Trial by Fire: A Natural Disaster's Impact on Support for the Authorities in Rural Russia
Abstract
This article aims to explore the microfoundations of political support under a nondemocratic regime by investigating the impact of a natural disaster on attitudes toward the government. The research exploits the enormous wildfires that occurred in rural Russia during the summer of 2010 as a natural experiment. The authors test the effects of fires with a survey of almost eight hundred respondents in seventy randomly selected villages. The study finds that in the burned villages there is higher support for the government at all levels. Most counterintuitively, the rise of support for authorities cannot be fully explained by the generous governmental aid. The authors interpret the results by the demonstration effect of the government's performance.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Citizens generally expect politicians to step forward in a crisis situation and to do so promptly.
“research has suggested that citizens generally expect politicians to step forward in a crisis situation (e.g. Boin et al. 2008; Lazarev et al. 2014; Rubin 2020; Rubin and de Vries 2020) and to do so promptly (Butzek 2008).”
From Precaution and proportionality in pandemic politics: democracy, state capacity, and COVID-19-related school closures around the world (2022) · cites this paper as Lazarev et al. 2014
Cites
Bechtel, M. M., & Hainmueller, J. (2011) · American Journal of Political Science · doi:10.1111/j.1540-5907.2011.00533.x · Cited by 63 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Cronert, A. (2022) · Journal of Public Policy · doi:10.1017/s0143814x22000101 · Cited by 21 · see citing works
- Authors
- Lazarev, E., Sobolev, A., Soboleva, I. V., & Sokolov, B.
- Venue
- World Politics
- Publisher
- Project MUSE
- Published
- 2014-09-15
- Volume
- 66
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 641-668
- ISSN
- 0043-8871 (ISSN-L)
- 1086-3338
- OpenAlex
- W3122440717
- Cited by
- 106
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2026: 16 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 14 · 2022: 14 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 4 · 2014: 3
- FWCI
- 13.03
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- World Politics (publishedVersion)
- Project Muse (Johns Hopkins University) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Political Conflict and Governance
- Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Electoral Systems and Political Participation
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Sociopolitical Dynamics in Russia
- Keywords
- political support, natural disasters, forest fires, rural Russia, authoritarian regimes, government aid, demonstration effect, public opinion, disaster relief
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
