Based on the 2011 Latinobarometer survey data, Zmerli and Castillo (2015) examine how macro-level income inequality and micro-level individual attitudes regarding distributive justice interact and influence political trust in 18 Latin American countries. To link the micro and macro level analysis, Zmerli and Castillo (2015) adopt a hierarchical linear model where individuals are nested in countries that act as the second-level units. Zmerli and Castillo (2015) find that both income inequality and attitudes on distributive fairness are negatively associated with political trust. They also suggest that higher level economic inequality attenuate the strength of the negative correlation between distributive attitudes and political trust.
Political trust is widely used as a measurement of state legitimacy in political and sociological research. The theoretical rationale underlying the argument that inequality could undermine state legitimacy lies in Nettle’s (1968) aspirational conceptualization of state as a domain where all its objects are treated equally. For most modern, not necessarily liberal, states, it is a promise of the state to promote social equality. It would be intriguing to study how inequality challenge state legitimacy in post-socialist countries where historically this aspirational promise was implemented in a more complete and radical fashion. While the relationship between inequality and state legitimacy is widely tested in the context of democratic countries, the situation in authoritarian regimes receives relatively less attention. Evans (1995) systematically formulates two roles of the developmental state: its responsibility regarding capital accumulation and distribution and welfare, suggesting that economic performance, in addition to the promise of equality, acts as another source of state legitimacy. Abrams (1988) argues that the single most important feature of the state is that it constitute the ‘illusory common interest’ of a society, implying that the source of state legitimacy will be the recognition of the state as embodying the collective interest of its people. This illusory character of the state and its legitimacy suggests that people’s perceptions and attitudes matter the most. While empirically, perceived inequality tend to be very different from the real situation and the attitudes on distributive fairness affect people’s tolerance of inequality, it makes better sense to pay attention to the subjective aspects in examining the relevance of inequality and state legitimacy.
Then my question ensues: how would perceived income inequality and economic performance interact to affect state legitimacy in post-socialist authoritarian regimes? China is a good case for studying this question for its identity as a post-socialist authoritarian state with breathtaking economic growth as well as soaring inequality after its market transition. It is a haunting puzzle why China has enjoyed unexpectedly high levels of political trust while many western democracies have experienced declining political trust over the last decade (Norris, 2011; Wang, 2005; Wong et al., 2011; Yang and Tang, 2010). While previous research mostly consider the economic performance legitimacy as the explanation for this puzzle, it is meaningful to investigate if the rapidly rising inequality in China would undermine the effect of economic performance legitimacy. The few studies that do probe into the relationship between inequality and state legitimacy in China either just focuses on the objective macro-level inequality, or looks at the subjective attitudes yet do not directly test and prove the relevance of those attitudes and regime support. (Hutchison and Xu 2017; Zhou and Jin 2018; Wu 2009; Whyte 2010, 2014) I would like to fill these research gaps.
I plan to analyze the 2010 Chinese General Social Survey data to examine the individual and interactional effect of the perceptions and attitudes regarding inequality, distributive fairness and economic performance on political trust in China. I will control the objective conditions of inequality to see the net effect of subjective attitudes. Besides, I will look at the variation of these effects on central government and local government, as there has been widely documented difference between the political trust for them in China. I will also study the effect of individual social statuses on the associations between attitudes on inequality, economic performance and political trust.
Reference
Abrams, P. (1988). Notes on the Difficulty of Studying the State. Journal of Historical Sociology, 1(1), 58-89.
Evans, P. B. (1995). Embedded autonomy: States and industrial transformation. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Hutchison, M. L., & Xu, P. (2017). Trust in China? The impact of development, inequality, and openness on political trust across China’s provinces, 2001–2012. Asian Journal of Comparative Politics, 2(2), 176–195.
Nettle, J. P. (1968). The State as a Conceptual Variable. World Politics, 20(4), 559-592.
Norris, P. (2011). Democratic Deficit. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wang Z. (2005). Before the emergence of critical citizens: Economic development and political trust in China. International Review of Sociology, 15(1), 155–171.
Whyte, M. (2010). Myth of the Social Volcano: Perceptions of Inequality and Distributive Injustice in Contemporary China. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Whyte, M. K. & Dong-Kyun Im. (2014). Is the social volcano still dormant? Trends in Chinese attitudes toward inequality. Social Science Research, 48, 62–76.
Wong, T. K., Wan, P. & Hsiao, H. H. M. (2011). Bases of political trust in six Asian societies: Institutional and cultural explanations compared. International Political Science Review, 32(3), 263–281.
Wu, X. G. (2009). Income inequality and distributive justice: a comparative analysis of mainland China and Hong Kong. The China Quarterly, 200, 1033–52.
Yang, Q. & Tang, W. (2010). Exploring the sources of institutional trust in China: Culture, mobilization, or performance? Asian Politics and Policy, 2(3), 415–336.
Zhou, Y., & Jin, S. (2018). Inequality and Political Trust in China: The Social Volcano Thesis Re-examined. The China Quarterly, 236, 1033-1062.
Zmerli, S. & Castillo, J. C. (2015). Income inequality, distributive fairness and political trust in Latin America. Social Science Research, 52, 179–192.
