«Несправедливое» неравенство и политическое доверие

Настоящая работа посвящена анализу взаимосвязей объективного неравенства (неравенства в распределении доходов населения и «несправедливого» неравенства) и политического доверия в развитых и развивающихся странах. Руководствуясь поставленной целью, автор специфицирует и оценивает многоуровневые линейные регрессионные модели с поправкой на смещение оценок коэффициентов из-за выбросов. Для обеспечения сопоставимости и надежности эконометрических результатов рассматриваются три альтернативных набора оценок «несправедливого» неравенства: оценки неравенства возможностей, оценки межпоколенческого воспроизводства достижений, оценки межпоколенческой мобильности населения. В ходе анализа получены следующие основные результаты. Во-первых, найдены убедительные свидетельства разрушительного влияния доходного и «несправедливого» неравенства на политическое доверие (trust-eroding effect) в развитых странах Европы. В развивающихся странах объективное неравенство и политическое доверие не находятся в тесной взаимосвязи (разве что «несправедливое» неравенство слабо отрицательно связано с политическим доверием). Более надежным коррелятом политического доверия в развивающихся странах являются субъективные представления о равенстве возможностей. Во-вторых, доказано, что обеспеченные домохозяйства в среднем характеризуются большей политической лояльностью. Это справедливо как для развитых европейских государств, так и для развивающихся стран. В развитых странах Европы связь личного благосостояния и доверия опосредована уровнем доходного и «несправедливого» неравенств. По мере роста объективного неравенства политические ориентации богатых и бедных домохозяйств сближаются, что может объясняться соображениями морали или страха. Сформулирован вывод о том, что в развитых европейских странах связь между доходным неравенством и политическим доверием не зависит от уровня социально-экономической мобильности.

1. Aalberg T. Achieving Justice: Comparative Public Opinions on Income Distribution. Leiden, Brill Academic Publisher, 2003.

2. Aiyar S., Ebeke C. Inequality of Opportunity, Inequality of Income and Economic Growth. IMF Working Papers, no. 034, 2019. DOI:10.5089/9781484396988.001.

3. Alesina A., La Ferrara E. Who Trusts Others? Journal of Public Economics, 2002, vol. 85, no. 2, pp. 207­234. DOI:10.1016/S0047­2727(01)00084­6.

4. Anderson C. Economic Voting and Political Context: A Comparative Perspective. Electoral Studies, 2000, vol. 19, no. 2, pp. 151­170. DOI:10.1016/S0261­3794(99)00045­1.

5. Anderson C. J., Singer M. M. The Sensitive Left and the Impervious Right: Multilevel Mod­ els and the Politics of Inequality, Ideology, and Legitimacy in Europe. Comparative Political Studies, 2008, vol. 41, no. 4­5, pp. 564­599. DOI:10.1177/0010414007313113.

6. Brehm J., Rahn W. Individual­Level Evidence for the Causes and Consequences of So­ cial Capital. American Journal of Political Science, 1997, vol. 41, no. 3, pp. 999­1023. DOI:10.2307/2111684.

7. Brunori P. The Perception of Inequality of Opportunity in Europe. Review of Income and Wealth, 2017, vol. 63, no. 3, pp. 464­491. DOI:10.1111/roiw.12259.

8. Catterberg G., Moreno A. The Individual Bases of Political Trust: Trends in New and Estab­ lished Democracies. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 2006, vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 31­48. DOI:10.1093/ijpor/edh081.

9. Checchi D., Peragine V., Serlenga D. Inequality of Opportunity in Europe: Is There a Role for Institutions? In: Cappellari L., Polachek S. W., Tatsiramos K. (eds.). Inequality: Causes and Consequences. Bingley, Emerald Publishing, 2016, vol. 43, pp. 1­44.

10. Clarke H., Sanders D., Stewart M., Whiteley P. Political Choice in Britain. Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2004. DOI:10.1093/019924488X.001.0001.

11. Duch R., Stevenson R. The Economic Vote: How Political and Economic Institutions Condition Election Results. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2008. DOI:10.1017/ CBO9780511755934.

12. Easton D. A Framework for Political Analysis. Englewood Cliffs, NJ, Prentice Hall, 1965.

13. Enders C., Tofighi D. Centering Predictor Variables in Cross­Sectional Multilevel Mod­ els: A New Look at an Old Issue. Psychological Methods, 2007, vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 121­138. DOI:10.1037/1082­989X.12.2.121.

14. Feldman S. Economic Self­Interest and Political Behavior. American Journal of Political Science, 1982, vol. 26, no. 3, pp. 446­466. DOI:10.2307/2110937.

15. Ferreira F., Gignoux J. The Measurement of Inequality of Opportunity: Theory and an Ap­ plication to Latin America. Review of Income and Wealth, 2011, vol. 57, no. 4, pp. 622­657. DOI:10.1111/j.1475­4991.2011.00467.x.

16. Ferreira F., Peragine V. Equality of Opportunity: Theory and Evidence. Policy Research Working Paper, no. 7217, 2015.

17. Fiorina M. Retrospective Voting in American National Elections. New Haven, CT, Yale Uni­ versity Press, 1981.

18. Goubin S., Hooghe M. The Effect of Inequality on the Relation between Socioeconomic Stratification and Political Trust in Europe. Social Justice Research, 2020, vol. 33, no. 2, pp. 219­247. DOI:10.1007/s11211­020­00350­z.

19. Gustavsson M., Jordahl H. Inequality and Trust in Sweden: Some Inequalities are More Harmful than Others. Journal of Public Economics, 2008, vol. 92, no. 1­2, pp. 348­365.

20. Hofmann D., Gavin M. Centering Decisions in Hierarchical Linear Models: Implications for Research in Organizations. Journal of Management, 1998, vol. 24, no. 5, pp. 623­641. DOI:10.1177/014920639802400504.

21. Hooghe M. Why There is Basically Only One Form of Political Trust. British Journal of Politics, 2011, vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 269­275. DOI:10.1111/j.1467­856X.2010.00447.x.

22. Keele L. Social Capital and the Dynamics of Trust in Government. American Journal of Political Science, 2007, vol. 51, no. 2, pp. 241­254. DOI:10.1111/j.1540­5907.2007.00248.x.

23. Kiewiet D., Lewis­Beck M. No Man is an Island: Self­Interest, the Public Interest, and So­ ciotropic Voting. Critical Review, 2011, vol. 23, no. 3, pp. 303­319. DOI:10.1080/08913811. 2011.635868.

24. Kinder D., Kiewiet D. Sociotropic Politics: The American Case. British Journal of Political Science, 1981, vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 129­161.

25. Knack S., Keefer P. Does Social Capital Have an Economic Payoff? A Cross­Country In­ vestigation. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 1997, vol. 112, no. 4, pp. 1251­1288. DOI:10.1162/003355300555475.

26. Krieckhaus J., Son B., Bellinger N., Wells J. Economic Inequality and Democratic Support. The Journal of Politics, 2013, vol. 76, no. 1, pp. 139­151. DOI:10.1017/s0022381613001229.

27. Lee D., Chang C., Hur H. Economic Performance, Income Inequality and Political Trust: New Evidence from a Cross­National Study of 14 Asian Countries. Asia Pacific Journal of Public Administration, 2020, vol. 42, no. 2, pp. 66­68. DOI:10.1080/23276665.2020. 1755873.

28. Levi M. Social and Unsocial Capital: A Review Essay of Robert Putnam’s Making Democ­ racy Work. Politics and Society, 1996, vol. 24, no. 1, pp. 45­55. DOI:10.1177/00323292960 24001005.

29. Lockerbie B. Prospective Voting in Presidential Elections, 1956­1988. American Politics Research, 1992, vol. 20, no. 3. DOI:10.1177/1532673X9202000303.

30. Maas C. J. M., Hox J. J. Sufficient Sample Sizes for Multilevel Modeling. Methodology European Journal of Research Methods for the Behavioral and Social Sciences, 2005, vol. 1, no. 3, pp. 86­92. DOI:10.1027/1614­2241.1.3.86.

31. McAllister I. The Economic Performance of Governments. In: Norris P. (ed.). Critical Citizens. Global Support for Democratic Governance. New York, NY, Cambridge University Press, 1999.

32. McNeish D. Small Sample Methods for Multilevel Modeling: A Colloquial Elucidation of REML and the Kenward­Roger Correction. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 2017, vol. 52, no. 5, pp. 661­670. DOI:10.1080/00273171.2017.1344538.

33. Medve­Bálint G., Boda Z. The Poorer You Are, the More You Trust? The Effect of Inequal­ ity and Income on Institutional Trust in East­Central Europe. Sociologický Časopis, 2014, vol. 50, no. 3, pp. 419­453. DOI:10.13060/00380288.2014.50.3.104.

