Europe’s Growing Muslim Population

Muslims are projected to increase as a share of Europe’s population – even with no future migration

Migrants who had arrived via buses chartered by Austrian authorities walk toward the border to Germany on Oct. 17, 2015, near Fuchsoedt, Austria. (Sean Gallup/Getty Images)




In recent years, Europe has experienced a record influx of asylum seekers fleeing conflicts in Syria and other predominantly Muslim countries. This wave of Muslim migrants has prompted debate about immigration and security policies in numerous countries and has raised questions about the current and future number of Muslims in Europe.

To see how the size of Europe’s Muslim population may change in the coming decades, Pew Research Center has modeled three scenarios that vary depending on future levels of migration. These are not efforts to predict what will happen in the future, but rather a set of projections about what could happen under different circumstances.

The baseline for all three scenarios is the Muslim population in Europe (defined here as the 28 countries presently in the European Union, plus Norway and Switzerland) as of mid-2016, estimated at 25.8 million (4.9% of the overall population) – up from 19.5 million (3.8%) in 2010.

Even if all migration into Europe were to immediately and permanently stop – a “zero migration” scenario – the Muslim population of Europe still would be expected to rise from the current level of 4.9% to 7.4% by the year 2050. This is because Muslims are younger (by 13 years, on average) and have higher fertility (one child more per woman, on average) than other Europeans, mirroring a global pattern.

A second, “medium” migration scenario assumes that all refugee flows will stop as of mid-2016 but that recent levels of “regular” migration to Europe will continue (i.e., migration of those who come for reasons other than seeking asylum; see note on terms below). Under these conditions, Muslims could reach 11.2% of Europe’s population in 2050.

Finally, a “high” migration scenario projects the record flow of refugees into Europe between 2014 and 2016 to continue indefinitely into the future with the same religious composition (i.e., mostly made up of Muslims) in addition to the typical annual flow of regular migrants. In this scenario, Muslims could make up 14% of Europe’s population by 2050 – nearly triple the current share, but still considerably smaller than the populations of both Christians and people with no religion in Europe.

The refugee flows of the last few years, however, are extremely high compared with the historical average in recent decades, and already have begun to decline as the European Union and many of its member states have made policy changes aimed at limiting refugee flows (see sidebar).


How key terms are used in this report: Regular migrants, asylum seekers and refugees

Migrants: This broad category includes all people moving across international borders to live in another country.
Regular migrants/other migrants: People who legally move to Europe for any reason other than seeking asylum – e.g., for economic, educational or family reasons.

Asylum seekers: Migrants who apply for refugee status upon entry to Europe. Asylum seekers whose requests for asylum are rejected can appeal the decision but cannot legally stay in Europe if the appeal is denied.

Refugees: Successful asylum seekers and those who are expected to receive legal status once their paperwork is processed. Estimates are based on recent rates of approval by European destination country for each origin country (among first-time applicants) and adjusted for withdrawals of asylum requests, which occur, for example, when asylum seekers move to another European country or outside of Europe.

In limbo: Asylum seekers whose application for asylum has been or is expected to be denied. Though this population may remain temporarily or illegally in Europe, these migrants are excluded from the population estimates and projections in this report.

Predicting future migration levels is impossible, because migration rates are connected not only to political and economic conditions outside of Europe, but also to the changing economic situation and government policies within Europe. Although none of these scenarios will play out exactly as projected, each provides a set of rough parameters from which to imagine other possible outcomes. For example, if regular migration continues at recent levels, and some asylum seekers also continue to arrive and receive refugee status – but not as many as during the historically exceptional surge of refugees from 2014 to 2016 – then the share of Muslims in Europe’s population as of 2050 would be expected to be somewhere between 11.2% and 14%.

While Europe’s Muslim population is expected to grow in all three scenarios – and more than double in the medium and high migration scenarios – Europe’s non-Muslims, on the other hand, are projected to decline in total number in each scenario. Migration, however, does mitigate this decline somewhat; nearly half of all recent migrants to Europe (47%) were not Muslim, with Christians making up the next-largest group.

Taken as a whole, Europe’s population (including both Muslims and non-Muslims) would be expected to decline considerably (from about 521 million to an estimated 482 million) without any future migration. In the medium migration scenario, it would remain roughly stable, while in the high migration scenario it would be projected to grow modestly.

The impact of these scenarios is uneven across different European countries (see maps below); due in large part to government policies, some countries are much more affected by migration than others.

Countries that have received relatively large numbers of Muslim refugees in recent years are projected to experience the biggest changes in the high migration scenario – the only one that projects these heavy refugee flows to continue into the future. For instance, Germany’s population (6% Muslim in 2016) would be projected to be about 20% Muslim by 2050 in the high scenario – a reflection of the fact that Germany has accepted many Muslim refugees in recent years – compared with 11% in the medium scenario and 9% in the zero migration scenario.

Sweden, which also has accepted a relatively high number of refugees, would experience even greater effects if the migration levels from 2014 to mid-2016 were to continue indefinitely: Sweden’s population (8% Muslim in 2016) could grow to 31% Muslim in the high scenario by 2050, compared with 21% in the medium scenario and 11% with no further Muslim migration.

By contrast, the countries projected to experience the biggest changes in the medium scenario (such as the UK) tend to have been destinations for the highest numbers of regular Muslim migrants. This scenario only models regular migration.

And countries with Muslim populations that are especially young, or have a relatively large number of children, would see the most significant change in the zero migration scenario; these include France, Italy and Belgium.

Some countries would experience little change in any of the scenarios, typically because they have few Muslims to begin with or low levels of immigration (or both).

The starting point for all these scenarios is Europe’s population as of mid-2016. Coming up with an exact count of Muslims currently in Europe, however, is not a simple task. The 2016 estimates are based on Pew Research Center analysis and projections of the best available census and survey data in each country combined with data on immigration from Eurostat and other sources. While Muslim identity is often measured directly, in some cases it must be estimated indirectly based upon the national origins of migrants (see Methodology for details).

One source of uncertainty is the status of asylum seekers who are not granted refugee status. An estimated 3.7 million Muslims migrated to Europe between mid-2010 and mid-2016, including approximately 2.5 million regular migrants entering legally as workers, students, etc., as well as 1.3 million Muslims who have or are expected to be granted refugee status (including an estimated 980,000 Muslim refugees who arrived between 2014 and mid-2016).

Based on recent rates of approval of asylum applications, Pew Research Center estimates that nearly a million (970,000) additional Muslim asylum seekers who came to Europe in recent years will not have their applications for asylum accepted, based on past rates of approval on a country-by-country basis. These estimates also take into account expected rates of withdrawals of requests for refugee status (see Methodology for details).

Where these asylum seekers “in limbo” ultimately will go is unclear: Some may leave Europe voluntarily or be deported, while others will remain at least temporarily while they appeal their asylum rejection. Some also could try to stay in Europe illegally.

For the future population projections presented in this report, it is assumed that only Muslim migrants who already have – or are expected to gain – legal status in Europe will remain for the long term, providing a baseline of 25.8 million Muslims as of 2016 (4.9% of Europe’s population). However, if all of the approximately 1 million Muslims who are currently in legal limbo in Europe were to remain in Europe – which seems unlikely – the 2016 baseline could rise as high as 26.8 million, with ripple effects across all three scenarios.

These are a few of the key findings from a new Pew Research Center demographic analysis – part of a broader effort to project the population growth of religious groups around the world. This report, which focuses on Muslims in Europe due to the rapid changes brought on by the recent influx of refugees, provides the first estimates of the growing size of the Muslim population in Europe following the wave of refugees between 2014 and mid-2016. It uses the best available data combined with estimation and projection methods developed in prior Pew Research Center demographic studies. The projections take into account the current size of both the Muslim and non-Muslim populations in Europe, as well as international migration, age and sex composition, fertility and mortality rates, and patterns in conversion. (See Methodology for details.)

Europe’s Muslim population is diverse. It encompasses Muslims born in Europe and in a wide variety of non-European countries. It includes Sunnis, Shiites, and Sufis. Levels of religious commitment and belief vary among Europe’s Muslim populations. Some of the Muslims enumerated in this report would not describe Muslim identity as salient in their daily lives. For others, Muslim identity profoundly shapes their daily lives. However, quantifying religious devotion and categories of Muslim identity is outside the scope of this report.

Between mid-2010 and mid-2016, the number of Muslims in Europe grew considerably through natural increase alone – that is, estimated births outnumbered deaths among Muslims by more than 2.9 million over that period. But most of the Muslim population growth in Europe during the period (about 60%) was due to migration: The Muslim population grew by an estimated 3.5 million from net migration (i.e., the number of Muslims who arrived minus the number who left, including both regular migrants and refugees). Over the same period, there was a relatively small loss in the Muslim population due to religious switching – an estimated 160,000 more people switched their religious identity from Muslim to another religion (or to no religion) than switched into Islam from some other religion or no religion – although this had a modest impact compared with births, deaths and migration.1

By comparison, the non-Muslim population in Europe declined slightly between 2010 and 2016. A natural decrease of about 1.7 million people in the non-Muslim European population modestly outnumbered the net increase of non-Muslim migrants and a modest net change due to religious switching.

The rest of the report looks at these findings in greater detail. The first section examines the number of migrants to Europe between mid-2010 and mid-2016, including patterns by religion and refugee status. The next section details the top origin and destination countries for recent migrants to Europe, including in each case the estimated percentage of Muslims. One sidebar looks at European public opinion toward the surge in refugees from countries like Iraq and Syria; another summarizes trends in government policies toward refugees and migration in individual countries and the EU as a whole. The following section examines more deeply the three projection scenarios on a country-by-country basis. Finally, the last two sections reveal data on two other key demographic factors that affect population growth: fertility and age structure.

This report was produced by Pew Research Center as part of the Pew-Templeton Global Religious Futures project, which analyzes religious change and its impact on societies around the world. Funding for the Global Religious Futures project comes from The Pew Charitable Trusts and the John Templeton Foundation.

Surge in refugees – most of them Muslim – between 2014 and mid-2016

Overall, regardless of religion or immigration status, there were an estimated 7 million migrants to Europe between mid-2010 and mid-2016 (not including 1.7 million asylum seekers who are not expected to have their applications for asylum approved).

