Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA)

Permanent URI for this collectionhttp://hdl.handle.net/1903/10117

The Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) was established in 1992 with the purpose of giving public opinion a greater voice in international relations. PIPA conducts in-depth studies of public opinion that include polls, focus groups and interviews. It integrates its findings together with those of other organizations. It actively seeks the participation of members of the policy community in developing its polls so as to make them immediately relevant to the needs of policymakers. PIPA is a joint program of the Center on Policy Attitudes (COPA) and the Center for International and Security Studies at Maryland (CISSM).

Browse

Author: search.filters.author.Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA)Start date: 2010

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 8 of 8
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Faith and Global Policy Challenges: How Spiritual Values Shape Views on Poverty, Nuclear Risks, and Environmental Degradation
    (2011-12) Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA); Kull, Steven; Steinbruner, John; Gallagher, Nancy; Ramsay, Clay; Lewis (aka Fehsenfeld), Evan; Siegel, Jonas; Jones, Kevin; Subias, Stefan
    A majority of Americans professing a belief in God favor cooperative international efforts to combat climate change, environmental degradation, and the spread of nuclear weapons, according to the findings of this public opinion poll conducted jointly by the University of Maryland's Center for International and Security Studies at Maryland (CISSM) and its Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA). The study also finds that a majority of "believers" consider addressing global poverty a "spiritual obligation" and think that the United States should work cooperatively with other nations to reduce it. The poll was fielded from September 9 to 19, 2011, with a sample of 1,496 adult Americans, including large numbers of Catholics and Evangelicals.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    The American Public on the 9/11 Decade: A Study of American Public Opinion
    (2011-09-08) Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA); Telhami, Shibley; Kull, Steven; Ramsay, Clay; Lewis (aka Fehsenfeld), Evan; Subias, Stefan
    Six in ten Americans believe that that the U.S. weakened its economy by overspending in its responses to the 9/11 attacks. In particular, respondents felt this was especially true of the U.S. mission in Iraq. Two out of three Americans perceive that over the decade since 9/11, U.S. power and influence in the world has declined. This view is highly correlated with the belief that the U.S. overspent in its post-9/11 response efforts -- the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. These are some of the findings of a new poll conducted by the Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) and the Anwar Sadat Chair for Peace and Development at the University of Maryland. The poll of 957 Americans was fielded August 19-25, 2011, by Knowledge Networks.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    The American public and the Arab awakening: a study of American public opinion
    (2011-04) Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA); Telhami, Shibley; Kull, Steven; Ramsay, Clay; Lewis (aka Fehsenfeld), Evan; Subias, Stefan
    An overwhelming majority of Americans think that it would be positive for the United States if the Middle East were to become more democratic, and a solid majority would favor this happening even if it resulted in the country being more likely to oppose U.S. policies. These are some of the findings of a new poll conducted by the Anwar Sadat Chair for Peace and Development and the Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) at the University of Maryland. The poll of 802 Americans was fielded April 1-5 by Knowledge Networks.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    American Public Vastly Overestimates Amount of U.S. Foreign Aid
    (2010-11) Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA)
    This November 2010 poll examined Americans' estimates of the amount of the federal budget that is devoted to foreign aid. A total of 848 randomly selected adults aged 18 and older participated. When asked to estimate how much of the federal budget goes to foreign aid, respondents' median estimate was 25 percent. Asked how much they thought would be an "appropriate" percentage, the median response was 10 percent. In fact, just 1 percent of the federal budget goes to foreign aid.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Misinformation and the 2010 Election: A Study of the US Electorate
    (2010-12-10) Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA); Ramsay, Clay; Kull, Steven; Lewis (aka Fehsenfeld), Evan; Subias, Stefan
    Examined Americans' perceptions of the reliability of information in the election environment, in light of the Supreme Court decision in "Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission." During November 6-15, 2010, WorldPublicOpinion.org conducted web interviews with 848 randomly selected respondents, including 616 self-reported voters. An overwhelming majority of voters said that they encountered misleading or false information in the 2010 midterm election, with a majority saying that this occurred more frequently than usual. The poll found strong evidence that voters were substantially misinformed on many of the issues prominent in the campaign, including the stimulus legislation, the healthcare reform law, TARP, the state of the economy, climate change, campaign contributions by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and President Obama's birthplace.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Public attitudes toward climate change: findings from a multi-country poll
    (2010-07) Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA); World Bank
    The World Bank‘s World Development Report 2010 on Climate Change and Development commissioned an international poll of public attitudes to climate change. The poll is the first to specifically target developing countries and ask a comprehensive set of questions regarding climate policy. The poll aims to a) provide the public in developing countries with an avenue to make their voices heard in a debate often dominated by developed countries‘ views, and b) provide decision makers with a tool to assess the state of public views on climate change in their countries. Various World Bank departments contributed to the design of the poll.1 The polling was conducted among 15,518 respondents in 16 nations— Bangladesh, Brazil, China, Egypt, France, India, Indonesia, Iran, Japan, Kenya, Mexico, Russia, Senegal, Turkey, the United States, and Vietnam. The surveys were carried out by WorldPublicOpinion.org, a collaborative project involving research centers from around the world, managed by the Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) at the University of Maryland. The margins of error for each country range from +/-3 to 4 percentage points. The surveys were conducted across the different nations between September and December 2009. The results were released ahead of the COP-15 in Copenhagen, and were covered extensively by different media outfits worldwide (see annex). They also provided the material to a series of blog posts (http://blogs.worldbank.org/climatechange). The poll addresses the following dimensions: a) level of concern, b) beliefs about climate change, c) attitudes toward international cooperation on climate change,; and d) willingness to bear economic costs to support national actions.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Post-Election Poll in Iran Shows Little Change in Anti-Regime Minority
    (2010-02-02) Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA); Richman, Alvin
    This article analyzes the views of three different Iranian opinion groups - Conservatives, Moderates and Reformers - based on their responses to several measures of "regime support" contained in WPO's September 2009 survey. The three groups were initially identified on WPO's February 2008 Iran survey using Latent Class Analysis that was presented in an earlier article, "Iranian Public is Not Monolithic ...". The same three groups were recreated on WPO's September 2009 Iran survey, as well as its earlier 2008 survey, using an easily replicable 7-point scale applied to responses on the same three government support measures. All three of the these measures tap the theoretical construct of "regime support," with Conservatives consistently supportive of the regime, Reformers consistently opposed, and Moderates having mixed views.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Analysis of Multiple Polls Finds Little Evidence Iranian Public Sees Government as Illegitimate
    (2010-02-03) Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA)
    Indications of fraud in the June 12 Iranian presidential election, together with large-scale street demonstrations, have led to claims that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad did not actually win the election, and that the majority of Iranians perceive their government as illegitimate and favor regime change.