How Citizens Evaluate Safety from State-Controlled Risks and Why

Publication type Article
Status Published
Occupation: lead researcher, Center of Public Administration Technologies, Institute of Applied Economic Studies
Affiliation: Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration (RANEPA)
Address: Russian Federation, Moscow
Occupation: Director Center of Public Administration Technologies, Institute of Applied Economic Studies
Affiliation: Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration
Address: Russian Federation, Moscow
Occupation: Director of the research Center of Social and Political Monitoring at School of Public Policy
Affiliation: Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration
Address: Russian Federation, Moscow
Occupation: Research Fellow at Research Center of Social and Political Monitoring at School of Public Policy
Affiliation: Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration
Address: Russian Federation, Moscow
Journal nameSotsiologicheskie issledovaniya
EditionIssue 7

Despite protection from state-controlled risks is one of the key public goods this factor is hardly accounted for in quality of government evaluations. The paper analyses the data of sociological surveys conducted by RANEPA on citizen evaluation of public values safety (life, health, property, personal data, etc.) from 10 major risks controlled by the state. The results of 3 sociological surveys conducted in 2018, 2019, and 2020 in all Russian federal districts suggest that only about one third of citizen evaluate the level of public values safety as very high or high; over a half of respondents find that the level of public values safety is low. Perception of public safety depends both on social and demographic characteristics (age, material status, employment) and on other factors such as the level of trust to public regulatory and enforcement bodies and personal experience of respondents (encountering the risks in the past). Direct correlation between evaluation of public values safety and readiness to pay for safety improvement was found.

Keywordsrisk perception, governance quality, control, regulatory and enforcement bodies, public values, sociological survey, safety evaluation
AcknowledgmentThe article was funded by the state assignment on research and development studies to RANEPA.
Publication date01.08.2020
Number of characters28650
100 rub.
When subscribing to an article or issue, the user can download PDF, evaluate the publication or contact the author. Need to register.

Number of purchasers: 0, views: 1116

Readers community rating: votes 0

1. Block F. State Role in the Economy. Jekonomicheskaja sociologija [Economic sociology]. Vol. 5. No. 2: 37–56 (In Russ.)

2. Lebedeva L. S. (2018) Quality of life: main approaches and the notion structure. Ekonomicheskie i social'nye peremeny. [Monitoring of Public Opinion: Economic and Social Changes]. No. 4: 68–80. (In Russ.) DOI: 10.14515/monitoring.2018.4.04.

3. Maslennikova E.V., Dobrolyubova E.I., Yuzhakov V.N. (2020) Effectiveness of Control and Enforcement Activities in Selected Areas: Statistics and Sociology. Ekonomicheskaya Politika [Economic Policy]. Vol. 15. No. 1: 90–107. (In Russ.)

4. Yudina T.N., Bondaletov V.V., Mazayev Y.N., Bormotova T.M., Dolgorukova, I.V. (2017) Public evaluation of police activities. Sotsiologicheskie Issledovaniya. [Social Studies]. No. 4: 52–59. (In Russ.)

5. Yuzhakov V.N., Dobrolyubova E.I., Spiridonov A.A. Methodological approaches to the assessment of state control and inspection system by the citizens as its beneficiaries. Vestnik Rossijskogo universiteta druzhby narodov. Serija: Sociologija [RUDN Journal of Sociology]. Vol. 19. No. 2: 337–351 (In Russ.). DOI: 10.22363/2313-2272-2019-19-2-337-351.

6. Boholm A. (1998) Comparative studies of risk perception: a review of twenty years of research. Journal of Risk Research. Vol. 1. No. 2: 135–163, DOI: 10.1080/136698798377231

7. Bouckaert G., Van de Walle S. (2003) Comparing measures of citizen trust and user satisfaction as indicators of 'good governance': Difficulties in linking trust and satisfaction indicators. International Review of Administrative Sciences. Vol. 69. No. 3: 329–343.

8. Cheng H. (2015) Factors influencing public satisfaction with the local police: a study in Saskatoon, Canada. Policing. Vol. 38. No. 4: 690–704.

