Phenomenon of trust in power in Kazakhstan Introduction

Transcription

1 Phenomenon of trust in power in Kazakhstan Introduction One of the most prominent contemporary sociologists who studied the relation of concepts such as "trust" and "power" is the German sociologist Niklas Luhmann. In his book, "Trust and Power," he pointed out that trust in general and in government in particular is an important factor for further social development. In a situation of increasing complexity and opacity of modern societies people s uncertainty about the future due to reduced interaction between face-to-face is growing, too. Trust in current situation is a necessary component for functioning of society 1. The importance of trust in a situation of uncertainty (for social sphere a high degree of uncertainty is very typical) and uncontrollability of the future is emphasized in works of P. Sztompka. In his theory, "Trust is a bet on future unexpected actions of others 2 ". Trust involves two components: (a) high expectations, and (b) confidence in action of another. Trust as a whole has a positive impact on both who trusts and the trusted in their interaction as interpersonal nature, and the interaction and relationships at a higher level (group, organization, society as a whole). "Trust releases and mobilizes human action, encourages creativity, innovation, entrepreneurial activism in relation to other people, reduces uncertainty and risk associated with human activities, and in the end," capabilities of action increase in proportion to an increase of confidence "(Niklas Luhmann). 3 " Thus, we can say that a high level of trust in society, in particular, the public trust to government agencies, promotes sustainable development of society as a whole. Conversely, a low level of confidence in power leads to stagnation of company or its recession. Phenomenon of trust and confidence in authorities is discussed in the former Soviet Union, too. In 2002 in Russia (Tyumen Region), a survey dedicated to alienation from political life and absenteeism with participation in elections as a sign of protest was conducted. This phenomenon appeared most clearly in groups with low financial status. It was significant that 84% of respondents trusted the President, 72.6% - to the governor - while only 62.4% of the population trusted the heads of in the region. Confidence in the representative bodies of power (in particular, the State Duma) is much lower - they are not trusted by third of the population 4. In 2009, Aleksi Gugushvili attempted to assess the level of trust in the authorities in three republics of the Caucasus (Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia), depending on several factors such as perception of socio-economic and demographic processes in these countries. On the basis of calculations conclusions about importance of parameters such as perception of quality of democracy and satisfaction with democratic processes in the studied states, as well as a place of residence (urban / rural) were made. High explanatory power of models obtained in this study should be noted. The level of explained variance ranged from 21% to 47%. This methodology of Gugushvili s estimate is of interest to us for several reasons. First, the three Caucasian republics are former Soviet republics, which had similar processes of transition from planned economy to a market economy, which resulted in severed economic ties between the countries. Second, those countries, as well as for Kazakhstan, can be characterized by type of economy largely oriented to processing and export of natural resources and 1 Luhmann N. Trust and Power. N. Y.: J. Willey, Sztompka P. Trust: a sociological theory. Cambridge, 1999, p Freik N. V. Concept of trust in works of P. Shtompka//Sociological Research, , p Zabolotnaya G. M. Phenomenon of trust and it s social functions// Vestnic of PFUR, Series of sociology

2 agricultural products (Armenia - processing of natural building materials, agriculture, Azerbaijan - oil and gas sector; Georgia -Agriculture products, as well as ferro-alloys, unwrought gold, Kazakhstan - oil and gas sector and agriculture). To construct a model of trust in the authorities in Kazakhstan, we applied the method of regression analysis. Credibility of the various authorities, including central, local and religious were considered as dependent variables. Characteristics that are close in meaning to the characteristics used by A. Gugushvili were chosen as factors. Results of two largesurveys carried out in Kazakhstan are used as databases for the calculations. In 2010, the Center of Study of Public Opinion (CIOM) conducted a largescale case study on the territory of Kazakhstan. The objectives of this study were to examine conditions, lifestyle, health and social well-being of the population, and their relationship. 1,800 respondents at age 18 and older were interviewed using a standardized personal interview, the sample is representative of distribution of population of Kazakhstan by region and type of settlement, route selection for selection of households was used, respondents in households were selected on the basis of the rules of the nearest birthday. The project is a project "Health in Times of Transition" (project HITT, a comparative case study in 8 former Soviet countries, the grant of the European Union). One of the clusters of this project is dedicated towards attitude of respondents to political situation at the moment in the country, political activity of citizens, as well as trust in a number of political institutions. The article will be considered in detail how citizens' confidence in Kazakhstan's political and social institutions of power is formed. The following institutions will be discussed: President Parliament The judicial system Army Law enforcement agencies Religious Organizations Regional authorities Local administration Political parties Newspapers Television and radio NGO Work unions On the basis of literature analysis, as well as results of other researches, a list of factors was determined which can influence forming of trust level towards power institutions. The chosen factors then were used as independent variables in regression models: Place of residence (city/village) Age Gender Education level Employment Marital status Religion Level of general social trust Satisfaction with democratic 2

