People · Asia

Taiwan

Source dates shown with each finding

← Taiwan overview
Taiwan · People

People Intelligence

Public opinion and socioeconomic subgroup evidence from approved external survey sources. Exact source framing and methodological caveats remain visible.

Taiwan · Financial resilience

86.2% say their household could cover basic needs for at least a month

More than eight in ten respondents in Taiwan said their household could cover basic needs for a month or more if income were lost.

Lloyd's Register Foundation World Risk Poll · Fieldwork 2025

People · Generations · Financial milestones

The “maybe later” economy.

Housing, education, work and family choices increasingly collide with financial pressure. PolisMetric keeps the U.S. Pew benchmark separate from Deloitte’s same-wave Gen Z and millennial country evidence so unlike questions are never forced into one ranking.

Financial milestones: country evidence not yet available
Evidence gap

No source-verified 2026 country topline is published here yet for Taiwan.

No country-specific 2026 financial-milestones topline has been source-verified for publication in the current governed pass. Missing is not estimated.

Missing is kept missing — never estimated, copied from a regional average or treated as zero.
Same-question international comparison

Financial pressure is delaying major life decisions.

These 15 country results come from the same Deloitte 2026 survey wave and the same question. Paired dots show published percentages for Gen Z and millennials; the connector shows the gap. This is not a quality ranking. Countries without a verified national value remain outside the ranking.

Thailand65%57%
Philippines64%64%
Argentina59%67%
Mexico57%52%
Italy56%51%
Australia55%45%
India54%44%
Sweden52%49%
Singapore51%50%
Netherlands51%45%
Switzerland46%60%
United Kingdom46%46%
China46%35%
Germany45%39%
Brazil45%36%

Deloitte Global 2026 Gen Z and Millennial Survey · fielded Nov. 24, 2025–Jan. 15, 2026 · online self-complete survey. The global study includes 22,595 respondents in 44 countries; this chart contains only source-verified country cuts in the current PolisMetric evidence pass.

Research status

Country-specific research remains open. The international chart above is evidence from other countries and is not presented as a value for Taiwan.

Source
Deloitte Global 2026 Gen Z and Millennial Survey
Population
Gen Z and millennials in the source-defined national samples
Fieldwork
2025-11-24/2026-01-15
Sample
22,595 across 44 countries; country sample sizes vary
Uncertainty
Not supplied for these displayed estimates; consult the source methodology.
Question and methods

Share saying finances caused them to delay major life decisions. The separate U.S. Pew anchor uses a different population and question.

Read source methods ↗

Source-defined populations and questions remain separate. Missing observations are not estimated or changed to zero.

People Intelligence · Taiwan · Young women

Political divides and mental health — measured as separate evidence streams.

PolisMetric does not assume that the U.S. pattern applies everywhere. For Taiwan, political or gender-attitude evidence is shown only when a governed source supports it, and mental-health evidence is kept methodologically separate. An association is never inferred merely because both measures appear on the same page.

CoveragePolitics gap · Mental-health evidenceNo synthetic national values
Political / values evidence

Directly comparable youth evidence not located

Governed evidence gap
Evidence gapNo comparable national youth-politics subgroup is published in this module.

No directly comparable country-specific young-women political/ideology subgroup result was located in the governed cross-country sources used for this module.

Mental-health evidence

Young-adult mind-health position

Ages 18–34 · 2024–2025

Sapien Labs' Global Mind Project ranks Taiwan's internet-enabled 18–34 population at #83 of 84. This is a young-adult country context, not a women-only result and not a depression prevalence estimate.

Global young-adult referenceMHQ 36 · 41% distressed/strugglingGlobal 18–34 reference from the same report; not a national value for Taiwan.
Interpretation ruleDo not turn two separate datasets into a causal story.

Political ideology, party affiliation, feminist self-identification, psychological distress and MHQ are different constructs. Cross-country cultural and sampling differences also matter. PolisMetric keeps the measures separate unless a single defensible study directly estimates their relationship in the same population.

POLISMETRICEvidence before narrative
Source & method

Country values are never filled from regional or global averages. Ipsos' Gen Z numbers are shown only as a labeled 29-country benchmark. The Global Mind Project reflects internet-enabled populations and cautions that MHQ differences of up to five points can fall within sampling noise.

Trusted sources · Health & wellness · 2018 baseline

Taiwan: who people trusted for health advice.

A directly comparable baseline from the Wellcome Global Monitor. “Most trusted source,” trust in government advice, and trust in medical workers are kept as separate measures. The survey was fielded in 2018; newer country-specific evidence is shown separately when a governed source is available.

Most trusted source83.3%

named doctors or nurses as the person they trusted most for medical or health advice.

2018 national sample n=1,000 · prevalence rank #16 of 35 current PolisMetric countries
Most trusted source · Q20

One question, six answer groups.

Bars use the full weighted country sample denominator, matching Wellcome’s published convention. “Don’t know” and refusals remain in the denominator and are preserved as missing-response metadata.

