IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/osf/osfxxx/ek8wy.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Panel study of Russian public opinion and attitudes (PROPA). Wave 1. Report

Author

Listed:
  • Aluykov, Maxim

    (King's College London)

  • Gilev, Aleksei
  • Vyrskaia, Marina
  • Rumiantseva, Aleksandra
  • Zavadskaya, Margarita

    (University of Helsinki)

Abstract

The first wave of the Panel Study of Russian Public Opinion and Attitudes (PROPA), conducted between March 13 and March 21, 2024, offers a comprehensive insight into the political and economic sentiment among Russian citizens. Run via an online survey involving 4,757 participants, the study presents nuanced perspectives on the economic conditions, electoral integrity, and political landscape of Russia. The participants, all Russian residents 18 years old and older, completed the survey in 22 minutes on average, with incentives such as gift certificates. The demographic is slightly skewed towards younger women. Respondents with higher education were over-represented in the sample due to the nature of the online survey method. Responses indicate generally positive perceptions of the state of the economy. Al- though responses suggest a somewhat critical view of personal economic situations in the context of the war, with a significant number of respondents unable to afford expensive goods like cars, they manage day-to-day expenses successfully. This sentiment is crucial, as it underscores the prevailing economic discontent that is strongly correlated with voting strategies. Political support remains strong for President Vladimir Putin, with 71% expressing approval. However, this support does not indicate a unanimous support for the ongoing war in Ukraine, with only 43% of respondents claiming to support the war in response to a direct question. Our findings do not suggest noticeable presence of any preference falsification among the respondents recruited through online marketing panels when it comes questions about the war. The tension reveals a complex interplay of support and dissent, which is particularly pronounced between gender lines. The perceived legitimacy of election presents a dichotomy: while a significant majority consider the electoral processes fair, there is also a noticeable skepticism towards electoral malpractice, suggesting a reluctant acceptance of the status quo by many. Despite the high official records for Putin in the elections, the survey results suggest a disparity, with only 54.8% of the respondents supporting Putin. This difference points to the potential dissatisfaction not reflected in the official figures. Moreover, the acceptance of workplace mobilization and other electoral malpractice suggests a decline in citizens’ standards of free and fair elections. At the same time, respondents express balanced view on media where they get the news. Finally, most of the respondents answering the questions regarding Russia’s future expect their country to be strong and prosperous, while economic prosperity tend to be relatively more demanded than any kind of geopolitical greatness. Pessimists as well tend to focus more on future economic hardships.

Suggested Citation

  • Aluykov, Maxim & Gilev, Aleksei & Vyrskaia, Marina & Rumiantseva, Aleksandra & Zavadskaya, Margarita, 2024. "Panel study of Russian public opinion and attitudes (PROPA). Wave 1. Report," OSF Preprints ek8wy, Center for Open Science.
  • Handle: RePEc:osf:osfxxx:ek8wy
    DOI: 10.31219/osf.io/ek8wy
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://osf.io/download/664b2b542f167d10a50e7bda/
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.31219/osf.io/ek8wy?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Bryn Rosenfeld, 2018. "The Popularity Costs of Economic Crisis under Electoral Authoritarianism: Evidence from Russia," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 62(2), pages 382-397, April.
    2. Chapkovski, Philipp & Schaub, Max, 2022. "Solid support or secret dissent? A list experiment on preference falsification during the Russian war against Ukraine," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 9(2), pages 1-6.
    3. Jeremy Morris, 2023. "Political ethnography and Russian studies in a time of conflict," Post-Soviet Affairs, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 39(1-2), pages 92-100, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Mikhail A Alexseev & Henry E Hale, 2020. "Crimea come what may: Do economic sanctions backfire politically?," Journal of Peace Research, Peace Research Institute Oslo, vol. 57(2), pages 344-359, March.
    2. Margit Bussmann & Natalia Iost, 2024. "Presidential popularity and international crises: an assessment of the rally-‘round-the-flag effect in Russia," Post-Soviet Affairs, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 40(2), pages 105-118, March.
    3. Gorgulu,Nisan & Sharafutdinova,Gulnaz & Steinbuks,Jevgenijs, 2020. "Political Dividends of Digital Participatory Governance : Evidence from Moscow Pothole Management," Policy Research Working Paper Series 9445, The World Bank.
    4. Mikael Elinder & Oscar Erixson & Olle Hammar, 2024. "How has the war in Ukraine affected Russian sentiments?," Papers 2410.00663, arXiv.org, revised Oct 2024.
    5. Charles D. Coleman & Ilona Sologoub, 2022. "The Cost of War: A Comment and a Reply," Intereconomics: Review of European Economic Policy, Springer;ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics;Centre for European Policy Studies (CEPS), vol. 57(5), pages 337-338, September.
    6. Kim, Nam Kyu, 2023. "Regime legitimation strategies and competition laws in autocracies," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 170(C).

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:osf:osfxxx:ek8wy. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: OSF (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://osf.io/preprints/ .

    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.