Local Distrust and Regime Support

• Published date: 01 June 2017
• Date: 01 June 2017
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1177/1065912917691360
• Subject Matter: Articles

691360PRQXXX10.1177/1065912917691360Political Research QuarterlyChen
research-article2017
Article
Political Research Quarterly
2017, Vol. 70(2) 314 –326
Local Distrust and Regime Support:
© 2017 University of Utah
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
Sources and Effects of Political Trust
https://doi.org/10.1177/1065912917691360
DOI: 10.1177/1065912917691360
journals.sagepub.com/home/prq
in China
Dan Chen1
Abstract
Political trust is an important indicator of regime support. However, we have yet to fully understand the sources
and consequence of varying levels of trust in specific political institutions. Difference in political trust at national and
local levels is especially important for understanding authoritarian systems. Focusing on China, this article examines
different levels of trust in the central and local governments. Building on existing research that consistently finds high
central trust with lower local trust, this article investigates whether the trust sources differ and the consequence on
regime support. Using survey data, it finds that national economic evaluation is positively associated with trust at both
levels. Perceived corruption at respective levels is negatively correlated with trust. Citizens who use the Internet more
tend to trust the central government less, while those who perceive high quality of public services tend to trust their
local governments more. However, citizens who trust the central government but distrust their local governments
tend to show less regime support. This suggests that instead of simply blaming local governments for incompetency or
wrongdoing, citizens’ local distrust weakens regime support.
Keywords
political trust, regime support, public opinion, China
Political trust is an important concept and phenomenon
organizations, and other social groups can help us better
with great implications for regime support. Existing
understand the effectiveness of societal actors. Vertically,
research has examined the institutional and cultural fac-
studying trust in government at national and local levels
tors that influence trust in political institutions (e.g.,
can yield insight on the dynamics within the executive
Citrin 1974; Hetherington 1998, 2005; Hetherington and
branch. This is especially important for understanding
Rudolph 2015; Mishler and Rose 2001; Shi 2001).
authoritarian systems where power is highly concentrated
Although much has been learned about the sources of
in a single authority that overrides legislative and judicial
trust, there is less differentiation regarding the objects of
branches.
trust. Many studies focus on trust in government in gen-
In authoritarian systems, there is little meaningful
eral, or use trust in political institutions such as political
party competition, and power is concentrated in an indi-
parties, executives, or legislatures to create an index of
vidual, a political party, or the military. In a single-party
“institutional trust” (e.g., Mishler and Rose 2001; Q.
authoritarian system such as China, the horizontal differ-
Yang and Tang 2010). As Levi and Stoker (2000, 495)
ences between political institutions are theoretically
point out, political trust “is not just about ‘government.’”
inconsequential because the government, or the party-
When citizens form trust, they typically have particular
state, effectively overrides people’s congresses and peo-
authorities in mind.
ple’s courts at all administrative levels. The vertical
Specifying the objects of trust can help us identify the
division of power, however, is essential to understanding
locus of trust within a political system, explore reasons
the operation of the authoritarian system. Although local
for varying levels of trust, and better understand the con-
governments are under the direction and control of the
sequence on overall regime support. There are different
ways to approach this. Horizontally, within formal politi-
1Elizabethtown College, PA, USA
cal institutions, investigating trust in the executive, the
Corresponding Author:
legislature, and the court can shed light on the support for
Dan Chen, Elizabethtown College, One Alpha Drive, Elizabethtown,
different government branches. Outside formal institu-
PA 17022, USA.
tions, examining trust in the media, nongovernmental
Email: chend@etown.edu