Historically, a relatively small share of migrants to Europe are refugees from violence or persecution in their home countries.2 This continued to be the case from mid-2010 to mid-2016 – roughly three-quarters of migrants to Europe in this period (5.4 million) were regular migrants (i.e., not refugees).

But the number of refugees has surged since 2014. During the three-and-a-half-year period from mid-2010 to the end of 2013, about 400,000 refugees (an average of 110,000 per year) arrived in Europe. Between the beginning of 2014 and mid-2016 – a stretch of only two and a half years – roughly three times as many refugees (1.2 million, or about 490,000 annually) came to Europe, as conflicts in Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan continued or intensified. (These figures do not include an additional 970,000 Muslim asylum seekers and 680,000 non-Muslim asylum seekers who arrived between mid-2010 and mid-2016 but are not projected to receive legal status in Europe.)

Of these roughly 1.6 million people who received refugee status in Europe between mid-2010 and mid-2016 (or are expected to have their applications approved in the future), more than three-quarters (78%, or 1.3 million) were estimated to be Muslims.3 By comparison, a smaller percentage of regular migrants to Europe in this period (46%) were Muslims, although this still greatly exceeds the share of Europe’s overall population that is Muslim and thus contributes to Europe’s growing Muslim population. In fact, about two-thirds of all Muslims who arrived in Europe between mid-2010 and mid-2016 were regular migrants and not refugees.

Altogether, a slim majority of all migrants to Europe – both refugees and regular migrants – between mid-2010 and mid-2016 (an estimated 53%) were Muslim. In total number, roughly 3.7 million Muslims and 3.3 million non-Muslims arrived in Europe during this period.

Non-Muslim migrants to Europe overall between mid-2010 and mid-2016 were mostly made up of Christians (an estimated 1.9 million), people with no religious affiliation (410,000), Buddhists (390,000) and Hindus (350,000). Christians made up 30% of regular migrants overall (1.6 million regular Christian migrants; 55% of all non-Muslim regular migrants) and 16% of all refugees (250,000 Christian refugees; 71% of all non-Muslim refugees).
Syria is top origin country not only for refugees but also for all Muslim migrants to Europe

Considering the total influx of refugees and regular migrants together, more migrants to Europe between mid-2010 and mid-2016 came from Syria than any other country. Of the 710,000 Syrian migrants to Europe during this period, more than nine-in-ten (94%, or 670,000) came seeking refuge from the Syrian civil war, violence perpetrated by the Islamic State or some other strife.

An estimated nine-in-ten Syrian migrants (91%) were Muslims. In this case and many others, migrants’ religious composition is assumed to match the religious composition of their origin country. In some other cases, data are available for migrants from a particular country to a destination country; for example, there is a higher share of Christians among Egyptian migrants to Austria than there is among those living in Egypt. When available, this type of data is used to estimate the religious composition of new migrants. (For more details, see the Methodology.)

After Syria, the largest sources of recent refugees to Europe are Afghanistan (180,000) and Iraq (150,000). Again, in both cases, nearly all of the migrants from these countries were refugees from conflict, and overwhelming majorities from both places were Muslims.

Several other countries, however, were the origin of more overall migrants to Europe. India, for example, was the second-biggest source of migrants to Europe (480,000) between mid-2010 and mid-2016; very few of these migrants came as refugees, and only an estimated 15% were Muslims.

The top countries of origin of migrants in legal limbo are not necessarily the top countries of origin among legally accepted refugees. For example, relatively few Syrians are in legal limbo, while Albania, where fewer asylum seekers come from, is the origin of a large number of rejected applicants. Afghanistan, meanwhile, is both a major source of legally accepted refugees and also a major country of origin of those in legal limbo.

Since the primary criterion for asylum decisions is the safety of the origin country, particularly dangerous countries, such as Syria, have much higher acceptance rates than others. For more information on the countries of origin of those in legal limbo see Pew Research Center’s 2017 report, “Still in Limbo: About a Million Asylum Seekers Await Word on Whether They Can Call Europe Home.”

Syria also was by far the single biggest source of Muslim migrants to Europe overall in recent years. But Morocco, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Iran also sent considerable numbers of Muslim migrants to Europe between mid-2010 and mid-2016 – more than 1 million combined – and the vast majority of Muslims from these countries came to Europe as regular migrants and not as refugees.
Germany is top destination for Muslim refugees; UK is leading destination for regular Muslim migrants

Germany was the destination for an estimated 670,000 refugees between mid-2010 and mid-2016 – more than three times as many as the country with the next-largest number, Sweden (200,000). A similar number of regular migrants from outside Europe also arrived in Germany in recent years (680,000). But religiously, refugees and other migrants to Germany look very different; an estimated 86% of refugees accepted by Germany were Muslims, compared with just 40% of regular migrants to Germany.

Germany has the largest population and economy in Europe, is centrally located on the continent and has policies favorable toward asylum seekers (for more on EU policies toward refugees, see this sidebar). The UK, however, actually was the destination for a larger number of migrants from outside Europe overall between mid-2010 and mid-2016 (1.6 million). The UK voted in a 2016 referendum to leave the EU, which may impact immigration patterns in the future, but it is still counted as part of Europe in this report.

Relatively few recent immigrants to the UK (60,000) were refugees, but more than 1.5 million regular migrants arrived there in recent years. Overall, an estimated 43% of all migrants to the UK between mid-2010 and mid-2016 were Muslims.

Combining Muslim refugees and Muslim regular migrants, Germany was the destination for more Muslim migrants overall than the UK (850,000 vs. 690,000).

France also received more than half a million Muslim migrants – predominantly regular migrants – between mid-2010 and mid-2016, while 400,000 Muslims arrived in Italy. The two countries accepted a combined total of 210,000 refugees (130,000 by Italy and 80,000 by France), most of whom were Muslims.

Sweden received even more refugees than the UK, Italy and France, all of which have much larger populations. A large majority of these 200,000 refugees (an estimated 77%) were Muslims; Sweden also received 250,000 regular migrants, most of whom were Muslims (58%). Overall, 300,000 Muslim migrants – 160,000 of whom were refugees – arrived in Sweden in recent years. Only Germany, the UK, France and Italy received more Muslim migrants to Europe overall since mid-2010. But because Sweden is home to fewer than 10 million people, these arrivals have a bigger impact on Sweden’s overall religious composition than does Muslim migration to larger countries in Western Europe.

These estimates do not include migration from one EU country to another. Some countries, particularly Germany, received a large number of regular migrants from within the EU. In fact, with about 800,000 newcomers from other EU countries, Germany received more intra-EU migrants than regular migrants from outside the EU. Intra-EU migrants tend to have a similar religious composition to Europeans overall.

The number of Muslim asylum seekers in legal limbo – i.e., those who already have had or are expected to have their applications for asylum rejected – varies substantially from country to country, largely because of differences in policies on asylum, variation in the number of applications received and differing origins of those migrants. Germany, for example, has a high number of Muslim migrants in legal limbo despite a relatively low rejection rate – mainly because it has received such a large number of applications for asylum. Germany received about 900,000 applications for asylum from Muslims between mid-2010 and mid-2016, and is projected to ultimately accept 580,000 and reject roughly 320,000 – or slightly more than one-third (excluding applications that were withdrawn).

This rejection rate is similar to Sweden’s; Sweden ultimately is expected to reject an estimated 90,000 out of roughly 240,000 Muslim applications (again, excluding withdrawals). France, meanwhile, is projected to reject three-quarters of applications from Muslims, leaving an “in limbo” population of 140,000 (out of 190,000 Muslim applications). Italy is expected to reject about half of Muslim applicants (90,000 out of 190,000 applications), and the UK is projected to reject 60,000 out of 100,000.

Data for the 2010 to 2013 period are based on application decision rates. But due to the combination of still-unresolved applications and lack of comprehensive data on recent decisions when this analysis took place, rejection patterns for the 2014 to mid-2016 period are estimated based on 2010 to 2013 rates of rejection for each origin and destination country pair (for details, see Methodology). There is no religious preference inherent to the asylum regulations in Europe. However, if religious persecution is a reason for seeking asylum, that context (as opposed to religious affiliation in and of itself) can be considered in the decision process. Religion is estimated in this report based on available information about countries of origin and migration flow patterns by religion – application decisions are not reported by religious group.

Iraqi and Syrian refugees perceived as less of a threat in countries where more of them have sought asylum

Does public opinion toward refugees invariably turn negative as their numbers rise? Apparently not. In some European countries that have attracted large numbers of refugees from Iraq and Syria, public levels of concern about these refugees are relatively low. Meanwhile, in some countries where there are fewer refugees from Iraq and Syria, a much higher share of the public says they pose a “major threat,” according to a 2017 Pew Research Center survey.

For instance, Germany has been the primary destination country for asylum seekers from the Middle East, receiving 457,000 applications from Iraqis and Syrians between mid-2010 and mid-2016. Yet the share of people in Germany who say “large numbers of refugees from countries such as Iraq and Syria” pose a “major threat” is among the lowest of all European countries surveyed (28%).

Similarly, in Sweden, just 22% of the public says these refugees constitute a “major threat.” Iraqi and Syrian asylum seekers make up an even greater share of Sweden’s population than Germany’s; there are 139 asylum seekers from these countries for every 10,000 Swedes.

By contrast, majorities of the public in Greece (67%), Italy (65%) and Poland (60%) say large numbers of refugees from countries such as Iraq and Syria represent a “major threat,” even though there are relatively few such asylum seekers in these countries.4 Indeed, there are fewer than 10,000 people from Iraq and Syria seeking asylum in Italy and Poland combined, representing one or fewer per 10,000 residents in each country.

This pattern is not universal. Hungary received 85,000 applications for asylum from Iraqi and Syrian refugees between mid-2010 and mid-2016 – among the highest figures in Europe – and most Hungarians (66%) see this surge of refugees as a major threat. Hungary’s government decided to close its border with Croatia in October 2015, erecting a fence to keep migrants out. Tens of thousands of applications for asylum in Hungary have been withdrawn since 2015. (For more on government policies toward migration, see this sidebar.)