3 Satisfaction with development of economy Satisfaction with system of Satisfaction with system of health care Satisfaction with work of Satisfaction with work of regional authorities Satisfaction with system of social protection It should be noted that to evaluate satisfaction with various aspects of development of the country special coding is used, where 1 is the highest level of satisfaction, 4 is the highest level of dissatisfaction. Accordingly, the higher data rates, the less satisfied citizens are with these specific aspects of life. When calculating the regression equations method of stepwise inclusion/ exclusion of variables was used. Thus, in calculation of each regression equation for the branches of power only statistically significant variables for each case were used. Results According to analysis of the data, the highest level of confidence in Kazakhstan has the President, the average level of confidence is 8.28 out of 10. Church leaders have the second place (7.78); is the third (7.31). The least trusted have Non-governmental organizations (4.81), Trade Unions (5.21) and Politicheskm parties (5.45). Radio and television have more trust among mass-media, noticeably ahead of newspapers (6.55 versus 6.1 points). Courts and law enforcement agencies also do not have a high level of trust, receiving 6.0 and 5.68 points out of 10 respectively. In Table 1, summary of levels of confidence in various branches of government is presented. Table 1. Average level of trust of citizens of Kazakhstan in different institutions of power N Mean Standard deviation Trust in President ,28 2,230 Trust in religion organizations ,78 2,518 Trust in ,31 2,414 Trust in Parliament ,04 2,504 Trust in Army ,90 2,600 Trust in Television and Radio ,55 2,507 Trust in Regional authorities ,30 2,555 Trust in Local authorities ,10 2,624 Trust in Newspapers ,10 2,588 Trust in Courts ,00 2,730 Trust in Law enforcement agencies ,86 2,714 Trust in Political Parties ,45 2,691 Trust in Unions ,21 2,824 Trust in NGO ,81 2,694 Evaluated all branches of power 1458 According to results of the survey, the President not only is trusted the most, but the range of opinions in regard to credibility is the smallest. The combination of these factors suggests that citizens of the country quite unanimous in their appreciation of the Head of State. Very high dispersion of values can be seen for courts, law 3

4 enforcement agencies and trade unions, which means significantly different points of view about these branches of government. Trust in supreme authorities Trust in President of Kazakhstan As already noted, the most trusted power authority is the President of Kazakhstan. Factors that exert the greatest influence on this type of trust are satisfaction with economic processes, satisfaction with government, satisfaction with development of democracy in Kazakhstan, as well as satisfaction with social security system. Villagers are more inclined to trust the President. The overall level of social trust also affects the level of trust. When building a regression model of public confidence in the President of Kazakhstan inclusion of these factors, except for satisfaction with the social protection system, was statistically significant at α = 0,001. Level of significance for a system of social protection was The constructed regression equation can explain 20.7% of the total variance. The greatest portion of variance is explained by satisfaction with economic development of the country %. Again, note that since in construction of the regression model we used the method of stepwise inclusion of variables, all variables for each model presented below have a statistically significant effect on the formation of trust. Regression model for trust in the President is presented in Table 2. Table 2. Coefficients of regression equation for trust in President of Kazakhstan Constant 9,791 0,239 40,89 4 0,000 (1) Satisfaction with development of economy -0,314 0,082-0,120-3,822 0,000-0,389 0,072-0,152-5,392 0,000 (3) General social trust 0,170 0,024 0,158 6,996 0,000 (4) Villagers 0,460 0,101 0,102 4,545 0,000 (5) Satisfaction with democratic (6) Satisfaction with system of social protection -0,334 0,078-0,128-4,273 0,000-0,158 0,063-0,068-2,517 0,012 Using B-coefficients, we obtain the following regression equation: Trust in President = 9,791-(1)*0,314-(2)*0,398+(3)*0,170+(4)*0,460-(5)*0,334-(6)*0,158 Analysis of standardized β-coefficient suggests that the overall level of confidence in the President is affected firstly by general social trust (β = 0,158), the least influenced by satisfaction with the social protection system (β = -0,068). There is a logical pattern: the higher the level of satisfaction with democratic processes, the development of the country's economy, satisfaction with social 4