Doctors & nurses83.3%
Family & friends11.1%
Traditional healers1.8%
None / someone else1.2%
Religious leaders0.6%
Famous people0.3%

Don’t know / refused: 1.7% of the weighted sample.

Source trust · Q2178.5%

Government medical & health advice

Share answering that they trust government medical and health advice a lot or some.

Source trust · Q2295.1%

Medical workers’ advice

Share saying they trust advice from medical workers such as doctors and nurses a lot or some.

35-country comparison

Compare the same question across PolisMetric countries.

Switch measures to inspect directly comparable 2018 values. Bars show response prevalence, not a quality score or PolisMetric ranking.

Doctors or nurses named as the single most trusted sourceQ20: share of the weighted country sample naming a doctor or nurse as the person trusted most for medical or health advice.
Taiwan 83.3%Median 79.7%Available 35/35
1Singapore93.5%
2Norway93.2%
3Canada91.1%
4Italy90.7%
5Malaysia90.7%
6United Kingdom90.3%
7Belgium90.2%
8Sweden89.5%
9Australia89.4%
10France88.7%
11Thailand88.7%
12Spain88.1%
13United States88.1%
14Ireland85.2%
15Netherlands84%
16Taiwan83.3%
17Mexico81.4%
18Switzerland79.7%
19Argentina79.1%
20Vietnam78.7%
21India76.8%
22Indonesia76.1%
23Türkiye75.9%
24South Africa74.3%
25Poland71.9%
26Saudi Arabia71.2%
27South Korea71.2%
28Russia69.8%
29Philippines69.6%
30Japan69%
31Brazil65.1%
32Germany63.3%
33Israel63.1%
34China62.4%
35Austria58.7%
Dashed marker = median among countries with a published value for this exact measure. Hover, tap or use Tab to inspect rows.
Source & reuse

Gallup (2019), Wellcome Global Monitor – First Wave Findings. PolisMetric visualization and weighted aggregation from published survey fields. The Wellcome report states that its data and text are distributed under CC BY with attribution; report images are excluded. PolisMetric uses original charts and does not reproduce Wellcome’s graphic design.

Country percentages use the public within-country survey weight (wgt) and the full weighted country sample denominator, matching Wellcome's published country convention. Q21/Q22 combine 'A lot' + 'Some'. Don't know/refused responses remain in the denominator and are preserved as missing-response metadata; unavailable questions remain null and are never converted to zero. Fieldwork: April–December 2018. This supplemental module does not count as five independent People sources.

Source
Wellcome Global Monitor 2018
Population
Nationally representative adult country samples under Gallup World Poll methodology; exact eligible ages and interview modes vary by country.
Fieldwork
April–December 2018
Sample
Taiwan: N=1,000
Uncertainty
Not supplied for these displayed estimates; consult the source methodology.
Question and methods

Country percentages use the public within-country survey weight (wgt) and the full weighted country sample denominator, matching Wellcome's published country convention. Q21/Q22 combine 'A lot' + 'Some'. Don't know/refused responses remain in the denominator and are preserved as missing-response metadata; unavailable questions remain null and are never converted to zero.

Read source methods ↗

Source-defined populations and questions remain separate. Missing observations are not estimated or changed to zero.

AI & society · Pew Research Center · 2026

Pew's 2026 AI study did not survey Taiwan.

PolisMetric does not estimate, model or backfill a Pew value when the country was not included in this release. Other People evidence remains separate.

No directly comparable Pew 2026 observation.

Not surveyed in Pew Research Center's 2026 global AI attitudes release.

Missing is kept missing. It is not treated as zero and does not receive a comparative rank.
Source

Pew Research Center, Globally, More People Expect AI to Cause Job Loss Than Growth, published Sept. 17, 2026.

Pew surveyed 37 places overall. This PolisMetric comparison is restricted to the 25 countries that overlap the canonical 35-country universe. Source results are reproduced as attributed public toplines; PolisMetric does not reinterpret them as an original poll.

Source
Pew Research Center · Globally, More People Expect AI to Cause Job Loss Than Growth
Population
Source-defined national adult samples
Fieldwork
Country not surveyed
Sample
Country sample sizes: see the linked methodology
Uncertainty
Not supplied for these displayed estimates; consult the source methodology.
Question and methods

The selected measure uses the exact Pew topline question. U.S. fieldwork differs by measure, as printed on each card.

Read source methods ↗

Source-defined populations and questions remain separate. Missing observations are not estimated or changed to zero.

Taiwan · People Intelligence

Five sources. Five different stories.

Each finding comes from a different approved source and covers a different part of public life. Open the data view to inspect the measure, sample, evidence note and original source.

Financial resilience2025
Lloyd's Register Foundation World Risk Poll01 / 05

86.2% say their household could cover basic needs for at least a month

Key findingMore than eight in ten respondents in Taiwan said their household could cover basic needs for a month or more if income were lost.
Explore data
Financial resilience

86.2% say their household could cover basic needs for at least a month

2025
Published observations · 2025
Measure / groupPublished value
Married / partner49.9%
Neighbors care47.9%
1+ month buffer86.2%
Mental-health harm worry46.6%
Violent-crime harm worry60.5%
Question / measure

How Long Household Could Cover Basic Needs If Income Was Lost: A month or more

Sample

967 respondents on highlighted item

Evidence

canonical observation

Use class

OPEN ATTRIBUTION

Finding

More than eight in ten respondents in Taiwan said their household could cover basic needs for a month or more if income were lost.

