Sociologický časopis / Czech Sociological Review 2013, 49(3): 347-374 | DOI: 10.13060/00380288.2013.49.3.01

Impact of Salience on Differential Trust across Political Institutions in the Czech Republic

Pat Lyons
Institute of Sociology, Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic, Prague

This article explores why citizens express varying levels of trust across six institutions of political representation within the Czech Republic using a set of rival models. In addressing this question, this study argues that systematic differences in institutional trust are related to salience. Institutions with high visibility or salience to the public, i.e. government, lower chambre and president, will be trusted on the basis of their perceived political and economic performance. In contrast, institutions that are less salient to citizens are not evaluated on the basis of performance but on more diffuse criteria. Competing models of trust are divided into two groups. Top down explanations emphasise what institutions do; and hence focus on political and economic performance. Bottom up accounts of institutional trust refer to social mechanisms such as values, culture and knowledge. The empirical results presented in this study reveal that trust in salient political institutions is more strongly shaped by political performance. Otherwise, there is no systematic pattern to the determinants of trust in political institutions. These results suggest that citizen trust in political institutions emerges from a variety of top down and bottom up mechanisms, where salient institutions are different in that they are evaluated more on the basis of the political performance of office-holders.

Keywords: institutional trust, differential trust, levels of governance, salience, political sociology, Czech Republic

Published: June 1, 2013  Show citation

ACS AIP APA ASA Harvard Chicago Chicago Notes IEEE ISO690 MLA NLM Turabian Vancouver
Lyons, P. (2013). Impact of Salience on Differential Trust across Political Institutions in the Czech Republic. Sociologický časopis / Czech Sociological Review, 49(3), 347-374. doi: 10.13060/00380288.2013.49.3.01
Share...
Download citation
  • BibTeX (.bib)
  • Bookends (.ris)
  • EasyBib (.ris)
  • EndNote (.enw)
  • EndNote 8 (.xml)
  • ISI WoS (.isi)
  • Medlars (.medlars)
  • Mendeley (.ris)
  • MODS (.xml)
  • Papers (.ris)
  • RefWorks (.txt)
  • RefManager (.ris)
  • RIS (.ris)
  • MS Word (.xml)
  • Zotero (.ris)
    • Open full article