5 protection, and the greater the confidence the President of the country. In this paper, increased satisfaction on the unit means a reduction in the level of satisfaction of the respondent (1 - the highest level of confidence). Accordingly, a negative B-factor, says, for example, reducing the level of satisfaction with the will lead to reduction in level of confidence in the President to Trust in of Kazakhstan The of the Republic of Kazakhstan from the data uses a sufficiently large level of trust among the population of the country, second only to the president and religious leaders. The greatest influence on forming of trust in the government has satisfaction with 's job, satisfaction with development of economy, satisfaction with democratic processes taking place in the country, satisfaction with work of system. The level of general social trust, as well as level of, gender, employment and place of residence of respondents affects, too. All included factors are significant at least at the level of α = Constructed regression equation allows explaining 26.3% of the total variance. The greatest portion of variance is explained by satisfaction of work of - 15%. Results of regression equations for confidence in the of the Republic of Kazakhstan are presented in Table 3. Table 3. Coefficients of regression equation for trust in of Kazakhstan Constant 9,294 0,254 36,541 0,000 (1) Satisfaction with work of -0,489 0,073-0,176-6,665 0,000 (2) Satisfaction with development of economy -0,345 0,087-0,121-3,946 0,000 (3) General social trust 0,216 0,025 0,185 8,513 0,000 (4) Satisfaction with democratic -0,401 0,082-0,142-4,906 0,000 (5) Villagers 0,503 0,106 0,103 4,743 0,000 (6) Satisfaction with system of -0,234 0,069-0,089-3,365 0,001 (7) Men -0,290 0,104-0,060-2,794 0,005 (8) Unemployed -0,343 0,171-0,043-1,999 0,046 In general, the regression equation for trust in the government of Kazakhstan is following: Trust = 9,294-(1)*0,489-(2)*0,345+(3)*0,216-(4)*0,401+(5)*0,503-(6)*0,234-(7)*0,290-(8)*0,343. Analyzing β-coefficients, we can say that the greatest impact on the level of trust has a general social trust of the citizens of Kazakhstan; the least influence has the lack of employment (although non-standardized coefficient is large enough). 5

6 In general, the is characterized by a similar pattern to the level of confidence in the President, the more citizens are satisfied with work of government, economic development, democratic processes, the greater the confidence level of this branch of government among the citizens. At the same time there are some differences: men and unemployed trust the government less. The study shows that, in contrast to the confidence in the President of Kazakhstan, the credibility of the government is affected by level of satisfaction with development of, while satisfaction with social protection system does not have a significant impact on credibility of the. Trust in Parliament of Kazakhstan The level of confidence in the Parliament of the Republic of Kazakhstan is lower than the level of confidence in the President, while remaining generally relatively high (7.04 out of 10). It is a little different from the average level of trust the government (7.31). A statistically significant influence on the confidence in parliament has: satisfaction with development of economy, satisfaction with work of the, satisfaction with development of democracy, satisfaction with system in the country. Also the general social trust has a contribution to explanation of trust, along with gender and place of residence (Table 4). This regression model explains 26.7% of variance. The largest part of variance is explained by satisfaction of economic development %. Table 4. Coefficients of regression equation for trust in Parliament of Kazakhstan Constant 8,952 0,263 34,085 0,000 (1) Satisfaction with development of economy -0,350 0,090-0,119-3,872 0,000 (2) General social trust 0,239 0,026 0,197 9,072 0,000 (3) Satisfaction with work of (4) Satisfaction with democratic (5) Satisfaction with system of -0,401 0,076-0,140-5,299 0,000-0,434 0,084-0,148-5,137 0,000-0,343 0,072-0,126-4,790 0,000 (6) Villagers 0,463 0,109 0,091 4,240 0,000 (7) Men -0,219 0,108-0,043-2,034 0,042 Analyzing β-coefficients, we can say that of all the identified statistically significant factors most influence has the level of general social trust, the smallest - the gender of respondent. In general, factors in the model of confidence in government are almost similar to factors in the model of confidence in Parliament. Moreover, the coefficients of these factors also very similar. It can be assumed that respondents weakly distinguish features of the Parliament and the, often perceiving them as a whole. 6