Concerns about refugees from Iraq and Syria, most of whom are Muslims, are tied to negative views about Muslims in general. In all 10 EU countries that were part of a Pew Research Center survey in 2016, people who have an unfavorable view of Muslims are especially likely to see a threat associated with Iraqi and Syrian refugees. In the United Kingdom, for example, 80% of those who have an unfavorable opinion of Muslims say large numbers of refugees from countries such as Iraq and Syria represent a major threat. Among British adults who view Muslims favorably, just 40% see the refugees as a major threat.



EU restrictions on migration tightening after surge

Changing government policies in European countries can have a major impact on migration flows. In recent years, several European countries – and the European Union itself, acting on behalf of its member states – have adopted policies that have generally moved to tighten Europe’s borders and to limit flows of migrants.

In 2016, the EU signed a deal with Turkey, a frequent stop for migrants coming from Syria. Under the terms of the deal, Greece, which shares a border with Turkey, can return to Turkey all new “irregular” or illegal migrants. In exchange, EU member states pledged to resettle more Syrian refugees living in Turkey and to increase financial aid for those remaining there. By 2017, the agreement had reduced by 97% the number of migrants coming from Turkey into Greece, according to the EU migration commissioner.

Another common path for large numbers of migrants to Europe is from sub-Saharan Africa to Italy, where they primarily arrive by sea from the Libyan coast. To try to stem the tide, Italy has worked with the Libyan coast guard to develop techniques to stop boats carrying the migrants, among other policies and tactics.

In addition, even Germany – the destination of more recent asylum seekers than any other European country — has deported some migrants, including to Afghanistan, and moved toward tougher border controls. German Chancellor Angela Merkel, following a September 2017 election that saw the far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) party gain a presence in parliament for the first time, agreed to a limit of 200,000 asylum seekers per year.

Sweden and Austria also have accepted high numbers of refugees, especially relative to their small populations. But in November 2015, leaders announced a tightening of Sweden’s refugee policy, requiring identity checks to be imposed on all forms of transportation, and limiting family reunification with refugees. And in an October 2017 election, Austrian voters favored parties that had campaigned on taking a harder line on immigration.

Immigration – and not just by refugees – has been a major campaign issue in several countries, and it was one of the key factors in the Brexit debate over whether the UK, the destination of more regular migrants than any other European country in recent years, should remain in the European Union. In the aftermath of the 2016 referendum in which British voters opted to leave the EU, UK government officials have vowed to remove the country from the freedom-of-movement policy, which allows EU citizens to move to and work in EU member states without having to apply for visas, in March 2019.
How Europe’s Muslim population is projected to change in future decades

Pew Research Center’s three scenarios projecting the future size of the Muslim population in Europe reflect uncertainty about future migration flows due to political and social conditions outside of Europe, as well as shifting immigration policies in the region.

These projections start from an estimated baseline of 26 million Muslims in Europe as of 2016, which excludes asylum seekers who are not expected to gain legal status. Even with no future migration, Europe’s Muslim population is projected to increase by 10 million by 2050 based on fertility and age patterns (see here). If past levels of regular migration continue in the future – but with no more asylum seekers — the Muslim population in Europe would increase to nearly 58 million by midcentury (the medium scenario). And if the heavy refugee flows seen in recent years were to continue in the future on top of regular migration (the high migration scenario), there would be more than 75 million Muslims in Europe as of 2050.

In all three scenarios, the non-Muslim population in Europe is projected to shrink in total number between now and 2050.

As of 2016, France and Germany have the highest numbers of Muslims in Europe. But in the medium migration scenario, the United Kingdom would surpass them, with a projected 13 million Muslims in 2050 (compared with a projected 12.6 million in France and 8.5 million in Germany). This is because the UK was the top destination country for regular Muslim migrants (as opposed to refugees) between mid-2010 and mid-2016, and the medium scenario assumes that only regular immigration will continue.

Alternatively, in the high migration scenario, Germany would have by far the highest number of Muslims in 2050 – 17.5 million. This projection reflects Germany’s acceptance of a large number of Muslim refugees in recent years. The high scenario assumes that these refugee flows will continue in the coming decades, not only at the same volume but also with the same religious composition (i.e., that many refugees will continue to come from predominantly Muslim countries). Compared with the UK and France, Germany has received fewer regular Muslim migrants in recent years.

Other, smaller European countries also are expected to experience significant growth in their Muslim populations if regular migration or an influx of refugees continues (or both). For instance, in Sweden, the number of Muslims would climb threefold from fewer than a million (810,000) in 2016 to nearly 2.5 million in 2050 in the medium scenario, and fivefold to almost 4.5 million in the high scenario.

But some countries – even some large ones, like Poland – had very few Muslims in 2016 and are projected to continue to have very few Muslims in 2050 in all three scenarios. Poland’s Muslim population was roughly 10,000 in 2016 and would only rise to 50,000 in the medium scenario and 60,000 in the high scenario.

These growing numbers of Muslims in Europe, combined with the projected shrinkage of the non-Muslim population, are expected to result in a rising share of Muslims in Europe’s overall population in all scenarios.

Even if every EU country plus Norway and Switzerland immediately closed its borders to any further migration, the Muslim share of the population in these 30 countries would be expected to rise from 4.9% in 2016 to 7.4% in 2050 simply due to prevailing demographic trends. In the medium migration scenario, with projected future regular migration but no refugees, the Muslim share of Europe would rise to 11.2% by midcentury. And if high refugee flows were to continue in future decades, Europe would be 14% Muslim in 2050 – a considerable increase, although still a relative minority in a Christian-majority region.

Cyprus currently has the highest share of Muslims in the EU (25.4%), due largely to the historical presence of predominantly Muslim Turkish Cypriots in the northern part of the island. Migration is not projected to dramatically change the Muslim share of the population in Cyprus in future scenarios.

In both the zero and medium migration scenarios, Cyprus would maintain the largest Muslim share in Europe in 2050. But in the high migration scenario, Sweden – which was among the countries to accept a large number of refugees during the recent surge – is projected to surpass even Cyprus. In this scenario, roughly three-in-ten Swedes (30.6%) would be Muslim at midcentury.

Even in the medium scenario, without any future refugee flows, Sweden would be expected to have the second-largest Muslim share (20.5%) as of 2050. If migration were to stop altogether, a much smaller percentage of Swedes (11.1%) would be Muslim in 2050.

Migration also drives the projected increase in the Muslim shares of France, the UK and several other countries. Both France and the UK are expected to be roughly 17% Muslim by 2050 in the medium scenario, several percentage points higher than they would be if all future migration were to stop. Because both countries have accepted many more Muslim regular migrants than Muslim refugees, France and the UK do not vary as greatly between the medium scenario and the high scenario.

Germany, on the other hand, sees a dramatic difference in its projected Muslim share depending on future refugee flows. The share of Muslims in Germany (6.1% in 2016) would increase to 10.8% in 2050 under the medium scenario, in which regular migration continues at its recent pace and refugee flows stop entirely. But it would rise far more dramatically, to 19.7%, in the high scenario, if the recent volume of refugee flows continues as well. There is a similar pattern in Austria (6.9% Muslim in 2016, 10.6% in 2050 in the medium scenario and 19.9% in 2050 in the high scenario).

Another way to look at these shifts is by examining the extent of the projected change in the share of each country that is Muslim in different scenarios.

From now until midcentury, some countries in Europe could see their Muslim populations rise significantly in the medium and high scenarios. For example, the Muslim shares of both Sweden and the UK would rise by more than 10 percentage points in the medium scenario, while several other countries would experience a similar increase in the high scenario. The biggest increase for a country in any scenario would be Sweden in the high scenario – an increase of 22.4 percentage points, with the percentage of Muslims in the Swedish population rising to 30.6%.

Other countries would see only marginal increases under these scenarios. For example, Greece’s Muslim population is expected to rise by just 2.4 percentage points in the medium scenario. And hardly any change is projected in any scenario in several Central and Eastern European countries, including Poland, Latvia and Lithuania.

In Europe overall, even if all Muslim migration into Europe were to immediately and permanently stop – a zero migration scenario – the overall Muslim population of Europe would be expected to rise by 2.5 percentage points, from the current level of 4.9% to 7.4% by 2050. This is because Muslims in Europe are considerably younger and have a higher fertility rate than other Europeans. Without any future migrants, these prevailing demographic trends would lead to projected rises of at least 3 percentage points in the Muslim shares of France, Belgium, Italy and the UK.

Muslims have an average of one more child per woman than other Europeans

Migration aside, fertility rates are among the other dynamics driving Europe’s growing Muslim population. Europe’s Muslims have more children than members of other religious groups (or people with no religion) in the region. (New Muslim migrants to Europe are assumed to have fertility rates that match those of Muslims in their destination countries; for more details, see Methodology.)

Not all children born to Muslim women will ultimately identify as Muslims, but children are generally more likely to adopt their parents’ religious identity than any other.5

Taken as a whole, non-Muslim European women are projected to have a total fertility rate of 1.6 children, on average, during the 2015-2020 period, compared with 2.6 children per Muslim woman in the region. This difference of one child per woman is particularly significant given that fertility among European Muslims exceeds replacement level (i.e., the rate of births needed to sustain the size of a population) while non-Muslims are not having enough children to keep their population steady.

The difference between Muslim women and others varies considerably from one European country to another. In some countries, the disparity is large. The current estimated fertility rate for Muslim women in Finland, for example, is 3.1 children per woman, compared with 1.7 for non-Muslim Finns.6

Among Western European countries with the largest Muslim populations, Germany’s Muslim women have relatively low fertility, at just 1.9 children per woman (compared with 1.4 for non-Muslim Germans). Muslims in the UK and France, meanwhile, average 2.9 children – a full child more per woman than non-Muslims. This is one reason the German Muslim population – both in total number and as a share of the overall population – is not projected to keep pace with the British and French Muslim populations, except in the high scenario (which includes large future refugee flows).

In some countries, including Bulgaria and Greece, there is little difference in fertility rates between Muslims and non-Muslims.

Over time, Muslim fertility rates are projected to decline, narrowing the gap with the non-Muslim population from a full child per woman today to 0.7 children between 2045 and 2050. This is because the fertility rates of second- and third-generation immigrants generally become similar to the overall rates in their adopted countries.

The low fertility rate in Europe among non-Muslims is largely responsible for the projected decline in the region’s total population without future migration.
Young Muslim population in Europe contributes to growth

The age distribution of a religious group also is an important determinant of demographic growth.

