Determinants of the trust of Russian municipalities’ residents in local self-government bodies

The processes taking place in modern Russia lead both to the deepening of pre-existing contradictions and to the emergence of new challenges and threats to the stable existence of Russian society. In this context, the problem of finding various kinds of tools and resources to ensure growth of social cohesion and consolidation of society, increasing the confidence of citizens in public and state institutions, overcoming internal crises and adequately responding to external threats is now coming to the forefront. Local communities can be seen as one of the most important sources of these kinds of resources. The concept of community building has been developed in Western sociology since the middle of the 20th century, integrating research and municipal practices based on community capacity building and partnership between community representatives and municipal governments in solving local problems (Phifer, 1990; Dyde at al., 2019; Lloyd, Reynolds, 2020). In the Russian-speaking segment of social and humanitarian knowledge, similar approaches have also been analyzed (Lyska, 2013). Unlocking the inner potential of local communities and engaging citizens in social practices at the local level requires public trust in local self-government bodies (LSG).

We should note that there are problems in the system of municipal governance in contemporary Russia that remain unresolved throughout the entire period of the municipal reform. They include, in particular, the instability of legislation regulating the functioning of LSG, the underfunding of municipal government, the low activity of the population, etc. (Bukhval’d, 2018; Voroshilov, 2022; Petukhov, 2017; Petukhov, 2020). A number of researchers think that one of the most important problems in the development of the institution of LSG is the fundamental discrepancy between the theory of LSG and the actual practice of municipal government, the consequence of which is the crisis of public trust in LSG bodies (Petukhov, 2017; Petukhov, 2020). However, trust is a very important resource for the functioning and development of society. The scientific literature notes that “...trust is a key element of the activist frame and a necessary tool for its institutionalization” (Reutov, Reutova, 2016), represents a necessary condition for the legitimacy of power (including at the local level) and provides an opportunity for successful development and implementation of municipal policy. Due to the above-mentioned reasons, studies aimed at analyzing issues related to the trust of citizens in government and LSG bodies are now becoming more relevant. Of particular interest is the study of the system of determinants that condition the level, nature, and dynamics of public trust in the LSG bodies, which is the subject of our study.

Theoretical and methodological review

Referring to the analysis of the phenomenon of trust and its determinants, we note that research on this issue is interdisciplinary (Trust and Distrust..., 2013; Davydenko et al., 2018). Without generally rejecting the possibility of using ideas from different branches of scientific knowledge in an interdisciplinary analysis, we adhere to an understanding of the nature and functions of trust that is characteristic of sociological science.

Contemporary studies of trust in sociological science are based, as a rule, on the comparison and reinterpretation of its classical interpretations (Trust and Distrust..., 2013; Romashkina et al., 2018; Mollering, 2001). The classics of sociology laid the theoretical foundation for the analysis of both personal and generalized trust. In the works of representatives of modern sociological theory trust becomes one of the key scientific concepts, closely related to such important categories as “freedom of choice”, “expectation”, “risk”, “uncertainty”, “moral values”, and is often understood as an orientation to future possible actions of other people and institutions in order to reduce uncertainty, unpredictability and uncontrollability of the future, to minimize the risks to which certain types of actions are subjected (Giddens, 2011; Trust and Distrust... , 2013; Fukuyama, 2004; Sztompka, 2012; Mollering, 2001). А. Seligman introduced the concept of generalized trust, which implies that community members are given a kind of symbolic credit of trust in the course of their interaction (Seligman, 2002). If we apply the ideas developed by sociologists to the analysis of municipal residents’ trust in LSG bodies, it would be legitimate to highlight a number of features typical of this type of trust. First, trust in LSG bodies and their representatives is of a generalized nature, belonging to the institutional type of trust. Second, it is based on the expectations of citizens that LSG bodies will function effectively and that their officials will act professionally. Third, it is a generalized type, in which municipal structures and their representatives are given a symbolic credit of trust by the population. Fourth, freedom of choice in carrying out the act of trust is followed by the voluntary involvement of citizens in collective action aimed at solving local problems.

One of the most important problems associated with the study of the phenomenon of trust is the study of the main factors (determinants) that define its level, nature, mechanisms of formation and dynamics. Scholars’ approaches to this issue also vary (Glushko, 2016; Guzhavina, Silina, 2018; Trust and Distrust..., 2013; Ilyicheva, Lapin, 2022; Latov, 2021; Petukhov, 2020; Reutov, 2018; Romashkina et al, 2018; Fukuyama, 2004; Shabunova et al., 2015; Sztompka, 2012; Abramson at al., 2022; Algan at al., 2013; Buell at al., 2020; Mishler, Rose, 2001). The determinants of trust identified by the authors range from the personal characteristics of the subject of trust and psychological mechanisms of its formation to the specifics of historical processes in certain territories. Attempts to systematize trust factors are made by both foreign (for example P. Sztompka) and Russian (for example, I.V. Glushko, E.V. Reutov) researchers. Most of the classifications are general in nature, but a number of variables can be adapted for analyzing trust in LSG bodies. In methodological terms, we are particularly interested in the approach of A.B. Kupreichenko, who, conducting the analysis of institutional trust, identifies the following significant subjective determinants of trust/distrust in a social institution: the subject’s awareness of its activities; the presence of experience of interaction with the institution and the modality of assessing its results; the subject’s ideas about their own abilities to influence the institution, etc. (Trust and Distrust..., 2013).