7 Trust in Judicial System of Kazakhstan The average level of confidence in this branch is relatively low out of 10. Significant factors for forming of trust in the judiciary are: satisfaction in work of, satisfaction with economic development, satisfaction with system and social protection system, as well as the level of democracy in the country. Like previous models, general social trust has a strong influence, on a par with gender of respondents. Unlike previous models, this model attributing to Islam among respondents is a statistically significant factor. This model of regression function can explain 28.6% of the total variance, satisfaction in work of the explains 15.2% of explained variance. Characteristics of factors and coefficients of regression equation of trust in the judicial system of Kazakhstan are presented in Table 5. According to our data, the greatest influence on forming of trust in the courts of Kazakhstan has a level of general social trust of respondents, the lowest - religious beliefs and gender. Table 5. Coefficients of regression equation for trust in Judicial system of Kazakhstan 24,77 (1) Constant 7,641 0,308 0, ,503 0,084-0,162 (3) General social trust 0,307 0,028 0,234 (4) Satisfaction with development of economy (5) Satisfaction with system of -0,256 0,100-0,080-0,315 0,080-0,107-5,966 10,86 2-2,571-3,916 (6) Villagers 0,437 0,119 0,079 3,686 0,000 (7) Satisfaction with system of social protection -0,270 0,076-0,095 (8) Men -0,317 0,116-0,058-3,536-2,736 (9) Muslim 0,318 0,122 0,058 2,600 0,009 0,000 0,000 0,010 0,000 0,000 0,006 (10) Satisfaction with democratic -0,230 0,091-0,073-2,533 0,011 Trust in Army of Kazakhstan Citizens' trust in the army of Kazakhstan is high enough, 6.9 points out of 10, slightly inferior to trust in Parliament and significantly superior to trust in the courts and law enforcement agencies. This model explained 21.4% of the variance, the greatest contribution to the explanation makes the credibility of work of the of Kazakhstan -11.3%. Table 6. Coefficients of regression equation for trust in Army of Kazakhstan (1) Constant 7,306 0,353 20,699 0,000-0,421 0,084-0,141-5,019 0,000 7

8 (3) General social trust 0,217 0,028 0,173 7,680 0,000 (4) Satisfaction with system of social protection -0,402 0,074-0,148-5,456 0,000 (5) Muslim 0,535 0,123 0,102 4,345 0,000 (6) Satisfaction with development of economy -0,244 0,096-0,080-2,547 0,011 (7) Age 0,018 0,004 0,109 4,188 0,000 (8) Villagers 0,362 0,119 0,069 3,040 0,002 (9) Not married 0,463 0,162 0,074 2,849 0,004 (10) Satisfaction with democratic -0,185 0,091-0,061-2,045 0,041 In contrast to credibility of the highest authorities of the country, confidence in the army has a slightly different structure (Table 6). Along with common factors for many models, such as satisfaction with work of the, economic development and social protection systems the socio-demographic characteristics such as age, religion, marital status, place of residence are beginning to affect the credibility of the army. Trust in Law Enforcement Agencies Confidence in law enforcement agencies of Kazakhstan is very low - only 5.86 points out of possible 10. The high dispersion (2.714) suggests heterogeneity of views, of substantially different perceptions of various law enforcement groups by general public. The constructed regression model can explain 27% of the variance. The greatest contribution to explanation makes satisfaction with work of the %. Table 7. Coefficients of regression equation for trust in Law enforcement agencies of Kazakhstan (1) Constant 7,654 0,310 24,663 0,000-0,502 0,097-0,162-5,163 0,000 (3) General social trust 0,268 0,028 0,205 9,453 0,000 (4) Satisfaction with development of economy (5) Satisfaction with system of -0,257 0,099-0,081-2,581 0,010-0,338 0,078-0,115-4,348 0,000 (6) Villagers 0,422 0,119 0,077 3,548 0,000 (7) Muslim 0,374 0,122 0,069 3,064 0,002 (8) Men -0,346 0,116-0,063-2,981 0,003 (9) Satisfaction with democratic (10) Satisfaction with work of regional authorities -0,270 0,091-0,085-2,968 0,003-0,196 0,093-0,064-2,115 0,035 The model of trust in law enforcement is extremely similar to the model trust in courts, but with one difference. For the first time in the constructed model satisfaction 8

