Skip to main content

Distrust in Government Leaders, Demand for Leadership Change, and Preference for Popular Elections in Rural China

Political Behavior volume 33, pages 291–311 (2011)Cite this article

Abstract

This paper examines the relationship between distrust in incumbent government leaders and demand for systemic changes in rural China. It finds that individuals who distrust government leaders’ commitment to the public interest have both stronger demand for leadership change and stronger preference for popular elections. It argues that distrust in government leaders may have enhanced the demand for leadership change, which in turn may have reinforced the preference for elections. It further argues that distrust in incumbent leaders has in effect induced a demand for systemic changes, as introducing popular election of government leaders would require a major constitutional amendment. The paper suggests that two distinctive mechanisms may be at work in determining whether distrust in current government authorities induces preference for systemic changes. Whether citizens can engineer leadership change through existing channels influences the generation of idealistic wishes for a better political system. Perceived availability of better and viable alternatives affects whether idealistic wishes become a practical preference.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

USD 39.95

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Fig. 1

Notes

  1. It is worth noting that preference for elections is not equivalent to support for democratization, not to mention demand for overall regime change. As important as it is, popular election of government leaders is only one of several major dimensions of a democratic system. Moreover, election without multiparty competition can hardly be considered a criterion for democracy. Even if government leaders at all levels are elected with one-person one-vote, China will at best become an “electoral authoritarian” country (e.g., Diamond 2002; Schedler 2006) rather than a democracy if such elections are limited to and run by a single ruling party and exclude all potential organized opposition. Recent survey studies of political support in urban China have used more direct measures to tap popular demand (or the lack of it) for regime change, e.g., to what extent an individual feels proud to live under the current political system and feels obliged to support the current political system, if an individual believes that the communist-led multi-party system should be changed, and whether an individual finds political stability more important than democratization (Chen 2004, p. 23; Tang 2005, pp. 70–76).

  2. Villagers’ committees are not a level of government but “mass organizations of self-government.”

  3. The answer “do not know” was treated as a valid response rather than a missing value because it was read out as an alternative answer during the interview and it indicates a level of perception of corruption which is stronger than answering “no” but weaker than answering “it is said so.”

  4. It ought to be noted that many unobserved factors might have affected distrust in government leaders, demand for leadership change, and preference for elections. Failed attempts to defend one’s lawful rights and interests through non-electoral channels such as petitioning and administrative litigation, for example, may result in stronger distrust in government leaders, stronger demand for leadership change, as well as stronger preference for elections.

References

  • Abramson, P. R. (1972). Political efficacy and political trust among black schoolchildren: Two explanations. Journal of Politics, 34, 1243–1275.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Abravanel, M. D., & Busch, R. J. (1975). Political competence, political trust, and the action orientations of university students. Journal of Politics, 37, 57–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Achen, C. H. (1978). Measuring representation. American Journal of Political Science, 22, 475–510.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, C. J., & LoTempio, A. J. (2002). Winning, losing and political trust in America. British Journal of Political Science, 32, 335–352.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, C. J., & Tverdova, Y. V. (2003). Corruption, political allegiances, and attitudes toward government in contemporary democracies. American Journal of Political Science, 47, 91–109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Avery, J. M. (2006). The sources and consequences of political mistrust among African Americans. American Politics Research, 34, 653–682.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Avery, J. M. (2007). Race, partisanship, and political trust following Bush versus Gore (2000). Political Behavior, 29, 327–342.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Balch, G. I. (1974). Multiple indicators in survey research: The concept “sense of political efficacy”. Political Methodology, 1, 1–43.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berinsky, A. J. (2004). Silent voices: Public opinion and political participation in America. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bowler, S., & Karp, J. A. (2004). Politicians, scandals, and trust in government. Political Behavior, 26, 271–287.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bratton, M., & Mattes, R. (2001). Support for democracy in Africa: Intrinsic or instrumental? British Journal of Political Science, 31, 447–474.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burns, J. P. (Ed.). (1989). The Chinese communist party’s nomenklatura system. Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe.

    Google Scholar 

  • Caddell, P. H. (1979). Trapped in a downward spiral. Public Opinion, 2, 2–7, 52–55, 58–60.

