IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/diw/diwwpp/dp1934.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Two Dimensions of Political Trust in Russia

Author

Listed:
  • Konstantin A. Kholodilin
  • Vyacheslav N. Ovchinnikov
  • Marina Yu. Malkina
  • Igor A. Moiseev

Abstract

This paper analyzes two dimensions of factors of political trust in Russia. The first dimension is the target dimension (sociotropic vs. egocentric), the second dimension is the time dimension (retrospective vs. perspective). The study is based on the microdata of 2016 Life in Transition Survey (LiTS) of the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development. We find a robust evidence in favor of the dominant sociotropic channel of political trust. Thus, individuals, when deciding whether to trust or not trust into the Russian government, are primarily guided by the improvements in the external environment. Moreover, we find that the impact of sociotropic factors on political trust depends on the level of government. The improvements in political performance are the most important determinant of trust in the Russian president, while the institutional change and the economic development are the most important determinants in the models of trust in other government levels. Finally, we find that individuals who have lost their wealth show more trust than those who have preserved or increased it. However, this effect only works, if individuals are optimistic toward the future.

Suggested Citation

  • Konstantin A. Kholodilin & Vyacheslav N. Ovchinnikov & Marina Yu. Malkina & Igor A. Moiseev, 2021. "Two Dimensions of Political Trust in Russia," Discussion Papers of DIW Berlin 1934, DIW Berlin, German Institute for Economic Research.
    • Handle: RePEc:diw:diwwpp:dp1934
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.diw.de/documents/publikationen/73/diw_01.c.812791.de/dp1934.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ravallion, Martin & Lokshin, Michael, 2002. "Self-rated economic welfare in Russia," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 46(8), pages 1453-1473, September.
    2. Amos Tversky & Daniel Kahneman, 1991. "Loss Aversion in Riskless Choice: A Reference-Dependent Model," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 106(4), pages 1039-1061.
    3. Ching-Hsing Wang, 2016. "Government Performance, Corruption, and Political Trust in East Asia," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 97(2), pages 211-231, June.
    4. Kenneth Newton, 2006. "Political Support: Social Capital, Civil Society and Political and Economic Performance," Political Studies, Political Studies Association, vol. 54(4), pages 846-864, December.
    5. Kinder, Donald R. & Kiewiet, D. Roderick, 1981. "Sociotropic Politics: The American Case," British Journal of Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 11(2), pages 129-161, April.
    6. Daewoo Lee & Chae Young Chang & Hyunkang Hur, 2020. "Economic performance, income inequality and political trust: new evidence from a cross-national study of 14 Asian countries," Asia Pacific Journal of Public Administration, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 42(2), pages 66-88, June.
    7. 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.
    8. Matthew Loveless, 2016. "Inequality and Support for Political Engagement in New Democracies," Europe-Asia Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 68(6), pages 1003-1019, July.
    9. Irena Schneider, 2017. "Can We Trust Measures of Political Trust? Assessing Measurement Equivalence in Diverse Regime Types," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 133(3), pages 963-984, September.
    10. Cojocaru, Alexandru & Diagne, Mame Fatou, 2013. "How reliable and consistent are subjective measures of welfare in Europe and Central Asia ? evidence from the second life in transition survey," Policy Research Working Paper Series 6359, The World Bank.
    11. Michael S. Lewis‐Beck & Richard Nadeau & Angelo Elias, 2008. "Economics, Party, and the Vote: Causality Issues and Panel Data," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 52(1), pages 84-95, January.
    12. Kenneth Newton, 2006. "Political Support: Social Capital, Civil Society and Political and Economic Performance," Political Studies, Political Studies Association, vol. 54, pages 846-864, December.
    13. Duch,Raymond M. & Stevenson,Randolph T., 2008. "The Economic Vote," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521707404, January.
    14. Matthew Singer & Christopher Anderson, 2008. "The Sensitive Left and the Impervious Right: Multilevel Models and the Politics of Inequality, Ideology, and Legitimacy in Europe," LIS Working papers 477, LIS Cross-National Data Center in Luxembourg.
    15. Duch,Raymond M. & Stevenson,Randolph T., 2008. "The Economic Vote," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521881029, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Michael Lewis-Beck & Mary Stegmaier, 2013. "The VP-function revisited: a survey of the literature on vote and popularity functions after over 40 years," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 157(3), pages 367-385, December.