European Muslims are concentrated in young age groups – the share of Muslims younger than 15 (27%) is nearly double the share of non-Muslims who are children (15%). And while one-in-ten non-Muslim Europeans are ages 75 and older, this is true of only 1% of Muslims in Europe.

As of 2016, there is a 13-year difference between the median age of Muslims in Europe (30.4 years of age) and non-Muslim Europeans (43.8). Because a larger share of Muslims relative to the general population are in their child-bearing years, their population would grow faster, even if Muslims and non-Muslims had the same fertility rates.

As of 2016, France and Germany have the greatest age differences in Europe between Muslims and non-Muslims. The median age of Muslims in France is just 27, compared with 43 for non-Muslims. Germany has an equally large gap (31 for Muslims, 47 for non-Muslims).

Paul Krugman: ¿Es necesaria tanta desigualdad?



¿Qué tan ricos queremos que sean los ricos?


Se puede decir que es la cuestión alrededor de la que gira la política de los Estados Unidos. Los liberales quieren aumentar los impuestos sobre los altos ingresos y usar esos recursos para fortalecer las polticas más solidarias. Los conservadores quieren hacer lo contrario. Argumentan que políticas que primen el cobro de impuestos a los más ricos perjudicarán a la sociedad en su conjunto al reducir los incentivos para crear riqueza.Las últimas experiencias no favorecen la defensa de la postura conservadora. El Presidente Obama impulsó una subida de impuestos importante para los que más ganan y su reforma del sistema de salud ha supuesto la expansión más grande del Estado de bienestar desde el mandato de Lyndon B. Johnson. Los conservadores, por su parte, no dudaron en pronosticar el desastre económico del mismo modo que ya lo habían hecho cuando Bill Clinton aumentó los impuestos al 1 por ciento más rico del país. Y lo que ha sucedido, en cambio, es que Obama ha encabezado el período con mayor crecimiento del empleo desde la década de 1990.Photo



¿Existe, entonces, un debate a largo plazo que defienda la existencia de niveles altos de desigualdad?


No les sorprendería escuchar que muchos miembros de la élite económica creen que sí. Tampoco les sorprendería saber que estoy en desacuerdo y que creo que la economía puede crecer si se da una concentración mucho menor de la riqueza en las clases altas. ¿Pero por qué lo creo?


Me parece útil pensar en los tres modelos que explican de dónde podría provenir la desigualdad extrema teniendo en cuenta que la economía real incluye elementos de los tres.


En el primero, las variaciones en los niveles de productividad de diferentes individuos podrían ser responsables de altos niveles de desigualdad: algunas personas son capaces de hacer contribuciones cientos o miles de veces mayores que la media. Esa es la postura expresada en un ensayo reciente, y muy citado, del inversionista Paul Graham, que ha resultadopopular en Silicon Valley entre personas que ganan cientos o miles de veces más que sus empleados.


En el segundo, la desigualdad podría deberse, en gran medida, a la suerte. En un clásico del cine, “El tesoro de Sierra Madre”, un viejo buscador de oro explica que este mineral vale tanto (y por eso los que lo encuentran se vuelven ricos) gracias a la labor de toda la gente que fue a buscarlo y no lo encontró. Del mismo modo, podríamos encontrarnos ante un sistema económico en el cual quienes tienen éxito no son necesariamente más inteligentes ni más trabajadores que aquellos que no lo tienen, son solo quienes están en el lugar adecuado en el momento adecuado.


Y en el tercero, el poder sería la fuerza que se encuentra tras niveles de desigualdad tan grandes: como los ejecutivos de las grandes corporaciones que se marcan sus propios salarios y los operadores financieros que se hacen ricos con el uso de información privilegiada o por cobrar honorarios inmerecidos de inversionistas ingenuos.


Como dije, la economía real contiene elementos de los tres modelos. Sería tonto negar que algunas personas son, de hecho, mucho más productivas que la media. Igual de tonto sería negar que tener éxito en los negocios (o, de hecho, en cualquier otra cosa) tiene mucho que ver con la suerte, no solo la suerte de ser el primero en toparse con una idea o estrategia muy rentable, sino también con la suerte de ser hijo de los padres correctos.


Y, sin duda, el poder también es un factor importante. Al leer a personas como Graham, uno podría imaginarse que los ricos de Estados Unidos son, sobre todo, emprendedores. De hecho, el 0,1 por ciento de los ricos son, sobre todo, altos ejecutivos y, aunque el origen de las fortunas de algunos de estos ejecutivos puede estar vinculado al entorno start-up, es muy probable que la mayoría haya llegado ahí ascendiendo por el escalafón empresarial tradicional. El aumento en los ingresos de los que están en la cima refleja en gran medida el exorbitante sueldo de los directivos, no las recompensas a la innovación.


Pero, sea cual sea el caso, la verdadera pregunta es si podemos redistribuir una parte del ingreso que actualmente se queda en manos de la élite sin paralizar el crecimiento.


No diremos que la redistribución está mal por naturaleza. Incluso si los ingresos elevados fueran un reflejo perfecto de la productividad, los resultados del mercado no sirven como justificación moral. Y dado que en realidad la riqueza es, a menudo, un reflejo de la suerte o el poder, existen argumentos sólidos para recuperar una parte de esa riqueza a través de los impuestos y usarla para contribuir a la fortaleza de la sociedad en general, siempre y cuando esto no termine con los incentivos para continuar creando riqueza.


Y no hay razón para creer que así sería.


En la historia, el período de mayor crecimiento y avance tecnológico más rápido en los Estados Unidos se dio durante los cincuenta y los sesenta, a pesar de que los impuestos eran mucho más elevados para quienes disponían de mayores ingresos y la desigualdad era mucho menor en comparación con la época actual.


En el mundo de hoy, países como Suecia, con impuestos elevados y baja desigualdad, resultan altamente innovadores y son sede de muchas empresas tecnológicas. En parte, esto puede deberse a que hay fuertes mecanismos de protección social que alientan la toma de riesgos: la gente podría estar dispuesta a buscar oro, aunque su incursión no los haga más ricos que antes, si saben que no acabarán muertos de hambre en caso de quedarse con las manos vacías.


Así que, regresando a mi pregunta original: no, los ricos no tienen que ser tan ricos como lo son ahora. La desigualdad es inevitable; tanta desigualdad como la que se registra en Estados Unidos hoy en día no lo es.




Lee el blog de Paul Krugman, The Conscience of a Liberal, y síguelo en Twitter.

#VotoJoven: #MarcasPolíticas y la disruptividad de electores más complejos



Por Rubén Weinsteiner

Con el voto a los 16 años se incorporaron 1,2 millones de nuevos votantes al padrón nacional. En el nuevo escenario el 39% de los votantes tiene menos de 34 años, lo que llamamos voto joven.

Obteniendo una victoria del 50% en este segmento se obtendrían 18 puntos en el total nacional, lo que junto a un despliegue moderado en el resto de los segmentos construiría una ventaja indescontable en cualquier escenario.


En las elecciones de 2008, Obama derrotó a Mc Cain 52,9 % a 45,7, la diferencia que le permitió compensar derrotas en segmentos importantes y construir esos 7 puntos fue el 68% de apoyo entre los menores de 30 años.

En las elecciones de 2012 volvió a conseguir una importante ventaja en ese segmento frente a Mitt Romney, quedandosé con el 60% de los votos sub 30, y también ahí construyó la diferencia que le permitió consolidar su victoria .

Tanto es así que Obama alcanzó los diferenciales mayores en el segmento joven y de esa manera consiguió la victoria en cuatro de los estados clave por la cantidad de electores para el colegio electoral que asignan, sin los que no hubiera alcanzado la presidencia: Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania y Virginia.

En la provincia de Buenos Aires, cada año son 250.000 los chicos que hacen el cambio de documento al cumplir los 16 años. En Córdoba 112.000 jóvenes estarán en condiciones de votar a partir de la nueva ley. En Santa Fe un total de 107.433, en Mendoza 64.000 jóvenes, en la Ciudad Autónoma de Buenos Aires, unos 62.000 jóvenes. En Santiago del Estero 57.000, en Chaco se incorporarán 49.302, en Entre Ríos 46.500, en Tucumán 56.000, en Salta 50.000, en Misiones 30.000 jóvenes. En Formosa no hay información oficial, pero serían 27.000.


El voto jóven recrea mecanismos de tensión joven-adulto y esta tensión se focaliza desde lo emotivo en el planteo y posible enrolamiento en conflictos y luchas contra poderes importantes y con final abierto.

Desde lo funcional la acumulación en términos de preferencias en este segmento se apoya en 2 clivajes específicos:

a)prohibido-permitido

b) institucionalizado-desinstitucionalizado

El joven pone en emergencia conductas “asociales” que muchos viven y practican subterráneamente; constituyendo "lo que viene", "la próxima cultura" más que una contracultura.

Los jóvenes barometrizan el cambio, por eso lo demandan, y el cambio lo anclan en el límite de lo que la ley habilita y lo que prohíbe.

La demanda implícita es permitir lo que está prohibido pero como dice la marcha de la bronca de Pedro y Pablo “haré de cualquier modo” .

La otra demanda fundamental de este segmento es la institucionalización de soluciones. Esta institucionalización conlleva una legitimación implícita demandada, de valores, sentimientos, necesidades, etc.

El segmento demanda ocupar el imaginario de la clase política. A este segmento el discurso de los de 50 les resulta ajeno emocionalmente, lento conceptualmente y aburrido discursivamente, pero la zona donde la brecha mas se profundiza, es en la credibilidad, los jóvenes no le creen a los mayores.

Esa linealidad de las series de los setenta y ochenta donde todo está demasiado claro, lo bueno, lo malo, los buenos y los malos, lo que está bien y lo que está mal, no resulta creíble en este segmento. Esa unidimensionalidad bajada al discurso resulta inverosímil, “careta”, y sus emisores “truchos y gatos”.

Desde la emergencia, la organización del debate para el segmento se da en torno al clivaje “gato”-autentico. Los otros son la impostura, los que dicen una cosa pero son otra, contra eso, se plantea un modelo normativo de autenticidad, sencillez y transparencia.