    References

    1. Almond, G. A. and S. Verba. 1963. The Civic Culture: Political Attitudes and Democracy in Five Nations. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Go to original source...
    2. Althaus, S. 1996. 'Opinion Polls, Information Effects and Political Equality: Exploring Ideological Biases in Collective Opinion.' Political Communication 13 (1): 3-21. Go to original source...
    3. Althaus, S. 2003. Collective Preferences in Democratic Politics: Opinion Surveys and the Will of the People. New York: Cambridge University Press. Go to original source...
    4. Alvarez, R. M. and J. Nagler. 1998. 'Economics, Entitlements and Social Issues: Voter Choice in the 1996 Presidential Election.' American Journal of Political Science 42 (4): 1349-1363. Go to original source...
    5. Bartels, L. 2002. 'Beyond the Running Tally: Partisan Bias in Political Perceptions.' Political Behavior 24 (2): 117-150. Go to original source...
    6. Berlin, I. (1958) 1969. 'Two Concepts of Liberty.' Pp. 1-32 in Four Essays on Liberty, edited by I. Berlin. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    7. Blair, T. 2010. A Journey: My Political Life. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.
    8. Buis, M. 2010. 'Inequality of Educational Outcome and Inequality of Educational Opportunity in the Netherlands during the 20th Century.' PhD thesis, Department of Sociology, Faculty of Social Sciences, Free University of Amsterdam, Netherlands.
    9. Citrin, J. 1974. 'Comment: The Political Relevance of Trust in Government.' American Political Science Review 68 (3): 973-988. Go to original source...
    10. Clarke, H. D., D. Sanders, M. C. Stewart and P. F. Whiteley. 2009. Performance Politics and the British Voter. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Go to original source...
    11. Converse, P. E. 1964. 'The Nature of Belief Systems in Mass Publics.' Pp. 206-261 in Ideology and Discontent, edited by D. E. Apter. New York: Free Press.
    12. Converse, P. E. 2000. 'Assessing the Capacity of Mass Electorates.' Annual Review of Political Science 3: 331-353. Go to original source...
    13. Craig, S. C. 1993. Malevolent Leaders: Popular Discontent in America. Boulder, CO: Westview.
    14. Curtice, J. and P. Norris. 2004. 'E-Politics? The Impact of the Internet on Political Trust and Participation.' Pp. 99-118 in British Social Attitudes. The 21st Report, edited by A. Park, J. Curtice, K. Thomson and C. Bromley. London: Sage Publications, Ltd. Go to original source...
    15. Dahl, R. A. and E. R. Tufte. 1973. Size and Democracy. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
    16. Dalton, R. 2004. Democratic Challenges, Democratic Choices: The Erosion of Political Support in Advanced Industrial Democracies. New York: Oxford University Press. Go to original source...
    17. Dalton, R. and S. A. Weldon. 2005. 'Public Images of Political Parties: A Necessary Evil?' West European Politics 28 (5): 931-951. Go to original source...
    18. Delli Carpini, M. X. and S. Keeter. 1996. What Americans Know about Democracy and Why It Matters. New Haven, CN: Yale University Press.
    19. Denters, B. 2002. 'Size and Political Trust: Evidence from Denmark, the Netherlands, Norway, and the United Kingdom.' Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy 20: 793-812. Go to original source...
    20. Downs, A. 1957. An Economic Theory of Democracy. New York: Harper & Row.
    21. Easton, D. 1975. 'A Re-assessment of the Concept of Political Support.' British Journal of Political Science 5: 435-457. Go to original source...
    22. Edwards III, G. C. 2009. The Strategic President. Persuasion and Opportunity in Presidential Leadership. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Go to original source...
    23. Fiorina, M. 1981. Retrospective Voting in American Congressional Elections. New Haven, CN: Yale University Press.
    24. Gershtenson, J., J. Ladewig and D. L. Plane. 2006. 'Parties, Institutional Control and Trust in Government.' Social Science Quarterly 87 (4): 882-902. Go to original source...
    25. Hardin, R. 1999. 'Do We Want Trust in Government.' Pp. 21-41 in Democracy and Trust, edited by M. E. Warren. New York: Cambridge University Press. Go to original source...
    26. Heise, D. R. 1972. 'Employing Nominal Variables, Induced Variables, and Block Variables in Path Analysis.' Sociological Methods & Research 1 (2): 147-173. Go to original source...
    27. Hetherington, M. 1999. 'The Effect of Political Trust on the Presidential Vote.' American Political Science Review 93 (2): 311-326. Go to original source...
    28. Hobolt, S. B., J. Tilley and S. Banducci. 2010. 'Electoral Accountability in Context: How Political Institutions Condition Performance Voting.' Presented at the Political Science and Political Economy Conference at the London School of Economics and Political Science, 13-14 May, London.
    29. Hooghe, M. and D. Stolle. 2003. Generating Social Capital: Civil Society and Institutions in Comparative Perspective. New York: Palgrave. Go to original source...
    30. Karp, J. A. 2009. 'The Valence Theory of Politics.' Pp. 130-152 in Performance Politics and the British Voter, edited by H. D. Clarke, D. Sanders, M. C. Stewart and P. F. Whiteley. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    31. Kinder, D. R. and D. R. Kiewet. 1981. 'Sociotropic Politics: The American Case.' British Journal of Political Science 11 (2): 129-161. Go to original source...
    32. King, D. C. 1997. 'The Polarization of Political Parties and Mistrust of Government.' Pp. 155-178 in Why People Don't Trust Government, edited by J. S. Nye, P. Zelikow and D. C. King. Harvard, MA: Harvard University Press. Go to original source...
    33. Klingemann, H. D. 1999. 'Mapping Political Support in the 1990s: A Global Analysis.' Pp. 31-57 in Critical Citizens: Global Support for Democratic Governance, edited by P. Norris. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Go to original source...
    34. Levi, M. and L. Stoker. 2000. 'Political Trust and Trustworthiness.' Annual Review of Political Science 3: 475-507. Go to original source...
