A new report sheds light on the level of trust – or in many cases distrust – in governments around the world.

As Statista’s Anna Fleck breaks down below, according to the latest Edelman Trust Barometer, Saudi Arabia came first for government credibility among the public in 2024. 

You will find more infographics at Statista

Germany is towards the opposite end of the scale, with its government trusted by a mere 35 percent of respondents. This is a drop of 7 percentage points since the same time one year ago. Only Spain and Japan scored lower, at 33 and 32 percentage points, respectively. Of the 38 countries surveyed, Argentina saw the greatest improvements in trust for its government since 2023, rising 21 percentage points to 42 percent.

According to the report, fear that leaders are lying reached an all-time high in 2024.

Across the 26 nations surveyed, the share of people who worry that government leaders deliberately mislead the public rose by an average of 11 percentage points between 2021 and 2025.

By 2025, 69 percent of respondents held this belief.

Meanwhile, on average, business remained the most trusted institution in 2024 (62 percent trust), followed by NGOs (58 percent), government (52 percent) and the media (52 percent).

By Julianne Geiger of OilPrice.com

Germany has agreed to subsidize electricity for its heavy industries, capping prices at about €0.05 per kilowatt-hour from 2026 through 2028—a major policy move aimed at keeping its industrial base from eroding under the weight of Europe’s soaring energy costs.

Chancellor Friedrich Merz said Thursday that Berlin’s coalition partners reached the deal after months of debate, and that discussions with the European Commission for approval were “largely complete.”

The measure will target energy-intensive industries such as steel, chemicals, and automaking—sectors that have warned repeatedly they cannot compete globally with power costs nearly double those in the U.S.

Germany’s power market is the largest in Europe, consuming roughly 500 terawatt-hours annually, and it’s been under severe pressure. Since the 2022 energy crisis, power prices have remained volatile—spiking again this fall as renewable generation faltered and gas-fired output surged to its highest level since 2021. Low wind speeds, weak hydro output, and grid bottlenecks forced Germany to burn more natural gas and coal to stabilize supply.

Those dynamics have made energy security a central political issue. Forecasts of a cold winter have already driven German power futures near €100 per megawatt-hour, reigniting public anger over industrial competitiveness and household affordability.

Industry groups say the temporary subsidy is essential to prevent production from shifting overseas. But critics warn it only papers over deeper structural problems—aging infrastructure, slow permitting, and unreliable renewable output—that have left Germany dependent on fossil fuels despite its ambitious climate targets.

Berlin hopes the three-year relief period will buy time to expand grid capacity and add flexible generation, but analysts say unless those projects materialize quickly, the country could face another round of industrial contraction by the decade’s end.

For Europe’s industrial heartland, the price of power has become the price of survival.

How does the cost of living differ around the world?

To find out, Visual Capitalist’s Marcus Lu visualized the results of Numbeo’s Cost of Living Index, which measures the price of goods, services, and rent relative to New York City (baseline of 100).

If a country has a value of 80, for example, it indicates that prices are 20% lower than they are in New York City.

Data & Discussion

The data for this visualization comes from Numbeo, the world’s largest crowd-sourced database of prices and living costs. The values shown in this infographic combine daily expenses with housing costs, providing a holistic measure of affordability.