  • Cai, Y. (2008). Local governments and the suppression of popular resistance in China. China Quarterly, 193, 24–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Catterberg, G., & Moreno, A. (2006). The individual bases of political trust: Trends in new and established democracies. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 18, 31–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chan, H. S. (2004). Cadre personnel management in China: The nomenklatura system, 1990–1998. China Quarterly, 179, 703–734.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chanley, V. A., Rudolph, T. J., & Rahn, W. M. (2000). The origins and consequences of public trust in government—a time series analysis. Public Opinion Quarterly, 64, 239–256.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, J. (2004). Popular political support in urban China. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Citrin, J. (1974). Comment: The political relevance of trust in government. American Political Science Review, 68, 973–988.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Citrin, J., & Green, D. P. (1986). Presidential leadership and the resurgence of trust in government. British Journal of Political Science, 16, 431–453.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Citrin, J., & Muste, C. (1999). Trust in government. In J. P. Robinson, P. R. Shaver, & L. S. Wrightsman (Eds.), Measures of political attitudes (pp. 465–532). San Diego: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Craig, S. C., & Maggiotto, M. A. (1982). Measuring political efficacy. Political Methodology, 8, 89–110.

    Google Scholar 

  • Craig, S. C., Niemi, R. G., & Silver, G. E. (1990). Political efficacy and trust: A report on the NES pilot study items. Political Behavior, 12, 289–314.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dahl, R. A. (1971). Polyarchy: Participation and opposition. New Haven, NJ: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dalton, R. J. (1985). Political parties and political representation: Party supporters and party elites in nine nations. Comparative Political Studies, 18, 267–299.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Diamond, L. (2002). Thinking about hybrid regimes. Journal of Democracy, 13, 21–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dong, L. (2006). Direct town elections in China: Latest developments and prospects. Journal of Contemporary China, 15, 503–515.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Finkel, S. E., Muller, E. N., & Seligson, M. A. (1989). Economic crisis, incumbent performance and regime support: A comparison of longitudinal data from West Germany and Costa Rica. British Journal of Political Science, 19, 329–351.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fraser, J. (1970). The impact of community and regime orientations on choice of political system. Midwest Journal of Political Science, 14, 413–433.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hetherington, M. J. (2004). Why trust matters. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hill, D. B. (1981). Attitude generalization and the measurement of trust in American leadership. Political Behavior, 3, 257–270.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hu, L.-T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indices in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huber, J. D., & Powell, G. B., Jr. (1994). Congruence between citizens and policymakers in two visions of liberal democracy. World Politics, 46, 291–325.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jamal, A. (2007). When is social trust a desirable outcome? Examining levels of trust in the Arab World. Comparative Political Studies, 40, 1328–1349.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, I. (2005). Political trust in societies under transformation: A comparative analysis of Poland and Ukraine. International Journal of Sociology, 35, 63–84.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kinder, D. R. (1981). Presidents, prosperity, and public opinion. Public Opinion Quarterly, 45, 1–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • King, G., Honaker, J., Joseph, A., & Scheve, K. (2001). Analyzing incomplete political science data: An alternative algorithm for multiple imputation. American Political Science Review, 95, 49–69.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levi, M., & Stoker, L. (2000). Political trust and trustworthiness. Annual Review of Political Science, 3, 475–508.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li, L. (2002). The politics of introducing direct township elections in China. China Quarterly, 171, 704–723.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li, L. (2004). Political trust in rural China. Modern China, 30, 228–258.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li, L., & O’Brien, K. J. (1996). Villagers and popular resistance in contemporary China. Modern China, 22, 28–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li, L., & O’Brien, K. J. (2008). Protest leadership in rural China. China Quarterly, 193, 1–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lipset, S. M., & Schneider, W. G. (1983). The decline of confidence in American institutions. Political Science Quarterly, 98, 379–402.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Little, R. J. A. (1988). A test of missing completely at random for multivariate data with missing values. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 83, 1198–1202.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Little, R. J. A., & Rubin, D. B. (1987). Statistical analysis with missing data. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Manion, M. (1994). Survey research in the study of contemporary China: Learning from local samples. China Quarterly, 139, 741–765.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Manion, M. (1996). The electoral connection in the Chinese countryside. American Political Science Review, 90, 736–748.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Manion, M. (2000). Chinese democratization in perspective: Electorates and selectorates at the town level. China Quarterly, 63, 764–782.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Manion, M. (2006). Democracy, community, trust: The impact of elections in rural China. Comparative Political Studies, 39, 301–324.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Manion, M. (2008). When communist party candidates can lose, who wins? Assessing the role of local people’s congresses in the selection of leaders in China. China Quarterly, 195, 607–630.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marsh, H. W., Hau, K.-T., & Wen, Z. (2004). In search of golden rules: comment on hypothesis-testing approaches to setting cutoff values for fit indexes and dangers in overgeneralizing Hu and Bentler’s (1999). Structural Equation Modeling, 11, 320–341.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, A. H. (1974a). Political issues and trust in government, 1964–1970. American Political Science Review, 68, 951–972.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, A. H. (1974b). Rejoinder to “comment” by Jack Citrin: Political discontent or ritualism? American Political Science Review, 68, 989–1001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, W. E. (1979). Confidence in government or a crisis in leadership? Misreading the public pulse. Public Opinion, 2, 9–15, 60.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller, A. H., & Listhaug, O. (1990). Political parties and confidence in government: A comparison of Norway, Sweden and the United States. British Journal of Political Science, 20, 357–386.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Muller, E. N., & Jukam, T. O. (1977). On the meaning of political support. American Political Science Review, 71, 1561–1595.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (2006). Mplus user’s guide (4th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Brien, K. J. (1990). Reform without liberalization: China’s national people’s congress and the politics of institutional change. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • O’Brien, K. J. (Ed.). (2008). Popular protest in China. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Brien, K. J., & Li, L. (2000). Accommodating “democracy” in a one-party state: Introducing village elections in China. China Quarterly, 162, 465–489.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Putnam, R. D. (1993). Making democracy work: Civic traditions in modern Italy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reisinger, W. M., Miller, A. H., Heslik, V., & Maher, K. H. (1994). Political values in Russia, Ukraine and Lithuania: Sources and implications for democracy. British Journal of Political Science, 24, 183–223.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rose, R. (2007). Learning to support new regimes in Europe. Journal of Democracy, 18, 111–125.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rose, R., & Shin, D. C. (2001). Democratization backwards: The problem of third wave democracies. British Journal of Political Science, 31, 331–354.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rubin, D. B. (1987). Multiple imputation for nonresponse in surveys. New York: Wiley.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Sarsfield, R., & Echegaray, F. (2006). Opening the black box: How satisfaction with democracy and its perceived efficacy affect regime preference in Latin America. International Journal of Public Opinions Research, 18, 153–173.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schafer, J. L. (1997). Analysis of incomplete multivariate data. London: Chapman and Hall.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Schafer, J. L., & Olsen, M. K. (1998). Multiple imputation for multivariate missing-data problems: A data analyst’s perspective. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 33, 545–571.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schedler, A. (2006). Electoral authoritarianism: The dynamics of unfree competition. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Seligson, M. A. (2002a). Trouble in paradise? The erosion of system support in Costa Rica, 1978–1999. Latin American Research Review, 37, 160–185.