9 with local authorities is emerging as one of the statistically significant factors affecting the trust. At the same time satisfaction with democratic processes, although a statistically significant factor in both models, is far from being the first among the factors that affect the credibility of these types of power. Trust in Religious Organizations Among the people of Kazakhstan trust in churches or mosques is extremely high (7.78), second only to trust in the President of the Republic, although a higher level of variance suggests the heterogeneity of opinions. The low level of explained variance (14.2%) shows that the selected factors to a greater extent describe a secular society that are poorly suited for description of trust in religious institutions. At the same time each variable explains very little of variance (5.6% for satisfaction in, 3.1% - for atheists, the other variables explain the variance of 1% or less). As can be seen from Table 8, satisfaction with government is the only statistically significant factor, which describes the political work of the state. Other factors in the model describe the social life of society. This model differs from others by relatively low importance of general social trust in forming of trust in religious institutions. Table 8. Coefficients of regression equation for trust in Religious organizations of Kazakhstan (1) Constant 8,735 0,346 25,214 0,000 (2) Satisfaction with system of -0,489 0,087-0,179-5,616 0,000 (3) Other religions or atheist -1,253 0,215-0,144-5,815 0,000 (4) Villagers 0,524 0,125 0,102 4,201 0,000 (5) Satisfaction with work of -0,400 0,079-0,138-5,065 0,000 (6) General social trust 0,105 0,029 0,086 3,614 0,000 (7) Satisfaction with system of health care 0,276 0,086 0,104 3,213 0,001 (8) Divorced -0,607 0,235-0,060-2,582 0,010 (9) Muslim 0,367 0,132 0,072 2,770 0,006 (10) Education -0,107 0,045-0,057-2,364 0,018 9

10 Trust in Local Authorities Trust in Regional Authorities The overall level of confidence in leadership in regions is relatively low points. This model can explain almost 30% of the variance, which indicates that selected variables have a significant influence on confidence in the leadership of the territory or region. The greatest influence has satisfaction with the quality of work of authorities: this factor can explain 17.9% of the variance. The high B-factor also shows that even a slight decrease in satisfaction with work of local leadership leads to noticeable decrease in the level of confidence (the highest unit value of the standardized β-coefficient for this factor also says that this variable contributes most to forming of the trust), the data is presented in Table 9. Table 9. Coefficients of regression equation for trust in regional authorities of Kazakhstan (1) Constant 8,802 0,327 26,898 0,000 regional authorities -0,548 0,086-0,188-6,359 0,000 (3) General social trust 0,228 0,026 0,185 8,667 0,000 (4) Satisfaction with development of economy -0,294 0,093-0,098-3,162 0,002 (5) Villagers 0,422 0,114 0,081 3,711 0,000 (6) Satisfaction with work of -0,333 0,091-0,114-3,669 0,000 (7) Muslim 0,366 0,115 0,071 3,190 0,001 (8) Satisfaction with democratic -0,230 0,085-0,077-2,692 0,007 (9) Education -0,108 0,041-0,057-2,607 0,009 (10) Satisfaction with system of -0,173 0,073-0,062-2,375 0,018 (11) Men -0,223 0,108-0,043-2,071 0,039 Trust in Local Administration Trust in local government is relatively high points. Variance explainable by this model is 33.2%, indicating good quality of the model and well-chosen factors. The largest contribution to explained variance makes satisfaction with work of local authorities. This factor helps to explain 22.5% of the variance. Very high B-factor and β-coefficient show significant effects of work of local government on forming of trust in local government. According to data of study presented in Table 10 it can be seen that almost all statistically significant factors in some way characterize the work of local and state authorities. Table 10. Coefficients of regression equation for trust in local administration of Kazakhstan 10

