Who Do You Trust? The Consequences of Partisanship and Trust for Public Responsiveness to COVID-19 Orders

被引:76
作者
Goldstein, Daniel A. N. [1 ]
Wiedemann, Johannes [2 ]
机构
[1] Yale Univ, Polit Sci, New Haven, CT 06520 USA
[2] Yale Univ, Polit Sci & Econ, New Haven, CT 06520 USA
关键词
POLITICAL TRUST; CLIMATE-CHANGE; HEALTH; POLARIZATION; ATTITUDES; BEHAVIOR; SCIENCE; IMPACT; MATTER; POLICY;
D O I
10.1017/S1537592721000049
中图分类号
D0 [政治学、政治理论];
学科分类号
0302 ; 030201 ;
摘要
Non-uniform compliance with public policy by citizens can undermine the effectiveness of government, particularly during crises. Mitigation policies intended to combat the novel coronavirus offer a real-world measure of citizen compliance, allowing us to examine the determinants of asymmetrical responsiveness. Analyzing county-level cellphone data, we leverage staggered roll-out to estimate the causal effect of stay-at-home orders on mobility using a difference-in-differences strategy. We find movement is significantly curtailed, and examination of descriptive heterogeneous effects suggests the key roles that partisanship and trust play in producing irregular compliance. We find that Republican-leaning counties comply less than Democratic-leaning ones, which we argue underlines the importance of trust in science and acceptance of large-scale government policies for compliance. However, this partisan compliance gap shrinks when directives are given by Republican leaders, suggesting citizens are more trusting of co-partisan leaders. Furthermore, we find that higher levels of social trust increase compliance; yet these gains attenuate or intensify depending upon community-level partisan sentiments. Our study provides a real-world, behavioral measure that demonstrates the influence of partisanship, social trust, and their interaction on citizen welfare. Finally, we argue that our results speak to how trust in government may impact successful containment of the COVID-19 pandemic.
引用
收藏
页码:412 / 438
页数:27
相关论文
共 93 条
[71]  
Newton K., 2018, OXFORD HDB SOCIAL PO, P37, DOI DOI 10.1093/OXFORDHB/9780190274801.013.20
[72]   Three forms of trust and their association [J].
Newton, Ken ;
Zmerli, Sonja .
EUROPEAN POLITICAL SCIENCE REVIEW, 2011, 3 (02) :169-200
[73]  
Norris P, 2011, DEMOCRATIC DEFICIT: CRITICAL CITIZENS REVISITED, P1, DOI 10.1017/CBO9780511973383
[74]  
Pew Research Center, 2014, Political polarization in the American public
[75]   Does Trust in Government Increase Support for Redistribution? Evidence from Randomized Survey Experiments [J].
Peyton, Kyle .
AMERICAN POLITICAL SCIENCE REVIEW, 2020, 114 (02) :596-602
[76]  
Putnam R. D., 2000, Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community, DOI DOI 10.1145/358916.361990
[77]  
Putnam R.D., 2001, Isuma: Canadian Journal of Policy Research, V2, P41, DOI DOI 10.1017/S1474746403001052
[78]  
Rothstein B, 2011, The Quality of Government: Corruption, Social Trust and Inequality in International Perspective
[79]  
Rudolph TJ, 2017, HANDBOOK ON POLITICAL TRUST, P197
[80]   Vaccine Hesitancy Causes, Consequences, and a Call to Action [J].
Salmon, Daniel A. ;
Dudley, Matthew Z. ;
Glanz, Jason M. ;
Omer, Saad B. .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PREVENTIVE MEDICINE, 2015, 49 (06) :S391-S398