    2. Jonathon M. Clegg, 2016. "Perception vs Reality: How Does The British Electorate Evaluate Economic Performance of Incumbent Governments In The Post War Period?," Oxford Economic and Social History Working Papers _143, University of Oxford, Department of Economics.
    3. Andrew J. Healy & Mikael Persson & Erik Snowberg, 2016. "Digging into the Pocketbook: Evidence on Economic Voting from Income Registry Data Matched to a Voter Survey," CESifo Working Paper Series 6171, CESifo.
    4. William J Berger & Adam Sales, 2020. "Testing epistemic democracy’s claims for majority rule," Politics, Philosophy & Economics, , vol. 19(1), pages 22-35, February.
    5. Mario Quaranta & Sergio Martini, 2017. "Easy Come, Easy Go? Economic Performance and Satisfaction with Democracy in Southern Europe in the Last Three Decades," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 131(2), pages 659-680, March.
    6. Rodet, Cortney S., 2011. "Fact Finding Trips to Italy: An experimental investigation of voter incentives," MPRA Paper 33193, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    7. Chun-Fang Chiang & Jason M. Kuo & Megumi Naoi & Jin-Tan Liu, 2020. "What Do Voters Learn from Foreign News? Emulation, Backlash, and Public Support for Trade Agreements," NBER Working Papers 27497, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    8. Martin Okolikj & Stephen Quinlan, 2016. "Context Matters: Economic Voting in the 2009 and 2014 European Parliament Elections," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 4(1), pages 145-166.
    9. Wiśniowski, Arkadiusz & Bijak, Jakub & Forster, Jonathan J. & Smith, Peter W.F., 2019. "Hierarchical model for forecasting the outcomes of binary referenda," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 133(C), pages 90-103.
    10. Italo Colantone & Piero Stanig, 2017. "The Trade Origins of Economic Nationalism: Import Competition and Voting Behavior in Western Europe," BAFFI CAREFIN Working Papers 1749, BAFFI CAREFIN, Centre for Applied Research on International Markets Banking Finance and Regulation, Universita' Bocconi, Milano, Italy.
    11. Italo Colantone & Piero Stanig, 2016. "Global Competition and Brexit," BAFFI CAREFIN Working Papers 1644, BAFFI CAREFIN, Centre for Applied Research on International Markets Banking Finance and Regulation, Universita' Bocconi, Milano, Italy.
    12. Jonathan Muringani & Rune Dahl Fitjar & Andrés Rodríguez-Pose, 2024. "Political trust and economic development in European regions," The Annals of Regional Science, Springer;Western Regional Science Association, vol. 73(4), pages 2059-2089, December.
    13. Henrik Serup Christensen & Lauri Rapeli, 2021. "Immediate rewards or delayed gratification? A conjoint survey experiment of the public’s policy preferences," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 54(1), pages 63-94, March.
    14. Malkina, Marina Yu. & Ovchinnikov, Vyacheslav N. & Kholodilin, Konstantin A., 2020. "Институциональные Факторы Политического Доверия В Современной России [Institutional Factors Influencing Political Trust in Modern Russia]," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 12(4), pages 77-93.
    15. Gustavo Gouvêa Maciel & Luís de Sousa, 2018. "Legal Corruption and Dissatisfaction with Democracy in the European Union," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 140(2), pages 653-674, November.
    16. Herrera, Helios & Konradt, Maximilian & Ordoñez, Guillermo & Trebesch, Christoph, 2020. "Corona politics: The cost of mismanaging pandemics," Kiel Working Papers 2165, Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel).
    17. George Ward, 2015. "Is Happiness a Predictor of Election Results?," CEP Discussion Papers dp1343, Centre for Economic Performance, LSE.
    18. Pedro C. Magalhães & Luís Aguiar-Conraria, 2017. "Procedural Fairness and Economic Voting," NIPE Working Papers 07/2017, NIPE - Universidade do Minho.
    19. Dominik Schraff & Frank Schimmelfennig, 2019. "Eurozone bailouts and national democracy: Detachment or resilience?," European Union Politics, , vol. 20(3), pages 361-383, September.
    20. Michael Becher & Nicolas Longuet Marx & Vincent Pons & Sylvain Brouard & Martial Foucault & Vincenzo Galasso & Eric Kerrouche & Sandra León Alfonso & Daniel Stegmueller, 2021. "Government Performance and Democracy: Survey Experimental Evidence from 12 Countries during Covid-19," NBER Working Papers 29514, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Political trust; sociotropic channel; egocentric channel Russia; microdata; Life in Transition Survey;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • P26 - Political Economy and Comparative Economic Systems - - Socialist and Transition Economies - - - Property Rights
    • P27 - Political Economy and Comparative Economic Systems - - Socialist and Transition Economies - - - Performance and Prospects
    • P37 - Political Economy and Comparative Economic Systems - - Socialist Institutions and Their Transitions - - - Legal

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:diw:diwwpp:dp1934. 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: Bibliothek (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/diwbede.html .

    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.