However, most significant for our work are the research approaches related to the study of the determinants of trust in political institutions and LSG bodies (Trust and Distrust..., 2013; Ilyicheva, Lapin, 2022; Kozyreva, Smirnov, 2015; Malkina et al, 2020; Petukhov, 2017; Petukhov, 2020; Reutov, 2018; Reutov, Reutova, 2016; Abramson at al., 2022; Buell at al., 2020; Mishler, Rose, 2001). An attempt to systematize the factors of trust in political institutions was made by foreign researchers W. Mishler and R. Rose, who pointed to the competition of two theoretical traditions in explaining the origin of political trust – cultural and institutional theories. Cultural theories, scholars note, emphasize the exogenous nature of trust in political institutions, which emerges outside the political sphere in long-standing and deeply rooted perceptions of people, in cultural norms transmitted through mechanisms of early socialization. In contrast, institutional theories assert the thesis of the endogeneity of political trust. Because institutional trust appears as an expectation of the performance of an institution, its usefulness to the individual in terms of satisfaction of needs, it acts more as a consequence than as a cause of institutional activity. Trust in institutions has a rational basis: it depends on citizens’ assessments of their activities (Mishler, Rose, 2001). We should note that in order to empirically verify the main provisions of cultural and institutional theories, the researchers themselves comprehensively apply the indicators proposed within their framework. In the Russian-speaking segment of social and humanitarian knowledge, a thorough review of scientific works focusing on the analysis of the factors of political trust is presented in the study of M.Yu. Malkina, V.N. Ovchinnikov, K.A. Kholodilin (Malkina et al., 2020).

As for the determinants of trust in LSG bodies, their most detailed analysis is offered in the works of R.V. Petukhov, E.V. Reutov and M.N. Reutova (Petukhov, 2017; Petukhov, 2020; Reutov, Reutova, 2016). At the same time, differences in the approaches of the researchers are fixed. R.V. Petukhov, stating the presence of a deficit of trust in LSG structures, emphasizes the external and internal factors causing it. The nomenclature of external factors, from the scientist’s point of view, can be quite broad. However, the main emphasis of the researcher is on the analysis of internal factors. R.V. Petukhov operates with a whole set of variables: from the degree of citizens’ confidence in the professionalism/non-professionalism of municipal employees to the presence/absence of experience in direct participation in the work of LSG bodies. It should be noted that R.V. Petukhov’s approach is mainly related to the analysis of the factors that limit citizens’ trust in LSG bodies and the use of descriptors of distrust (Petukhov, 2017; Petukhov, 2020). E.V. Reutov and M.N. Reutova operate mostly with descriptors of trust, emphasizing among them the socio-economic situation in the country and in the territory of residence (stating the connection of trust dynamics with the stages of the economic cycle), the level of citizens’ material well-being, confidence in the real efficiency of institutionalized practices of individual and collective rights protection, etc.

In general, a review of the scientific works devoted to the study of the phenomenon of trust has shown a high degree of development of this issue. However, there is a lack of special studies that systematize the factors determining trust in LSG bodies.

The purpose of our work is to investigate the system of determinants that condition the level, nature, and dynamics of public trust in LSG bodies of Russian municipalities. It is based on a comprehensive approach related, first, to the assessment of the influence of different levels and types of factors on trust in municipal government, and, second, on the results of the analysis of secondary data and empirical studies conducted with our participation. Particular attention is paid to the analysis of those personal characteristics of the respondents, their attitudes, perceptions, and behavioral guidelines that may act as factors influencing the growth of trust in LSG bodies. The work attempts to systematize the drivers of citizen trust in LSG bodies, as well as to study their impact on the object in a dynamic perspective. All of the above determines the novelty and significance of the work we have performed.

Description of the research methodology and rationale for its choice

For the empirical analysis of the population’s trust in LSG bodies, this paper takes into account data from a series of studies conducted in 2012– 2022 by the research team of the Department of Sociology and Social Technologies of the Tver State Technical University with our participation in one of the typical regions of Central Russia – the Tver Oblast.

First, the article uses the results of sociological monitoring conducted from 2012 to 2022, aimed at analyzing the dynamics of the Tver Oblast residents’ perceptions of LSG and identifying the self-government potential of the population of municipal entities (ME). The method of collecting empirical data was a questionnaire. Every year, questions were included in the toolkit to measure the level of trust of the population in LSG bodies. The object of the study was the inhabitants of municipalities of various types in the Tver Oblast, aged 18 years and older. A representative sample was formed by quotas (gender, age, type of settlement). The sample size varied from year to year: 2012 – 624 people; 2013 – 628 people; 2014 – 633 people; 2015 – 739 people; 2016 – 1,043 people; 2017 – 1,099 people; 2018 – 1,083 people; 2019 – 682 people; 2020 – 942 people; 2021 – 947 people; 2022 – 725 people (statistical error is 4%). The results were processed by creating an electronic database and using Microsoft Excel, and basic descriptive statistics in the SPSS 16.0 package.

