equilibrio entre el estudio y el trabajo para los estudiantes. Desde Fundación Alternativas, abordamos estos retos. Presentamos un Policy Paper y una jornada de debate dedicados a analizar en profundidad el modelo de formación dual universitaria. Nuestro objetivo es evaluar su estado actual y proponer recomendaciones de política pública que faciliten su adopción progresiva, minimizando los riesgos asociados a esta transformación.
Topic:
Education, Markets, Labor Issues, and Public Policy
Political Geography:
Global Focus

56. Hacia la Ley de Chips 2.0

Author:
Emilio García García
Publication Date:
02-2026
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Fundación Alternativas
Abstract:
En este documento elaborado por Emilio García García se aborda la revisión de la Ley de Chips de la UE, que tuvo su origen en la crisis de la cadena de suministros posterior a los confinamientos para contener la pandemia de la COVID-19. La Comisión Europea ha acelerado su proceso de revisión junto con la globalidad de la estrategia de semiconductores comunitaria. En un escenario de inestabilidad geopolítica, el ejecutivo de la UE ha señalado la industria de semiconductores como una de las claves de la soberanía tecnológica del Viejo Continente, motivando así la urgencia del proceso. La ya denominada Ley de Chips 2.0 debe tener en cuenta los éxitos y fracasos de la estrategia actual, así como los cambios geopolíticos y del entorno tecnológico y de mercado. Se presenta en el documento un resumen de estas circunstancias y recomendaciones para la próxima revisión de la norma. Si bien destacamos la importancia de la nueva Ley, la nueva política industrial y comercial europea para semiconductores debe trascender el marco de una directiva o reglamento, y la implementación de las recomendaciones de la sección final requiere cambios en otros instrumentos de la UE y nuevas herramientas.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Science and Technology, Law, European Union, Geopolitics, Political Science, Public Policy, and CHIPS
Political Geography:
Europe and Spain

57. Ciencia, Industria y Competitividad

Author:
Gonzalo León, Francisco Marín, Carlos Marti Sempere, Raquel Jorge, and María Peñate
Publication Date:
02-2026
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Fundación Alternativas
Abstract:
La Fundación Alternativas analiza la evolución del sistema de I+D en España en el contexto internacional y geopolítico, destacando los grandes cambios recientes en ciencia, tecnología e innovación. El informe subraya que España dispone de capacidades competitivas en áreas clave como biotecnología, comunicaciones, software o IA, y puede contribuir al fortalecimiento tecnológico de la UE. Ante el ascenso de China, la inestabilidad global y la creciente importancia de la seguridad y la soberanía tecnológica, el texto defiende la necesidad de reformar el sistema español de I+D, mejorar su gestión y alinearlo con una política industrial europea más ambiciosa. El objetivo final es reforzar la competitividad, la autonomía tecnológica y el papel estratégico de España en Europa.
Topic:
Science and Technology, European Union, Youth, Digital Culture, Industry, and Competition
Political Geography:
China, Europe, and Spain