34. Möring K. The Fixed Effects Approach as Alternative to Multilevel Models for Cross‐Na­ tional Analyses. GK SOCLIFE Working Paper Series, no. 16/2012, 2012.

35. Nadeau R., Lewis­Beck M., Bélanger E. Economics and Elections Revisited. Comparative Political Studies, 2013, vol. 46, no. 5, pp. 551­573. DOI:10.1177/0010414012463877.

36. Niehues J., Peich A. Lower and Upper Bounds of Unfair Inequality: Theory and Evidence for Germany and the US. IZA Discussion Papers, no. 5834, 2011.

37. Oshchepkov A., Shirokanova A. Multilevel Modeling for Economists: Why, When and How. HSE Research Program Working Papers, Series: Economics, WP BRP 233/EC/2020, 2020.

38. Raudenbush S., Bryk A. Hierarchical Linear Models: Applications and Data Analysis Methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, 2002.

39. Roemer J. Equality of Opportunity. Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press, 1998.

40. Roemer J., Trannoy A. Equality of Opportunity: Theory and Measurement. Journal of Economic Literature, 2016, vol. 54, no. 4, pp. 1288­1332. DOI:10.1257/jel.20151206.

41. Rothstein B. The Quality of Government. Corruption, Social Trust, and Inequality in International Perspective. Chicago, IL, University of Chicago Press, 2011.

42. Reutzel F. Inequality of Opportunity and Support for Democracy: Evidence from Transi­ tion Countries. EBRD Working Paper, no. 248, 2020.

43. Rueda D., Stegmueller D. The Externalities of Inequality: Fear of Crime and Preferences for Redistribution in Western Europe. American Journal of Political Science, 2016, vol. 60, no. 2, pp. 472­489. DOI:10.1111/ajps.12212.

44. Sachweh P., Olafsdottir S. The Welfare State and Equality? Stratification Realities and As­ pirations in Three Welfare Regimes. European Sociological Review, 2012, vol. 28, no. 2, pp. 149­168. DOI:10.1093/esr/jcq055.

45. Schmalor A., Heine S. Subjective Economic Inequality Decreases Emotional Intelligence, Especially for People of High Social Class. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 2022, vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 210­219. DOI:10.1177/1948550621996867.

46. Tukey J. Exploratory Data Analysis. Reading, MA, Addison­Wesley, 1977.

47. Uslaner E. M. Corruption and Inequality Trap in Africa. Afrobarometer Working Paper, no. 69, 2007.

48. Uslaner E. M. Corruption, Inequality, and the Rule of Law: The Bulging Pocket Makes the Easy Life. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2008. DOI:10.1017/CBO9780511510410.

49. Van Erkel P., Van der Meer T. Macroeconomic Performance, Political Trust and the Great Recession: A Multilevel Analysis of the Effects of Within­Country Fluctuations in Macr­ oeconomic Performance on Political Trust in 15 EU Countries, 1999­2011. European Journal of Political Research, 2016, vol. 55, no. 1, pp. 177­197. DOI:10.1111/1475­6765.12115.

50. Van de Gaer D. Equality of Opportunity and Investment in Human Capital, PhD Disserta­ tion. Leuven, 1993.

51. Van der Meer T. In What We Trust? A Multi­Level Study into Trust in Parliament as an Evaluation of State Characteristics. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 2010, vol. 76, no. 3, pp. 517­536. DOI:10.1177/0020852310372450.

52. Van der Meer T., Hakhverdian A. Political Trust as the Evaluation of Process and Perform­ ance: A Cross­National Study of 42 European Countries. Political Studies, 2017, vol. 65, no. 1, pp. 81­102. DOI:10.1177/0032321715607514.

53. Van der Meer T., Te Grotenhuis M., Pelzer B. Influential Cases in Multilevel Modeling: A Methodological Comment. American Sociological Review, 2010, vol. 75, no. 1, pp. 173­ 178. DOI:10.1177/0003122409359166.

54. Zak P. J., Knack S. Trust and Growth. The Economic Journal, 2001, vol. 111, no. 470, pp. 295­ 321. DOI:10.1111/1468­0297.00609.

55. Zmerli S., Castillo J. Income Inequality, Distributive Fairness and Political Trust in Latin Ameri­ ca. Social Science Research, 2015, vol. 52, pp. 179­192. DOI:10.1016/j.ssresearch.2015.02.003.

56. Zmerli S., Van der Meer T. (eds.). Handbook on Political Trust. Cheltenham, Edward Elgar, 2017.