Second, this paper presents the results of a study conducted between October 7 and November 1, 2022, as a part of a fundamental research project aimed at analyzing public trust in LSG bodies in modern Russia and its institutional and value foundations. In general, the methodology of preparing and conducting the study and processing

Table 1. Distribution of answers to the question “Do you trust in general the local self-government bodies (the head of your municipality, local administration, local deputies)?”, 2012–2017, monitoring*, 2022, trust survey**, % of respondents

The trust level in LSG bodies	2012	2013	2014	2015	2016	2017	Oct. 2022
Absolutely trust	1.8	5.4	8.7	2.2	6.8	1.8	8.2
Rather trust	16.0	28.5	27.4	23.5	26.2	13.7	36.9
Rather do not trust	38.1	36.5	36.2	44.0	42.3	46.7	29.8
Certainly do not trust	29.5	17.0	18.4	17.9	16.2	24.2	9.5
Difficult to answer	14.6	12.6	9.4	12.4	8.5	13.7	15.6
* “Monitoring” here and below means that the question was included in the questionnaire of the sociological monitoring of 2012–2022 and/or the data were obtained in the framework of this survey. ** “Trust survey” here and hereafter means that the question appeared in the questionnaire of the survey conducted in October 2022 aimed at analyzing public trust in LSG bodies, and/or the data were obtained in the framework of this survey. Source: own research findings.

its results was similar to the methodology used for monitoring. The sample size was 1,047 people (statistical error is 4%).

Third, the article uses the results of the analysis of secondary data as comparative material for other regions of the Russian Federation and for Russia as a whole.

Results of the study

The level, nature, and dynamics of Russians’ trust in LSG bodies (2012–2022). The answers to the question regarding trust in LSG bodies in general demonstrate the trust level of citizens in LSG as a socio-political institution, showing the dynamics ( Tab. 1 ). The survey conducted in October 2022 allowed measuring the level of trust in the head of the municipality in a differentiated way (“absolutely trust” – 8.6%, “rather trust” – 31.3%, “rather do not trust” – 25.4%, “definitely do not trust” – 10.5%), in the municipal administration (8.4, 31.0, 24.9, 9.3% respectively) and in the representative body of the municipality (6.9, 25.8, 26.3, 9.8% respectively).

During the analysis of the answers to the question “Which of the listed authorities and officials do you trust the most?”, a number of observations were made regarding the level of public trust in various LSG bodies, its correlation with the trust level in the regional and federal authorities, and their dynamic characteristics (Fig. 1) (Maykova, Simonova, 2023). Despite the fact that the values of the trust indicators obtained in the analysis of responses to this question are comparable with the values of such an indicator as “absolutely trust” (according to the Likert scale), a direct comparison of them is inappropriate, but these data are comparable at the conceptual level.

The results of the study conducted by the authors demonstrate a sufficiently low level of citizens’ trust in LSG bodies, with its low indicators persisting for the entire period of monitoring. A similar trend can be traced throughout all of Russia. Thus, according to the 2014–2019 all-Russian surveys conducted by the Institute of Sociology of FCTAS RAS, the trust level in LSG bodies is characterized by lower indicators compared to the trust level in the RF President, the RF Government, and heads of RF entities, which range from 33% (autumn 2014) to 25% (summer 2019) (Petukhov, 2020). In general, it is noted in the scientific literature that the proportion of respondents who trust the municipal government is extremely rare to be 1/3 or more of the sample volume. Such value is considered low by researchers (Kozyreva, Smirnov, 2015; Malkina et

Figure 1. Dynamics of the level of trust of the population of the Tver Oblast in LSG bodies*, % of respondents

е ME head ■ Administration of ME   —•— Representative body of ME

* Multiple choice of answers was allowed, the number of choices was not limited. Source: own research findings.

al., 2020; Petukhov, 2017; Petukhov, 2020; Reutov, Reutova, 2016; Shabunova et al., 2015). From our point of view, such indicators of trust are clearly insufficient for the level of public administration, which, according to the Russian constitutional model, should be closest to the population, satisfy its daily needs, act in its interests, and in whose activities the population is empowered to be involved. This is confirmed, for example, by the results of sociological measurements of the trust level conducted in the Belgorod Oblast, which indicate that the mobilization for collective action at the municipal level is the more effective, the higher the trust in the subject of mobilization (Reutov, Reutova, 2016). The deficit of trust in LSG bodies may indicate a crisis of legitimacy of this level of government and become, if not a factor promoting destabilization of society, then undoubtedly a barrier to its effective development.

It should be noted that the trust of the population is most often higher in those structures that are identified with the power vertical. In particular, our study shows that trust in the institution of LSG is largely personified. Residents of municipalities demonstrate a higher trust level, as a rule, in relation to the head of ME. However, during the last two years the share of citizens trusting the administration of ME has been exceeding the share of residents of municipalities trusting the head of ME, in connection with which we can make an assumption about the formation of a tendency toward depersonalization of institutional trust on the local level. Citizens are least likely to trust the representative body of ME. Other researchers (Kozyreva, Smirnov, 2015; Latov, 2021; Petukhov, 2017; Shabunova et al., 2015) also point out the low trust level in political institutions related to competition.