58. Political Violence in America: Public Perceptions, Polarization, and Accountability

Author:
PRRI Staff
Publication Date:
01-2026
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
PRRI: Public Religion Research Institute
Abstract:
Two-thirds of Americans (67%) believe political leaders’ failure to condemn violent rhetoric contributes a lot to violent actions in society. Majorities of Americans also believe that false or misleading information generated by AI (64%) and public displays of hate symbols (61%) contribute a lot to violent actions in society, while smaller majorities believe easy access to guns and harsh and violent political language are also drivers (both 53%). While 51% of Republicans believe public displays of hate symbols contribute a lot to violence, 76% of Democrats do. Fewer than half of Republicans (46%) believe that harsh and violent political language contributes a lot to violence in society; white evangelical Protestants are the only group of religious Americans in which a minority (45%) share that view. Very few Americans support hostile and violent actions by their political allies to advance important political goals. Very few Americans justify imprisoning a political opponent without a trial if that person poses a clear danger to the country (12%); damaging or destroying property as a form of protest (7%); pushing, shoving, or punching a political opponent (6%); posting the home address or private phone number of a political opponent online so their family will be harassed (5%); or killing a political opponent if that person poses a clear danger to the country (5%). While very strong majorities of Americans over the age of 50 completely disagree that violent and harsh actions may justify political outcomes, such sentiments are less widely shared among younger Americans, especially those who are under 30. More than three in four Americans disagree that violence may be needed to save the country; views are similar across partisan groups, though they have shifted some throughout the year. Most Americans (77%) disagree that “because things have gotten so far off track, true American patriots may have to resort to violence in order to save our country,” compared with 20% of those who agree. Agreement about the potential need for political violence has decreased significantly among Republicans since President Donald Trump’s reelection in November 2024; agreement among Democrats has remained low over time but increased slightly in the past year. Since early 2021, support for political violence has varied across religious groups. Support among white Christians has declined since the 2024 election, though white evangelical Protestants continue to show higher support than white Christians overall. Support for political violence remains highest among Christian nationalism Adherents and lowest among Rejecters. Americans’ views on who is most responsible for political violence are deeply polarized, split largely along partisan and religious lines. Democrats overwhelmingly attribute most responsibility for political violence to right-wing groups (73%), while Republicans attribute most responsibility to left-wing groups (72%). While more Christians of color and non-Christians attribute most responsibility to right-wing groups for most political violence today, white Christian groups attribute most responsibility to left-wing groups. Most Christian nationalism Adherents (73%) and Sympathizers (64%) attribute responsibility to left-wing groups, while most Rejecters (72%) attribute responsibility to right-wing groups. Christian nationalism Skeptics are divided. Americans’ views are strongly divided by party and religion on whether National Guard deployments in American cities cause more violence than they prevent. A slim majority of Americans (52%) agree that deploying the National Guard to patrol American cities may cause more violence than it prevents. Democrats (80%) and independents (60%) are far more likely than Republicans (23%) to agree. Most Christians of color and non-Christians agree that these deployments cause more violence, while white Christian groups are far less likely to do so. Agreement is particularly lower among white evangelical Protestants (29%). Christian nationalism Rejecters (80%) are the most likely to agree, followed by Skeptics (54%), Sympathizers (37%), and Adherents (26%). Opposition to Trump’s Jan. 6 pardons is widespread, with notable exceptions among Republicans, white Christian groups, and Christian nationalism Adherents and Sympathizers. Most Americans (68%) oppose “President Trump’s pardoning of over 1,500 people convicted for their role in the attacks on the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021,” compared with 29% who favor it. Republicans (63%) are far more likely to favor these pardons than independents (22%) and Democrats (4%). White Christian groups, particularly white evangelical Protestants (58%), are more likely than non-Christians (24%), Christians of color (19%), and unaffiliated Americans (18%) to favor Trump’s Jan. 6 pardons, as are Christian nationalism Adherents (61%) and Sympathizers (49%), compared with Skeptics (25%) and Rejecters (8%). Opposition to stripping citizenship and deporting U.S. citizens deemed a threat is widespread, with notable exceptions among Republicans, white evangelical Protestants, and Christian nationalism Adherents and Sympathizers. Four in ten Americans (41%) favor “stripping U.S. citizens of their citizenship and deporting them if they are determined to be a threat to the country.” Republicans (60%) are roughly twice as likely as independents (38%) and Democrats (27%) to agree. White evangelical Protestants (56%) are the only religious group with majority support for stripping U.S. citizens of their citizenship and deporting them, compared with fewer Hispanic Protestants (49%), white Catholics (48%), and white mainline Protestants (46%). Support among other religious groups is notably lower. Christian nationalism Adherents (67%) and Sympathizers (57%) are notably more likely than Skeptics (40%) and Rejecters (23%) to favor stripping U.S. citizens of their citizenship.
Topic:
Political Violence, Accountability, Misinformation, and Polarization
Political Geography:
North America and United States of America