Rank
Country
Cost of Living &
Rent Index
1
🇰🇾 Cayman Islands
94.3
2
🇨🇭 Switzerland
82.3
3
🇸🇬 Singapore
80.9
4
🇮🇸 Iceland
75.2
5
🇧🇸 Bahamas
68.7
6
🇭🇰 Hong Kong SAR
65.6
7
🇬🇬 Guernsey
62.5
8
🇱🇺 Luxembourg
62.4
9
🇮🇪 Ireland
57.0
10
🇳🇴 Norway
56.8
11
🇳🇱 Netherlands
54.7
12
🇺🇸 U.S.
54.6
13
🇩🇰 Denmark
54.3
14
🇮🇲 Isle Of Man
52.5
15
🇮🇱 Israel
51.8
16
🇵🇬 Papua New Guinea
51.6
17
🇬🇧 UK
50.6
18
🇦🇺 Australia
49.5
19
🇦🇹 Austria
49.1
20
🇦🇪 UAE
48.7
21
🇨🇦 Canada
48.1
22
🇩🇪 Germany
47.6
23
🇫🇷 France
46.0
24
🇧🇪 Belgium
45.9
25
🇫🇮 Finland
45.6
26
🇸🇪 Sweden
44.9
27
🇳🇿 New Zealand
44.9
28
🇲🇴 Macao SAR
44.0
29
🇰🇷 South Korea
42.9
30
🇨🇾 Cyprus
42.8
31
🇵🇷 Puerto Rico
42.7
32
🇶🇦 Qatar
42.7
33
🇲🇹 Malta
41.7
34
🇮🇹 Italy
41.1
35
🇪🇪 Estonia
38.5
36
🇨🇩 DRC
37.9
37
🇪🇸 Spain
37.7
38
🇸🇮 Slovenia
37.6
39
🇵🇹 Portugal
36.8
40
🇨🇷 Costa Rica
36.6
41
🇲🇻 Maldives
36.1
42
🇨🇿 Czech Republic
35.9
43
🇯🇲 Jamaica
35.6
44
🇧🇭 Bahrain
35.2
45
🇺🇾 Uruguay
35.2
46
🇬🇾 Guyana
35.1
47
🇭🇷 Croatia
35.0
48
🇵🇦 Panama
34.6
49
🇬🇷 Greece
34.4
50
🇯🇵 Japan
34.3
51
🇱🇹 Lithuania
34.3
52
🇹🇼 Taiwan
34.2
53
🇸🇳 Senegal
34.0
54
🇹🇹 Trinidad And Tobago
33.9
55
🇧🇳 Brunei
33.4
56
🇸🇰 Slovakia
33.3
57
🇱🇻 Latvia
32.7
58
🇵🇱 Poland
32.7
59
🇰🇼 Kuwait
32.5
60
🇨🇮 Ivory Coast
32.1
61
🇦🇱 Albania
31.3
62
🇾🇪 Yemen
30.8
63
🇪🇹 Ethiopia
30.7
64
🇨🇲 Cameroon
30.5
65
🇭🇺 Hungary
29.8
66
🇦🇲 Armenia
29.7
67
🇲🇪 Montenegro
29.7
68
🇷🇸 Serbia
29.1
69
🇱🇧 Lebanon
28.8
70
🇸🇦 Saudi Arabia
28.6
71
🇧🇿 Belize
28.3
72
🇸🇻 El Salvador
28.2
73
🇵🇸 Palestine
28.2
74
🇬🇹 Guatemala
28.0
75
🇲🇽 Mexico
28.0
76
🇹🇷 Turkey
27.9
77
🇨🇺 Cuba
27.8
78
🇴🇲 Oman
27.5
79
🇧🇬 Bulgaria
27.3
80
🇷🇴 Romania
26.6
81
🇦🇷 Argentina
26.6
82
🇷🇺 Russia
26.5
83
🇧🇼 Botswana
26.2
84
🇫🇯 Fiji
26.2
85
🇲🇿 Mozambique
25.8
86
🇹🇭 Thailand
25.6
87
🇲🇺 Mauritius
25.5
88
🇲🇩 Moldova
25.3
89
🇨🇱 Chile
25.1
90
🇳🇬 Nigeria
24.9
91
🇯🇴 Jordan
24.2
92
🇭🇳 Honduras
24.1
93
🇩🇴 Dominican Republic
24.0
94
🇳🇦 Namibia
23.5
95
🇧🇦 Bosnia And Herzegovina
23.4
96
🇿🇦 South Africa
23.3
97
🇬🇪 Georgia
23.2
98
🇲🇳 Mongolia
23.2
99
🇿🇲 Zambia
23.0
100
🇿🇼 Zimbabwe
23.0
101
🇻🇪 Venezuela
22.8
102
🇰🇭 Cambodia
22.6
103
🇲🇰 North Macedonia
22.4
104
🇬🇭 Ghana
22.1
105
🇳🇮 Nicaragua
22.0
106
🇲🇾 Malaysia
21.5
107
🇷🇼 Rwanda
21.4
108
🇵🇪 Peru
21.4
109
🇨🇳 China
21.2
110
🇱🇰 Sri Lanka
21.1
111
🇦🇿 Azerbaijan
20.7
112
🇲🇦 Morocco
20.5
113
🇪🇨 Ecuador
20.1
114
🇨🇴 Colombia
19.9
115
🇵🇭 Philippines
19.8
116
🇧🇷 Brazil
19.7
117
🇰🇪 Kenya
19.6
118
🇰🇿 Kazakhstan
19.6
119
🇰🇬 Kyrgyzstan
19.4
120
🇺🇿 Uzbekistan
19.4
121
🇻🇳 Vietnam
18.8
122
🇽🇰 Kosovo
18.8
123
🇹🇯 Tajikistan
18.6
124
🇧🇾 Belarus
18.4
125
🇮🇶 Iraq
18.3
126
🇺🇦 Ukraine
18.2
127
🇺🇬 Uganda
18.1
128
🇧🇴 Bolivia
18.1
129
🇹🇳 Tunisia
17.8
130
🇮🇩 Indonesia
17.6
131
🇹🇿 Tanzania
17.1
132
🇩🇿 Algeria
16.7
133
🇵🇾 Paraguay
16.6
134
🇮🇷 Iran
16.2
135
🇲🇬 Madagascar
15.4
136
🇸🇾 Syria
15.0
137
🇳🇵 Nepal
14.2
138
🇧🇩 Bangladesh
13.0
139
🇪🇬 Egypt
12.8
140
🇮🇳 India
12.8
141
🇦🇫 Afghanistan
11.6
142
🇱🇾 Libya
11.3
143
🇵🇰 Pakistan
11.3

The World’s Most Expensive Countries

At the top of the ranking sits the Cayman Islands (94.3). Its economy is driven by offshore finance, tourism, and real estate—all industries that attract wealthy residents and investors.