No ser “careta”, no ser “gato”, no ser “trucho”, ser o en realidad parecer verdadero, transparente. El marco de referencia está afuera pero dentro del círculo tribal, esa figura referencial emerge por un cualidad específica, ser por ejemplo, el líder de la banda que más le gusta, pero además validar su autoridad con un discurso que se retrolegitime con los valores de la tribu, de autenticidad, y los proyecte hacia afuera.

Las experiencias de voto a los 16 en los diferentes países donde se habilitó ese derecho, marcan tasas de voto altas, los jóvenes “quieren usar la credencial”, son votantes comprometidos y convencidos, despegan y con facilidad del mandato de voto familiar. Demandan convocatorias a enfrentar y forzar, reconocimiento legitimación e institucionalización. Satisfacer deseos antes que necesidades. Es un voto emocional, complejo inteligente y definitorio en cualquier elección.


Rubén Weinsteiner

La generación perdida de Europa: jóvenes, educados y sin empleo

Por Alanna Petroff

En España y Grecia, el desempleo juvenil está por encima del 40%

Muchos siguen viviendo en casa de sus padres, mientras que otros han tenido que dejar a su familia y su país en busca de trabajo
 El desempleo juvenil en la zona euro se ha atascado entre el 19% y el 25% durante los últimos ocho años. En España y Grecia, está por encima del 40%.

A modo de comparación, el desempleo juvenil en EE.UU. está por debajo del 10%.

Los sombríos números subrayan la batalla de muchos jóvenes europeos que se enfrentan a la búsqueda de un trabajo que se ajuste a sus aspiraciones y su educación.

La frustración se apodera de legiones de jóvenes. Muchos siguen viviendo en casa de sus padres, mientras que otros han tenido que dejar a su familia y su país en busca de trabajo.

Se cree que esta tendencia es el factor en el aumento del populismo en Europa, que ahora amenaza con hacer añicos la clase política. Una gran prueba llegará a finales de este mes, cuando Francia celebre la primera ronda de una elección nacional fundamental.

CNNMoney habló con jóvenes del sur de Europa para entender su situación:

Stelios Qerimaj, 23 años

País: Grecia; Desempleo juvenil: 48%



"No hay trabajo. Dondequiera que pregunto, me han dicho que hay personas que están siendo despedidas en lugar de contratadas", dijo Qerimaj, quien lleva buscando trabajo como mecánico de automóviles desde que completó su título de técnico hace dos años.

"Me gustan los coches mucho, tal vez demasiado. Esto es lo que siempre quise hacer", dijo.

"Durante los últimos dos años he tenido trabajos ocasionales. Durante el invierno, trabajo en la construcción cuando hay trabajo. En el verano, he estado trabajando como camarero... No es lo que quiero hacer, pero cuando no hay puestos de trabajo no puedes permitirte el lujo de ser exigente".

Qerimaj dijo que no espera encontrar trabajo en su sector en Grecia y está considerando la posibilidad de abandonar el país. Alrededor de la mitad de sus amigos tienen trabajos con un sueldo muy bajo, y la otra mitad tienen trabajos ocasionales como él, "tratando de hacer todo lo posible para salir adelante", dijo.

Blanca del Valle Ortiz, 25 años

País: España; Desempleo juvenil: 42%



"Después de pasar la crisis financiera, la gente dijo que habría más oportunidades para encontrar empleo. No creo que sea el caso para nada", dijo Del Valle Ortiz, quien recientemente renunció a su trabajo a tiempo parcial como camarera en Madrid para centrarse en encontrar trabajo como ingeniera ambiental.

Del Valle Ortiz se licenció en Ciencias Ambientales y estudió una maestría en Gestión de residuos en septiembre de 2016. Ahora pasa las horas enviando solicitudes de empleo. Incluso está considerando mudarse a Irlanda o Dinamarca para encontrar trabajo.

"Las empresas demandan demasiada experiencia previa para un trabajo de nivel principiante, pero no nos dan las oportunidades iniciales y no podemos entrar en el mercado de trabajo", dijo. "Están creando un círculo vicioso".

Edda Ferrara, 24 años

País: Italia; Desempleo juvenil: 35%



"Se me hace difícil aceptar que no trabajo", dijo Ferrara, quien se graduó en Enfermería hace un año y sueña con trabajar en la sala de emergencias de un hospital.

Ferrara dijo que la burocracia y el nepotismo hacen difícil para ella y sus amigos encontrar trabajo en Italia.

"Mi familia y yo hicimos tantos sacrificios para que pudiera titularme. Desafortunadamente, esto me empuja a querer salir de Italia".

Actualmente, Ferrera vive con sus padres y cuida de niños de forma ocasional.

"Solo una minoría de mis amigos trabajan en su campo de estudio", dijo. "Muchos de ellos trabajan en bares y restaurantes, claramente haciendo cosas totalmente diferentes a lo que estudiaron y originalmente se propusieron hacer".

Joao Lourenço, 24 años

País: Portugal; Desempleo juvenil: 25%



"Los empleadores no ven a los jóvenes como el futuro. Ellos no apuestan por los jóvenes", dijo Lourenço, quien a regañadientes comenzó su maestría en Ingeniería mecánica después de no poder encontrar un trabajo durante meses.

"Estoy buscando trabajo, pero no es fácil", dijo. "Quiero un reto. No quiero un trabajo sólo para obtener un sueldo... Quiero sentirme útil".

Lourenço, que vive con sus padres, dijo que los programas gubernamentales diseñados para ayudar a los jóvenes a conseguir un trabajo han provocado una caída de los salarios.

"Es imposible tener un buen sueldo en tu primer trabajo. Pagan cantidades ridículas, incluso para personas con grados en ingeniería", dijo.

Bamody Camara, 22 años

País: Francia; Desempleo juvenil: 24%



"Vengo de un barrio pobre (en las afueras de París). No hay nada para mí, excepto (trabajos) en limpieza o cosas por el estilo", dijo Camara, quien lleva buscando empleo a tiempo completo más de un año.

Camara dijo que está constantemente enviando solicitudes de empleo, pero nunca recibe respuesta. Sospecha que algunos reclutadores la evitan porque pueden ver que viene de una zona desfavorecida y asumir "que va a tener líos".

"Me gustaría tener las mismas oportunidades que todos", dijo. "Fui a la escuela, no puedo entender por qué no puedo tener éxito en la vida, mientras que otros pueden".

Jorge Macri sobre Peña: "Hubiera puesto una persona con un poquito más de experiencia"

El intendente de Vicente López y primo del exmandatario nacional, Jorge Macri, opinó sobre el rol de Marcos Peña como Jefe de Gabinete y no se mostró muy conforme: "Hubiera puesto una persona con un poquito más de experiencia política", dijo y aclaró que prefiere tenerlo siempre de su lado...


Marcos Peña, con la peor imagen.



Al opinar sobre la gestión de Marcos Peña durante los cuatro años del macrismo en el poder, el intendente de Vicente López y primo del exmandatario nacional, Jorge Macri, afirmó: "De Jefe de Gabinete hubiera puesto una persona con un poquito más de experiencia política".

En cuanto a la experiencia de Peña, Macri dijo que no la tiene del "perfil que a mí me hubiera gustado. Ahora, lo quiero en mi equipo siempre".

Pocos se animaron a criticiar al jefe de Gabinete a viva voz. Nada puedo podía resultar de ello. Sin embargo, con el resultado de las PASO consumado, 2 exministros se animaron a criticarlo con nombre y apellido.

Primero fue Juan José Aranguren, quien lo definió así ante 'La Nación': "Pienso que es un clientelista de la política, alguien que piensa que la sociedad se puede manejar desde un laboratorio. Es inteligente, pero él no estaba en las cosas diarias (...) Pero Macri lo escuchaba mucho", indicó. "Marcos era más de los globos, las flores, de que la gente nos votó porque le vamos a dar un futuro mejor".

También Alfonso Prat Gay, responsable de la salida abrupta del cepo cambiario, habló de él en diálogo con 'Perfil': "Alberto es alguien que si se convence de un camino no va a esperar una segunda o tercera opinión para cambiar de rumbo. No le va a pasar lo de Macri, que al final venía Marcos Peña y le cambiaba el sentido de sus decisiones".

La figura de Peña se apagó definitivamente tras las PASO. La economía entró en un virtual colapso, y Horacio Rodríguez Larreta y María Eugenia Vidal le pidieron a Macri que lo eche. Pero el Presidente no lo hizo.

Sin duda, Peña terminó por ganarse una extensa lista de enemigos. Que ahora, con Macri fuera de Rosada, no temen en remarcarlo. Así como lo hizo Jorge Macri.



Por otro lado, el primo del presidente aseguró que piensa en la gestión de María Eugenia Vidal y "le sale una sonrisa". "Dejó más caritas sonrientes, aún en gente que no la votó", expresó Macri.

Además, evaluó la gestión del ex presidente y se diferenció de Durán Barba, afirmando que Mauricio Macri "no fue": "Sería berreta si nosotros como espacio político no aprovechamos la experiencia de los que por ahí no les tocó ganar pero tienen mucho para aportar".

El primo del ex presidente tampoco descartó su candidatura para Gobernador de la Provincia de Buenos Aires, para 2023: "Esta es la última vuelta de calesita que tengo como intendente", planteó.

Por otra parte, apuntó con ironía contra Roberto Baradel y su esposa, que pertenece al equipo del gobernador: "Es raro que dos tipos que comparten lista política se junten a discutir algo tan sensible como es el salario de los trabajadores de un gremio, en este caso docente".

Por último, el primo del ex presidente aseguró que votaría a favor de la legalización del aborto pero con muchas modificaciones: "Estoy en contra de la penalización y me parece que todavía tenemos que hacer muchas cosa para avanzar en una legalización generalizada. Me parece que hay que disparar un montón de mecanismos al mismo tiempo. Por ejemplo, la prevención del embarazo adolescente, sobre todo en los sectores más vulnerables, que son los que menos eligen muchas veces".

Church and State: When Richard Nixon Used Billy Graham




For ‘America's Pastor,’ access to the highest rungs of American power came at a price—one he would later regret.



As countless obituaries remind us today, Billy Graham knew every president from Harry Truman to Barack Obama; he was a White House visitor for decades. The Southern Baptist preacher known as “America’s pastor” was by turns counselor, confessor and confidant to chief executives from both parties.