    35. Lewis-Beck, M. and M. Stegmaier. 2000. 'Economic Determinants of Electoral Outcomes.' American Review of Political Science 3: 183-219. Go to original source...
    36. Lewis-Beck, M. S. and M. Stegmaier. 2007. 'Economics Models of Voting.' Pp. 513-538 in Oxford Handbook of Political Behavior, edited by R. J. Dalton and H. D. Klingemann. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Go to original source...
    37. Lewis-Beck, M. and M. Stegmaier. 2008. 'The Economic Vote in Transitional Democracies.' Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties 18 (3): 303-323. Go to original source...
    38. Lipset, S. M. and S. Rokkan. 1967. 'Introduction.' Pp. 1-64 in Party Systems and Voter Alignments: Cross-National Perspectives, edited by S. M. Lipset and S. Rokkan. New York: The Free Press.
    39. Listhaug, O., B. Aardal and I. Opheim Ellis. 2009. 'Institutional Variation and Political Support: An Analysis of CSES Data from 29 Countries.' Pp. 311-332 in Comparative Study of Electoral Systems, edited by H. D. Klingemann and I. McAllister. New York: Oxford University Press. Go to original source...
    40. Loewenberg, G., W. Mishler and H. Sanborn. 2010. 'Developing Attachments to New Political Institutions: A Multi-level Model of Attitude Formation in Post-communist Europe.' European Political Science Review 2 (3): 475-494. Go to original source...
    41. Lyons, P. 2012. Theory, Data and Analysis. Data Resources for the Study of Politics in the Czech Republic. Prague: Sociologický ústav AV ČR.
    42. Miller, A. H. 1974a. 'Political Issues and Trust in Government, 1964-1970.' American Political Science Review 68 (3): 951-972. Go to original source...
    43. Miller, A. H. 1974b. 'Rejoinder to "Comment" by Jack Citrin: Political Discontent or Ritualism?' American Political Science Review 68 (3): 989-1001. Go to original source...
    44. Miller, A. H. and O. Listhaug. 1990. 'Political Parties and Confidence in Government: A Comparison of Norway, Sweden and the United States.' British Journal of Political Science 20 (3): 357-386. Go to original source...
    45. Mishler, W. and R. Rose. 1994. 'Support for Parliaments and Regimes in Transition toward Democracy in Eastern Europe.' Legislative Studies Quarterly 19 (1): 5-32. Go to original source...
    46. Mishler, W. and R. Rose. 1997. 'Trust, Distrust and Skepticism: Popular Evaluations of Civil and Political Institutions in Post-communist Societies.' Journal of Politics 59 (2): 418-451. Go to original source...
    47. Mishler, W. and R. Rose. 2001. 'What Are the Origins of Political Trust? Testing Institutional and Cultural Theories in Post-communist Societies.' Comparative Political Studies 34 (1): 30-62. Go to original source...
    48. Montinola, G. 2004. 'Corruption, Distrust and the Deterioration of the Rule of Law.' Pp. 298-323 in Distrust, edited by R. Hardin. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
    49. Newton, K. 1999. 'Social and Political Trust.' Pp. 169-187 in Critical Citizens: Global Support for Democratic Governance, edited by P. Norris. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Go to original source...
    50. Nie, N. H., J. Junn and K. Stehlik-Barry. 1996. Education and Democratic Citizenship in America. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
    51. Norris, P. (ed.) 1999. Critical Citizens: Global Support for Democratic Governance. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    52. Olson, Jr., M. (1965) 1971. The Logic of Collective Action: Public Goods and the Theory of Groups. Revised edition. Harvard, MA: Harvard University Press. Go to original source...
    53. Parry, G. 1976. 'Trust, Distrust and Consensus.' British Journal of Political Science 6 (2): 129-142. Go to original source...
    54. Putnam, R. D. 2000. Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community. New York: Simon and Schuster. Go to original source...
    55. Rahn, W. M. and T. J. Rudolph. 2002. 'Trust in Local Governments.' Pp. 281-300 in Understanding Public Opinion, edited by B. Norrander and C. Wilcox. 2nd ed. Washington, DC: CQ Press.
    56. Riker, W. H. 1982. Liberalism against Populism: A Confrontation between the Theory of Democracy and the Theory of Social Choice. Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press, Inc.
    57. Rohrschneider, R. and R. Schmitt-Beck. 2002. 'Trust in Democratic Institutions in Germany: Theory and Evidence Ten Years after Unification.' German Politics 11 (3): 35-58. Go to original source...
    58. Schlozman, K., S. Verba and H. E. Brady. 2010. 'Weapon of the Strong? Participatory Inequality and the Internet.' Perspectives on Politics 8 (2): 487-509. Go to original source...
    59. Tarrow, S. 2000. 'Mad Cows and Activists: Contentious Politics in the Trilateral Democracies.' Pp. 270-289 in Disaffected Democracies: What's Troubling the Trilateral Democracies, edited by S. Pharr and R. D. Putnam. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Go to original source...
    60. Thomassen, J. A. and H. van der Kolk. 2009. 'Effectiveness and Political Support in Old and New Democracies.' Pp. 333-346 in The Comparative Study of Electoral Systems, edited by I. McAllister and H. D. Klingemann. New York: Oxford University Press. Go to original source...
    61. Vowles, J. 2010. 'Making a Difference? Public Perceptions of Coalition, Single-Party, and Minority Governments.' Electoral Studies 29 (3): 370-380. Go to original source...
    62. Yang, K. and M. Holzer. 2006. 'The Performance-Trust Link: Implications for Performance Measurement.' Public Administration Review 66 (1): 114-126. Go to original source...
    63. Zaller, J. 1992. The Nature and Origins of Mass Opinions. New York: Cambridge University Press. Go to original source...

    This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC 4.0), which permits non-comercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original publication is properly cited. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.


    Return to the content