11 coefficients Standardized coefficients (1) Constant 8,386 0,281 29,835 0,000 regional authorities -0,687 0,090-0,231-7,657 0,000 (3) General social trust 0,237 0,026 0,188 9,038 0,000 (4) Satisfaction with development of economy -0,322 0,078-0,105-4,114 0,000 (5) Villagers 0,614 0,110 0,116 5,573 0,000 (6) Satisfaction with work of (7) Satisfaction with system of social protection -0,422 0,088-0,141-4,789 0,000-0,254 0,072-0,093-3,543 0,000 (8) Muslim 0,247 0,114 0,047 2,175 0,030 Trust in Political Parties Trust in political parties in Kazakhstan is extremely low points, and second only to credibility of trade unions and NGOs. The high scatter of values indicates a lack of consensus on the political parties among respondents. This regression model allows explaining 26.9% of dispersion, the largest contribution to the explanation has satisfaction with work of the government %. Table 11. Coefficients of regression equation for trust in political parties (1) Constant 8,003 0,286 28,005 0,000-0,383 0,098-0,126-3,918 0,000 (3) Satisfaction with development of economy -0,273 0,099-0,087-2,744 0,006 (4) General social trust 0,199 0,028 0,155 7,033 0,000 (5) Villagers 0,658 0,119 0,121 5,546 0,000 (6) Satisfaction with work of regional authorities (7) Satisfaction with system of (8) Satisfaction with democratic (9) Satisfaction with system of social protection -0,386 0,097-0,128-3,997 0,000-0,233 0,080-0,081-2,897 0,004-0,265 0,091-0,086-2,919 0,004-0,168 0,081-0,060-2,087 0,037 Trust in political parties described by activities of country's leadership and the results of this activity. Socio-demographic characteristics do not affect the formation of trust in political parties. 11

12 Trust in Mass-Media Trust in Newspapers The level of confidence in newspapers in Kazakhstan is relatively high (6.1 points), although inferior to the level of confidence in television and radio (6.55). Table 12. Coefficients of regression equation for trust in newspapers (1) Constant 6,150 0,304 20,209 0,000 (2) General social trust 0,284 0,029 0,228 9,936 0,000 (3) Satisfaction with system of social protection -0,279 0,076-0,104-3,658 0,000 (4) Villagers 0,700 0,120 0,134 5,840 0,000 (5) Satisfaction with work of (6) Satisfaction with democratic -0,192 0,098-0,065-1,965 0,050-0,241 0,080-0,080-3,009 0,003 (7) Muslim 0,360 0,123 0,070 2,935 0,003 (8) Satisfaction with work of regional authorities -0,205 0,097-0,070-2,124 0,034 The level of explained variance for the dependent variable is low %, 8% of which are due to a general social trust. Analyzing the β-statistics, one can understand that, except for social trust, a significant contribution to formation of trust in the print media is making a place of residence of respondents: the villagers have much higher (0.7 points more) trust in newspapers. Social trust for this type of trust, in contrast to other branches and levels of government, is the determining factor. Trust in Radio and Television Among mass-media, radio and television is trusted more than newspapers, although the overall structure of trust is similar to the trust in print media. As for the printing press, the trust model for radio and television did not give good results. It explains only 16.8% of the variance (satisfaction with the explains 8.4% of variance). Table 13. Coefficients of regression equation for trust in television and radio in Kazakhstan (1) Constant 7,059 0,293 24,119 0,000-0,306 0,082-0,106-3,730 0,000 (3) Villagers 0,896 0,117 0,177 7,632 0,000 (4) General social trust 0,195 0,028 0,161 6,978 0,000 (5) Satisfaction with system of social protection (6) Satisfaction with democratic -0,330 0,071-0,126-4,658 0,000-0,291 0,079-0,099-3,706 0,000 12

