Suchergebnisse

Abstract
The social protection of platform workers is widely recognized as a major political challenge but remains vastly understudied. The few existing investigations focus on social protection coverage and the employment status of platform workers, while their social protection preferences remain a black box to date. In this article, we investigate the social protection preferences of platform workers using a mixed methods design based on an online survey (n = 719) and qualitative in-depth interviews (n = 20) with self-employed platform workers in Germany. While the quantitative data indicate that the vast majority of respondents reject compulsory social insurance contributions for platform workers and favour self-employment over dependent employment, the qualitative interviews reveal three main types of explanations for this regulation aversion in different segments of platform work: The casualization of work in the platform economy, free riding on protection derived from 'regular' employment and distrust in established welfare state institutions. Against this background, we discuss challenges for social policies aiming at improving social protection for platform workers.

African Americans are disproportionately affected by COVID-19-related disease and mortality due to long-standing social, political, economic, and environmental injustice; and COVID-19 inequities are exacerbated by institutional distrust. In the absence of trust, public health authorities have not adequately fulfilled their professional and ethical obligations to protect African American communities from the negative effects of COVID-19. As institutional distrust is shaped by individual and collective experiences of untrustworthiness, we propose a paradigm shift from increasing trust among African Americans to increasing trustworthiness among medical and public health institutions/systems throughout the United States. This narrative review extends the literature describing how social determinants contribute to COVID-19 inequities by demonstrating how institutional distrust develops over time and is reinforced through systems of injustice. Additionally, we illustrate consequences of institutional distrust for COVID-19 inequities and provide recommendations for building trustworthiness through ethical public health practice.

This project investigates how voters hold government electorally accountable for perceived untrustworthiness, and particularly how this accountability is conditioned by institutional context. Studies show that political distrust is associated at least as much with attitudes toward the legislative branch as with attitudes toward the executive. With this in mind, I consider two contextual factors. First, whether a party that controls both branches of government may affect the degree to which its candidates face electoral accountability for distrust in government. Second, whether voters who are being asked to elect a representative to the legislative branch as opposed to the executive may affect which institution's ruling party is more likely to be held accountable. I analyze these relationships using survey data from the American National Election Study covering over half a century. The results demonstrate that institutional context conditions both when and whom voters hold accountable for their distrust in government.

Distrust of public institutions, which reached critical proportions in Britain and the United States in the first two decades of the 21st century, was an important theme of public discourse in Britain and colonial America during the early modern period. Demonstrating broad chronological and thematic range, the historian Brian P. Levack explains that trust in public institutions is more tenuous and difficult to restore once it has been betrayed than trust in one's family, friends, and neighbours, because the vast majority of the populace do not personally know the officials who run large national institutions. Institutional distrust shaped the political, legal, economic, and religious history of England, Scotland, and the British colonies in America.

CHAPTER ONE: Introduction -- Focus and Objective of This Report -- What Is Institutional Trust? -- The State of Institutional Trust: A Snapshot -- Should We Be Concerned About the Decline in Institutional Trust -- Organization of this Report -- CHAPTER TWO: What Does the Literature Tell Us About Trust in Institutions? -- Trends in Institutional Trust -- Factors That Influence Trust in Institutions -- Strengths and Weaknesses in Existing Literature -- How Is This Research Different? -- CHAPTER THREE: Methodology and Data -- Survey of Institutional Trust -- Measuring Trust -- Measuring Components of Trustworthiness -- Empirical Analyses -- CHAPTER FOUR: Congress -- Levels of Trust -- Individual Characteristics and Levels of Trust: Who Trusts Congress? -- Institutional Components of Trustworthiness: Why Do People Trust Congress? -- The Role of Individual Characteristics in Assessing Trust in Congress: Do the Reported Drivers of Trust Differ Among Groups? -- Is Distrust in Congress Distinct? -- Chapter Summary -- CHAPTER FIVE: Media Institutions -- Levels of Trust -- Individual Characteristics and Levels of Trust: Who Trusts Media? -- Institutional Components of Trustworthiness: Why Do People Trust the Media? -- The Role of Differences in Individual Characteristics in Assessing Trust in the Media: Do the Drivers of Trust Differ Among Groups? -- Is Distrust in Media Distinct? -- Chapter Summary -- CHAPTER SIX: The Military -- Levels of Trust -- Individual Characteristics and Levels of Trust: Who Trusts the Military? -- Institutional Components of Trustworthiness: Why Do People Trust the Military? -- The Role of Differences in Individual Characteristics in Assessing Trust in the Military: Do the Drivers of Trust Differ Among Groups? -- Is Distrust in the Military Distinct? -- Chapter Summary -- CHAPTER SEVEN: Conclusions and Recommendations for Future Research -- Key Findings -- Limitations and Future Research -- APPENDIX A. Full Regression Results -- APPENDIX B. Methodology -- APPENDIX C. Survey -- APPENDIX D. Graphs and Figures: Trust in Media and Trust in Military

How is vaccines scepticism related to the exposure to Soviet communism? Using individual level evidence on vaccine trust with regards to its efficiency and safety in 122 countries that differ in their exposure to communism, we document that past exposure to Soviet communism is associated with lower trust in vaccination. We show that exposure to socio-political regimes can negatively affect trust in vaccines, which is explained by weak trust in both government and medical advice from doctors as well as in people from the neighbourhood. These results suggest that roots of vaccine scepticism lie in a wider distrust in public and state institutions resulting from the exposure to Soviet communism.

In this paper, we analyze the implications for the economic valuation of the provision of public goods, considering respondents' perceptions of the institution(s) that provide the service. The specific behavioral mechanism whereby institutional distrust (ID) shows itself is through the activation of screening of choice options (choice set formation). However, ID-induced choice set formation might be confounded with the consumer budget constraint, especially in a developing country context, leading to biased welfare estimates for service improvement. We formulate a semi-compensatory hybrid choice set formation (SC-HCSF) model that enables us to 1) discriminate the effect of a budget constraint from that of ID-induced choice set formation and 2) characterize their separate impacts on welfare estimates using a spatial framework. We compare our model results to those from a standard Random Parameters Logit (RPL) Model. The RPL underestimates (overestimates) welfare when individuals have a low (high) ID. Based on our empirical model results, we demonstrate that the impacts of ignoring institutional trust issues can be highly deleterious to project appraisals, particularly in settings where legislative and regulatory institutions are perceived to be endemically corrupt.

This paper examines the development of trust in interorganisational relationships (IORs) that are embedded in conflicting institutional logics. The study focuses on a recently established customer choice system for domestic elderly care that involves a complex constellation of logics for the parties involved in the IORs to handle. We explore how boundary spanners deal with conflicting logics and the impact it has on the development of trust in IORs, including both positive and negative expectations of trustees and the new customer choice system. Using the institutional logics in action theory, we propose a new approach to understanding the role of institutional embeddedness in IORs and provide empirical evidence of how institutional logics influence the development of trust. We introduce the concept of "pocket of trust" to describe the compartmentalised development of trust in an organisational environment otherwise characterised by distrust and control efforts.

