“Political Trust” As The Main Factor of Policy Support on Environmental Problems

Abstract

The aim of this study is to examine the impact of other sociopolitical and demographic factors, especially political trust, on pro-ecological policy support. In particular, how the level of the relationship of political support with people's environmental tendency and political trust varies between countries, and how it affects the policies carried out are the issues focused in the academic and political fields. In addition to political trust, it is asserted that political and cultural factors such as the level of social trust between people in society, the importance attributed to democracy and inclination to postmaterialistic values, as well as demographic factors such as gender, education, and income have a determining effect on pro-ecological policy support. In this context, the factors affecting political support were determined by Logistic Regression Analysis, considering the results of the 7th Wave World Values Research (2017-2021) survey. As a result of the study, it has been concluded that sociopolitical and cultural factors, exclusively political trust and social trust, have a further explanatory effect on pro-ecological policy support than demographic factors. In this context, environmental tendencies are also higher in countries with a high level of political and social trust.

Keywords

• Political Trust
• Policy Support
• Political Culture
• Environmental Policy
• Environmental Attitude

Çevre Sorunlarında Politik Desteğin Ana Unsuru Olarak “Siyasal Güven"

Öz

Bu çalışmanın amacı, çevre yanlısı politik destek üzerinde siyasal güven başta olmak üzere diğer sosyopolitik ve demografik unsurların etkilerini incelemektir. Özellikle bireylerin çevreci eğilim ve güven seviyesi ile politik destek arasındaki ilişki düzeyinin ülkeler arasında nasıl değişim gösterdiği ve geliştirilen politikaların nasıl farklılaştığı akademik ve politik alanlarda sıklıkla tartışılan konulardır. Siyasal güven yanı sıra bireylerin sosyal güven düzeyi, demokrasiye atfedilen önem ve post-materyalist değerlere yatkınlık düzeyi gibi politik ve kültürel unsurlar, cinsiyet, eğitim ve gelir düzeyi gibi demografik etmenlerin çevre yanlısı politik destek üzerinde belirleyici etkisi olmaktadır. Bu kapsamda 7. Dalga Dünya Değerler Araştırmaları (2017-2021) anket sonuçları dikkate alınarak çevresel politik destek üzerinde etkili olan unsurlar Lojistik Regresyon Analizi ile tespit edilmektedir. Çalışma sonucunda siyasal güven ve sosyal güven başta olmak üzere sosyopolitik ve kültürel bileşenlerin demografik etmenlerden daha fazla çevre yanlısı politik desteği üzerinde açıklayıcı bir etkiye sahip olduğu tespit edilmiştir. Bu minvalde siyasal ve sosyal güven düzeyi yüksek olan ülkelerde çevreci eğilimler de daha yüksek olmaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Siyasal Güven
• Politik Destek
• Siyasal Kültür
• Çevre Politikası
• Çevreci Tutum

Kaynakça

1. Akgün, B. (2001). Türkiye’de siyasal güven: nedenleri ve sonuçları. Ankara Üniversitesi SBF Dergisi,56(04).
2. Bingöl, Y. (2009). Siyaset ve güven ilişkisi: Bingöl ili örneğinde 1950-2007 genel seçimleri üzerine karşılaştırmalı bir analiz. Kocaeli Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, (17), 1-27.
3. Blind, P. K. (2007). Building Trust in Government in The Twenty-First Century: Review of Literature and Emerging İssues. In 7th Global Forum on Reinventing Government
4. Building Trust in Government, (Vol. 2007: 26-29). UNDESA Vienna, https://www.almendron.com/tribuna/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/building-trust-in-government-in-the-twenty-first-century.pdf..(E.T.: 1.4.2022).
5. Caferra, R., Colasante, A., ve Morone, A. (2021). The less you burn, the more we earn: The role of social and political trust on energy-saving behaviour in Europe. Energy Research ve Social Science, 71, 101812.
6. Can, İ. (2015). Liderler, kurumlar ve süreçler bakımından Türkiye'de siyasal güven: Sosyolojik nicel bir araştırma. Selçuk Üniversitesi, Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü (Yayınlanmamış Doktora Tezi).
7. Can, İ. (2019). Güveni nasıl tanımlayabiliriz? Ya da sosyal bilimlerin konusu olarak güven. Selçuk Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, (41), 46-59.
8. Chanley, V., Rudolph, T. ve Rahn, W. (2000). The origins and consequences of public trust in government: A time series analysis. Public Opinion Quarterly, 64(3): 239–256.