The first visit, to Truman in 1950, did not go well. When Graham and fellow evangelists revealed the details of their conversation, and staged a prayer session on the White House lawn, Truman labeled him a “counterfeit,” seeing him as more a publicity-seeking opportunist than a pastor. But Graham persisted, seeing the national stage as possibly his biggest chance to influence America’s spiritual life—and even the course of the nation’s history.


Across the decades, he gained unique access to the power centers of American life. Publishing magnates William Randolph Hearst and Henry Luce helped propel him to fame; financial and business leaders saw his message as a powerful antidote to the appeals of “socialistic” politics, while more liberal political figures saw the benefits of bonding with America’s favorite religious figure. More and more, Graham came to embody the tension between the spiritual necessity of speaking Biblical truth to power, and the compromises required by access to power itself.

In this regard, of all Graham’s White House visits, none was more intriguing—and revealing—than the one he made on September 8, 1968.

This was a visit with a message to President Lyndon B. Johnson from one of the two men battling to succeed him. And it reveals just how much Graham, the most prominent religious figure of his time, was pulled in by the temptations of temporal power. At the time, Richard Nixon was the Republican presidential nominee, with a good chance of taking the White House away from a Democratic Party deeply divided over the war in Vietnam. His relationship with Graham stretched back decades; Nixon’s militant Cold War anticommunism had been a perfect match with Graham’s “Christianity vs. Communism” message of the 1950s and ’60s.

And the message Graham brought was tailormade for a president plagued by doubts over the war, and about his place in history.

Nixon wants to you to know, Graham told LBJ, that he greatly admires all of your hard work; you are, he said, “the hardest working president in 140 years.” He told Johnson that if Nixon won and ended the Vietnam War, he would give Johnson "a major share of credit" for a settlement and would "do everything to make you ... a place in history.”

For his part, Johnson promised Nixon his full cooperation should he win the White House.

It was a message unlike anything out of our political past: the nominee of the opposition party sending a trusted envoy with words of admiration, and the promise of a kinder judgment from history.

It was a message destined to fall on receptive ears. LBJ’s unhappiness with Democratic nominee Hubert Humphrey—his own vice president—was an open secret in Washington. He was convinced that Nixon was closer to him on Vietnam than Humphrey; so much so that Defense Secretary Clark Clifford came to believe that LBJ actually wanted Nixon to win.

Why would Billy Graham, of all people, have been selected to deliver this most sensitive of political messages? In fact, there were good reasons.

There were strong ties between Johnson and Graham; a scheduled five-minute meeting shortly after JFK’s assassination stretched for five hours, and Johnson had often turned to Graham for spiritual strength. And Graham’s ties to Richard Nixon were stronger. In 1960, when he wrote John F. Kennedy to assure him—misleadingly—that he was not going to use JFK’s Roman Catholicism against him, he also wrote that he would likely vote for Nixon because of longstanding personal bonds. In using Graham as his emissary, Nixon knew that Johnson would receive him as a messenger he could trust. He’d know with absolute certainty that Graham was faithfully delivering Nixon’s assurances.

Only someone with a claim to stand outside of politics, someone with a cloak of spiritual respectability, could be trusted with so unusual a test. It is hard to imagine such a message being delivered by, say, an emissary of the Republican Party or Nixon's campaign.

But of course the message wasn’t outside of politics at all: It was deeply political, even opportunistic, and, as we know now, factually dubious. It was later revealed that Nixon’s campaign was actually working to undermine a peace initiative.

It is one example of just how much “America’s pastor” was a staunch political ally of one particular American, Richard Nixon. At the 1969 inaugural, Graham delivered a prayer that read, in part: “We recognize, O Lord, that in Thy sovereignty Thou has permitted Richard Nixon to lead us at this momentous hour of our history”—a sentiment that sounded to some as if he was asserting that Nixon was God’s choice. His support for the war in Vietnam was so enthusiastic that on April 15,1969, after meeting with missionaries from Vietnam, Graham sent a memo to the White House urging that, if the peace talks in Paris failed, Nixon should bomb the dikes that held back floodwaters in the North. This, said Graham, “could overnight destroy the economy of North Vietnam.” It would also have destroyed countless villages, sending as many as a million civilians to their deaths.

He became even more instrumental to Nixon, moving well beyond spiritual counselor. In 1972, he peppered the White House with memos on everything from campaign strategy to stagecraft.

His most infamous “bonding” with Nixon happened in 1972, when a White House conversation turned to the subject of Jewish domination of the media. Nixon was a notorious anti-Semite—a fact that became clearer after the Watergate tapes—and Graham played to the president’s prejudices with enthusiasm. He called that alleged media control “a stranglehold,” mused about “doing something about it” in a second Nixon term, and added, “A lot of Jews are great friends of mine,’’ Graham said. ''They swarm around me and are friendly to me because they know that I am friendly to Israel and so forth. But they don't know how I really feel about what they're doing to this country, and I have no power and no way to handle them.''

''You must not let them know,” Nixon replied.

These repellent remarks may well indicate a core of anti-Semitism; but they can also be read as Graham’s effort to curry favor with Nixon by feeding his darker impulses, much as Henry Kissinger did throughout Nixon’s White House tenure. That reading, in turn, tells us much about the willingness, even eagerness, of a spiritual guide to preserve his access to temporal power. Had Graham chastised Nixon for such views, or even declined to endorse them, it might have made him more of a spiritual shepherd, but lessened Graham’s access to the inner circles of power.

Late in life, Graham came to view his choices differently. In a 2011 interview with Christianity Today, he said, “I … would have steered clear of politics. I’m grateful for the opportunities God gave me to minister to people in high places; people in power have spiritual and personal needs like everyone else, and often they have no one to talk to. But looking back, I know I sometimes crossed the line, and I wouldn’t do that now.”

He also spoke in very different terms about international matters, strongly endorsing efforts toward disarmament, was open about the idea that Christianity might not be the only road to salvation, and distanced himself from the Moral Majority and other manifestations of the Religious Right.

But the road Billy Graham took during his prime raises a fascinating question: What if Graham, with his undeniable magnetism, had chosen a different path? What if his insistence on integrated religious gatherings—a provocative posture in the South of the 1950s— had been accompanied by a forthright campaign for integration in schools, and in a campaign for the vote? What if he had found the boardrooms and offices of the political elite less appealing than the injunction to “comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable?” We might have been remembering him as we do another Southern minister, who led a life 60 years shorter, but who moved mountains.

Elecciones en Estados Unidos: Bernie Sanders logra un ajustado primer triunfo en New Hampshire

Sanders quedó primero con un cuarto de los votos El senador socialista Bernie Sanders lograba sacar un hilo de ventaja respecto del resto de los candidatos y se imponía en la primaria presidencial de New Hampshire con el 25,9% de los votos con más del 90% de los votos escrutados, seguido muy de cerca por Peter Buttigieg y la senadora Amy Klobuchar, la gran sorpresa de la jornada.

Pero el principal dato que dejó la segunda cita electoral de la interna fue la confirmación de la dispersión del voto demócrata: ningún candidato consiguió un respaldo lo suficientemente sólido como para desmarcarse con claridad del resto, y si bien Sanders se consolidó como el líder del flanco "progresista", sumó menos votos que los candidatos "moderados".

Joe Biden y Elizabeth Warren no llegaron a superar el piso del 15% de los votos necesario para sumar delegados, y quedaban como los dos grandes perdedores de la noche. Biden ni siquiera recibió los resultados en New Hampshire: se marchó temprano a Carolina del Sur, donde intentará salvar su campaña, escasa de entusiasmo, con un triunfo respaldado en el voto afroamericano.

Amy Klobuchar, la sorpresa de la noche

La elección primaria de New Hampshire volvió a mostrar a un electorado demócrata indeciso, sin un claro favorito, obsesionado por encontrar al candidato con más posibilidades de derrotar al presidente, Donald Trump, en la elección presidencial de noviembre. Las dudas de los votantes reflejan el persistente trauma que aún arrastran los demócratas desde la elección de 2016, cuando daban por hecho un triunfo de Hillary Clinton.

Aunque Sanders ha logrado sacar una tenue ventaja, nadie ha conseguido terminar de convencer del todo a los votantes, y la contienda sigue abierta y muy fluida.


Por primera vez desde 2004, ningún candidato abandonó la interna después de Iowa, tradicional "filtro" al inicio de las primarias presidenciales. El caucus de Iowa quedó opacado este año por el caótico recuento de votos, un pifie que elevó la importancia de New Hampshire. Históricamente, el candidato presidencial logró ganar o al menos quedar segundo en el "estado del granito".

Dos candidatos decidieron suspender sus campañas: Andrew Yang y el senador por Colorado, Michael Bennet.

Las campañas han comenzado ahora a ajustar sus estrategias de cara a las elecciones en Carolina del Sur y Nevada, este mes, y el "Súper Martes" el próximo 3 de marzo.

La interna ya ha tenido tres líderes. Joe Biden lideró las encuestas hasta que la gente empezó a votar. Elizabeth Warren pareció despegar en el último otoño boreal, cuando superó a Biden, pero el salto en su popularidad se transformó rápidamente en un derrape que todavía no encuentra final. La principal novedad que han dejado Iowa y New Hampsire es que Bernie Sanders se ha consolidado en el flanco "progresista" de la interna, en detrimento de Warren, y ha pasado a liderar con claridad en las encuestas nacionales.

Toda negación implica una afirmación: desmentidas y anclajes en el discurso político





Por Rubén Weinsteiner


Toda negación implica una afirmación, esto es Lacan.

"No nos está yendo mal" como el "no somos lo mismo" de Vidal, o Dujovne: "No hay chance de que Argentina no cumpla con las metas fiscales", constituyen errores graves en términos de comunicación política. Negar es afirmar, esto es básico.

Desmentir para desinstalar no funciona. Porque lo que hay que desalojar y reemplazar es un anclaje emocional.


Andá y decile a tu esposa: “tu amiga Claudia…, no me gusta” , “la verdad, que no me mueve ni un pelo”. A partir de ese momento, tu esposa va a estar completamente segura que te gusta mucho su amiga Claudia.


