J URNA L DOI : 10.18196/jgp.v13i1.11904 http://journal.umy.ac.id/index.php/jsp STUDI PEMERINTAHAN How the Political Trust Before, at 1 Pandemic and Vaccinations: Provincial Case Studies in Indonesia (2019, 2020 and 2021) DADANG MAS BAKAR1 REZKI AMALIA3 ABSTRACT: , AGUS ADRIYANTO2 , NUR AFFILIATION: 1 2 Universitas Pertahanan/ Universitas T erbuka Indonesia 3 Universitas Indonesia CORRESPONDENCE: The Covid-19 pandemic caused various problems. Government and political systems were also disrupted, including political trust. This study aims to com- pare the level of youth political trust to government and parliament before pandemic (2019), at thepandemic (2020), andwhenthe vaccine starts (2021), to collect data we used a questionnaire on institutional political trust in 1122 respondents taken at three different years. Data were collected using strati- fied cluster random sampling, which is spread across 14 districts in South Sulawesi. Then, the data were analyzed using the Anava test using SPSS 24.0. The results analysis show that youth’s trust in government during 2019- 2021 were ups and downs, which before the pandemic trust was at 62%, then when the pandemic fell to 55% and in 2021 it could be increased again by the government to 60% which it means that only a difference of 2% from before the pandemic. Youth trust in the DPRD during 2019-2021 has had upsand downs, wherein in 2019, the level of trust was at 50%. Then at the pandemic (2020), it increased to 53%, and in 2021 after vaccines and government pro- grams running well, it decreased far from before the pandemic to 50%. Keywords: Covid-19, South Sulawesi, Parliament, Political Trust, Youth ABSTRAK: Pandemi Covid-19 menyebabkan berbagai permasalahan. Sistem pemerintahan dan politik juga terganggu termasuk didalamnya kepercayaan politik. Penelitian ini, bertujuan untuk membandingkan tingkat kepercayaan politik pemuda pada pemerintah dan DPRD saat sebelum pandemi (tahun 2019), saatawalpandemi(2020), hingga saat mulaimunculnya vaksin (2021). Pengambilan data menggunakan kuesioner kepercayaan politik institusi pada 1122 responden yang diambil pada 3 tahun berbeda. Pengambilan data dilakukan dengan menggunakan stratified cluster random sampling yang sebarannya di 14 kabupaten di Sulawesi Selatan. Kemudian, data tersebut dianalisis menggunakan uji Anava dengan bantuan SPSS 24.0. Hasil analisis yang ditemukan menunjukkan bahwa pada kepercayaan pemuda pada pemerintah sepanjang 2019-2021 terjadi pasang surut, yang mana pada sebelum pandemi kepercayaan berada pada 62%, kemudian saat pandemi turun menjadi 55% dan pada 2021 bisa kembali di naikkan oleh pemerintah menjadi 60% yang dapat dikatakan hanya selisih 2% dari sebelum adanya pandemi. (dadangmasbakar@gmail.com) HOW TO CIT ATE: Bakar , D. M., Adriyanto, A., & Amalia, N. R. (2022). How The Political Trust Before, At Pandemic and Vaccinations: Provincial Case Studies in Indonesia. Jurnal Studi Pemerintahan, 13(1) 1 - 24 ARTICLE HISTORY: Received: (June 5th, 2021) Reviewed: July 26th, 2021 Accepted: (January 3th, 2022) https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7150-5183 https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4157-2035 https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6455-3614 http://journal.umy.ac.id/index.php/jsp Vol. 13 No. 1 February 2022 kepercayaan pemuda pada DPRD sepanjang 2019-2021 terjadi pasang surut, yang mana pada tahun 2019 tingkat kepercayaannya berada pada 50%, kemudian pada saat terjadinya pandemi (tahun 2020) malah meningkat menjadi 53% dan 2021 setelah adanya vaksin dan upaya yang dilakukan, malah merosotjauh dari sebelum pandemi menjadi 50%. Kata Kunci: Covid-19, Sulawesi Selatan, DPR, Kepercayaan Politik, Pemuda INTRODUCTION Indonesia is a country that is full of national issues. Various social problems such as poverty, social inequality, inequality in the quality of education, politics can be seen everywhere today. Since March 2020, we are facingthe Corona Virus Disease 2019 (Covid-19) pandemic. In addition to the health, economy, and education, the Covid-19 pandemic caused various effects and problems, one of which is the most felt in politics. It is related to howthe communitydepends andmakes thegovernment a source of life during this pandemic. Politicsisa subject ofstudythat will continue to develop. Political roles are considered veryimpor - tant for the sustainability of government and the sovereignty of a countryto maintain unity, unityand peace, and the sustainability of its society. Political trustis considered an essential thing to be fulfilled to run a good system andincrease political