In general, if we consider the dynamic characteristics of citizens’ trust in LSG bodies, then we should point to a certain waviness in these dynamics. The decline in trust in local government occurred in 2012, 2017, 2019, and 2021, while increases were recorded in 2014, 2018, and 2022. Undoubtedly, the “ups” and “downs” in the trust level in municipal authorities are largely related to the processes taking place in the country, which have had a positive or negative impact, including on local territories and local communities. As a rule, “ups” and “downs” are synchronized with processes of growth or decline in the trust level in the RF President (Maykova, Simonova, 2023).

The results of our study show that despite the low trust level in LSG bodies in general and the presence of “ups” and “downs” in its dynamics, the dominant trend is its growth. At the same time, the category of citizens who note the answer “rather trust” in the course of the surveys is of interest. Their share has significantly increased by 2022 and was more than a third of the population.

Developing a system of determinants that condition the level, nature, and dynamics of the Russians’ trust in LSG bodies, we propose to distinguish the following groups of factors: 1) national traditions and mentality; 2) social context and its perception by the population; 3) current state of LSG institution and its perception by citizens; 4) personal characteristics of the subject of trust; 5) system of interaction within the functioning of LSG institution and its perception by the population. We will analyze the influence of the factors in each of these groups on citizens’ trust in LSG bodies.

National traditions and mentality

In the scientific literature devoted to the analysis of the phenomenon of trust, attention is often drawn to its dependence on traditions, norms, values, perceptions and attitudes that have been formed from generation to generation in the course of the historical evolution of society. Thus, Russia, according to a number of researchers, traditionally belongs to societies with a low trust level (Reutov, 2018; Fukuyama, 2004; Sztompka, 2012; Mishler, Rose, 2001), which have a long statist tradition (Gorshkov et al., 2022).

The data obtained in surveys of Tver Oblast population from 2012 to 2022 indicate the unequivocal predominance of the statist trend, which, weakening and intensifying again, dominates throughout the entire period of observation. Thus, 82.1% of the region’s residents agree with the statement that Russia needs a steady hand, order in society (2022, trust survey). The statist tendency is also recorded in the analysis of answers to the question about the model of government preferred by respondents in the RF: from half to 2/3 of citizens traditionally support the formation of a unified power vertical, in which LSG bodies are integrated as one of the levels of government ( Fig. 2 ). In the course of the study, a number of observations were made regarding citizens’ trust in local government: first, with a high value for the population of strong state power, a low trust level in LSG bodies is recorded; second, as a rule, during periods of growing perception of the need to integrate LSG bodies into a unified administrative vertical, the trust level decreases and the value of the distrust of local government increases (2012: 17.9% of respondents who support a unified vertical of power trust LSG, 66.6% do not trust; 2013: 39.9% vs 50.0%; 2014: 35.2% vs. 57.0%; 2015: 22.5% vs 63.6%; 2016: 34.4% vs 57.0%; 2017: 17.8% vs 71.2%)¹.

Figure 2. Dynamics of the population’s perceptions of their preferred model of governance in the Tver Oblast*, % of respondents

2012         2013         2014         2015         2016         2017         2018        Oct.22

■ Unified vertical of power

• LSG autonomy

The self-government tendency, while not predominant, is represented, nevertheless, by a rather significant social group in quantitative terms. Thus, from a third to more than a half of the Russians support political freedom and democracy (58.5% – 2022, trust survey), and also the autonomy and independence of LSG bodies in solving local problems (from 30.4% in 2012 to 50.3% in 2022, monitoring). At the same time, there is a further strengthening of this trend. In addition, the study recorded the interdependence of trust in LSG bodies and orientation toward political freedoms and democracy: citizens who believe that these values are a necessary condition for the existence of the state trust local government to a greater degree

(47.2% vs 40.0% of respondents not oriented toward these values, 2022, trust survey)2.

Thus, the study shows that the Russian mentality has a historically and culturally conditioned orientation in strong state authority and, accordingly, an attitude of trust in the vertical of power and distrust in officials of various levels, as which the population often perceives representatives of LSG bodies. The trust of Russians in the institutions of the “vertical of power” was emphasized by researchers who relied on data obtained in all-Russian surveys (Latov, 2021).

Social context and its perception by the population

The second group of determinants we have identified includes the totality of the current socioeconomic, socio-political, and socio-cultural conditions under which the phenomenon of trust in LSG bodies is functioning, and the specifics of their perception by the population of Russian municipalities.