9. Cook, D. Dixon, P. Duckworth, W. M. Kaiser, M. S. Koehler, K. Meeker, W. Q. Stephenson, W. R. (2001). Binary Response and Logistic Regression Analysis, Chapter 3 (1-23). Iowa State University NSF/ILI project Beyond Traditional Statistical Methods, https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.142.6636verep=rep1vetype=pdf.(E.T.: 12.12.2021).
10. Cook, K. S. (2005). Networks, norms, and trust: The social psychology of social capital. Social Psychology Quarterly, 68, 4–14.
11. Çokluk, Ö. (2010). Lojistik Regresyon Analizi: Kavram ve Uygulama. Educational Sciences: Theory ve Practice,10(3).
12. Daley, D.M., ve Reames, T.G. (2015). Public participation and environmental justice: access to federal decision making. In Failed Promises: Failed Promises: Evaluating the Federal Government's Response to Environmental Justice (edt. David M. Konisky),143-171.
13. Dalton, R. (2004). Democratic challenges, democratic choices:The erosion of political support in advanced industrial democracies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
14. Dalton, R. J. (2005). The social transformation of trust in government. International Review of Sociology, 15(1), 133-154.
15. Dunlap, R. E. V. L., Liere, K. V., Mertig, A., ve Jones, R. E. (2000). Measuring endorsement of the new ecological paradigm: A revised NEP scale. Journal of social issues, 56(3), 425-442.
16. Dupont, D. P., ve Bateman, I. J. (2012). Political affiliation and willingness to pay: An examination of the nature of benefits and means of provision. Ecological Economics, 75, 43-51.
17. Easton, D. (1965). A framework for political analysis. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
18. Fairbrother, M. (2019). When will people pay to pollute? Environmental taxes, political trust and experimental evidence from Britain. British Journal of Political Science, 49(2), 661-682.
19. Field, A. (2018). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics. Sage Publications.
20. George, D., ve Mallery, P. (2019). IBM-SPSS statistics 26 step by step: A simple guide and reference. Routledge.
21. Grimes, M. (2008). Consent, political trust and compliance: Rejoinder to Kaina’s remarks on Organizing consent. European Journal of Political Research,47(4): 522–535.
22. Harring, N. (2018). Trust and state intervention: Results from a Swedish survey on environmental policy support. Environmental Science and Policy, 82, 1–8.
23. Harring, N., ve Jagers, S. C. (2013). Should we trust in values? Explaining public support for pro-environmental taxes. Sustainability, 5(1), 210-227.
24. Heywood, A. (2013). Politics. Palgrave Macmillan. 4th Ed.
25. Inglehart, R. (1990). Cultural shift in advanced industrial society. Princeton University Press.
26. Inglehart, R. (2008). Changing values among Western publics from 1970 to 2006. West European Politics, 31(1–2): 130–146.
27. Inglehart, R. (2018). Cultural evolution: People's motivations are changing, and reshaping the world. Cambridge University Press.
28. Inglehart, R., C. Haerpfer, A. Moreno, C. Welzel, K. Kizilova, J. Diez-Medrano, M. Lagos, P. Norris, E. Ponarin ve B. Puranen et al., (2014). World Values Survey: All Rounds - Country-Pooled Datafile Version: https://www.worldvaluessurvey.org/WVSDocumentationWVL.jsp. Madrid: JD Systems Institute (E.T:21.12.2021).
29. Israel, D., ve Levinson, A. (2004). Willingness to pay for environmental quality: testable empirical implications of the growth and environment literatüre. Contributions in Economic Analysis and Policy, 3(1), 1-29.
30. Jagers, S. C., Löfgren, Å., ve Stripple, J. (2010). Attitudes to personal carbon allowances: political trust, fairness and ideology. Climate Policy, 10(4), 410-431.
31. Konisky, D. M., Milyo, J., ve Richardson, L. E. (2008). Environmental policy attitudes: Issues, geographical scale, and political trust. Social Science Quarterly, 89(5), 1066-1085.
32. León, C. J., ve Araña, J. E. (2016). Context-dependent evaluation of climate change policies: competing policies, knowledge and emotions. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 59(4), 687-707.
33. Levi, M., ve Stoker, L. (2000). Political trust and trustworthiness. Annual Review of Political Science, 3(1), 475-507.
