Public trust as a factor of civilized development of society

Kosmin A.D.¹, Kuznetsova O.P.¹, Kosmina E.A.²
¹ Омский государственный технический университет, Russia
² Омская гуманитарная академия, Russia

Download PDF | Downloads: 16 | Citations: 8

Journal paper

Creative Economy ^{(РИНЦ, ВАК)}
опубликовать статью | оформить подписку

Volume 12, Number 6 (June 2018)

Citation:

Indexed in Russian Science Citation Index: https://elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=35325574
Cited: 8 by 26.03.2022

Abstract:
The purpose of the presented work is to identify objective and subjective circumstances that determine the very low level of trust of the population of power (including its fourth branch) in comparison with the developed countries of G7 and Southeast Asia (NIS). Public trust or mistrust is considered as a function of the so-called distance (from) power, introduced into scientific circulation by the founder of the theory of cultural measurements by the Dutch sociologist H. Hofstedem. Critical perception of the extensive literature on the problems of trust, which has become a key factor for achieving success in all spheres of human activity (by the way, the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum 2018 was held under the slogan "Economics of Confidence"), prompted the authors to clarify some of the methodological positions that are the basis for numerous studies. First, the economic criterion for determining societies (countries) with a long distance from power would be to recognize not the values of the Gini coefficient ≥0.4-0.5, which only testify to the level of concentration of incomes of the population, and the coefficient of differentiation of the population by income (ratio of incomes of 10% of the richest to income of 10% of the poorest). Secondly, the main and first sign of trust is the presence in the relationship between the authorities and the people of the fact of truth (sincerity), honesty (the manifest forms of morality), as a tuning fork, the standard of humane behavior of personified power. And therefore trust ("special" or "generalized" as sociologists sometimes write) is seen as an "authorized" representative of honesty, the most important indicator of moral capital, but not social. The authors believe that the achievement by the Russian organizational culture of a low power distance is possible only if the personified moral capital enters into "combat duty" in all echelons of power.

Keywords: trust, bureaucracy, justice, moral capital, discretionary power, the index of power distance, truthfulness

JEL-classification: Z13, Z10, Z19

References:

Andrievskiy I.E. (1891). Entsiklopedicheskiy slovar [Encyclopedic dictionary
] SPb.: Izd-vo Brokgauz-Efron. (in Russian).
Bakacsi G., Takacs S., Karacsonyi A., Imrek V. (2002). Eastern European cluster : tradition and transition Journae of World Business. (37). 69-80.
Chernyshevskiy N.G. (1949). Poln. sobr. soch. T.3 [Full. collect. op. V.3] M.: Khudozhestvennaya literatura. (in Russian).
Fukuyama F. (2004). Doverie: sotsialnye dobrodeteli i put k protsvetaniyu [Trust: social virtues and the path to prosperity] M.: OOO «Izdatelstvo AST ZAO NPP. Ermek». (in Russian).
Gks.ru. Retrieved from http://www.gks.ru
House R., Javidan M., Hanges P., Dorfman P. (2002). Understanding cultures and implicit leadership theories across the globe : an introduction to project GLOBE Journal of World Business. (37). 3-10.
Khofstede G. (1983). Izmereniya natsionalnyh kultur v pyatidesyati stranakh i trekh regionakh [Measures of national cultures in fifty countries and three regions] M.: Nauka. (in Russian).
Kosmin A.D., Kosmina E.A. (2017). Garmonizatsiya tekhnologicheskikh mekhanizmov rynka i gosudarstva kak uslovie sotsialno-ekonomicheskogo progressa [Harmonization of technological mechanisms of the market and the state as a condition of social and economic progress] M.: Kreativnaya ekonomika. (in Russian).
Kosmin A.D; Kosmina E.A. (2004). Intellektualnyy potentsial obschestva; formirovanie, otsenka i effektivnost ispolzovanie [Intellectual potential of the society; formation, evaluation and efficiency of use] M.: Ekonomika. (in Russian).
Lim S., Morshed M., Khum C. (2018). Trust and macroeconomic performance: A two-ster approach Economic Modelling. (68). 293-305.
Matiash O.I. (2005). Osobennosti kommunikativnyh vzaimodeystviy v organizatsionnoy srede Rossii i SShA [Features of communicative interactions in the organizational environment of Russia and the United States] Organizational communication. 43-62. (in Russian).
Naumov A.I. (1996). Khofstedovo izmerenie Rossii (vliyanie natsionalnoy kultury na upravlenie biznesom) [Hofstedov's dimension of Russia (the influence of national culture on business management)]. Menedzhment. (3). 71-95. (in Russian).
Shveytser A. (1973). Kultura i etika [Culture and ethics] M.: Nauka. (in Russian).
Veber M. (1994). Obraz obschestva [The image of society] M.: Yurist. (in Russian).
Yanzhul I. (1912). Ekonomicheskoe znachenie chestnosti (zabytyy faktor proizvodstva) [The economic importance of honesty (a forgotten factor of production)] M.: Nauka. (in Russian).
Латова Н.В. Российская экономическая ментальность: какой она была в 1990-е годы и какой тип работника сформировался в результате?Интернет-конференция «Поиск эффективных институтов для России XXl века. (in Russian). Retrieved from http: // ecsocman.edu.ru/db/msq/116475
Савин А.В. Российская Евразия в «мире цивилизаций»Евразийский Вестник. Журнал теории и практики Евразийства. (in Russian). Retrieved from http://www.e-journal.ru/euro-st3-23.html

Страница обновлена: 24.03.2025 в 08:21:35

Подробнее об авторах: