4.3 Article

Does Food Safety Risk Perception Affect the Public's Trust in Their Government? An Empirical Study on a National Survey in China

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/ijerph16111874

Keywords

food safety; risk perception; governmental trust

Funding

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [71501128, 71874109, 71632008, 71802065]
  2. Zhejiang Provincial Natural Science Foundation [LQ18G010003]
  3. Zhejiang Provincial Philosophy and Social Science Program [18NDJC043YB]
  4. Hangzhou Philosophy and Social Science Program [2018JD51]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This paper studies the impacts of food safety risk perception on the different dimensions of governmental trust. A logistic regression model was constructed based on the multidimensional analysis of government trust (i.e., competence, benevolence and honesty) with food safety risk perception, economic growth, combating corruption, social trust, political participation and demographic characteristics as explanatory variables. The main findings are that respondents with low levels of food risk perception, high political participation and a positive evaluation of economic growth and anti-corruption performance show high levels of trust in government competence, benevolence and honesty. Social trust has a spillover effect, which has a significant impact on government competence and benevolence but has no significant impact on the honesty of the government, which reflects the distinction between different dimensions of the public's trust in their government. Highly educated people have low levels of trust in government competence, high levels of trust in government benevolence, and no significant impact on the judgment of government honesty. In general, the public speak lowly of the status of food safety and have limited interest in political participation. The government is better to strengthen food safety supervision and develop social capital to further enhance the public's governmental trust.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available