The impact of socio-economic factors on the trust level in society and its inverse effect on economic growth has been widely discussed in the scientific literature (Glushko, 2016; Guzhavina, Silina, 2018; Davydenko et al., 2018; Ilyicheva, Lapin, 2022; Malkina et al., 2020; Reutov,

Reutova, 2016; Reutov, 2018; Fukuyama, 2004; Algan, Cahuc, 2013). The results of our research show that the trust level of the residents of ME is influenced not so much by the socio-economic situation itself, as by the population’s perception of it. A comparison of the dynamics of a number of socio-economic indicators in the Tver Oblast (the consumer price index, the real average salary per employee) and the values of the indicators of trust in LSG bodies for the period from 2012 to 2022 indicates a very insignificant synchronism between these processes. Consequently, there is a weak direct correlation between the trust level and economic factors ( Fig. 3 ).

Figure 3. Correlation of the consumer price index dynamics and the real average accrued salary per employee (the Tver Oblast), % of the previous period, and the trust of the population of the Tver Oblast in LSG bodies, % of respondents

— ■ — Сonsumer price index

—•— Average salary

• Trust level in the head of ME

■ Trust level in the administration of ME

—•—Trust level in the representative body of ME

Sources: Social and economic situation in the Tver Oblast. Database. Territorial body of the Federal State Statistics Service in the Tver Oblast. Available at: ; own research findings.

At the same time, the dependence of the trust level of Russians in local authorities on the nature of their perception of the socio-economic, political and cultural situation in the municipality turned out to be quite significant. According to the data of a study of the population’s trust in LSG bodies in the Tver Oblast (October 2022), about half of the respondents assessed the situation in their municipality as favorable (4.3% of the total sample size) or normal (44.2%), while about a third of the citizens indicated the situation in their municipality as crisis (29.5%) or even disastrous (5.7%). At the same time, there is a clear relationship between the nature of respondents’ perception of the situation in ME and their subjective assessment of their financial status and their ability to meet their needs: wealthier citizens more often assess the situation in the municipality as favorable or normal, and vice versa.

As for trust in local government, respondents who positively assess the socio-economic, political, and cultural situation in their ME have significantly more trust in LSG bodies than categories of citizens who have a negative perception of it ( Tab. 2 ). This observation is confirmed by the results of correlation analysis using the Spearman correlation index, which showed a moderate correlation between trust in local government and a positive assessment of the current socio-economic, political and cultural situation in the municipality (r = 0.341).

The study showed a correlation between the nature of the respondents’ assessments of various living conditions in their community and their trust level in LSG bodies (monitoring, 2020–2021). There is a statistically stable connection between positive assessments of various living conditions (for example, provision of municipalities with domestic infrastructure, communication services, heating, hot and cold-water supply, etc.) and a higher trust level in the head, the administration and the representative body of ME, and vice versa. A similar situation is observed in respect of assessments of the direction of changes in the level and quality of life in the municipality by citizens ( Tab. 3 ). The results of the correlation analysis using the Spearman correlation index also show a connection between trust in the head, the administration and the representative body of ME and the respondents’ positive assessment of the direction of changes in the standard of living and quality of life in their locality over the past three years, but this correlation is weak (r < 0.3). In turn, the nature of the respondents’ perceptions concerning the dynamics of living conditions in ME is determined by the subjective assessment of material and property status: wealthy citizens more often speak about positive changes, while people with low incomes demonstrate pessimism, pointing out the worsening of living conditions in the municipality.

Table 2. Dependence of the trust level of the population of the Tver Oblast in LSG bodies on the nature of assessment of the socio-economic, political, and cultural situation in the municipality at present, 2022, trust survey, % of the number of respondents

The trust level in LSG bodies	Population assessment of the socio-economic, political and cultural situation in the municipality at the present time
	Favorable	Normal	Crisis	Disastrous	Difficult to answer
Absolutely trust	42.2	10.7	3.3	1.7	3.0
Rather trust	37.8	54.4	24.3	3.4	23.7
Rather do not trust	8.9	20.3	44.3	40.7	32.0
Certainly do not trust	4.4	2.4	14.4	44.1	8.9
Difficult to answer	6.7	12.2	13.8	10.2	32.5

Source: own research findings.

Table 3. Dependence of the trust level of Tver Oblast residents in LSG bodies on the nature of the assessment of the direction of changes in the level and quality of life in the community in the last three years, 2020–2021, monitoring, % of respondents

Object of trust	Respondents’ assessment of the direction of change in the level and quality of life in the community over the past three years
	Definitely improved		Rather improved		Everything remains the same, no change		Rather, it worsened		It definitely worsened
	2020	2021	2020	2021	2020	2021	2020	2021	2020	2021
Head of ME	25.0	15.4	13.9	11.5	8.9	7.9	8.3	2.8	4.2	3.1
Administration of ME	21.9	11.5	14.9	11.2	7.6	9.4	7.1	6.8	4.2	3.1
Representative body of ME	15.6	1.9	9.4	6.1	6.9	4.5	3.0	2.3	0	0
Source: own research findings.