The article is a general introduction to the debate raised in the dossier. It offers a panoramic and general vision of some of the most important challenges facing liberal democracies, in a period characterized by the denationalization processes that have significantly remodeled the capacities and possibilities of response to them by the Nation-states. Three main problems that currently stress internally the future of democratic societies are pointed out: i) the structural inequalities of knowledge societies; ii) institutional distrust and loss of the social legitimacy of democratic institutions; iii) the authoritarian drift of democratic states and the spread of hate speech. Each of these problems, which in this article are briefly presented, obtains a more in-depth treatment in the rest of the articles of which the dossier is composed. Therefore, the article ends with an invitation to read the wise reflections of the authors invited to it. ; El artículo es una introducción general al debate planteado en el dossier. Ofrece una visión panorámica y general sobre algunos de los retos más importantes a los que se enfrentan las democracias liberales, en un periodo caracterizado por los procesos de desnacionalización que han remodelado de forma significativa las capacidades y posibilidades de respuesta a los mismos por parte de los Estados- Nación. Se señalan tres problemas principales que en la actualidad tensionan internamente el devenir de las sociedades democráticas: i) las desigualdades estructurales de las sociedades del conocimiento; ii) la desconfianza institucional y la pérdida de la legitimidad social de las instituciones democráticas; iii) la deriva autoritaria de los Estados democráticos y la expansión del discurso del odio. Cada uno de estos problemas, que en este artículo se exponen de forma breve e introductoria, obtiene un tratamiento en mayor profundidad en el resto de los artículos de los que se compone el dossier. Por ello, el artículo finaliza con una invitación a degustar las sabias reflexiones de los autores invitados al mismo. ; The article is a general introduction to the debate raised in the dossier. It offers a panoramic and general vision of some of the most important challenges facing liberal democracies, in a period characterized by the denationalization processes that have significantly remodeled the capacities and possibilities of response to them by the Nation-states. Three main problems that currently stress internally the future of democratic societies are pointed out: i) the structural inequalities of knowledge societies; ii) institutional distrust and loss of the social legitimacy of democratic institutions; iii) the authoritarian drift of democratic states and the spread of hate speech. Each of these problems, which in this article are briefly presented, obtains a more in-depth treatment in the rest of the articles of which the dossier is composed. Therefore, the article ends with an invitation to read the wise reflections of the authors invited to it.

CHAPTER ONE: Introduction -- Focus and Objective of This Report -- What Is Institutional Trust? -- The State of Institutional Trust: A Snapshot -- Should We Be Concerned About the Decline in Institutional Trust -- Organization of this Report -- CHAPTER TWO: What Does the Literature Tell Us About Trust in Institutions? -- Trends in Institutional Trust -- Factors That Influence Trust in Institutions -- Strengths and Weaknesses in Existing Literature -- How Is This Research Different? -- CHAPTER THREE: Methodology and Data -- Survey of Institutional Trust -- Measuring Trust -- Measuring Components of Trustworthiness -- Empirical Analyses -- CHAPTER FOUR: Congress -- Levels of Trust -- Individual Characteristics and Levels of Trust: Who Trusts Congress? -- Institutional Components of Trustworthiness: Why Do People Trust Congress? -- The Role of Individual Characteristics in Assessing Trust in Congress: Do the Reported Drivers of Trust Differ Among Groups? -- Is Distrust in Congress Distinct? -- Chapter Summary -- CHAPTER FIVE: Media Institutions -- Levels of Trust -- Individual Characteristics and Levels of Trust: Who Trusts Media? -- Institutional Components of Trustworthiness: Why Do People Trust the Media? -- The Role of Differences in Individual Characteristics in Assessing Trust in the Media: Do the Drivers of Trust Differ Among Groups? -- Is Distrust in Media Distinct? -- Chapter Summary -- CHAPTER SIX: The Military -- Levels of Trust -- Individual Characteristics and Levels of Trust: Who Trusts the Military? -- Institutional Components of Trustworthiness: Why Do People Trust the Military? -- The Role of Differences in Individual Characteristics in Assessing Trust in the Military: Do the Drivers of Trust Differ Among Groups? -- Is Distrust in the Military Distinct? -- Chapter Summary -- CHAPTER SEVEN: Conclusions and Recommendations for Future Research -- Key Findings -- Limitations and Future Research -- APPENDIX A. Full Regression Results -- APPENDIX B. Methodology -- APPENDIX C. Survey -- APPENDIX D. Graphs and Figures: Trust in Media and Trust in Military