The significance of political participation in social governance and development is increasingly prominent. Citizens’ institutionalized political participation stands as a primary symbol of realizing people’s ownership. Public trust in government, a crucial emotional element of political participation, serves as a bridge for institutionalized political participation. This study formulates a moderated mediation model, encompassing public cognition, emotions, attitudes, and political behaviors. The model aims to elucidate the attributional paths of governmental governance capacity, social justice, and social security on public trust in government and political participation. The findings underscore three pivotal antecedents of public trust in government: citizens perceptions of governance capacity, social justice, and social security foster political participation behavior through public trust in government, subsequently influencing overall political participation. Political efficacy plays a moderating role, influencing the strength of the mediating effect from public trust in government to institutionalized political participation. This addresses a gap in prior research on the intrinsic motivation of citizens’ political engagement. The study emphasizes the role of political efficacy in facilitating and motivating individuals for “orderly political participation,” providing a practical foundation for enhancing the stability of social governance and democratic development.
AbouAssiK.WangR. (2023). Public participation at the local level in China-How does it work? A perspective from within. Chinese Public Administration Review, 14(2), 71–82.
2.
AndersonM. R. (2010). Community psychology, political efficacy, and trust. Political Psychology, 31(1), 59–84.
3.
AntonovaS. (2011). “Capacity-building” in global Internet governance: The long-term outcomes of “multistakeholderism”. Regulation & Governance, 5(4), 425–445.
4.
BanerjeeS. B. (2008). Corporate social responsibility: The good, the bad and the ugly. Critical Sociology, 34(1), 51–79.
5.
BaoH.-W.-S. (2022). BruceR: broadly useful convenient and efficient R functions. R package version 0.8. x.
6.
BartschA.SchneiderF. M. (2014). Entertainment and politics revisited: How non-escapist forms of entertainment can stimulate political interest and information seeking. Journal of Communication, 64(3), 369–396.
7.
BélangerÉ.NadeauR. (2005). Political trust and the vote in multiparty elections: The Canadian case. European Journal of Political Research, 44(1), 121–146.
8.
BrendlerP. (2023). Rising earnings inequality and optimal income tax and social security policies. Journal of Monetary Economics, 134, 35–52.
9.
Buettner-SchmidtK.LoboM. L. (2012). Social justice: A concept analysis. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 68(4), 948–958.
10.
CampbellA.GurinG.MillerW. E. (1954). The voter decides. Row, Peterson.
11.
ChaoN.YuanG.LiY.YaoQ. (2017). The Internet ecological perception, political trust and political efficacy of Chinese netizens. Telematics and Informatics, 34(3), 715–725.
12.
ChristensenH. S. (2018). Knowing and distrusting: How political trust and knowledge shape direct-democratic participation. European Societies, 20(4), 572–594.
13.
CohenA.VigodaE.SamorlyA. (2001). Analysis of the mediating effect of personal-psychological variables on the relationship between socioeconomic status and political participation: A structural equations framework. Political Psychology, 22(4), 727–757.
14.
CollierJ.EstebanR. (1999). Governance in the participative organisation: Freedom, creativity and ethics. Journal of Business Ethics, 21(2–3), 173–188.
15.
ColquittJ. A.ConlonD. E.WessonM. J.PorterC. O.NgK. Y. (2001). Justice at the millennium: A meta-analytic review of 25 years of organizational justice research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(3), 425–445.
16.
CraigS. C.NiemiR. G.SilverG. E. (1990). Political efficacy and trust: A report on the NES pilot study items. Political Behavior, 12(3), 289–314.
17.
DaltonR. J. (2008). Citizenship norms and the expansion of political participation. Political Studies, 56(1), 76–98.
18.
DiamondL. (1999). Developing democracy: Toward consolidation. Johns Hopkins University Press.
19.
EastonD.DennisJ. (1967). The child’s acquisition of regime norms: Political efficacy. American Political Science Review, 61(1), 25–38.
20.
FungA. (2003). Associations and democracy: Between theories, hopes, and realities. Annual Review of Sociology, 29(1), 515–539.
21.
FungA. (2006). Varieties of participation in complex governance. Public Administration Review, 66(s1), 66–75.
22.
GeurkinkB.ZasloveA.SluiterR.JacobsK. (2020). Populist attitudes, political trust, and external political efficacy: Old wine in new bottles?Political Studies, 68(1), 247–267.
23.
GrassoM. T.GiugniM. (2019). Political values and extra-institutional political participation: The impact of economic redistributive and social libertarian preferences on protest behaviour. International Political Science Review, 40(4), 470–485.
24.
GrimmelikhuijsenS.KniesE. (2017). Validating a scale for citizen public trust in government organizations. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 83(3), 583–601.
25.
HarteveldE.DahlbergS.KokkonenA.Van Der BrugW. (2019). Gender differences in vote choice: Social cues and social harmony as heuristics. British Journal of Political Science, 49(3), 1141–1161.
26.
HetheringtonM. J. (1998). The political relevance of political trust. American Political Science Review, 92(4), 791–808.
27.
HolzerM. (2022). Public administration at a crossroad: Five enduring challenges. Chinese Public Administration Review, 13(3), 125–136.
28.
HoogheM.MarienS. (2013). A comparative analysis of the relation between political trust and forms of political participation in Europe. European Societies, 15(1), 131–152.
29.
HowlettM.RameshM. (2016). A Chilles’ heels of governance: Critical capacity deficits and their role in governance failures. Regulation & Governance, 10(4), 301–313.
30.