The results of our study allow us to draw a conclusion, which is confirmed in the works of other authors: the growth or decline of various socio-economic indicators does not have a significant impact on the dynamics of trust in the authorities and LSG (Ilyicheva, Lapin, 2022; Petukhov, 2017), since the level of trust is determined by a whole complex of factors, among which the most important are the value orientations of Russians, which have been formed by now (Glushko, 2016; Ilyicheva, Lapin, 2022; Kozyreva, Smirnov, 2015; Fukuyama, 2004). In particular, referring to the results of our study (October 2022, trust survey), we note that such value as “individual freedom, human rights” (liberal-democratic, individualistic) occupies one of the key positions in the system of value orientations of almost all categories of Russian citizens. Thus, the shares of carriers of this value vary from about 40 to 75% of the number of this or that category of respondents. In general, we can talk about a certain eclecticism of consciousness of Russian citizens, the value structure of which is a configuration of different elements of value systems. As for trust in LSG bodies, the respondents who trusted them to a greater or lesser degree were predominantly carriers of socialist values, while liberal- democratic values were quite widespread among citizens who demonstrated some distrust level in local government (this is probably due to the mismatch between the real state of affairs in the modern Russian LSG system and the idealtypical characteristics inherent in this sociopolitical institution).

Current state of LSG institution and its perception by citizens

The third group of determinants of the population’s trust in LSG bodies includes a system of indicators characterizing the structure and functionality of this socio-political institution at the present stage of Russian society development, the specifics of its formation and the effectiveness of its activities, and the specifics of its perception by the ME residents.

It should be noted that in the 1990s, LSG was conceived as an institution of grassroots democracy, its independence (within the limits of its authority), its autonomy from the government, and the broad involvement of the population in the development processes of the Russian territories were assumed. However, throughout practically all of its existence, LSG has been undergoing reform, which has resulted in an increasing trend of “governmentization”, its incorporation into the chain of command.

The processes taking place in the Tver Oblast are similar to those in Russia as a whole. Thus, as of November 1, 2022 the region included 136 ME3 (including 9 urban districts, including two closed administrative-territorial entities – CATE, 22 municipal districts, 9 municipal areas, 17 urban and 79 rural settlements. Between 2012 and 2022, the total number of municipalities in the region decreased, the number of districts (urban and municipal) increased, and the number of municipal districts (by 75% compared to 2012), urban (by 60.5%) and rural (by 75.2%) settlements decreased significantly. At the same time, during recent years the number of MEs using direct elections to fill the position of LSG head has been decreasing and, on the contrary, the number of municipalities using a competitive model for the election of heads of ME has been growing. Direct elections are preserved only during the formation of the deputy corps of LSG representative body.

However, our surveys of Tver Oblast population indicate a discrepancy between the real municipal practices spreading in the region and the perceptions and expectations of citizens in LSG. Thus, the majority of residents of municipalities in the Tver region support the use of direct elections in the process of replacing LSG head (from 30.5% in 2012 to 59.4% in 2022, monitoring) and the preservation of the settlement level in the system of territorial organization of LSG (option “at the settlement level – LSG, at the district level – public administration”: from 43.5% in 2017 to 46.7% in 2022, monitoring; option “LSG at two levels”: from 33.6% in 2017 to 36.9% in 2022, monitoring), which gives more opportunities for active citizen participation in LSG. The match/ mismatch between actual municipal practices and the expectations of the population in LSG affects the level of citizens’ trust in LSG structures, and this influence is quite sustainable. In particular, in 2012, when the practice of electing ME heads in direct elections was widespread in the region, the trust level in the head of the municipality was higher among those categories of the population who considered his/her election by all residents of the municipality the most effective model, as compared to other citizen groups4. In 2022, the municipalities of the region will not use direct elections of ME heads; the competitive model dominates; accordingly, measurements of the level of public trust in the head of LSG show higher levels among those categories of citizens who support the competitive model of electing ME heads5.

The factors influencing the level, nature, and content of Russians’ trust/distrust in the institution of LSG may include their perceptions of the qualification composition of municipal bodies, models of LSG officials’ behavior, and the assessment by residents of municipalities of the local government performance. Thus, those categories of the population who negatively assess the level of municipal employees’ qualifications are more characterized by distrust of local authorities than other groups of citizens (in 2017, 36.6% vs 26.6, monitoring)6. Residents of municipalities in the Tver region who indicated corruption and nepotism of municipal employees as one of the most significant problems hindering the work of LSG bodies demonstrate a higher distrust level in local government as compared to respondents for whom this problem turned out to be less significant (in 2017 51.0% vs 22.1, monitoring)7. The importance of this factor is confirmed by all-Russian studies, according to which the majority of Russians assess local authorities as the most corrupt, which affects the level of institutional trust in them (Malkina et al., 2020; Petukhov, 2020). Thus, according to an all-Russian survey conducted by FCTAS RAS in October 2018, in the group of respondents who assessed local government as corrupt, 58% did not trust LSG bodies, only 21% of respondents trusted them (Petukhov, 2020). The trust level in LSG bodies is significantly higher among those categories of citizens who positively evaluate the work of the local government conducted by its representatives during the last year, which is recorded both by the results of multi-year monitoring (2012–2014, 2016– 2017, 2019, 2022, monitoring), and by the data of the study conducted in the autumn of 2022, aimed at analyzing public trust in LSG bodies (Tab. 4 ). This observation is confirmed by the results of a correlation analysis using the Spearman correlation index, which showed the presence of a moderate correlation between trust in local government and a positive assessment of the work and performance of LSG bodies during the past year (r = 0.395).

