政治信任与民主:批判性公民论题的再审视

IF 3.7 1区社会学 Q1 POLITICAL SCIENCE

Democratization Pub Date : 2023-09-18 DOI:10.1080/13510347.2023.2257607

Andrew Dawson, Isabel L. Krakoff

{"title":"政治信任与民主:批判性公民论题的再审视","authors":"Andrew Dawson, Isabel L. Krakoff","doi":"10.1080/13510347.2023.2257607","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT This article empirically assesses competing perspectives of the relationship between democracy and political trust. We conduct multilevel analyses on a cross-national panel dataset of 82 countries for the period 1990–2020. The findings suggest that there is a strong, negative relationship between democracy and political trust that cannot easily be dismissed as an artifact of model misspecification or response bias. Moreover, we re-examine the critical citizens thesis by disaggregating political trust into trust in partisan and “non-partisan” institutions to test the claim that well-functioning democracies contain and channel distrust into the more partisan political institutions to keep distrust from generalizing to the entire political system. The results fail to find a statistically significant difference of the effect of democracy on trust between partisan and non-partisan institutions, suggesting that low political trust within democracies may be a more acute problem than much of the literature suggests.","PeriodicalId":47953,"journal":{"name":"Democratization","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.7000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Political trust and democracy: the critical citizens thesis re-examined\",\"authors\":\"Andrew Dawson, Isabel L. Krakoff\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/13510347.2023.2257607\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT This article empirically assesses competing perspectives of the relationship between democracy and political trust. We conduct multilevel analyses on a cross-national panel dataset of 82 countries for the period 1990–2020. The findings suggest that there is a strong, negative relationship between democracy and political trust that cannot easily be dismissed as an artifact of model misspecification or response bias. Moreover, we re-examine the critical citizens thesis by disaggregating political trust into trust in partisan and “non-partisan” institutions to test the claim that well-functioning democracies contain and channel distrust into the more partisan political institutions to keep distrust from generalizing to the entire political system. The results fail to find a statistically significant difference of the effect of democracy on trust between partisan and non-partisan institutions, suggesting that low political trust within democracies may be a more acute problem than much of the literature suggests.\",\"PeriodicalId\":47953,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Democratization\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-09-18\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Democratization\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/13510347.2023.2257607\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"POLITICAL SCIENCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Democratization","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13510347.2023.2257607","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"POLITICAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