34. Matthew R. C. and Susan C. S. (2009). Trust and Democracy in Comparative Perspective, In Whom Can We Trust? How Groups, Networks, and Instıtutıons Make Trust Possible (edt. Karen S. Cook, Margaret Levi, and Russell Hardın). The Russell Sage Foundation, New York.
35. Miller, A. H., ve Listhaug, O. (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.
36. Nannestad, P. (2008) What have we learned about generalized trust, if anything? Annual Review of Political Science. 11: 413–436.
37. Newton, K. (2001). Trust, social capital, civil society, and democracy. International Political Science Review, 22(2): 201–214.
38. Newton, K. (2008). Trust and Politics. In the Handbook of Social Capital, Edt. D. Castiglione vd., Oxford: Oxford University Press, 241-272.
39. Newton, K., ve Norris, P. (2018). THREE. Confidence in Public Institutions: Faith, Culture, or Performance?. In Disaffected Democracies,52-73. Princeton University Press.
40. Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. New York, Simon and Schuster.
41. Roskin, M. G., Cord, R. L., Medeiros, J. A., ve Jones, W. S. (2013). Siyaset Bilimi: Bir Giriş. (Çev. Atilla Yayla), Adres Yayınları.3. Baskı.
42. Rudolph, T.J. ve Evans, J. (2005). Political trust, ideology and public support for government spending. American Journal of Political Science, 49(3): 660–671.
43. Shi, T. (2001). Cultural values and political trust: a comparison of the People's Republic of China and Taiwan. Comparative politics, 401-419.
44. Shi, T. (2014). The cultural logic of politics in mainland China and Taiwan. Cambridge University Press.
45. Spence, A., ve Pidgeon, N. (2010). Framing and communicating climate change: The effects of distance and outcome frame manipulations. Global Environmental Change, 20(4), 656-667.
46. Steg, L., Dreijerink, L., ve Abrahamse, W. (2005). Factors influencing the acceptability of energy policies: A test of VBN theory. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 25(4), 415-425.
47. Stern, P. (2000). Toward a coherent theory of environmentally significant behavior. Journal of Social Issues, 56(3), 407-424.
48. Sundblad, E. L., Biel, A., ve Gärling, T. (2007). Cognitive and affective risk judgements related to climate change. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 27(2), 97-106.
49. Şenel, S., ve Alatli, B. (2014). Lojistik regresyon analizinin kullanıldığı makaleler üzerine bir inceleme. Journal of Measurement and Evaluation in Education and Psychology, 5(1), 35-52.
50. Tabachnick, B. G.,ve Fidell, L. S. (2019). Using multivariate statistics. Pearson Education, Nev York, 7th Edition.
51. Tao, R., Yang, D. L., Li, M., ve Lu, X. (2014). How does political trust affect social trust? An analysis of survey data from rural China using an instrumental variables approach. International Political Science Review, 35(2), 237-253.
52. Tyler, T. (2006). Why people obey the law, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. 2nd edt.
53. Uslaner, E.M., (2002). The Moral Foundations of Trust. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
54. Uyeki, E. S., ve Holland, L. J. (2000). Diffusion of pro-environment attitudes? American Behavioral Scientist, 43(4), 646-662.
55. Verba, S. ve Almond, G. (1963). The civic culture. Political Attitudes and Democracy in Five Nations. Princeton University Press, New Jersey.
56. Xu, J., ve Li, J. (2016). Tax payment, social contribution for pollution prevention and happiness. Problemy Ekorozwoju–Problems of Sustainable Development, 11(1), 59-64.
57. Yıldırım, K.(2021). Tarihsel süreç içerisinde çevre hareketlerinde ortaya çıkan farklılıklar üzerine bir incelenme. İktisadi İdari ve Siyasal Araştırmalar Dergisi, 6(16), 360-382.
58. Zannakis, M., Wallin, A., ve Johansson, L. O. (2015). Political Trust and Perceptions of the Quality of Institutional Arrangements–how do they influence the public's acceptance of environmental rules. Environmental Policy and Governance, 25(6), 424-438.
59. Zmerli, S. ve Newton, K. (2011). Winners, Losers and Three Types of Trust, in S. Zmerli and M. Hooghe (edt.), Political Trust: Why Context Matters. Colchester: ECPR Press, 67-94.
60. Zmerli, S., ve Van der Meer, T. W. (Edt.). (2017). Handbook on political trust. Edward Elgar Publishing.