---

Chen
315
central leadership, they are empowered to accomplish
comparison of trust in democratic and authoritarian sys-
various political tasks and policy goals, such as local eco-
tems. It then analyzes the sources of political trust in
nomic decisions and regulations.1 Reflected in public
China and the consequence of local distrust on regime
opinion, investigating trust at national and local levels
support. It concludes with implications for authoritarian
can reveal important insights on the locus of popular sup-
durability in China.
port and the consequence of distrust on regime support.
However, we have yet to fully explore these questions.
Political Trust at Central and Local
This article addresses this gap by examining political
Levels
trust in China.
Numerous studies have found that political trust in
Political trust is an essential component of political sup-
China is relatively high, and that trust in local governments
port (Xueyi Chen and Shi 2001; Easton 1965). It is a posi-
is lower than that in the central government (Bernstein and
tive projection of a government’s future performance
Lü 2000; J. Chen 2004; Li 2004, 2008, 2013, 2016; Li and
based on existing information and evaluation (Xueyi
O’Brien 1996; O’Brien 1996; Saich 2007; Shi 2001; Tang
Chen and Shi 2001; Easton 1965; Miller 1974; Li 2004;
2005; Tao et al. 2014). Local distrust clearly shows discon-
Shi 2001). Substantively, political trust means believing
tent toward local governments, which are subordinate to
in the trusted entity’s commitment to act in the interest of
the central government. It is thus puzzling that trust in the
citizens and its competence to honor that commitment if
central government “remains high and stable”2 (Li 2013,
left untended (Citrin 1974; Easton 1965; Levi and Stoker
4). Some scholars suggest that the trust discrepancy is due
2000, 476; Miller 1974; Mishler and Rose 1997, 2001;
to compromised policy implementation by local govern-
Shi 2001, 2014). Therefore, the importance of political
ments (Li 2004) or implementation of unpopular policies
trust lies not only in the support for the regime at the time
(Hildebrandt 2013, 40; Tao et al. 2014, 243), even though
(Easton 1965) but also in citizens’ “motivated reasoning”
the central government created unpopular or poorly (Hetherington and Rudolph 2015, 12) to be willing to
designed policies in the first place (Bernstein and Lü
retain support during difficult times, such as during eco-
2000). Does this mean local distrust not only has little neg-
nomic slowdown or political instability (Hetherington
ative consequence, but it shields the central government
and Rudolph 2015, 37).
and the regime from distrust? There lacks direct and sys-
The meaning of trust, however, would be incomplete
tematic evidence comparing the sources of central and
without considering the political context, which shapes
local trust to explain the trust discrepancy. More important,
the consequence of distrust. In democracies, citizens can
the consequence of local distrust on regime support has yet
express their trust or distrust in political candidates and
to be formally investigated. This article seeks to answer
institutions through the electoral process and other chan-
these questions.
nels of feedback, which is generally reflected in political
Using a nationwide survey conducted in China in 2012
outcomes (Miller and Listhaug 1990). For example,
from the third wave of the Asian Barometer Survey
Hetherington (1999) finds that declining trust has led vot-
(ABS) as primary data, and the second wave of ABS con-
ers to support the major opposition party or third-party
ducted in 2008 as supplementary data, this article finds
alternatives. In authoritarian systems, the lack of regular
that trust in the central and local governments has com-
and effective channels to incorporate citizens’ opinions
mon and different sources.3 National economy is a com-
makes it possible that distrust does not have immediate
mon source positively correlated with trust at both levels.
and observable consequences. However, distrust, espe-
Corruption at either level is negatively correlated with
cially when propelled by grievances, can boil into pro-
central and local trust, respectively. Frequent Internet use
tests and other forms of contention (Li 2004; Zhu and
is negatively associated with central trust while quality of
Rosen 1993). Facing unsolicited expression of unfavor-
public services is positively correlated with local trust,
able political opinions, authoritarian governments
partially explaining the trust discrepancy.
become threatened and often react with suppression. In a
More important, people who trust the central govern-
small number of instances, they concede to citizen
ment but distrust their local governments tend to show
demands.5 Nevertheless, the main purpose of either sup-
less regime support. The significant implication is that if
pression or concession is to manage discontent, rather
blaming local governments is an implicit “safety...