13 (7) Muslim 0,239 0,120 0,047 1,986 0,047 Analyzing the β-statistics, it is clear that respondent's place of residence has the greatest impact on forming of trust in radio and television. The absolute value of this contribution even more than for credibility of newspapers: villagers believe in television and radio to points higher than urban residents. The second most important influence (β = 0,161) has a general social trust. Trust in Public Organizations Trust in NGOs Non-governmental organizations of Kazakhstan have the lowest level of trust in the Republic (4.81 out of 10 possible). The model explains only 16.5% of the variance, and satisfaction with work local government explains 8.4%. Table 14. Coefficients of regression equation for trust in NGOs (1) Constant 5,858 0,299 19,56 6 0,000 regional authorities -0,488 0,088-0,163-5,570 0,000 (3) General social trust 0,224 0,031 0,175 7,242 0,000 (4) Villagers 0,754 0,130 0,139 5,786 0,000 (5) Satisfaction with system of (6) Satisfaction with system of social protection -0,356 0,081-0,126-4,406 0,000-0,229 0,086-0,083-2,653 0,008 The work of NGOs is more associated with work of local authorities. Perhaps such low level of confidence is associated with poor knowledge about the activities of such organizations and lack of understanding of goals and objectives of many of them. Trust in Work Unions Trade unions as well as non-governmental organizations have very low level of confidence (5.21). In this case the standard deviation values for this variable are the largest among all dependent variables considered in this paper, indicating the extreme heterogeneity of views on trade union activities. The resulting model explains 16.1% variance, 10% of them due to satisfaction with work of the. Table 15. Coefficients of regression equation for trust in work unions 13

14 (1) Constant 7,092 0,327 21,697 0,000-0,330 0,111-0,104-2,979 0,003 (3) General social trust 0,204 0,033 0,151 6,221 0,000 (4) Satisfaction with system of social protection -0,229 0,091-0,079-2,510 0,012 (5) Satisfaction with work of regional authorities -0,377 0,109-0,120-3,472 0,001 (6) Satisfaction with democratic -0,238 0,094-0,074-2,539 0,011 (7) Villagers 0,384 0,137 0,067 2,809 0,005 (8) Widow 0,621 0,253 0,059 2,454 0,014 (9) Satisfaction with system of -0,178 0,089-0,060-2,002 0,045 The formation of this type of trust is primarily influenced by satisfaction with work of local and central authorities, as well as results of their work. Marital status is statistically significant variable, but its effect is not very high (β = 0,059). Application of designed model of trust in the institutions of power for Russia To assess whether the selected model to analyze the formation of trust may work for other societies, a similar analysis was conducted on the basis of data from sociological research project HITT in Russia. Similar institutions of power were considered. For comparison with data for Kazakhstan in the article are only three institutions - government, local government and law enforcement agencies. Trust in The quality of our model to explain the confidence in the government is fairly high - 26% of variance is explained (for the of Kazakhstan %). The greatest share of variance is explained by satisfaction with work of the (18.2%). In Kazakhstan, the main variable is also the satisfaction with work of, but it explains less variance- 15%. Other variables included in the model of trust for Russian government are: the general social trust, age, satisfaction with democratic processes, gender (male), satisfaction with economic development, satisfaction with social protection system, level of. Thus, the model of confidence in governments of Kazakhstan and Russia are quite similar, although for Russia following factors as age and level of respondents manifested, and there is no differences in level of trust between residents of towns and villages in Russia. It is noteworthy that there are quite similar values of coefficients of regression equation, indicating that the same systems for the assessment of the s exist. Trust in Law Enforcement Agencies The level of explained variance in the applied model is low %, the main explanatory variable is satisfaction with work of the, which explains 9.8% of variance. Other variables included in the model are: the general social trust, 14