Based on the 2011 Latinobarometer survey data, Zmerli and Castillo (2015) examine how macro-level income inequality and micro-level individual attitudes regarding distributive justice interact and influence political trust in 18 Latin American countries. To link the micro and macro level analysis, Zmerli and Castillo (2015) adopt a hierarchical linear model where individuals are nested in countries that act as the second-level units. Zmerli and Castillo (2015) find that both income inequality and attitudes on distributive fairness are negatively associated with political trust. They also suggest that higher level economic inequality attenuate the strength of the negative correlation between distributive attitudes and political trust.
Political trust is widely used as a measurement of state legitimacy in political and sociological research. The theoretical rationale underlying the argument that inequality could undermine state legitimacy lies in Nettle’s (1968) aspirational conceptualization of state as a domain where all its objects are treated equally. For most modern, not necessarily liberal, states, it is a promise of the state to promote social equality. It would be intriguing to study how inequality challenge state legitimacy in post-socialist countries where historically this aspirational promise was implemented in a more complete and radical fashion. While the relationship between inequality and state legitimacy is widely tested in the context of democratic countries, the situation in authoritarian regimes receives relatively less attention. Evans (1995) systematically formulates two roles of the developmental state: its responsibility regarding capital accumulation and distribution and welfare, suggesting that economic performance, in addition to the promise of equality, acts as another source of state legitimacy. Abrams (1988) argues that the single most important feature of the state is that it constitute the ‘illusory common interest’ of a society, implying that the source of state legitimacy will be the recognition of the state as embodying the collective interest of its people. This illusory character of the state and its legitimacy suggests that people’s perceptions and attitudes matter the most. While empirically, perceived inequality tend to be very different from the real situation and the attitudes on distributive fairness affect people’s tolerance of inequality, it makes better sense to pay attention to the subjective aspects in examining the relevance of inequality and state legitimacy.
Then my question ensues: how would perceived income inequality and economic performance interact to affect state legitimacy in post-socialist authoritarian regimes? China is a good case for studying this question for its identity as a post-socialist authoritarian state with breathtaking economic growth as well as soaring inequality after its market transition. It is a haunting puzzle why China has enjoyed unexpectedly high levels of political trust while many western democracies have experienced declining political trust over the last decade (Norris, 2011; Wang, 2005; Wong et al., 2011; Yang and Tang, 2010). While previous research mostly consider the economic performance legitimacy as the explanation for this puzzle, it is meaningful to investigate if the rapidly rising inequality in China would undermine the effect of economic performance legitimacy. The few studies that do probe into the relationship between inequality and state legitimacy in China either just focuses on the objective macro-level inequality, or looks at the subjective attitudes yet do not directly test and prove the relevance of those attitudes and regime support. (Hutchison and Xu 2017; Zhou and Jin 2018; Wu 2009; Whyte 2010, 2014) I would like to fill these research gaps.
I plan to analyze the 2010 Chinese General Social Survey data to examine the individual and interactional effect of the perceptions and attitudes regarding inequality, distributive fairness and economic performance on political trust in China. I will control the objective conditions of inequality to see the net effect of subjective attitudes. Besides, I will look at the variation of these effects on central government and local government, as there has been widely documented difference between the political trust for them in China. I will also study the effect of individual social statuses on the associations between attitudes on inequality, economic performance and political trust.
Reference
Abrams, P. (1988). Notes on the Difficulty of Studying the State. Journal of Historical Sociology, 1(1), 58-89. Evans, P. B. (1995). Embedded autonomy: States and industrial transformation. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Hutchison, M. L., & Xu, P. (2017). Trust in China? The impact of development, inequality, and openness on political trust across China’s provinces, 2001–2012. Asian Journal of Comparative Politics, 2(2), 176–195. Nettle, J. P. (1968). The State as a Conceptual Variable. World Politics, 20(4), 559-592. Norris, P. (2011). Democratic Deficit. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Wang Z. (2005). Before the emergence of critical citizens: Economic development and political trust in China. International Review of Sociology, 15(1), 155–171. Whyte, M. (2010). Myth of the Social Volcano: Perceptions of Inequality and Distributive Injustice in Contemporary China. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Whyte, M. K. & Dong-Kyun Im. (2014). Is the social volcano still dormant? Trends in Chinese attitudes toward inequality. Social Science Research, 48, 62–76. Wong, T. K., Wan, P. & Hsiao, H. H. M. (2011). Bases of political trust in six Asian societies: Institutional and cultural explanations compared. International Political Science Review, 32(3), 263–281. Wu, X. G. (2009). Income inequality and distributive justice: a comparative analysis of mainland China and Hong Kong. The China Quarterly, 200, 1033–52. Yang, Q. & Tang, W. (2010). Exploring the sources of institutional trust in China: Culture, mobilization, or performance? Asian Politics and Policy, 2(3), 415–336. Zhou, Y., & Jin, S. (2018). Inequality and Political Trust in China: The Social Volcano Thesis Re-examined. The China Quarterly, 236, 1033-1062. Zmerli, S. & Castillo, J. C. (2015). Income inequality, distributive fairness and political trust in Latin America. Social Science Research, 52, 179–192.