摘要

24 Cinar and Ugur-Cinar，“执行约束的影响”;道尔顿和申，《重新评估》;“阿喀琉斯之踵”道森;Karstedt，《信任权威》;诺里斯，民主党赤字;朴，“政治信任”;van der Meer, Political Trust.25 Cinar and Ugur-Cinar，“行政约束的影响”;道森，“阿喀琉斯之踵”。布斯和塞利格森，《合法性之谜》;Cinar and Kose，《政治信任》。27 brustedt，“测量不变性”;Marien，“测量等效”;van der Meer和Ouattara，“让‘政治’回归”;Zmerli和Newton， <政治和社会信任>28 Cinar and Ugur-Cinar， <执行约束的影响>。29 Uslaner， <信任研究>。30牛顿等人，《社会与政治信任》;Zmerli和Newton， <政治和社会信任>31见范德梅尔和瓦塔拉，“把‘政治’放回去”;Zmerli和Newton， <政治和社会信任>“32范德米尔，政治信托;van der Meer和Zmerli，“根深蒂固的关注”。33 Cinar and Ugur-Cinar，“行政约束的影响”;《测量等效性》。34 Zmerli和Newton，“政治与社会信任”，106.35 van der Meer和Ouattara，“回归政治”。" 36同上，2992.37 Breustedt， "测量不变性。“38 .她指出，对于公务员制度是代表性机构还是执行机构的归属存在分歧，因此最终将公务员制度排除在分析之外Newton等人，“社会和政治信任”40-1.40 Breustedt，“测量不变性”;Marien，“计量等值”，89.41 Baum，“官僚开放”;brustedt，“测量不变性”;布鲁施泰特和斯塔克，《思考外面》;Cinar和Ugur-Cinar，“执行约束的影响”;Jacob and Schenke，“党派关系与机构信任”;“政治信任”。42 Park，政治信任。43见伊斯顿，《系统分析》;伊斯顿,“重新”;诺里斯，民主党赤字brustedt，“测量不变性”;Cinar和Ugur-Cinar，“执行约束的影响”;Marien，“测量等效”;Newton et al.，《社会与政治信任》;van der Meer和Ouattara，“让‘政治’回归”;Zmerli和Newton， <政治和社会信任>45 EVS，欧洲价值研究;Haerpfer等人，世界价值观调查。46 Dahl，民主及其批评者，131,221.47 Coppedge等人，V-Dem数据集。考虑到理解民主概念的文化差异以及国家内部(包括专制政权)对政体民主的看法的差异，我们使用标准化指数而不是主观看法来衡量民主(Durand, State of democracy;《翻译中的民主》;48 Rivetti和Cavatorta，“政治信任的功能”;Uslaner,“腐败”;范德米尔《政治信任》;范德米尔，《经济表现》;沃伦，<信任与民主>;“大众对民主的认知。49世界银行，《世界发展指标》，50 Solt，《衡量收入不平等》。我们还测试了来自Penn世界表的GDP数据的另一个来源(Feenstra等人，“Penn世界表”)。由于结果与使用世界银行GDP数据的结果基本相似，我们使用后者，因为在撰写本文时，宾夕法尼亚大学世界表的数据在2019年之后不可用。van der Meer，政治信任。52 Coppedge等人，V-Dem数据集。53 Hutchison和Johnson，“政治信任”。国家能力是以国家有效控制下的国家领土的百分比来衡量的温默，《战争的波浪》，55页民族权力关系数据集，EPR核心数据集;Vogt等人，“整合数据。56 Putterman and Bockstette，《国家文物索引》。57参见Kuran，《私人真相，公共谎言》;《支配的歧义》58道尔顿和申，《重新评估》;朴，“政治信任”;里维蒂和卡瓦托尔塔:《政治信任的功能》;范德米尔《政治信任》;Zmerli和Newton， <政治和社会信任>59吉布尼等人，《政治恐怖量表》。60伍德和吉布尼，《政治恐怖量表》。61库兰，《私人真相，公共谎言》。62有可能，特别是在非民主政体中，不同群体的个人可能会感到更自由地表达他们的真实意见。因此，我们运行了额外的模型(未显示)，其中包含政治恐怖量表与各种微观层面因素(性别、年龄、教育、收入和意识形态倾向)之间的相互作用项。教育、收入和意识形态倾向这三个与政治恐怖的交互项在统计上显著，这表明政治恐怖对来自更特权的社会阶层或意识形态左倾的个体的影响相对较小。然而，从下面的结果来看，包括相互作用条件并没有实质性地改变民主的影响。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

查看原文本刊更多论文

Political trust and democracy: the critical citizens thesis re-examined

ABSTRACT This article empirically assesses competing perspectives of the relationship between democracy and political trust. We conduct multilevel analyses on a cross-national panel dataset of 82 countries for the period 1990–2020. The findings suggest that there is a strong, negative relationship between democracy and political trust that cannot easily be dismissed as an artifact of model misspecification or response bias. Moreover, we re-examine the critical citizens thesis by disaggregating political trust into trust in partisan and “non-partisan” institutions to test the claim that well-functioning democracies contain and channel distrust into the more partisan political institutions to keep distrust from generalizing to the entire political system. The results fail to find a statistically significant difference of the effect of democracy on trust between partisan and non-partisan institutions, suggesting that low political trust within democracies may be a more acute problem than much of the literature suggests.

求助全文

通过发布文献求助，成功后即可免费获取论文全文。去求助

来源期刊

Democratization POLITICAL SCIENCE-

CiteScore

6.40

自引率

12.50%

发文量

期刊介绍： Democratization aims to promote a better understanding of democratization - defined as the way democratic norms, institutions and practices evolve and are disseminated both within and across national and cultural boundaries. While the focus is on democratization viewed as a process, the journal also builds on the enduring interest in democracy itself and its analysis. The emphasis is contemporary and the approach comparative, with the publication of scholarly contributions about those areas where democratization is currently attracting considerable attention world-wide.