59. Mapping Christian Nationalism Across the 50 States: Insights from PRRI’s 2025 American Values Atlas

Author:
PRRI Staff
Publication Date:
02-2026
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
PRRI: Public Religion Research Institute
Abstract:
Around three in ten Americans qualify as Christian nationalism Adherents or Sympathizers. One-third of Americans qualify as Christian nationalism Adherents (11%) or Sympathizers (21%), compared with two-thirds who qualify as Skeptics (37%) or Rejecters (27%). These percentages have remained stable since PRRI first asked these questions in late 2022, with a slight decline among Americans who qualify as Christian nationalism Rejecters, who peaked at 32% in June 2023 and declined to 26% by the end of 2025. White evangelical Protestants and Hispanic Protestants are most likely to hold Christian nationalist beliefs; Americans who frequently attend religious services, especially those who are white, are more likely to be Christian nationalists. White Christians (46%) are more likely than Christians of color (39%), non-Christians (13%), and religiously unaffiliated Americans (10%) to qualify as Christian nationalism Adherents and Sympathizers. White evangelical Protestants (67%) and Hispanic Protestants (54%) are the only major religious groups among whom a majority hold Christian nationalist beliefs. The majority of those who attend religious services weekly or more qualify as Christian nationalism Adherents or Sympathizers (54%), compared with 39% of those who attend at least a few times a year and 20% of those who seldom or never attend services. This correlation holds among those who pray outside of religious services and those who read religious texts. White Americans who attend religious services, pray, or read the Bible or other religious texts frequently are more likely than their Black and Hispanic counterparts to qualify as Christian nationalism Adherents and Sympathizers. Christian nationalism support is also strongly linked to party, media habits, age, education, and race. A majority of Republicans qualify as either Christian nationalism Adherents (21%) or Sympathizers (35%), compared with one-quarter of independents (7% Adherents and 18% Sympathizers) and less than one in five Democrats (5% Adherents and 12% Sympathizers). Two-thirds of Americans who most trust far-right news sources qualify as Christian nationalism Adherents (34%) or Sympathizers (31%), as do a majority of those who most trust Fox News (18% Adherents and 37% Sympathizers). Support for Christian nationalism is positively associated with lower education levels and older age; AAPI Americans are far less likely to be Christian nationalists than other Americans. Christian nationalist views predominate in the South and Midwest; support for Christian nationalism is strongly correlated in all 50 states with favorable views of President Donald Trump and the proportion of Republican representation in state legislatures. The states with the highest levels of support for Christian nationalism — which includes about half of their residents — are Arkansas (54%), Mississippi (52%), West Virginia (51%), Oklahoma (49%), and Wyoming (46%). Three states emerge with more than half of their white, non-Hispanic residents supporting Christian nationalism: Arkansas (59%), Mississippi (54%), and West Virginia (53%). The higher state residents scored on the Christian nationalism scale, the more likely they are to hold favorable views of Trump and the larger the proportion of Republican elected officials in their state legislatures. Christian nationalists are more likely than other Americans to support political violence and score high on PRRI’s Right-Wing Authoritarianism Scale. Three in ten Christian nationalism Adherents (30%) and one-quarter of Sympathizers (23%) agree that “because things have gotten so far off track, true American patriots may have to resort to violence to save the country,” compared with only 14% of Skeptics and 11% of Rejecters. Support for political violence among Christian nationalism Adherents was higher under President Joe Biden and declined after Trump’s reelection. Christian nationalism Adherents and Sympathizers score high on PRRI’s Right-Wing Authoritarianism Scale; scores for Skeptics are mixed, while Rejecters score low. Christian nationalism Adherents and Sympathizers overwhelmingly view Trump as a strong leader, while Skeptics and Rejecters overwhelmingly view him as a dangerous dictator. Christian nationalists also hold more extreme views about immigrants and are more likely to say mandatory vaccines for children should be illegal. Majorities of Christian nationalism Adherents (67%) and Sympathizers (53%) believe that “immigrants are invading our country and replacing our cultural and ethnic background.” Majorities of Christian nationalism Adherents (61%) and Sympathizers (54%) agree with “the U.S. government deporting undocumented immigrants to foreign prisons without due process.” While at least half of Christian nationalism Adherents and Sympathizers support birthright citizenship, majorities agree with “stripping U.S. citizens of their citizenship and deporting them if they are determined to be a threat to the country” (66% and 56%). Over four in ten Christian nationalism Adherents (44%) and one-third of Sympathizers (34%) say that mandatory vaccines for children should be illegal in all or most cases, compared with one-quarter of Skeptics and one in ten Rejecters.
Topic:
Politics, Religion, Ideology, and Christian Nationalism
Political Geography:
North America and United States of America