9. Cummings C.L., Berube D.M., Lavelle M.E. (2013) Influences of individual-level characteristics on risk perceptions to various categories of environmental health and safety risks. Journal of Risk Research. Vol. 16. No. 10: 1277–1295.

10. Donahue A.K. (2014) Risky business: Willingness to pay for disaster preparedness. Public Budgeting and Finance. Vol. 34. No. 4: 100–119.

11. Eiser J.R., Bostrom A., Burton I., Johnston D.M., McClure J., Paton D., van der Pligt J., White M.P. (2012) Risk interpretation and action: A conceptual framework for responses to natural hazards. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction. Vol. 1: 5–16.

12. Han G., Yan S. (2019) Does food safety risk perception affect the public’s trust in their government? An empirical study on a national survey in China. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. Vol. 16. No. 11. DOI: 10.3390/ijerph16111874

13. He C., Han G., Liu Y. (2019) Food safety satisfaction in China and its influencing factors: Empirical study with a hierarchical linear model. Safety. Vol. 5. No. 1: DOI: 10.3390/safety5010017

14. Helliwell J.F., Huang H., Grover S., Wang S. (2018) Empirical linkages between good governance and national well-being. Journal of Comparative Economics. Vol. 46. No. 4: 1332–1346.

15. Kaufmann D., Kraay A., Mastruzzi M. (2011) The worldwide governance indicators: Methodology and analytical issues. Hague Journal on the Rule of Law. Vol. 3. No. 2: 220–246. DOI:10.1017/S1876404511200046

16. Liu P., Ma L. (2016) Food scandals, media exposure, and citizens’ safety concerns: A multilevel analysis across Chinese cities. Food Policy. Vol. 63: 102–111.

17. Ma L., Christensen T. (2019) Government Trust, Social Trust, and Citizens’ Risk Concerns: Evidence from Crisis Management in China. Public Performance and Management Review. Vol. 42. No. 2: 383–404. DOI: 10.1080/15309576.2018.1464478

18. Meng B., Liu M., Liufu H.Y., Wang W. (2013) Risk perceptions combining spatial multi-criteria analysis in land-use type of Huainan city. Safety Science. Vol. 51. No. 1: 361–373.

19. Mouter N., van Cranenburgh S., van Wee B. (2018) The consumer-citizen duality: Ten reasons why citizens prefer safety and drivers desire speed. Accident Analysis and Prevention. Vol. 121: 53–63.

20. OECD (2013) OECD Guidelines on Measuring Subjective Well-Being. OECD Publishing, Paris (

21. OECD (2017) OECD Guidelines on Measuring Trust. OECD Publishing, Paris. DOI: 10.1787/9789264278219-en.

22. OECD (2018) OECD Regulatory Enforcement and Inspections Toolkit. OECD Publishing, Paris (

23. OECD (2019) Trust in Government. In: Government at a Glance. OECD Publishing, Paris. DOI:

24. Qin F., Song, F. (2019) How much are the public willing to pay for the environmental protection: Evidence from Chinese general social survey data. Ekoloji. Vol. 28, No. 107: 3943–3950.

25. Sironi E., Bonazzi L.M. (2016) Direct Victimization Experiences and Fear of Crime: A Gender Perspective. Peace Economics, Peace Science and Public Policy. Vol. 22. No. 2: 159–172. DOI: 10.1515/peps-2016-0008.

26. Tertytchnaya K., De Vries C.E. (2019) The Political Consequences of Self-Insurance: Evidence from Central-Eastern Europe, the Caucasus and Central Asia. Political Behavior. Vol. 41. No. 4: 1047–1070.

27. Vainio A., Mäkiniemi J.-P., Paloniemi R. (2014) System justification and the perception of food risks. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations. Vol. 17. No. 4: 509–523. DOI: 10.1177/1368430213503502.

28. Van Tol J. (2016) Dutch Risk and Responsibility programme. Some research into citizens’ views on a proportionate handling of risks and incidents. Journal of Risk Research. Vol. 19. No. 8: 1014–1021.

29. Yang K., Holzer, M. (2006). The performance-trust link: Implications for performance measurement. Public Administration Review. Vol. 66. No. 1: 114–126. DOI: 10.1111/j.1540-6210.2006.00560.x.

Система Orphus