participation. With a population basedon a survey by the Central Statistics Agency, Indonesia shows that there are 268 million people (BadanPusatStatistik,2020a)1.Indonesiamustfulfilall people’s needs, including public trustso that all decisions and matters regulated by the governmentare carried out correctly and get community support. Indonesiamust ensure that every citizen can feel represented by the government in political decisions in Indonesia so that disputes andconflicts do not occur that can divide the integrity of the nation and state. It causes political decisionsmadeandimplementedbythegovernmentwillinvolve and affect the welfare of the people.When we look at the history related to how the people’s low political trust can ultimately affect the stability of the nation and the state, as happened in May 1998 at that time, PresidentSoeharto’s government, which had ruled for 32 years (from 1966- 2 J URNA L ST UDI PEMERI NTAH AN 1998) from his position. In 1998, President Soeharto’s govern- 3 ment was deemed not going well due to Indonesia’s economic decline and President Soeharto’s policies, which were consid- erednotpro-society. It causedpublictrustdeclinedrasticallyand forced President Soeharto to resign from president. Theend of President Soeharto’s government was marked by the reading of his resignation letter dated 21 May 19982. Problems related to the decline in the public political trust not only occur in Indonesia, as an example occurred in Brazil recently (2016). There is impeachment or the process of drop- ping an indictment against a high-ranking official, which can lead to dismissal. Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff was im- peached because he was accused of manipulating financial and administrative data and issuing policies deemed not meeting public expectations. Public trust in the Brazilian president de- creased and resulted in the public staging demonstrations to demand that President Dilma Rousseff be impeached. Finally, members of the lower house of Brazil (DPR Brasil) took action to file impeachment against President Dilma Rouseff. As a re- sult, 367 out of 504 Brazilian DPR members approved the im- peachment, which resulted in the dismissal of Dilma Rousseff as president of Brazil, which then resulted in chaos and economic instability in Brazil (Costa, 2019). The impeachment case of the President of Brazil strengthens the existing evidence that the power and influence of political trusts are significant to the le- gitimacy of the government or institution. The concept of political trust itself is widely used to solve the problems faced by various countries adhering to a democratic system. The most crucial problem in democratic theory is politi- cal trust as an evaluation of political legitimacy and institutions running according to public expectations (Akhrani et al., 2018; Min et al., 2020). Political trust is the community’s hope that the government or institution given this trust can respond, mobilize and carry out tasks according to community expectations. A political trust is a form of public expectations of the government Vol. 13 No. 1 February 2022 4 or leaders who are assessed through the performance, design, and political system in order to meet the needs of society that are appropriate and as expected and needed by the community (Bakar, 2019, 2020; Dalton, 2017). Alternatively, when we look atotherviews, suggestingthat political trust isawayofmaintain- ing attitudes and behavior to make rules and programs that do not trigger and create distrust in society (Krastev, 2012). Political trust, as previously reviewed, is crucial for the sustainability of the nation and state, as well as maintaining na- tional security and peace, which includes youth because 1 in 4 Indonesians is youth (Badan Perencanaan dan Pembangunan Nasional, 2017)3. It means that youths’ strength and number are tremendousandneedspecialattentionrelatedtopoliticaltrusts— youth as the pioneer of the movement for change towards im- proving a country. Based on Article 1 of Law no. 40 of 2009 concerning Youth (Undang-Undang No. 40 Tahun 2009 Tentang Kepemudaan, 2009) states that “Youth are Indonesian citizens who enter an important period of growth anddevelopment, aged 16 to 30 years. Youth is the forerunner of future leaders”. Youths have a role in developing ethical and moral aspects, strengthening national insight, increasing legal awareness, raising awareness of responsi - bilities, rights and obligations as citizens, increasing participa- tion in the formulation of public policies, and developing sci- ence and technology. Youth