15 satisfaction with work of social protection system, satisfaction with work of local government, gender (male), satisfaction with system, residents of the village. It is noticeable that the model works in Russia worse than in Kazakhstan, because only 27% of the variance is explained. The greatest contribution to the explanation power of model has satisfaction with work of the %. In Kazakhstan, operating variables such as religion, satisfaction with democratic processes, and satisfaction with economic development work. We can say that models are quite different in Russia, there are other factors affecting the credibility of law enforcement agencies that were not significant in the model for Kazakhstan (for example, regions). Trust in Regional Authorities The developed model in application to Russia can explain 27.5% of the variance, the main variable explaining the greatest variance is satisfaction with local authorities (19.7%). In Kazakhstan, as well the model explains almost 30% of the variance (the share of satisfaction with work of local authorities is 17.9% of explained variance). In general, the models are quite similar, including the value of coefficients of regression equations. Constants for Kazakhstan and Russia are and 8.156, the coefficients for satisfaction with work of local authorities are and These models have the same number of variables (in brackets there are coefficients of regression equations for Kazakhstan and Russia, respectively): the general social trust (0.228 and 0.209), satisfaction with the ( and ), satisfaction with economic development ( and ), level of ( and ), satisfaction with democratic processes ( and ), religion (more accurately - belonging to the title religion, Islam in Kazakhstan, Christianity in Russia, and 0.301, respectively). At the same time, in Russia such factors as age of the respondents manifested. After analyzing all possible authorities institutions in Russia (according to the general form of research), we can conclude that the model describes official authority of different levels quite well, while description of the level of trust in media, public and religious organizations in each country has its own unique set of factors. General Conclusions There are a number of factors affecting the credibility of all branches and levels of government. First, there is a general social trust, which has a fairly high impact on all variables. Virtually all forms of trust affects satisfaction with work of the : the only model where this factor was not significant is the model of confidence in nongovernmental organizations. According to our data, we can see that the villagers are much more trusting than residents of cities. Coefficient in regression equations for village varies from for trust in army to for trust in radio and television. Men trust less in Parliament, and leadership of territory or region, as well as courts and law enforcement agencies. Satisfaction with democratic processes has an impact on all forms of trust and confidence in addition to religious organizations, local government and nongovernmental organizations. In this case, if the lack of correlation between satisfaction with democratic processes, religious organizations and NGOs can be explained, the absence of such link between democratic process and trust in local authorities makes you wonder. Satisfaction with economic processes primarily affects the credibility of those authorities that are directly related to development of the economy: President, 15

16 , Parliament, local and regional administration, the political parties. And this factor is related to confidence in the areas of power, which increase economic prosperity of the country should have an impact in the first place: the courts, the military, law enforcement agencies. The religious component (if you do not take into account credibility of religious institutions) is characteristic of models of trust in local authorities (courts, police, army, manual region and local administration), and mass-media. It does not appear in models of trust in supreme authorities: the President, Parliament and the. Satisfaction with local authorities is manifested, firstly, at the local level (trust in army, officers of districts and local government, political parties, media), and, secondly, at the level of non-governmental organizations and trade unions. There are several very similar profiles of trust. The first example of such profiles is the structure of trust in courts and law enforcement agencies. A second similar profile is model of trust in mass-media. There are very similar profiles of trust in local administration and political parties. The fourth example of two similar structures is a model of confidence in the and Parliament of the Republic. Similarity of the profiles of these models shows close relationship in perception of these levels of power in eyes of inhabitants of the country. Boundaries between these authorities are blurred, they are often perceived as a whole. Profile of trust in religious organizations is very typical and dominated by social factors. It is surprising that there are no statistically significant differences in the level of confidence depending on the regions of Kazakhstan. In this paper, the credibility of institutions of power was considered more broadly than in the work of Gugishvili, but we can draw some conclusions on the basis of data obtained in both studies. Unlike the countries of Caucasus region, the level of trust in local governments in Kazakhstan is lower than the level of confidence in central authorities. There are a number of similar factors that shape the level of trust in government at any level. First of all, we are talking about satisfaction with work of government, economic and democratic processes in the regions. In addition, there are a number of socio-demographic factors influencing the level of trust. Also, living in rural areas in both regions increases the level of confidence in both local and central government institutions. Level of influences the same: both regions can be characterized by lower levels of trust in power by people with higher levels of. There are also some significant differences. For example, in Kazakhstan, in contrast to Caucasian countries, the employment rate almost does not appear as a factor in building trust in the institutions of government. Developed model of factor analysis showed good results for description of main branches of government at both central and local levels for both Kazakhstan and Russia (and consistent with the results of other studies).this suggests that in the minds of citizens of different countries good governance is associated with welldefined number of features, which are primarily characterized by economic, social and political components of the life of the country. At the same time, to describe institutions such as religious authorities, massmedia and nongovernmental organizations (which can be roughly described as "social institutions of power"), a set of explanatory factors varies considerably across countries. Credibility of these institutions is affected by such components as cultural features, system of norms and values. Accordingly, when constructing models of trust for different countries unique sets of factors specific for particular countries will take place. 16