The scientific literature notes that a significant role in the formation of public trust/distrust in local government is played by the level of transparency of municipal bodies and the ability to influence their decisions (Ilyicheva, Lapin, 2022; Petukhov, 2017; Petukhov, 2020; Buell at al., 2020), which is confirmed by the results of our research. For example, respondents who are informed about the personality of ME head have two times higher rates of trust in him than uninformed citizens (15.4 and 5.7, respectively, 2019, monitoring). A higher trust level in local government is characteristic of those residents of municipalities in the region, who assess the degree of influence of the average citizen on the activities of LSG bodies as high or medium8.

Personal characteristics of the subject of trust

Another group of determinants of public trust in LSG bodies is associated with the peculiarities of the socio-status characteristics of the subject o f trust and the specificity of their attitudes, views, perceptions, system of values, behavioral reactions, etc. Thus, our study revealed the dependence of trust in local government on a number of sociodemographic characteristics of respondents (data from 2019, monitoring). The trust level is higher among the elderly people in comparison with the young ones: 11.5% of the respondents

Table 4. Dependence of the trust level of the residents of the Tver Oblast in LSG bodies on the nature of the assessment of their work and performance during the last year, 2022, survey of trust, % of respondents

Trust level	Assessment of the work and performance of LSG bodies during the last year
	Totally positive	Rather positively	Rather negatively	Totally negative
Absolutely trust	57.1	8.6	3.7	0
Rather trust	33.9	65.0	9.0	5.2
Rather do not trust	5.4	14.7	60.8	32.8
Absolutely do not trust	0	1.7	15.5	55.2
Source: own research findings.

7 The total shares of the responses indicated are, on the one hand, “definitely trust” and “rather trust”, and, on the other hand, “definitely do not trust” and “rather do not trust”.

8 In the head of ME: high degree – 18.8%, average degree – 14.8%, low degree – 7.3%; in ME administration: high degree – 24.0%, average degree – 13.7%, low degree – 11.1%; in the representative body of ME: high degree – 6.6%, average degree – 4.8%, low degree – 5.6%, 2021, monitoring.

aged 55 and older, 12.1% of those aged 30–54, and 10.9% of those aged 18–29 trust ME head; 6.6% of the elderly citizens, 6.8% of the middleaged people and 3.8% of the young people trust the representative body of ME. Citizens with a high level of education are more likely to trust the administration and the representative body of ME, while respondents with incomplete secondary education demonstrate a higher trust level in ME head9. The respondents’ type of occupation is also a factor that differentiates citizens’ attitudes in the institution of LSG. The highest level of trust in municipal bodies is typical of military personnel, law enforcement officers (in the head of ME – 33.3%, the administration of ME – 22.2%, the representative body of ME – 22.2%), public sector employees (in the head of ME – 15.3%, the administration of ME – 12.3%, the representative body of ME – 9.8%), business representatives (in the administration of ME – 12.5%, the representative body of ME – 9.4%). However, entrepreneurs trust the head of ME to a lesser extent (6.2%) in contrast to its administration and representative body. As for the financial situation of the respondents (it was determined by their self-assessment), a higher trust level in the representative body and the head of ME is typical of wealthy citizens (in the head of ME – 23.1%, the representative body of ME – 7.7%), and people with medium and low income level in ME administration (10.1 and 7.3%, respectively). Other researchers also point to the importance of the factor such as citizens’ material well-being (Reutov, Reutova, 2016).

System of interaction within the functioning of LSG institution and its perception by the population

The fifth group of determinants of public trust in LSG bodies is related to the level, nature, and content of interaction of citizens with various structures related to this sociopolitical institution, and the specifics of the population’s perception of this interaction. Thus, the results of our study show that trust in municipal structures by citizens who have had real experience in interacting with them is expressed more than by respondents who have no such experience (2019, monitoring). However, this applies only to the experience of interaction that had some kind of positive result for the citizen. If the residents of municipalities, as noted in the scientific literature, had personal experiences of corruption during their interaction with representatives of local government, then their trust level in LSG structures decreases (Malkina et al., 2020; Petukhov, 2020).

The level of Russians’ trust in the institution of LSG is significantly influenced by their activist attitudes and their involvement in various selfgovernment practices, in which they have to interact in one way or another with representatives of municipal bodies (Maykova, Simonova, 2023). In particular, respondents who agree that residents’ active life position contribute to improving the situation in the municipality (2019, monitoring; 2022, trust survey), and are focused on participation in local community activities and solving common problems (2022, monitoring; 2022, trust survey), demonstrate in most cases a higher trust level in LSG bodies compared to other categories of citizens.

