Asia Fact Check Lab: Is China’s government the most trusted in the world?

:0:0

In Brief

The Chinese government ranks first in terms of having the trust of its people—or so Chinese officials like to say, often quoting research from “the West.”

One favored source is an annual report by U.S. public relations company Edelman that details the level of public trust in national institutions in up to 28 countries. The report consistently lists the Chinese government as among the most trusted by its citizens. Beijing was ranked No. 1 globally in both 2023 and 2022, with 89 percent and 91 percent of Chinese expressing trust in the government, respectively.

Asia Fact Check Lab (AFCL) found the Edelman report’s conclusions regarding Chinese public opinion to be questionable due to the company’s sometimes unusual survey methodology. In addition, China’s history of censorship and controls may lead some Chinese to embrace the government’s spin on events, while other respondents may hesitate to voice opposing views.

In Depth
“Edelman Trust Barometer,” the firm’s annual trust report, interviews citizens in up to 28 countries each year to gauge their trust in government, businesses, nongovernmental organizations and the media. For at least the past five years, China has ranked first or second among all countries surveyed in terms of the percentage of citizens who express trust in their respective governments.

Chinese officials and media have often referred to Edelman’s trust rating as evidence of the Chinese people’s confidence in their government. “China continues to lead the world in trust,” according to a recent opinion piece that ran in the state-run China Daily, Hong Kong edition, citing the 2023 Edelman report.

Tweeting about the 2022 report, Chinese foreign ministry spokesperson Hua Chunying trumpeted that “China tops the list of Trust Index.” Officials have cited China’s trust rating to support what they described as the country’s “broad, real, and effective democracy” and emphasized that positive surveys are conducted by “institutions in the West.”

Is Edelman an impartial arbiter of truth?

Edelman is an American public relations and marketing firm that “partners with businesses and organizations to evolve, promote, and protect their brands and reputations.” One way it has done so with major success is by building trust—which the company has called “the ultimate currency”—including through its Trust Barometer, since 2000.

The agency’s own track record in trust has come under scrutiny, however. While parent company Daniel J. Edelman Holdings has said “respecting human rights” is a “fundamental part” of how it does business, Edelman has been reported to work with countries with poor human rights records to try and clean up their image, including with Saudi Arabia after it was linked to the brutal murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi, according to The Guardian.

The agency declined to comment for that article, but in a separate Guardian article questioning Edelman’s reputation as an arbiter of trust, a company spokesperson said, “Our goal has always been to help business and other institutions navigate their complex environments and effectively communicate with all their stakeholders.”

Asked by AFCL about how it avoids potential conflicts with its own standards while working with clients, Edelman responded in an email statement that “responsibility and sensitivity are essential to the research we do.”

Like other multinational companies, Edelman sometimes tailors its messaging to specific markets, and it appears to toe a cautious line in authoritarian countries. A blog by Edelman’s CEO about the World Economic Forum’s May 2022 meeting that mentions a rift between democracy and autocracy appears on the company’s main website, but not on its Middle East site. The blog, which also includes the CEO’s thoughts on other sensitive topics such as Russia’s war against Ukraine, does not show up on Edelman’s China website either.

Is the report methodologically sound?

Several aspects of the report’s survey methodology raise questions about the accuracy of some of the findings, especially in regards to China.

Responding to a detailed list of questions from AFCL about its methodology, the Edelman spokesperson said: “There are many nuances to conducting multi-market survey research, including being sensitive to cultures, legal systems and technological access.”

The spokesperson said Edelman is “committed to full transparency about our work and methodologies” and adheres to both industry- and country-specific regulations and standards. “We make every effort to present the data in formats that are clear, accessible, and fully validated.”

Multiple editions of the “Edelman Trust Barometer” note that the survey did not collect data on select questions for China (as well as for some other countries). These questions include whether the government is seen as divisive, whether the country is more divided currently than in past times and whether the government and official media release trustworthy information.

Edelman explained its approach in its 2023 report: “Because some of the content we ask is deemed politically sensitive, there are several countries where we take special precautions in order to avoid putting our respondents, or ourselves, in a position to break any local laws. We work closely with our sample partner and its legal team to identify which questions, and in what countries, we should refrain from asking.” For the 2023 report, it said, it removed certain questions and answer options for China and Thailand.
Laura Silver, a senior researcher for Pew Research Center, said “removing questions that are considered inappropriate in a local context can sometimes be the most appropriate choice.” If questions make respondents uncomfortable or unwilling to continue with the survey, that could affect its representativeness by causing certain participants to drop out, resulting in bias, she said.

Ken Alper, president of research company SurveyUSA, cautioned, however, that, “Every question you ask in a survey has the potential to influence [responses to] all of the questions that follow it.”

A more problematic practice involves Edelman’s removal of certain answer options from its 2023 surveys in China (and Thailand). The survey report notes this in small gray print at the bottom of its appendix page on sample size and quotas, but does not specify which questions were involved or which answer options were removed.

“Should it be [that choices for] answers are removed, that could certainly affect cross-national comparisons,” Silver said.

Furthermore, many slides (about one-third of the total) also note in small print that certain questions were asked of only half the sample size. The 2023 report did not provide an explanation for this practice.

The report is generally vague about its sampling method. Polls should disclose both their specific sampling methodology and the survey quotas for the respondents, Alper said, but Edelman does not do so for either.

Quotas are used to limit who responds to surveys to ensure that the respondents accurately reflect the target population. Of the 1,150 respondents for each country, the report does not detail category breakdowns for age, gender or region of residency.

Can meaningful political polling be conducted in China?

Conducting polling in China is a tough job. PRC law requires any foreign individuals or companies conducting research to obtain prior government approval. This requirement applies to market research, academic studies, and social polls. The law stipulates that China’s Bureau of Statistics should work with the State Council, or cabinet, “to supervise and manage” foreign-related surveys conducted at a national level. In addition, organizations may not conduct any foreign-related investigations that “threaten national unity,” “cause social disorder,” or “violate the basic principles of the Constitution.”

China isn’t alone in seeking to influence public opinion through the management of polling activities. “Governments control polling for different reasons based on their interests,” Silver said. “One reason might be concerns about showing a discontent public. If a government’s legitimacy hinges on its people being satisfied, clearly illustrating that that is not the case could prove detrimental to its stability.”

Alper notes that freedom of speech is typically an important prerequisite to obtaining reliable public opinion data. “If you’re worried that speaking honestly may put you in some sort of legal jeopardy, you’re unlikely to speak honestly.”

Pollsters working in such environments should acknowledge the limitations of their findings, he said.

In China’s case, past polls conducted by reputable Western and Chinese groups have also reflected high popular confidence in the Chinese government. A long-term polling project by Harvard University’s Ash Center involving 32,000 respondents found that 95.5 percent of respondents were “relatively satisfied” or “highly satisfied” with the central government in 2016, the last year the survey was conducted.

Center Director Tony Saich attributed the high rating to several factors, including Beijing’s distance from rural citizens, who traditionally have tended to view central authorities approvingly and to blame local governments for problems. He also noted the “highly positive news [that] proliferated throughout the country.”

The Chinese government also secured its high trust rating in Edelman’s 2023 report as widespread discontent and rare public protests spread over President Xi Jinping’s zero-Covid policy and some local governments’ draconian shutdowns and other measures aimed at curbing the virus’s spread.

Conclusion

Although Edelman’s Trust Barometer reported that Chinese people have the highest trust in their government, potential weaknesses in polling methodology and Beijing’s controls over information should raise questions over whether most Chinese agree that their government is the “most trusted” in the world.

[圖擷取自網路，如有疑問請私訊]