Evidence note

Canonical World Risk Poll 2025 observation lrf-wrp-2025-twn-household_buffer_month_plus. Weighted national estimate; item base differs from the full survey sample.

Open original source ↗
Source ↗
Life evaluation2023–2025
World Happiness Report / Gallup World Poll02 / 05

Average life evaluation is 6.714 out of 10

Key findingWorld Happiness Report 2026 reports a three-year average life evaluation of 6.714 for Taiwan.
Explore data
Life evaluation

Average life evaluation is 6.714 out of 10

2023–2025
Published observations · 2023–2025
Measure / groupPublished value
2023–2025 average6.714 / 10
Question / measure

Cantril Ladder life evaluation, 0 worst possible life to 10 best possible life

Sample

Gallup World Poll national samples; typically about 1,000 respondents per country per year

Evidence

publisher public result

Use class

PUBLIC RESULTS ONLY

Finding

World Happiness Report 2026 reports a three-year average life evaluation of 6.714 for Taiwan.

Evidence note

Publisher-released World Happiness Report 2026 Figure 2.1 national aggregate. Three-year average; this is a life-evaluation measure, not momentary emotion.

Open original source ↗
Source ↗
Democratic satisfaction2015
Taiwan Social Change Survey / Academia Sinica03 / 05

55.4% were very or fairly satisfied with how democracy was working

Key findingThe Taiwan Social Change Survey's public 2015 frequency report shows 6.7% very satisfied and 48.7% fairly satisfied with how democracy was working, for 55.4% combined.
Explore data
Democratic satisfaction

55.4% were very or fairly satisfied with how democracy was working

2015
Published observations · 2015
Measure / groupPublished value
Very or fairly satisfied55.4%
Question / measure

Satisfaction with how democracy is working

Sample

Taiwan national survey; see publisher report

Evidence

publisher public result

Use class

PUBLIC RESULTS ONLY

Finding

The Taiwan Social Change Survey's public 2015 frequency report shows 6.7% very satisfied and 48.7% fairly satisfied with how democracy was working, for 55.4% combined.

Evidence note

Taiwan Social Change Survey 2015 public frequency report. Historical 2015 benchmark; the 55.4% figure is the sum of two published response categories.

Open original source ↗
Source ↗
Governance attitudesJan–Feb 2010
Asian Barometer Survey04 / 05

46% fell in the source's critical regime-attitude category

Key findingAsian Barometer's published Wave 3 comparison classified Taiwan respondents as 46% critical, 26% demanding, 17% supportive, and 11% tolerant.
Explore data
Governance attitudes

46% fell in the source's critical regime-attitude category

Jan–Feb 2010
Published observations · Jan–Feb 2010
Measure / groupPublished value
Critical46%
Demanding26%
Supportive17%
Tolerant11%
Question / measure

Asian Barometer regime-support category classification

Sample

Taiwan national Wave 3 sample; see publisher report

Evidence

publisher public result

Use class

PUBLIC RESULTS ONLY

Finding

Asian Barometer's published Wave 3 comparison classified Taiwan respondents as 46% critical, 26% demanding, 17% supportive, and 11% tolerant.

Evidence note

Asian Barometer publisher-issued comparative report. Historical Wave 3 result from 2010; category labels are source-defined and should not be treated as current.

Open original source ↗
Source ↗
Political knowledgeUnderlying CSES studies predate the 2016 report
Comparative Study of Electoral Systems (CSES)05 / 05

Correct-answer rates ranged from 18.7% to 87.1% across four CSES knowledge items

Key findingA CSES methodological report published in 2016 shows wide variation across four political-knowledge items for Taiwan. PolisMetric treats this as a dated historical benchmark rather than a current national score.
Explore data
Political knowledge

Correct-answer rates ranged from 18.7% to 87.1% across four CSES knowledge items

Underlying CSES studies predate the 2016 report
Published observations · Underlying CSES studies predate the 2016 report
Measure / groupPublished value
Second-party item87.1%
Finance item34.8%
Unemployment item33.8%
UN Secretary-General item18.7%
Question / measure

Four CSES political-knowledge items: second party, finance, UN Secretary-General, and unemployment

Sample

CSES national election-study respondents; see report and study documentation

Evidence

publisher public result

Use class

OPEN COMMERCIAL OK

Finding

A CSES methodological report published in 2016 shows wide variation across four political-knowledge items for Taiwan. PolisMetric treats this as a dated historical benchmark rather than a current national score.

Evidence note

CSES Political Knowledge Sub-Committee report table of country-level correct-answer shares. Historical benchmark from pre-2016 CSES studies. Item difficulty varies substantially, and CSES itself cautioned about cross-country comparability.

Open original source ↗
Source ↗