IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v16y2019i11p1874-d234827.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Does Food Safety Risk Perception Affect the Public’s Trust in Their Government? An Empirical Study on a National Survey in China

Author

Listed:
  • Guanghua Han

    (School of International and Public Affairs, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai 200030, China)

  • Simin Yan

    (School of International and Public Affairs, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai 200030, China)

Abstract

This paper studies the impacts of food safety risk perception on the different dimensions of governmental trust. A logistic regression model was constructed based on the multidimensional analysis of government trust (i.e., competence, benevolence and honesty) with food safety risk perception, economic growth, combating corruption, social trust, political participation and demographic characteristics as explanatory variables. The main findings are that respondents with low levels of food risk perception, high political participation and a positive evaluation of economic growth and anti-corruption performance show high levels of trust in government competence, benevolence and honesty. Social trust has a spillover effect, which has a significant impact on government competence and benevolence but has no significant impact on the honesty of the government, which reflects the distinction between different dimensions of the public’s trust in their government. Highly educated people have low levels of trust in government competence, high levels of trust in government benevolence, and no significant impact on the judgment of government honesty. In general, the public speak lowly of the status of food safety and have limited interest in political participation. The government is better to strengthen food safety supervision and develop social capital to further enhance the public’s governmental trust.

Suggested Citation

  • Guanghua Han & Simin Yan, 2019. "Does Food Safety Risk Perception Affect the Public’s Trust in Their Government? An Empirical Study on a National Survey in China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(11), pages 1-15, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:16:y:2019:i:11:p:1874-:d:234827
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/16/11/1874/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/16/11/1874/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Citrin, Jack, 1974. "Comment: The Political Relevance of Trust in Government," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 68(3), pages 973-988, September.
    2. Erika Elsas, 2015. "Political Trust as a Rational Attitude: A Comparison of the Nature of Political Trust across Different Levels of Education," Political Studies, Political Studies Association, vol. 63(5), pages 1158-1178, December.
    3. Wouter Poortinga & Nick F. Pidgeon, 2005. "Trust in Risk Regulation: Cause or Consequence of the Acceptability of GM Food?," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 25(1), pages 199-209, February.
    4. Kar H. Lim & Wuyang Hu & Leigh J. Maynard & Ellen Goddard, 2013. "U.S. Consumers’ Preference and Willingness to Pay for Country-of-Origin-Labeled Beef Steak and Food Safety Enhancements," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 61(1), pages 93-118, March.
    5. Christopher J. Anderson & Yuliya V. Tverdova, 2003. "Corruption, Political Allegiances, and Attitudes Toward Government in Contemporary Democracies," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 47(1), pages 91-109, January.
    6. Ernan Cui & Ran Tao & Travis J. Warner & Dali L. Yang, 2015. "How Do Land Takings Affect Political Trust in Rural China?," Political Studies, Political Studies Association, vol. 63, pages 91-109, April.
    7. Wouter Poortinga & Nick F. Pidgeon, 2003. "Exploring the Dimensionality of Trust in Risk Regulation," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 23(5), pages 961-972, October.
    8. Anneloes Meijnders & Cees Midden & Anna Olofsson & Susanna Öhman & Jörg Matthes & Olha Bondarenko & Jan Gutteling & Maria Rusanen, 2009. "The Role of Similarity Cues in the Development of Trustin Sources of Information About GM Food," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(8), pages 1116-1128, August.
    9. Lynn J. Frewer & Joachim Scholderer & Lone Bredahl, 2003. "Communicating about the Risks and Benefits of Genetically Modified Foods: The Mediating Role of Trust," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 23(6), pages 1117-1133, December.
    10. Luke Keele, 2007. "Social Capital and the Dynamics of Trust in Government," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 51(2), pages 241-254, April.
    11. Guanghua Han & Yihong Liu, 2018. "Does Information Pattern Affect Risk Perception of Food Safety? A National Survey in China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 15(9), pages 1-14, September.
    12. Hetherington, Marc J., 1998. "The Political Relevance of Political Trust," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 92(4), pages 791-808, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Seol-A Kwon & Hyun-Jung Yoo & Eugene Song, 2020. "Korean Consumers’ Recognition of Risks Depending on the Provision of Safety Information for Chemical Products," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(4), pages 1-12, February.
    2. Jiaping Zhang & Zhiyong Cai & Mingwang Cheng & Huirong Zhang & Heng Zhang & Zhongkun Zhu, 2019. "Association of Internet Use with Attitudes Toward Food Safety in China: A Cross-Sectional Study," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(21), pages 1-19, October.
    3. Chuanhui Liao & Yu Luo & Weiwei Zhu, 2020. "Food Safety Trust, Risk Perception, and Consumers’ Response to Company Trust Repair Actions in Food Recall Crises," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(4), pages 1-16, February.
