Trust and responsibility: the regional dimension


2019, Vol. 3. №2

Trust and responsibility: the regional dimension

For citation: Kogay E. A. 2019. “Trust and responsibility: the regional dimension”. Siberian Socium, vol. 3, no 2, pp. 35-41. DOI: 10.21684/2587-8484-2019-3-2-35-41

About the author:

Evgeniya A. Kogay, Dr. Sci. (Philos.), Professor, Head of Department of Sociology, Kursk State University (Kursk, Russian Federation); eLibrary AuthorID, ORCID, Web of Science ResearcherID, Scopus AuthorID,


The issue of developing strategic trust at different levels of self-organization of territorial communities gains increasing importance in Russia. This article considers trust and responsibility as integral components of forming a sustainable society and implementation of modernization processes. The author turns to the problem of the relationship between these concepts and reveals trends in the dynamics of trust relationships in Russia and its regions. This article relies on the results of comparative sociological and cultural studies in the Tomsk (2015), Kursk (2016), and Tyumen (2016) regions, as well as in Russia overall (2015). The comparison of results from sociological researches shows the characteristics of institutional and interpersonal trust. The author notes that the new challenges to the development of society associated with the tasks of transition to system modernization create an increased demand for strengthening social partnership and the establishment of qualitative and constructive public policy. There is a trend to activate the position of citizens in defending their rights, as well as in helping vulnerable categories of the population. In conclusion, the author shows practical steps of individual regions on the way of creation of solidary society.


  1. Fukuyama F. 2008. Trust: Social Virtues and Paths to Prosperity. Moscow: AST. [In Russian]
  2. Gudkov L. 2012. “‘Trust’ in Russia: the meaning, function, structure”. Herald of Public Opinion, no 2 (112), pp. 8-47. [In Russian]
  3. Kupreychenko A. B. 2008. Psychology of Trust and Mistrust. Moscow: Institute of Psychology, Academy of Sciences. [In Russian]
  4. Levinas E. 2000. Favorite. Totality and Infinite. Moscow; Saint Petersburg: University Book. [In Russian]
  5. Luhmann N. 2000. “Forms of help in the process of change of the public conditions”. Sociological Journal, no 1-2, pp. 16-35. [In Russian]
  6. Marshall T. 1998. The Right Relationship. How to Build Them, How to Restore Them. Kiev. [In Russian]
  7. Sasaki M., Marsh R. M. (eds.). 2012. Trust: Comparative Perspectives. Leiden; Boston: Brill.
  8. Seligman A. 1997. The Problem of Trust. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
  9. Simmel G. 1890. Über sociale Differenzierung. Sociologische und psychologische Untersuchungen. Leipzig: Duncker & Humblot.
  10. Sztompka P. 1998. “Trust, distrust and two paradoxes of democracy”. European Journal of Social Theory, vol. 1, no 1, pp. 19-32. DOI: 10.1177/136843198001001003
  11. Uslaner E. M. 2002. The Moral Foundation of Trust. Cambridge: Cambridge University. DOI: 10.1017/CBO9780511614934