Economic Change and Public Support for Democracy in China and Russia

An earlier version of the essay was presented at the ECPR meetings, University of Glasgow, 3–6 September 2014, in the panel ‘Rising Powers: Social Inequality and Political Stability’. Our thanks to workshop participants and a special thanks to two anonymous reviewers from this journal for their very constructive and helpful comments on an earlier version of the essay.

Figures & data

TABLE 1 Preferences for Democracy as the Best Form of Governance

	China			Russia
	2001	2007	2012	1995	1999	2006	2011
Very good	16	21	27	5	6	20	21
Fairly good	57	36	44	40	41	45	46
Fairly bad	3	3	6	24	22	13	13
Very bad	0	1	1	9	6	4	5
Don’t know	24	39	22	22	25	17	15
Total	100	100	100	100	100	100	100
(N)	(1,000)	(2,015)	(2,300)	(2,040)	(2,500)	(2,033)	(2,500)

Note: ‘Here is a list of various types of political systems. For each one, would you say it is a very good, fairly good, fairly bad or very bad way of governing this country? … Having a democratic political system.’ Question wording varies slightly between countries. ‘Don’t know’ responses include those who did not answer the question.

Sources: World Values Study, 1981–2008 combined file, available at: http://www.worldvaluessurvey.org, accessed 24 November 2016; European Values Survey, 1999, available at: http://www.europeanvaluesstudy.eu/, accessed 24 November 2016; World Values Study, 2010–2012, available at: http://www.worldvaluessurvey.org, accessed 24 November 2016.

FIGURE 1. Religious Behaviour and Self-Image, 1990–2012.

Note: Estimates are the proportion attending church at least once per year, and the proportion who claimed to be a religious person.
Sources: World Values Study, 1981–2008 combined file, available at: http://www.worldvaluessurvey.org, accessed 24 November 2016; European Values Survey, 1999, available at: http://www.europeanvaluesstudy.eu/, accessed 24 November 2016; World Values Study, 2010–2012, available at: http://www.worldvaluessurvey.org, accessed 24 November 2016.

FIGURE 2. Levels of Education, 1990–2012.

Notes: Secondary includes vocational, incomplete secondary, completed secondary; tertiary is incomplete university, completed university. For Russia in 1990 only, none/elementary is completed education at age 16 or less; secondary/vocational is completed education at age 17 or 18; tertiary is completed at 19, 20 or more. Data are unavailable for China prior to 2001.
Sources: World Values Study, 1981–2008 combined file, available at: http://www.worldvaluessurvey.org, accessed 24 November 2016; European Values Survey, 1999, available at: http://www.europeanvaluesstudy.eu/, accessed 24 November 2016; World Values Study, 2010–2012, available at: http://www.worldvaluessurvey.org, accessed 24 November 2016.

TABLE 2 Objective and Subjective Social Class, 1990–2012

	(Percent)
	Employed	Non-manual worker	Middle class image
China
1990	85	18	na
2001	78	13	54
2007	71	15	44
2012	63	20	44
(Change)	(–22)	(+2)	(–10)
Russia
1990	69	31	na
1995	58	39	38
1999	55	41	na
2006	56	36	na
2011	62	32	44
(Change)	(–7)	(+2)	(+6)

Note: In 2011/2012, ‘non-manual worker’ is estimated from a ten-point manual/non-manual skills scale, with non-manual workers defined as those scoring seven or more on the scale.

Sources: World Values Study, 1981–2008 combined file, available at: http://www.worldvaluessurvey.org, accessed 24 November 2016; European Values Survey, 1999, available at: http://www.europeanvaluesstudy.eu/, accessed 24 November 2016; World Values Study, 2010–2012, available at: http://www.worldvaluessurvey.org, accessed 24 November 2016.

TABLE 3 Economic Attitudes, 1990–2012

	(Mean score, 1–10)
	Favours income differences	People more responsible	Competition is good
China
1990	7.9	5.9	8.4
2001	6.3	5.8	8.3
2007	5.8	5.4	7.5
2012	4.5	4.7	7.3
(Change)	(–3.4)	(–1.2)	(–1.1)
Russia
1990	7.0	5.8	7.7
1995	6.5	3.9	7.1
1999	7.1	4.2	5.8
2006	6.4	3.4	6.9
2011	3.4	3.1	6.6
(Change)	(–3.6)	(–2.7)	(–1.1)

Note: ‘Here is a list of various issues. How would you place your views on this scale, where 1 means you agree completely with the statement on the left and 10 means you agree completely with the statement on the right? If your views fall somewhere in between, you can choose any number in between. Incomes should be made more equal. … We need larger income differences as incentives for individual effort. The government should take more responsibility to ensure that everyone is provided for. … People should take more responsibility to provide for themselves. Competition is good, it stimulates people to work hard and develop new ideas. … Competition is harmful. It brings out the worst in people.’ Question wording varies slightly between countries. See text for details of scale construction.

Sources: World Values Study, 1981–2008 combined file, available at: http://www.worldvaluessurvey.org, accessed 24 November 2016; European Values Survey, 1999, available at: http://www.europeanvaluesstudy.eu/, accessed 24 November 2016; World Values Study, 2010–2012, available at: http://www.worldvaluessurvey.org, accessed 24 November 2016.

TABLE 4 Predicting Support for Democracy in China and Russia

	Partial regression coefficients (standard errors)
	China			Russia
	2001	2007	2012	1995	1999	2006	2011
Controls
Gender	0.15 (0.03)	0.08 (0.03)	0.07 (0.03)			0.11 (0.04)
Age (deciles)					–0.04 (0.01)	–0.02 (0.01)
Religion
Church attendance			–0.08 (0.04)
Religious person		0.16 (0.04)	0.11 (0.05)
Education (none, elementary)
Secondary	0.12 (0.04)	0.19 (0.04)					0.24 (0.11)
Tertiary		0.18 (0.08)	0.20 (0.06)	0.18 (0.07)	0.30 (0.07)	0.18 (0.06)	0.26 (0.12)
Occupation
Employed				0.09 (0.04)
Non-manual worker	0.10 (0.05)	0.11 (0.05)			0.14 (0.04)		0.12 (0.04)
Middle class image	0.09 (0.04)	0.07 (0.03)	0.09 (0.03)	0.14 (0.04)			0.10 (0.03)
Economic Attitudes
Favours income differences				0.02 (0.01)
People more responsible			0.02 (0.01)	0.03 (0.01)	0.04 (0.01)		0.02 (0.01)
Competition is good	0.02 (0.01)	0.02 (0.01)		0.02 (0.01)	0.04 (0.01)	0.02 (0.01)	0.03 (0.01)
Constant	2.74	2.49	2.93	1.98	2.07	2.89	2.43
Adj R-squared	0.07	0.06	0.03	0.08	0.12	0.02	0.03

Note: Partial regression coefficient and (in parentheses) standard errors predicting support for democracy. See text and tables for definitions of variables. Only associations statistically significant at p<0.05 or better are shown.

Sources: World Values Study, 1981–2008 combined file, available at: http://www.worldvaluessurvey.org, accessed 24 November 2016; European Values Survey, 1999, available at: http://www.europeanvaluesstudy.eu/, accessed 24 November 2016; World Values Study, 2010–2012, available at: http://www.worldvaluessurvey.org, accessed 24 November 2016.