    4. Qian Hu & Yanping Pu, 2024. "Official media use, political participation, and government trust structure. An empirical study based on the attitude of Chinese netizens," Rationality and Society, , vol. 36(4), pages 528-557, November.
    5. Qi Qi & Taoyang Cai & Keyu Zhou & Zhitao Hu & Fanjie Hao & Yutong Wei & Shangjie Ge-Zhang & Jingang Cui, 2024. "Consumers’ Risk Perception of Triploid Food: Empirical Research Based on Variance Analysis and Structural Equation Modeling," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(9), pages 1-21, May.
    6. Jingjing Wang & Nanyue Rao & Buxin Han, 2021. "Pathways Improving Compliance with Preventive Behaviors during the Remission Period of the COVID-19 Pandemic," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(7), pages 1-12, March.
    7. Gelashvili, Vera & Martínez-Navalón, Juan Gabriel & DeMatos, Nelson & de Brito Correia, Marisol, 2024. "Technological transformation: The importance of E-WOM and perceived privacy in the context of opinion platforms," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 205(C).
    8. Mahmaod Alrawad & Abdalwali Lutfi & Sundus Alyatama & Ibrahim A. Elshaer & Mohammed Amin Almaiah, 2022. "Perception of Occupational and Environmental Risks and Hazards among Mineworkers: A Psychometric Paradigm Approach," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(6), pages 1-12, March.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Jae Hyun Lee & Jaekwon Suh, 2021. "Decentralisation and government trust in South Korea: Distinguishing local government trust from national government trust," Asia and the Pacific Policy Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 8(1), pages 68-93, January.
    2. Jaeyoung Lim & Kuk-Kyoung Moon, 2023. "Political Ideology and Trust in Government to Ensure Vaccine Safety: Using a U.S. Survey to Explore the Role of Political Trust," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(5), pages 1-15, March.
    3. Jae Young Lim & Kuk-Kyoung Moon, 2020. "Examining the Moderation Effect of Political Trust on the Linkage between Civic Morality and Support for Environmental Taxation," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(12), pages 1-15, June.
    4. Jae-Young Lim & Kuk-Kyoung Moon, 2022. "Political Trust and Support for a Tax Increase for Social Welfare: The Role of Perceived Tax Burden," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(12), pages 1-12, June.
    5. Branden B. Johnson & Mathew P. White, 2010. "The Importance of Multiple Performance Criteria for Understanding Trust in Risk Managers," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 30(7), pages 1099-1115, July.
    6. Peggy Schyns & Christel Koop, 2010. "Political Distrust and Social Capital in Europe and the USA," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 96(1), pages 145-167, March.
    7. Nicolás C. Bronfman & Esperanza López Vázquez, 2011. "A Cross‐Cultural Study of Perceived Benefit Versus Risk as Mediators in the Trust‐Acceptance Relationship," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(12), pages 1919-1934, December.
    8. Fischer, Justina, 2011. "Living under the ‘right’ government: does political ideology matter to trust in political institutions? An analysis for OECD countries," MPRA Paper 33344, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    9. Jaeyoung Lim & Kuk-Kyoung Moon, 2021. "Can Political Trust Weaken the Relationship between Perceived Environmental Threats and Perceived Nuclear Threats? Evidence from South Korea," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(18), pages 1-13, September.
    10. Nunkoo, Robin & Smith, Stephen L.J., 2013. "Political economy of tourism: Trust in government actors, political support, and their determinants," Tourism Management, Elsevier, vol. 36(C), pages 120-132.
    11. Michael Siegrist, 2010. "Trust and Confidence: The Difficulties in Distinguishing the Two Concepts in Research," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 30(7), pages 1022-1024, July.
    12. Niklas Potrafke & Felix Roesel, 2019. "A banana republic? The effects of inconsistencies in the counting of votes on voting behavior," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 178(1), pages 231-265, January.
    13. Newton, Kenneth, 2005. "Support for democracy: Social capital, civil society and political performance," Discussion Papers, Research Group Civil Society, Citizenship and Political Mobilization in Europe SP IV 2005-402, WZB Berlin Social Science Center.
    14. Stephen C. Whitfield & Eugene A. Rosa & Amy Dan & Thomas Dietz, 2009. "The Future of Nuclear Power: Value Orientations and Risk Perception," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(3), pages 425-437, March.
    15. Soo Tan & Siok Tambyah, 2011. "Generalized Trust and Trust in Institutions in Confucian Asia," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 103(3), pages 357-377, September.
    16. Ying Liang, 2016. "Trust in Chinese Government and Quality of Life (QOL) of Sichuan Earthquake Survivors: Does Trust in Government Help to Promote QOL?," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 127(2), pages 541-564, June.
    17. Hye‐Jin Paek & Thomas Hove, 2019. "Mediating and Moderating Roles of Trust in Government in Effective Risk Rumor Management: A Test Case of Radiation‐Contaminated Seafood in South Korea," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(12), pages 2653-2667, December.
    18. Michael Siegrist, 2021. "Trust and Risk Perception: A Critical Review of the Literature," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 41(3), pages 480-490, March.
    19. Zuo, Bing & Gursoy, Dogan & Wall, Geoffrey, 2017. "Residents’ support for red tourism in China: The moderating effect of central government," Annals of Tourism Research, Elsevier, vol. 64(C), pages 51-63.
    20. Cai, Meina & Liu, Pengfei & Wang, Hui, 2020. "Political trust, risk preferences, and policy support: A study of land-dispossessed villagers in China," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 125(C).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:16:y:2019:i:11:p:1874-:d:234827. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.