Switzerland (82.3) and Singapore (80.9) follow close behind, a reflection of their developed economies, high wages, and premium real estate markets.

European nations are also common in the top 20, with Iceland, Ireland, and Norway all appearing among the most expensive. These countries tend to offer high standards of living but also face the trade-off of elevated consumer prices.

The World’s Most Affordable Nations

At the other end of the spectrum, Pakistan (11.3), Libya (11.3), and Afghanistan (11.6) have the world’s lowest cost of living scores.

Much of South Asia, including India (12.8) and Bangladesh (13.0), also see prices that are roughly one-eighth of those in New York City. Both of these countries have massive young populations and relatively low wages, which keeps the cost of labor and services down.

If you enjoyed today’s post, check out The World’s Safest Countries in 2025 on Voronoi, the new app from Visual Capitalist.

Authored by Thomas Fazi via UnHerd.com,

The EU loves talking about freedom.

Just look at one of its recent press releases, launching something called the European Democracy Shield, which promises to protect everything from “free people” to “free elections” to — this being Brussels — “a vibrant civil society”.

All admirable stuff, perhaps, at least on paper.

In reality, though, the Democracy Shield is just the latest vision in unfreedom: suppressing dissent and policing speech under the pretext of defending democracy from foreign interference and fake news.

As part of the Democracy Shield, the Commission proposes the creation of a Monitoring Centre that would identify and remove “false content” and “disinformation” from the internet. As Henna Virkkunen, Executive Vice President for Security and Democracy, stated, the Shield will enable Europe to “respond faster and more effectively to information manipulation and hybrid threats”. The EU’s High Representative for Foreign and Security Policy, Kaja Kallas, made no secret of the anti-Russian nature of the initiative: “we are seeing campaigns, including from Russia, specifically designed to polarise our citizens, undermine trust in our institutions and pollute politics in our countries.”

The term “independent” appears repeatedly in the press release. A new “independent European network of fact-checkers” will be set up in all official EU languages, while the European Digital Media Observatory (EDMO), the EU’s flagship “fact-checking” network, financed to the tune of almost €30 million, will gain new “independent” analytical powers to monitor elections and crisis situations. But, remember, independence in Brussels translates to financial dependence on the Commission. Indeed, to guarantee this “independence”, the Commission promises generous funding to “independent” NGOs and media outlets.

The Democracy Shield builds upon the recent Digital Services Act (DSA), the most sweeping internet regulation ever implemented in Europe. In theory, these initiatives are meant to protect democracy; in practice, they do the opposite. Their aim isn’t to “fight disinformation”, as claimed, but rather to control the narrative at a time when Europe’s political elites are facing unprecedented levels of public distrust, by centralising control over the flow of information and imposing a single “truth” defined by Brussels. In short, the European Commission is building a continent-wide censorship machine

As one EU diplomat recently put it, in truly Orwellian fashion: “Freedom of speech remains for everyone. At the same time, however, citizens must be free from interference.” But who decides what constitutes “interference”? Who determines what is “true” and what is “fake”? The same institutions and corporate media outlets that have repeatedly engaged in fearmongering and disinformation themselves. Just a few weeks ago, Ursula von der Leyen claimed that the GPS system on her plane had been jammed by Russia — an allegation quickly debunked by analysts. Meanwhile, the BBC, often held up as a paragon of journalistic integrity, was recently caught editing footage of a Donald Trump speech to make it appear more extreme.

The EU claims to be protecting citizens from “falsehoods” but on what democratic or moral basis does the Commission assume the authority to decide what is true, especially when it is clear that the EU’s political-media establishment itself engages in disinformation and propaganda on a regular basis? Moreover, when so-called independent fact-checkers are hand-picked and financed by the Commission itself, the result is a closed feedback loop: the EU funds institutions that then “verify” and amplify the EU’s own narratives. The Democracy Shield, like its predecessors, thus institutionalises the power to define reality itself.