plays a crucial role in the nation-building process go- ing forward. When the youth have started to become apathetic about politics and government issues, it can cause various prob- lems and disturbances in the future. All threats, disturbances, obstacles, and challenges can quickly enter and damage the In- donesian nation. One of the most visible manifestations of youth political trusts is the level of participation in elections or PILKADA4. a survey by Demos confirms this problem, found that the current state of youth in political participation was only 49.8% had high political participation (Putra et al., 2014). Alter- natively, it can be concluded that only a portion of Indonesian J URNA L ST UDI PEMERI NTAH AN youth participate or have trust in the government. 5 A survey by the Centre for Strategic and International Stud- ies (2017) shows that public trust in political parties is classified as very low, which is only 44.2%. Indonesian people’s trust in the government, based on the Edelman of the trust index, shows an increase since 2012-2018, namely 36%, 49%, 49%, 65%, 58%, 71%, and 73%, respectively(Edelman, 2018) andin 2019 at 75% points (Edelman, 2019), which means that the time is increas- ing. (See Figure 1) Figure 1. Level of TrustinGovernment This problem can be seen from the Youth Development In- dex data released by the National Planning and Development Agency, an index that measures the status of youth development in Indonesia. Found that the civic participation of Indonesian youth is still relatively medium, with a score of 50.17 in 2016 from a scale of 0-100 (Badan Perencanaan dan Pembangunan Nasional, 2017). Even the data obtained is a slap in the face of youth and the Indonesian government. Indonesia is a large na - tion and faces a Demographic Dividend5, which means that In- donesian youth are counted very essentially but have not been appropriately empowered by the government. Indonesianyouthbelievethat advancing Indonesiaisnot only the government’s responsibility, but all elements of society, espe - cially youth. History has proven that young people play a role in bringing change for Indonesia. They are continuing the baton driving these changes. The government should be there to be a Vol. 13 No. 1 February 2022 6 forum for ideas and a vehicle for realizing actions so that the youth have to be the object and subject of development espe- cially In the Covid-19 problemscurrentlybeingfaced, whichwill undoubtedlyaffect thepolitical trust of youth, whichwill impact national defence and security. Thelossoftrust inpoliticiansisespeciallyacuteamongyouth. In nearly 60% of countries surveyed in 2010–2014, youth have lower trust in political parties when compared to older people (OECD, 2015). Younger generations are under-represented in party membership and leadership, as well as in the legislature. Their marginalization from (and decreasing trust in) traditional political parties is of particular concern, as they could create or overhaul future models of representation (International IDEA, 2018). One of the factors causing the fluctuation of trust in the gov- ernment and DPRD is the current situation and condition. The year2020 isquiteachallengingyearforallcountriesinthe world, including Indonesia. March 2020 was the beginning of severe conditions, namely Corona Virus Disease 2019 (Covid-19). Of course, thisisashockingeffect forthecommunity, especiallythe government. It is based on the fact that various lifelines must change drastically, such as implementing lockdowns, large-scale social restrictions (PSBB)6, studying and working from home (WFH), etc. Of course, this makes the government confused about saving society from Covid-19 and saving the nation’s economy. In addition, many community activities have been se- verely disrupted during 2020, including the society economy, which is essential. Finally, people put their hopes in the govern- ment to save the economy of society. The government has taken various ways to meet these expec- tations. Some of the quick respond from Indonesia government are Cash Transfer (BLT)7, pre-employment Program8, and other social assistance programs. Unfortunately, on 5 December 2020, Social Minister Juliari Batubara was arrested by the KPK 9 through ahand-arrestoperation(OTT) whichwaseventuallymadeasus- J URNA L ST UDI PEMERI NTAH AN pectin the corruption caseinvolving Direct Cash Assistance (BLT) 7 worth 17 billion (Mardiansyah, 2020). As has been stated above, that assistance is very much needed by the community to help the economy during various limited community activities. In addition, there was also