La funcionalidad de la negación en el discurso, es inversa en términos de sus objetivos a la intención del emisor. Nadie que sea honesto debería decir “no robé ”, sería como para alguien que no tiene ninguna cicatriz en la cara, decir “yo no tengo ninguna cicatriz en la cara”. Si uno no tiene el deseo de tener algo ni nada con Claudia, difícilmente habilite los senderos neurológicos que le hagan decir algo relacionado con “tener algo con Claudia”, aún para negarlo, y eso las audiencias lo decodifican rápido, aunque no lo puedan poner en palabras y en emergencia, y fundamentarlo.
Esta percepción no decodificada, no construye afirmaciones racionales con reproductibilidad, no es algo que las personas van a contar y repetir, sino que genera sensaciones y sentimientos que se van solidificando e interviniendo en los mecanismos de valoración y preferencias.

En 1998 Eduardo Duhalde era para muchos, un barón del conurbano con vínculos con el narcotráfico, un político mafioso y un exponente de lo peor del peronismo.

En 2003 Duhalde era para la gran mayoría de los argentinos, un estadista, un piloto de tormentas, un hombre mesurado, inteligente, un tiempista, y alguien que seguramente pasaría a la historia como un gran presidente, que sacó al país de su peor crisis.

Lo que funcionó no fue salir por los medios a decir "no soy un narco ni un mafioso", sino que se desintaló un anclaje y se reemplazó por otro.



El Bambino Veira era en los 80 un técnico joven, exitoso, divertido, un play boy. La vida que todos hubieran querido contar en una reunión de egresados de 20 años del secundario. Era simplemente el Bambino.

Entre el 88 y el 98 fue en el imaginario colectivo, un pedófilo, violador, primero preso y luego indultado por Menem. Para todos era Veira a secas.

Hoy el Bambino Veira es un personaje , divertido, un playboy retirado, la vida que todos querrían contar en una reunión de egresados de 40 años del secundario. Para todos es el Bambino.
Tampoco funcionó lo "no soy un pedófilo" sino que se sustituyó el anclaje, por otro.



Desde ya que la afirmación no debería dejar ninguna duda, pero debería negar afirmando e intervenir en forma cenestésica en los públicos objetivo.

La memoria es el último recuerdo poderoso que adquirimos, no todo lo que vivimos. El poder de ese último recuerdo, es el que constituye el anclaje.

Un anclaje es una percepción fundada y construida en una ponderación conceptual, dentro de un estado de gran intensidad, de experimentación de sensaciones con fuerte solicitación simultánea del intelecto, del cuerpo y del espíritu.

La reacción refleja, siempre será negar, para luego exponer elementos objetivos que desmientan la información que deseamos negar. Y esta secuencia plantea problemas complejos.


El primer problema que presenta la negación consiste en rebatir con una respuesta racional una instalación emocional que han “comprado” algunas personas. Una vez que la emocionalidad generada se instala, corre por canales separados con la racionalidad.


El segundo problema consiste en la previsibilidad y obviedad, ya que lo que se espera siempre es la negación, con lo cual la predisposición del oyente es defensiva. Ante la difusión de una noticia que señala que el ministro de defensa recibió una coima, resulta obvio que el ministro no va a decir “es cierto recibí una coima”.


El tercer problema consiste en que cuando alguien tiene que negar un rumor o una información, esa información ha generado interés en la masa crítica, con lo cual el negador se convierte en un aguafiestas. La población se enteró que el ministro de economía participó de una orgía, a la gente le gusta imaginar difundir y viralizar el rumor, si viene el ministro a arruinar ese disfrute no será bien recibido, uno cree aquello en lo que quiere creer.


El cuarto problema de la negación radica en la asimetría de reproductibilidad de esa negación, en relación a la información que se pretende negar. La cantidad de veces que se repite una información ponderada por la viralización boca a boca, 4.0 y la retroalimentación desde y hacia los medios tradicionales, es muy superior a la cantidad de veces que una persona puede negar algo.


La acción más eficaz para gestionar una acusación un rumor o una información negativa, es la construcción de una imagen emocional positiva en la audiencia, que compita y derrote las construcciones cenestésicas generadas por la información original.


Si hay algo en lo que la información o el rumor refieren, que tenga que ver con un error propio, resulta altamente eficaz admitirlo. Cuando alguien comienza un discurso admitiendo un problema o un error, el receptor baja la guardia y se consigue automáticamente crédito de ese receptor.


Resulta clave microsegmentar la reacción, porque las sensaciones construidas por la información original, difieren de acuerdo a los públicos donde está intervino.


Hace falta destabicar y explicar el mecanismo por el cual se instaló el rumor, o se fraguó una falsa información, de manera clara, simple y didáctica, identificando los intereses que se movieron detrás de la operación, sin personalizar.


Resulta fundamental reaccionar rápido, el tiempo que pasa aumenta la tasa de reproductibilidad de la información y solidifica la emocionalidad que la información genera y el costo de revertir aumenta minuto a minuto como en un taxi.


Rubén Weinsteiner

Deseo, insatisfacción y necesidad en la construcción del sistema de preferencias


El deseo es siempre deseo de “algo”. Ese “algo” nos falta. Así el deseo podría definirse por la tensión hacia “lo deseable”, pudiendo ser éste una persona, un objeto o un estado de cosas. Son los objetos empíricos que nos rodean y están siempre listos para ser elegidos.

A partir de allí, la posesión de lo deseable conduciría a la satisfacción, a la plenitud, a la calma de la tensión. El movimiento del deseo encontraría su fin. Pero sabemos por experiencia que no es así.

Por un lado, con frecuencia, el objeto deseado una vez poseído pierde su carácter de deseable. Por otro lado, una satisfacción completa del deseo parece imposible puesto que el deseo no cesa de girar sobre nuevos objetos de los cuales está privado. Sin la falta, el deseo se apagaría.

Pero el deseo no podrá jamás encontrar en el mundo el objeto que le conviene o que le satisface plenamente. El deseo se define de esta manera, como desmesurado, desmedido respecto de sus objetos, como puro poder del hombre, en tanto dimensión fundamental de su esencia.

La insatisfacción del deseo es el motor de la actividad de negación y transformación del mundo y del hombre. Sin el deseo, ninguna creación sería posible. Sin deseo no hay humanidad.

La presencia del otro, de los otros, en el deseo, encuentra su explicación en el hecho de que el sujeto se constituye en su relación con el otro y se caracteriza por un deseo prioritario de ser reconocido por el otro.

El objeto –cualquiera– es deseado porque es signo de este reconocimiento y del amor del otro. Esto nos aleja de la necesidad. En el fondo lo que nosotros deseamos son los signos provenientes de los otros, susceptibles de asegurarnos sobre nosotros mismos. Estos signos van más allá de asegurarnos, ellos nos constituyen en nuestra realidad. Podríamos decir incluso, que no deseamos los objetos sino lo que ellos significan para nosotros.

Es el deseo también el que hace nacer los conflictos. Paradojalmente, sin deseo no puede haber civilización. La supresión de todo aquello que está más allá de la necesidad sería un retorno a una forma de animalidad. Pero toda civilización contiene una lucha constante entre los hombres para obtener los medios de valer a los ojos de los otros: en nuestra sociedad actual este medio es el poder que otorga el dinero. Es conveniente hacer una distinción entre necesidad y deseo, ya que con frecuencia se las confunde.

Necesidad es la tendencia que busca un medio u objeto determinado en vista de obtener un fin particular y objetivo, siguiendo las relaciones determinadas por la causa y el efecto. La necesidad se expresa bajo la forma de la función de uso; ésta es racionalmente determinable en términos de normas, especificaciones cuantitativas y se somete a la experimentación en cuanto a la seguridad del producto o servicio.

El deseo es la búsqueda del placer definido como satisfacción, más o menos durable, producido por el reconocimiento del sujeto conciente de sí mismo, de su valor personal y/o colectivo. Ser feliz es estar contento de si, satisfacer su amor de sí mismo en relaciones satisfactorias; es decir valorizadas y valorizantes con los otros, sujetos ellos mismos de deseo. Desearse a sí mismo es siempre desear ser deseado por los otros para poder reconocerse a sí mismo como valor según los criterios de evaluación colectivos considerados, con razón o sin ella, como universales o universalizables. Se trata de valores éticos y estéticos.

Veamos en qué consiste la relación necesidad y deseo. El deseo excede y sobredetermina la necesidad. En tanto tal, y por definición, el deseo no puede nunca ser satisfecho definitivamente, salvo en una hipotética beatitud divina (nirvana) o en otra vida después de la muerte. La satisfacción del deseo es solo provisoria a partir de signos (objetos, gestos, rituales, palabras) siempre frágiles y susceptibles de reinterpretación por parte del sujeto.

Desde el punto de vista del deseo, la cualidad de un sujeto de deseo es inagotable, su objeto es indeterminable. Posee la insatisfacción permanente, deseándose a sí mismo al infinito en tanto que poder de ser y de obrar. Es una ficción permanente en vías de realización y des-realización simbólica que nos asegura el gusto por la vida, para lo mejor y para lo peor.

La cualidad no se puede determinar más que traduciendo el deseo en necesidades objetivas. La cultura de consumo aprovecha esta degradación del deseo en necesidad, sea reduciendo la función de estima en función de uso, sea estabilizando las funciones de estima por la puesta en acto de códigos simbólicos convencionales tendientes a valorizar “objetivamente” a los clientes: “Eres lo que consumes, exprésate comprando lo que yo vendo y te prometo la felicidad para la cual eres digno de pagar ese precio”. Tal es el “imperativo categórico” de la lógica mercantil.

Rubén Weinsteiner
-->

#TD4W El significado de “Turn down for what”?






Almost half of Americans have stopped talking politics with someone

At a time when the country’s polarizing politics and public discourse are dividing many Americans, close to half of all U.S. adults acknowledge that they have stopped discussing political and election news with someone, according to a new analysis of data.

In total, 45% of the nation’s adults say they have stopped talking about political and election news with someone as a result of something they said, either in person or online. A slim majority of American adults (54%) say they have not cut off political conversation with someone because of something they said. The findings are based on a survey of 12,043 U.S. adults who are members of the Center’s American Trends Panel conducted from Oct. 29 to Nov. 11, 2019.