60. Mapping Support for LGBTQ Rights Across the 50 States: Insights from PRRI’s 2025 American Values Atlas

Author:
PRRI Staff
Publication Date:
03-2026
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
PRRI: Public Religion Research Institute
Abstract:
LGBTQ Americans trend younger, Democratic, liberal, and more religiously unaffiliated than other Americans. One in ten Americans identify as LGBTQ. Two in ten Americans ages 18-29 (20%) identify as LGBTQ, compared with smaller shares among those ages 30-49 (11%), ages 50-64 (5%), and ages 65 and older (4%). LGBTQ Americans are more likely to identify as Democrats (40%), compared with 28% of all Americans, and are nearly twice as likely to identify as politically liberal (51% vs. 26%, respectively). The majority of LGBTQ Americans identify as religiously unaffiliated (51%), compared with 27% of all Americans. Views on LGBTQ rights differ strongly by state. Massachusetts (85%), Maryland (82%), and Alaska (81%), along with the District of Columbia (82%), hold the highest support for nondiscrimination protections for gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender people, while Mississippi (60%), Wyoming (57%), and Arkansas (53%) show the lowest support. Massachusetts (72%), Hawaii (71%), Vermont (71%), and Connecticut (70%), along with the District of Columbia (70%), show the strongest opposition to religiously based service refusals, while West Virginia (44%) shows the lowest opposition. The only states without majority support for same-sex marriage are Mississippi (47%) and Arkansas (50%). Massachusetts (85%), Rhode Island (85%), and Vermont (81%) show the highest support. Except for Christian nationalism Adherents, strong majorities of Americans — including most people of faith — support nondiscrimination protections for LGBTQ individuals. Most Americans support nondiscrimination protections for LGBTQ people (72%), with Democrats (90%) being the most supportive, followed by independents (76%) and Republicans (56%). Majorities of most major religious groups support non-discrimination protections, though support is highest among non-Christians and the religiously unaffiliated. Christian nationalism Rejecters (91%) are the most likely to support nondiscrimination protections, followed by 77% of Skeptics, 61% of Sympathizers, and 42% of Adherents. Over the past decade, Americans ages 18-29 have shown a gradual decrease in support for LGBTQ nondiscrimination laws, from 80% in 2015 to 70% in 2025, largely driven by young Republicans, while seniors 65 and over have increased their support from 61% to 74% over the same period. Except for Republicans, Christian nationalism Adherents, and Sympathizers, most Americans continue to oppose religiously based service refusals for LGBTQ people. Most Americans oppose allowing small businesses to refuse service to LGBTQ people on religious grounds (59%), with Democrats (82%) more likely to oppose, compared with independents (60%) and Republicans (35%). Opposition among white Christians grew from 49% in 2015 to 55% in 2020, but has declined since to 46%. Opposition among Christians of color, non-Christians, and religiously unaffiliated Americans remains high. Christian nationalism Rejecters (83%) are the most likely to oppose religiously based refusals for LGBTQ people, followed by 62% of Skeptics, 44% of Sympathizers, and 32% of Adherents. Support for same-sex marriage remains high for most Americans, but partisanship, religious affiliation, and Christian nationalist views are linked to differing opinions. Support for same-sex marriage remains higher today (65%) than in 2015 (53%). Today, Republicans (49%) are notably less likely than Democrats (83%) and independents (69%) to support same-sex marriage. Majorities of most religious groups support same-sex marriage, except for Latter-day Saints (47%), Hispanic Protestants (45%), white evangelical Protestants (37%), Muslims (37%), and Jehovah’s Witnesses (19%). Nearly all Christian nationalism Rejecters (93%) and three-fourths of Skeptics (73%) support same-sex marriage, compared with 46% of Sympathizers and 22% of Adherents. Except for young Americans under 30, support for same-sex marriage has steadily grown across older age groups, gender, race, and education levels. While most Americans agree that transgender people deserve the same rights and protections as other Americans, just 40% oppose laws that require transgender people to use bathroom of their sex assigned at birth. Seven in ten Americans (71%) agree that “transgender people deserve the same rights and protections as other Americans,” including most Democrats (88%), independents (77%), and Republicans (57%). Except for Christian nationalism Adherents (40%), solid majorities across all religious groups, Christian nationalism groups, age, gender, race, and education levels agree that transgender people deserve the same rights as other Americans. The majority of Americans (56%) favor laws that require transgender individuals to use bathrooms that correspond to their sex at birth, with most Republicans (81%) in favor, compared with 55% of independents and 32% of Democrats. Americans who agree transgender people deserve the same rights and protections as other Americans are less likely to favor laws that require transgender individuals to use bathrooms that correspond to their sex assigned at birth than those who disagree that transgender people deserve the same rights (49% vs. 77%).
Topic:
Human Rights, Religion, Discrimination, LGBT+, Transgender, and Christian Nationalism
Political Geography:
North America and United States of America