In a series of reports, I have shown that the European Union already operates a vast propaganda and censorship apparatus that spans every level of civil society — NGOs, think tanks, the media and even academia. The cornerstone of this system is a network of EU-funded programmes — notably CERV (Citizens, Equality, Rights and Values), Creative Europe and the Jean Monnet initiative — that collectively funnel billions of euros into organisations that are, in theory, “independent” but are in fact deeply enmeshed in the Brussels machine.

Through the CERV programme alone — which boasts a budget of almost €2 billion for 2021-2027 — more than 3,000 NGOs have received funding to carry out over 1,000 projects. Officially, these funds promote “European values”. In practice, they finance progressive and pro-EU activism: gender ideology, multiculturalism, anti-nationalism and “countering Euroscepticism”. Many projects are explicitly designed to “increase trust in the EU” or “counter anti-EU narratives”. Meanwhile, NGOs in Central and Eastern Europe are generously funded to “combat autocratic narratives” and “challenge Euroscepticism”, often directly targeting governments in Poland (under the previous executive) or Hungary — external influence strategies not unlike those historically associated with agencies like USAID.

The result is a pseudo-civil society — a network of nominally “grassroots” actors functioning as proxies for the Commission, amplifying its agenda and manufacturing the illusion of popular support for its policies.

The same pattern applies to the media. My research has shown that the EU channels at least €80 million annually directly to newspapers, broadcasters, news agencies and “journalistic partnerships”— amounting to nearly €1 billion over the past decade. Programmes such as IMREG (Information Measures for Cohesion Policy) have paid media outlets to publish articles praising EU cohesion funds, in some cases without even disclosing that the content was EU-financed. The Commission calls it “raising awareness”. In any other context, it would be called covert advertising or propaganda.

The EU’s propaganda machine extends into academia as well. Through the Jean Monnet programme, the Commission allocates about €25 million a year to universities and research institutes worldwide, financing over 1,500 Jean Monnet Chairs in 700 institutions. The goal is not to support independent scholarship but to embed pro-EU ideology into higher education. Official documents state explicitly that recipients are expected to act as “ambassadors of the European Union” and “outreach agents” engaging with media and NGOs. The academy has effectively been transformed into an ideological instrument.

With the Democracy Shield, the Commission now intends to vastly expand this machinery. It proposes to not only establish what amounts to a de facto Ministry of Truth, but also to inject even more money into NGOs, “independent” media and fact-checking networks tasked with promoting “European values”. Von der Leyen is, in effect, buying consensus — and using citizens’ own money to do it — collapsing the boundaries between the European super-state, media, civil society and academia.

And if the EU’s goal, here, were merely to manipulate narratives, that would be alarming enough. But the pattern now points towards direct interference in electoral processes. We have already seen this play out in countries like Romania and Moldova, where local elites — with open or tacit support from Brussels — invoked the spectre of “Russian interference” (without providing much evidence) to justify blatant manipulation of domestic elections. In Romania, authorities cancelled an election and barred the leading populist candidate from running. In Moldova, pro-EU authorities used “security concerns” to prevent Russia-leaning expatriates from voting. Protecting democracy thus becomes the pretext for suspending it, even as the Democracy Shield explicitly foresees strengthening the European Cooperation Network for Elections and, ominously, promoting “systematic exchanges on the integrity of electoral processes”.

The Commission’s appetite for control is not limited to information and elections. Ursula von der Leyen recently also initiated the creation of a new intelligence unit under the direct authority of the European Commission. The goal, according to the Financial Times, is to unify intelligence data from member states and “enhance the EU’s ability to detect and respond to threats”. The plan foresees the eventual creation of a European intelligence cooperation service, effectively a supranational agency that would operate alongside national intelligence services. Officially, it would enhance “strategic autonomy”. In practice, it would likely function as a subsidiary of Nato and, by extension, of the CIA, especially since the same proposal explicitly calls for “strengthening EU-NATO cooperation”.

It points to a broader worrying trend of power centralisation in the hands of the Commission — and of von der Leyen personally. Understandably, many observers find the prospect of giving “Empress Ursula” an army of supranational spies — operating beyond the oversight of national parliaments — profoundly disturbing. Giving an unelected, opaque institution like the Commission its own intelligence apparatus would mark yet another milestone in Europe’s transformation into a techno-authoritarian juggernaut — one that surveils not foreign enemies, but its own citizens.

Seen in this context, the Democracy Shield appears like nothing more than a tool to further institutionalise a regime of managed speech and narrative control. Its goal is to police online speech according to vague, politically charged definitions of “disinformation”; to compel platforms, journalists, academics and citizens alike to conform to a narrow, Commission-approved worldview; and to silence dissent in the name of “fighting foreign interference”. Yet it is becoming increasingly clear that the real war on democracy isn’t being waged by Moscow or Beijing; it is being waged from within, by the very institutions claiming to defend it.