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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

Generally a positive trend.

I wonder what is keeping Germans from feeling global?

Patriotism is a favorite device of people with something to sell http://www.economist.com/node/21644538/

However I strongly support https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_quota

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

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.

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

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.

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...

The results on Germany have amazed me.

Especially the huge white spaces.

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.

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.

The 22% strongly agree in US worries me