ImT.ChoiY. (2018). Rethinking national competitiveness: A critical assessment of governmental capacity measures. Social Indicators Research, 135(2), 515–532.
31.
JohnP. (2009). Can citizen governance redress the representative bias of political participation?Public Administration Review, 69(3), 494–503.
32.
KahneJ.WestheimerJ. (2006). The limits of political efficacy: Educating citizens for a democratic society. PS: Political Science and Politics, 39(2), 289–296.
33.
KatokE.PavlovV. (2013). Fairness in supply chain contracts: A laboratory study. Journal of Operations Management, 31(3), 129–137.
34.
KimB. J. (2015). Political efficacy, community collective efficacy, trust and extroversion in the information society: Differences between online and offline civic/political activities. Government Information Quarterly, 32(1), 43–51.
35.
KimS. E. (2005). The role of trust in the modern administrative state: An integrative model. Administration & Society, 37(5), 611–635.
36.
KimT. Y.LeungK. (2007). Forming and reacting to overall fairness: A cross-cultural comparison. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 104(1), 83–95.
37.
KimU.HelgesenG.AhnB. M. (2002). Democracy, trust, and political efficacy: Comparative analysis of Danish and Korean political culture. Applied Psychology, 51(2), 318–353.
38.
KringsA.AusticE. A.GutiérrezL. M.DirksenK. E. (2015). The comparative impacts of social justice educational methods on political participation, civic engagement, and multicultural activism. Equity & Excellence in Education, 48(3), 403–417.
39.
LeviM.StokerL. (2000). Political trust and trustworthiness. Annual Review of Political Science, 3(1), 475–507.
40.
LevinL. (2020). Rethinking social justice: A contemporary challenge for social good. Research on Social Work Practice, 30(2), 186–195.
41.
LimD. J. (2021). An exploratory study on the relationship between justice and social conflict and the mediating role of trust and communication. Asian Journal of Criminology, 16(2), 183–201.
42.
LongJ. A. (2019). Interactions: Comprehensive, user-friendly toolkit for probing interactions. R Package Version, 1, 33–45.
43.
MaoY. X. (2023). What accounts for the different regional responses to COVID-19 in China? Exploring the role of institutional environment, governance capacity and legitimacy. Health Policy and Planning, 38(4), 552–566.
44.
MattilaM. (2020). Does poor health mobilize people into action? Health, political trust, and participation. European Political Science Review, 12(1), 49–65.
45.
MayerR. C.DavisJ. H.SchoormanF. D. (1995). An integrative model of organizational trust. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 709–734.
46.
McDonnellJ. (2020). Municipality size, political efficacy and political participation: A systematic review. Local Government Studies, 46(3), 331–350.
47.
MizrahiS.CohenN.Vigoda-GadotE. (2020). Government’s social responsibility, citizen satisfaction and trust. Policy & Politics, 48(3), 443–460.
48.
Mor BarakM. E. (2020). The practice and science of social good: Emerging paths to positive social impact. Research on Social Sork Practice, 30(2), 139–150.
49.
OhY.LimS. (2017). Connecting a missing link between participation in administration and political participation: The mediating role of political efficacy. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 83(4), 694–716.
50.
OsborneD.YogeeswaranK.SibleyC. G. (2015). Hidden consequences of political efficacy: Testing an efficacy–apathy model of political mobilization. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 21(4), 533–540.
51.
PreacherK. J.HayesA. F. (2004). SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects in simple mediation models. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 36(4), 717–731.
52.
PreacherK. J.RuckerD. D.HayesA. F. (2007). Addressing moderated mediation hypotheses: Theory, methods, and prescriptions. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 42(1), 185–227.
53.
QuintelierE.van DethJ. W. (2014). Supporting democracy: Political participation and political attitudes. Exploring causality using panel data. Political Studies, 62(1), 153–171.
54.
R Core TeamR. (2013). R: A language and environment for statistical computing (pp. 215–286). R Foundation for Statistical Computing.
55.
RudolphT. J.EvansJ. (2005). Political trust, ideology, and public support for government spending. American Journal of Political Science, 49(3), 660–671.
56.
ShehataA. (2010). Pathways to politics: How media system characteristics can influence socioeconomic gaps in political participation. International Journal of Press-Politics, 15(3), 295–318.
57.
Stowell*M. (2004). Equity, justice and standards: Assessment decision making in higher education. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 29(4), 495–510.
58.
Van Popering-VerkerkJ.MolenveldA.DuijnM.van LeeuwenC.van BuurenA. (2022). A framework for governance capacity: A broad perspective on steering efforts in society. Administration & Society, 54(9), 1767–1794.
59.
Van ZomerenM.PostmesT.SpearsR. (2008). Toward an integrative social identity model of collective action: A quantitative research synthesis of three socio-psychological perspectives. Psychological Bulletin, 134(4), 504–535.
60.
VerbaS.SchlozmanK. L.BradyH. E. (1995). Voice and equality: Civic voluntarism in American politics. Harvard University Press.
61.
WolakJ. (2018). Feelings of political efficacy in the fifty states. Political Behavior, 40(3), 763–784.
62.
WongS. W.TangB. S.LiuJ. L. (2020). Village elections, grassroots governance and the restructuring of state power: An empirical study in southern peri-urban China. China Quarterly, 241(1), 22–42.
63.
XuP.JohnsonK.RundlettA. (2022). E-participation in contemporary China: A comparison with conventional offline participation. Chinese Public Administration Review, 13(3), 150–161.
64.
YouJ. S. (2012). Social trust: Fairness matters more than homogeneity. Political Psychology, 33(5), 701–721.