    Google Scholar 

  • Seligson, M. A. (2002b). The impact of corruption on regime legitimacy: A comparative study of four Latin American countries. Journal of Politics, 64, 408–433.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shi, T. (1999). Village committee elections in China: Institutionalist tactics for democracy. World Politics, 51, 385–412.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shi, T. (2001). Cultural values and political trust: A comparison of the People’s Republic of China and Taiwan. Comparative Politics, 33, 401–419.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • SPSS Inc. (2008). SPSS missing values 17.0. Chicago, IL: SPSS Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stelzl, I. (1986). Changing a causal hypothesis without changing the fit: Some rules for generating equivalent path models. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 21, 309–331.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sztompka, P. (2000). Trust: A sociological theory. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tang, W. (2005). Public opinion and political change in China. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tsai, L. L. (2007). Solidary groups, informal accountability, and local public goods provision in rural China. American Political Science Review, 101, 355–372.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Waldron-Moore, P. (1999). Eastern Europe at the crossroads of democratic transition: Evaluating support for democratic institutions, satisfaction with democratic government, and consolidation of democratic regimes. Comparative Political Studies, 32, 32–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walker, K. L. (2006). Gangster capitalism and peasant protest in China: The last twenty years. Journal of Peasant Studies, 33, 1–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Warwick, P. V. (1998). Disputed cause, disputed effect: The postmaterialist thesis re-examined. Public Opinion Quarterly, 62, 583–609.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weatherford, M. S. (1984). Economic stagflation and public support for the political system. British Journal of Political Science, 14, 187–205.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weitz-Shapiro, R. (2008). The local connection: Local government performance and satisfaction with democracy in Argentina. Comparative Political Studies, 41, 285–308.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhu, J.-H. (1996). “I don’t know” in public opinion surveys in China: Individual and contextual causes of item non-response. Journal of Contemporary China, 5, 223–245.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This project was funded by the Research Grants Council of the Hong Kong Government (Grant No. CUHK2440/06H). I thank my collaborators for administering the survey. For insightful comments and suggestions, I thank the editors, two anonymous reviewers, Pierre Landry, Xiaobo Lu, Jeremy Wallace, and especially Kevin O’Brien and Melanie Manion.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Government and Public Administration, Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shatin, N.T., Hong Kong, China

    Lianjiang Li

Authors
  1. Lianjiang Li
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lianjiang Li.

Appendix

Appendix

See Table 4.

Table 4 Description of variables
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Li, L. Distrust in Government Leaders, Demand for Leadership Change, and Preference for Popular Elections in Rural China. Polit Behav 33, 291–311 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-010-9111-3

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-010-9111-3

Keywords

  • Political trust
  • Distrust in government leaders
  • Leadership change
  • Systemic changes