Russians expressing their readiness to realize their passive suffrage are characterized by a higher trust level in the representative body of LSG, but they trust ME head to a lesser degree compared to respondents who do not aspire to self-realization as a municipal deputy (2022, monitoring). As for the real participation of the population in various municipal practices, the indicators of trust/distrust under the influence of this factor turn out to be quite unstable. For example, according to the data of the 2019 study (monitoring), citizens involved in public activities and having membership in public organizations and NPOs trust the head and administration of ME more; their trust level in these institutions of municipal governance is almost two times higher than among other groups of respondents. However, in the study of 2022 (trust survey), we record a similar indicator (higher) only among the category of citizens who “absolutely trust” the institute of LSG (14.6% vs 7.8% of respondents who are not members of nongovernmental organizations). In particular, there are also insignificant differences in the trust level in LSG bodies among categories of citizens who participated and did not participate during the last year in the life of their settlement, in solving common problems to its residents (2022, trust survey).

A more significant impact on the trust level has the nature of evaluating one’s own experience of interaction with employees of LSG bodies ( Tab. 5 ). This observation is confirmed by the results of a correlation analysis using the Spearman correlation index, which showed a moderate relationship between trust in local authorities and a positive assessment of their own experience of interaction with employees of LSG bodies (r = 0.305).

The data of our research indicate that involvement in various practices of LSG becomes a significant factor influencing the level of confidence in ME in the presence of the impact of related factors (the value of participants, the significance of interaction, its effectiveness, etc.).

Conclusion

Thus, the results of our research demonstrate a rather low trust level of citizens in the bodies of LSG compared to the trust level in a number of other government institutions (in particular, the President of the RF). The share of respondents expressing trust in municipal authorities, as a rule, is about a third (or less) of the population of the Tver region, which confirms the conclusions made by other researchers in the course of all-Russian surveys, and the studies conducted in individual entities of the RF. Unlike most of our predecessors, we are focused on analyzing the trust in LSG bodies as a whole and in the individual components of this socio-political institution (the head, administration and representative body of ME). Such an approach allowed us to identify the dominance throughout almost the entire observation period (2012– 2020) of the personalized nature of trust in LSG bodies and the formation of a tendency toward depersonalization starting in 2021 (the trust level in the administration of ME becomes higher than the trust level in ME head), indicating, according to the authors, the formation of institutional-type trust. In the course of the study of the Tver Oblast, the waviness of the dynamics of trust in LSG in 2012– 2022 and the predominance of an increasing trend in general were recorded.

Table 5. Dependence of the trust level of residents of the Tver Oblast in LSG bodies on the nature of the assessment of their own experience of interaction with their employees, 2022, trust survey, % of respondents

Trust level	Assessment of their own experience of interaction between citizens and LSG bodies’ employees
	Totally positive	Rather positively	Rather negatively	Totally negative
Absolutely trust	37.7	8.5	3.9	0
Rather trust	49.2	54.0	9.1	3.2
Rather do not trust	3.3	19.3	61.0	38.7
Absolutely do not trust	1.6	3.4	16.9	51.6
Source:own research findings.

Special attention is paid to the factors influencing the level, nature, content and dynamics of Russians’ trust in LSG bodies. Based on theoretical analysis and empirical research, we have proposed a theoretical and methodological framework that allows us to build a system of determinants of public trust in LSG bodies: 1) national traditions and mentality; 2) social context and its perception by the population; 3) current state of LSG institution and its perception by citizens; 4) personal characteristics of the subject of trust; 5) system of interaction within the functioning of LSG institution and its perception by the population. This approach complements and develops the scientific conclusions of the predecessors, since such a grouping of factors determining trust in LSG was not undertaken by researchers working on this issue. The analysis of the influence of these groups of factors on the level of citizens’ trust in LSG bodies showed that the previously identified by other researchers’ relationship of the dynamics of trust in LSG with the stages of the economic cycle is not confirmed by the materials of our study. Our research demonstrates the presence of a weak direct dependence of the trust level on most economic factors. It is not the economic situation itself that determines the trust of citizens in LSG bodies, but its perception by the population. However, the importance of the material well-being of citizens as a factor affecting the trust level in local authorities is confirmed.

The study revealed that the factors most influencing the growth of the trust level in local authorities include a positive assessment of the work and performance of LSG bodies, a positive assessment by citizens of their own experience of interaction with employees of LSG bodies, a high or average assessment of the degree of influence of an ordinary citizen on the activities of LSG bodies. This allows us to explain the current state of trust in municipal authorities using the provisions of institutional theories.

A number of problems related to the credibility of the LSG bodies were mentioned. Thus, the negative impact on trust in this institution of the perception that municipal bodies are corrupt is quite stable, and the discrepancy between the real municipal practices aimed at minimizing citizen participation in decision-making (use of the competitive model when replacing ME head) and the expectations of the population concerning LSG (focus on the use of direct elections). In this regard, the results of our research confirm and complement the data of all-Russian surveys. Ways to solve these problems could include improving the system of anti-corruption measures in relation to LSG bodies; conducting explanatory work among the population regarding the rationale for reforming LSG system (introducing a competitive model for electing LSG heads, etc.); improving the system of communication between the municipal government and the population, including the use of new information and communication technologies.

The theoretical and methodological construct proposed in the article may serve as the basis for further theoretical and empirical research, filled with new data on the determinants of trust in LSG bodies. The study also has practical value, connected to the development of methodological recommendations and the development of measures of state and municipal policy aimed at improving the ways to increase the population’s trust in LSG and government bodies.