In examining which types of people are more or less likely to stop talking to someone about political news, four characteristics stand out: party and ideology, race and ethnicity, the medium relied on most for political news, and engagement with political news.

Six-in-ten liberal Democrats (60%) say they have stopped talking politics with someone because of something they said. That number is substantially larger than the segment next likeliest to drop the subject with someone – conservative Republicans, at 45%.

In another area of difference, half of white Americans have stopped talking politics with someone, compared with roughly one-third of black and Hispanic adults. And those who say they rely most on local TV for their political and election news are far less likely to have stopped talking with someone about politics than any other group, such as those who mostly get this news through news websites or cable TV.

The data also indicates that the level of engagement with political news ties closely to avoiding discussions about political news with someone. The more closely people follow election news, the more likely they are to say they have stopped talking with someone about politics – including 58% of those who say they follow political and election news “very closely.”
Democrats, particularly liberal ones, are more likely to stop talking politics with someone

Examined by party, Democrats and independents who lean Democratic are more likely to have stopped conversing with someone about politics because of something they said than Republicans and independents who lean Republican: 50% vs. 41%, respectively.

But an even more striking contrast emerges from ideological groups within each party. A high-water mark of 60% of liberal Democrats say they have stopped talking politics with someone, compared with 41% of Democrats who are moderate or conservative.

On the Republican side, only 36% of moderate and liberal members of the party say they have stopped talking to someone. Conservative Republicans also lag well behind the liberal Democrats, with 45% saying they have dropped someone from their conversations about political news.

These findings are in line with earlier research the Center conducted in 2014. That report found that those identified as “consistent liberals” were more likely than “consistent conservatives” to see political opinions on Facebook that were not in line with their own views. But they were also more likely than consistent conservatives, by a margin of 44% to 31%, to block or defriend someone because they disagreed with something that person posted about politics.
U.S. adults more engaged with political news are more likely to disengage with someone

How closely one follows news about politics and the election also comes into play. The closer people follow political and election news, the more likely they are to say they have stopped talking to someone about it. Indeed, 58% of those who say they follow political news “very closely” have stopped discussing politics with another person. In addition, 48% of those who follow this news “somewhat closely” have also decided to cut the conversation with someone.

At each declining level of engagement, the share drops by about 10 percentage points. It falls to 38% for those following political news not too closely and to 27% for adults who follow political news not at all closely.

And while the ideological ends of each party – liberal Democrats and conservative Republicans (both including leaners) – are more likely to follow political and election news closely, differences by level of news interest still hold even when accounting for self-reported party and ideology.
White Americans are more likely to cut off political conversation

Race and ethnicity are also associated with the decision to stop talking to someone about political news. A full 50% of white adults say they have made that decision, which is considerably higher than the percentage of black (37%) and Hispanic (34%) adults who say they have stopped talking to someone about political news.

The differences in this behavior aren’t nearly as prominent when it comes to gender, where 47% of women say they have stopped talking with someone, compared with 43% of men. And age isn’t a particularly decisive factor either, although those in the oldest cohort (those ages 65 and older) are more likely to have dropped the subject with someone than members of the youngest cohort (those ages 18 to 29) – by a 49% to 41% margin.
Those who prefer local TV news stand apart from others in political discussion habits

Another way that respondents’ political conversation habits were examined was by looking at their preferred, or “most common,” pathways for receiving political and election news. Those platforms include print, radio, local TV, national TV, cable TV, news websites or apps, and social media.

Americans who mostly rely on local TV are, by a solid margin, the least likely to say they have stopped talking about political news with someone – at 34%. Between 44% and 51% of all other groups say they have stopped talking with someone.

Even though those who most commonly get political news from local TV are one of the groups least engaged with political and election news overall, this pattern still holds when accounting for their levels of engagement compared to other groups.

All in all then, those who are at the ideological poles of the parties and those who are most engaged with political news tend to have a greater inclination to cut certain people out of their political discussions because of something they’ve said, while the less engaged to begin with are less driven to restrict these conversations.

Jet lag social: cómo afecta a los adolescentes argentinos levantarse temprano para ir al colegio

By Agustina D´Ambra





Sufrir cierto cansancio o pasar unos días de “confusión” luego de viajar entre países con zonas horarias muy diferentes es lo que se conoce como jet lag. Y puede llevar a que la persona necesite volver a adaptarse a sus horarios habituales de comer, dormir y hasta ir al baño. Ahora bien, padecer esas consecuencias sin haber pasado por un aeropuerto ni abordado un avión es parte del jet lag social, que se produce cuando hay grandes diferencias entre el horario de sueño del fin de semana (o de los días libres) y el horario de los días de semana. Esto es lo que está ocurriendo con los adolescentes argentinos.


De este modo, un equipo de investigadores del CONICET comprobó que los adolescentes argentinos que concurren al turno mañana de la escuela secundaria poseen un menor rendimiento académico y padecen hasta cuatro horas de jet lag social, lo que puede resultar nocivo para su proceso de aprendizaje.


El trabajo, que se publicó en la revista Nature Human Behaviour, se llevó a cabo en el 2015 e involucró a 753 estudiantes argentinos de la Escuela Superior de Comercio Carlos Pellegrini. Esa muestra incluyó a treinta comisiones en total: quince comisiones de primer año –cinco del turno mañana, cinco del turno tarde y cinco del turno vespertino–; quince de quinto año –también cinco del turno mañana, que comienza a las 7:45, cinco del turno tarde, que inicia a las 12:40, y cinco del turno vespertino, que arranca a las 17:20.


“La muestra seleccionada fue muy interesante porque los turnos en el Pellegrini son aleatorios, por ende, quizás hay muchos con cronotipos matutinos en turno noche e inverso en turno matutino con cronotipo nocturno. Fue muy interesante ver la relación de sueño, jet lag social y rendimiento académico”, aseguró a este medio Andrea Goldin, investigadora del Conicet en el laboratorio de neurociencia de la UTDT e investigadora asociada del CEPE.


Goldin explicó que un cronotipo es una característica genética que se va modificando con el ambiente: “Todos los mamíferos tienen un cronotipo más nocturno durante la adolescencia y después comienza a bajar. El argentino comparado con el resto del mundo es más nocturno, pero el horario escolar empieza a la misma hora que en el resto del mundo".



De acuerdo a la profesional que trabaja en el Centro de Evaluación de Políticas Basadas en la Evidencia (CEPE) de la Universidad Torcuato Di Tella, la muestra elegida tenía varias características únicas que eran ideales para poder llevar a cabo el trabajo. En primer lugar, no existían trabajos científicos previos de otros países que incluyeran el horario vespertino: “En Argentina somos muy nocturnos. No tenemos ni punto de comparación con los europeos o estadounidenses, y por eso los revisores del trabajo nos preguntaban mucho sobre nuestra cultura y tuvimos que aclarar que en nuestro país no se cena antes de las nueve de la noche, para establecer un punto de referencia”.


En el cuestionario que les brindaron a los estudiantes, los científicos indagaron en cuestiones como qué horarios de sueño manejan los adolescentes en días hábiles, a qué hora se acuestan, a qué hora se levantan o cuánto tardan en dormirse. Con esos datos, lograron construir fundamentalmente cuatro variables o indicadores de su sueño. En primer lugar, obtuvieron el cronotipo de cada adolescente. Para conocer el cronotipo, utilizaron el punto medio del sueño en los días libres de los adolescentes, ya que en esos días es cuando el sueño se adecua al horario interno y no depende de factores sociales. La segunda variable que obtuvieron fue la cantidad total de horas de sueño. La tercera variable fue el jet lag social, es decir, la diferencia entre el horario del dormir en los días libres y en los días hábiles de escuela. Y la cuarta variable, fue la proporción y duración de las siestas, que les permitió conocer la cantidad total de horas que duermen cada día.


De este modo, entrecruzaron los datos obtenidos con las calificaciones de cada adolescente encuestado, información que les proveyó la propia escuela. Al evaluar el rendimiento académico en función del cronotipo, los científicos arribaron a diversas conclusiones. En cuanto a los hábitos de sueño, los adolescentes que asisten al turno mañana duermen muy poco y tienen niveles altísimos de jet lag social, especialmente los alumnos de quinto año. Por otro lado, comprobaron que los adolescentes de cronotipo más matutino tenían mejor rendimiento al concurrir por la mañana. Sin embargo, esto no permite discernir si los matutinos, en general, tenían alguna ventaja cognitiva respecto de los más vespertinos o nocturnos.



De ese modo llegaron a dos conclusiones: por un lado, que tanto en primero como en quinto año, tienen mejor rendimiento por la mañana los de cronotipo matutino, mientras que por la tarde y la noche, los resultados son más variables. Pero también, que el efecto de que los matutinos sean “mejores” a la mañana es más pronunciado en Matemáticas, aunque también se observa en Lengua. En el turno vespertino, los de cronotipo mas tardío o nocturno obtienen mejor rendimiento en Lengua.


En síntesis, los investigadores comprobaron que el rendimiento académico mejora cuando los horarios escolares están mejor alineados con los ritmos biológicos de cada adolescente: cuando el adolescente que es más matutino concurre por la mañana y el más tardío o nocturno, por la tarde o noche respectivamente. Y que sería mejor que Matemática no estuviera en las primeras horas del cronograma escolar, ya que eso va en detrimento de los adolescentes más nocturnos.


“A raíz de las conclusiones que obtuvimos, recomendamos que la escuela empiece más tarde a la mañana, al menos para los adolescentes de los últimos años de la escuela secundaria, que son los que tienen en general los cronotipos más nocturnos. O asignar a los estudiantes al turno según su cronotipo, pero sabemos que es algo muy difícil. Otra recomendación que hacemos es la de poner materias como Matemática a mitad de mañana, no en las primeras horas, mientras que para el horario nocturno recomendamos que Lengua sea una de las primeras materias”, enfatizó la científica.


Acerca de la importancia del estudio, Goldin explicó que es vital salir del laboratorio y utilizar la ciencia como factor que empodere a la sociedad: “Hay un montón de estudios, investigaciones que vienen desde afuera y ya establecen las preguntas que uno se tiene que hacer. Sin embargo, hay ciertas preguntas que son importantes que hagamos desde acá porque tenemos una visión muy diferente al resto del mundo”.