IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/revpol/v43y2026i2ne70092.html

Chinese Policy Responses to COVID‐19, Trust in Government, and Cultural Worldviews

Author

Listed:
  • Meng Yuan
  • Brendon Swedlow
  • Qiang Wu

Abstract

Using Policy Feedback Theory and Grid Group Cultural Theory, we show how COVID‐19 policy stringency and individuals' cultural worldviews influence trust in different levels of Chinese government. Relying on the Oxford COVID‐19 Government Response Tracker (OxCGRT) and independent surveys in 2020 and 2022, we find that, as expected, Chinese respondents trust the central government more than local governments in 2020, but that increasing stringency in containment and health policies negatively correlates with trust in government at all levels in 2022. However, increasing stringency in economic support policy is associated positively with trust in government at all levels in 2022. Furthermore, as expected, hierarchy positively correlates with trust in government, while individualism negatively correlates with it in both years. In addition, egalitarianism is positively associated with trust in government in 2022, while fatalism is negatively associated with it in 2020. Moreover, cultural worldviews moderate the relationship between policy stringency and trust in government. Our results suggest that top‐down measures in public health crises are more likely to be rejected by some subcultures and that cultural surprises associated with the pandemic may trigger public demands for policy change. 本文运用政策反馈理论和网格‐群体文化理论,探讨了新冠肺炎疫情应对政策的严格程度以及个人文化世界观如何影响民众对中国各级政府的信任度。基于牛津大学新冠肺炎疫情政府应对追踪系统(OxCGRT)以及2020年和2022年的独立调查数据,我们发现,正如预期,2020年中国受访者对中央政府的信任度高于地方政府;但2022年,防控和卫生政策的严格程度与各级政府的信任度呈负相关。然而,2022年,经济支持政策的严格程度与各级政府的信任度呈正相关。此外,正如预期,等级观念与政府信任度呈正相关,而个人主义在两个年份均与政府信任度呈负相关。另外,平等主义在2022年与政府信任度呈正相关,而宿命论在2020年与政府信任度呈负相关。此外,文化世界观调节了政策严格程度与政府信任度之间的关系。我们的研究结果表明,在公共卫生危机中,自上而下的措施更容易遭到某些亚文化群体的抵制,而与疫情相关的文化冲击可能会引发公众对政策变革的诉求。 Utilizando la Teoría de la Retroalimentación de Políticas y la Teoría Cultural de Grupos Grid, mostramos cómo el rigor de las políticas relacionadas con la COVID‐19 y las visiones culturales de los individuos influyen en la confianza en los diferentes niveles del gobierno chino. Basándonos en el Rastreador de Respuesta Gubernamental a la COVID‐19 de Oxford (OxCGRT) y en encuestas independientes realizadas en 2020 y 2022, observamos que, como era de esperar, los encuestados chinos confían más en el gobierno central que en los gobiernos locales en 2020, pero que un mayor rigor en las políticas de contención y salud se correlaciona negativamente con la confianza en el gobierno a todos los niveles en 2022. Sin embargo, un mayor rigor en las políticas de apoyo económico se asocia positivamente con la confianza en el gobierno a todos los niveles en 2022. Además, como era de esperar, la jerarquía se correlaciona positivamente con la confianza en el gobierno, mientras que el individualismo se correlaciona negativamente con ella en ambos años. Además, el igualitarismo se asoció positivamente con la confianza en el gobierno en 2022, mientras que el fatalismo se asoció negativamente con él en 2020. Asimismo, las cosmovisiones culturales moderan la relación entre el rigor político y la confianza en el gobierno. Nuestros resultados sugieren que las medidas de arriba hacia abajo en las crisis de salud pública tienen mayor probabilidad de ser rechazadas por algunas subculturas y que las sorpresas culturales asociadas con la pandemia pueden generar demandas públicas de cambios en las políticas.

Suggested Citation

  • Meng Yuan & Brendon Swedlow & Qiang Wu, 2026. "Chinese Policy Responses to COVID‐19, Trust in Government, and Cultural Worldviews," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 43(2), March.
  • Handle: RePEc:bla:revpol:v:43:y:2026:i:2:n:e70092
    DOI: 10.1111/ropr.70092
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/ropr.70092
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/ropr.70092?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:revpol:v:43:y:2026:i:2:n:e70092. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/ipsonea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.