corruption committed by the Minister of Marine Affairs and Fisheries (KKP) Edhy Prabowo on 25 No- vember 2020 (KPK, 2020). This series of events can cause the public trust to decline be- cause the public has given high expectations for the government in helping to predict economic problems. However, unfortunately, there have been cases of corruption. This situation ultimately confused the public, therefore the government made policies to have an impact on how people viewed the government. Auto- matically, this change in perspective dramatically affects how people trust the government. At the end of 2020, outside the existing corruption cases. In this case, what does the government carry out in the form of coordination and prevention? The researcher assesses that the handling carried out by the government is quite good and can be categorized as measured and ready. It can be seen from how the government can adequately control and tracking the spread of Covid-19. In addition, there is also a new hope that at the end of 2020, the vaccine has been ordered. January 2021 has arrived in Indonesia and is ready for use on 13 January for the first time by President Joko Widodo. This study aims to provide an overview of the level of differ- ences in youth political trusts in 2019-2021 to be used as a refer- ence for developing and increasing political trust in the future. In addition, this research is also a form of evaluation for the government and the DPRD, which have obligations under the law to meet the community’s needs, increase participation, and public political trust. Seeing the very dynamic phenomenon of political trust, this is an exciting finding on how to get answers about the current state of political trust. This research focuses on looking at differences in the political trusts of youth before Vol. 13 No. 1 February 2022 8 thepandemic(2019), first-timepandemic(2020), and Aftervac- cine existed that brings hope pandemic will be done (2021). HYPOTHESIS Based on the explanation above, the formulation of hypoth- esis can be as following: H1: There are differences in youth political trust in the govern- ment before the Covid-19 and the beginning of the Covid-19 occurrence H2: There are differences in youth political trust in the govern- ment at the beginning of the Covid-19 and the use of vac- cines H3: There are differences in youth political trust in the govern- ment prior to the Covid-19 and the use ofvaccines H4: There are differences in Youth political trust the DPR be- fore the Covid-19 and the beginning of the Covid-19 occur- rence H5: There are differences in youth political trust in the DPRD at the beginning of the Covid-19 occurrence and the use of vaccines H6: There are differences in youth political trust the DPRD be- fore the Covid-19 and the existence of vaccines LITERATURE REVIEW POLITICAL TRUST Political trust is the result of an evaluation of the government byindividuals regarding social justice that occurs in society. Po- litical trust is an individual trust in the goodness of an individual or group in carrying out duties and obligations for the common interest in the political system (Wahyudi et al., 2017). Trust in politicians is emphasized that politicians are trusted if they have attitudes and missions in political organizations, government, and running the government system (Zavecz,2017) Apolitical trust isaformof society’s evaluative orientation to the political process or part of an ongoing process based on indi- J URNA L ST UDI PEMERI NTAH AN viduals who respond to the normative expectations of society 9 (Colquitt et al., 2007; Hetherington, 1998). The government and the inherent elements act in the individual or the public (Letki, 2018; Zavecz, 2017) and constitute a cognitive evaluation (Van Der Meer, 2018). Political trust means that it can be defined as an evaluative form carried out by the government and an inherent element manifested in the form of positive expectations given to the gov- ernment or specific institutions. It can be underlined that this trust focuses on evaluating people’s expectations of the govern- ment, which is judged by the community to be implemented. The public’s perception forms political trust that political insti- tutions have satisfactory performance and have a clear impact (Mishler & Rose, 2001), yielding preferred results even if left unattended (Shi, 2001). Political trust is a way of maintaining attitudes and behavior to make rules and programs that do not trigger and create distrust in the community (Krastev, 2012). Political trust can be divided into two, namely cultural per - spective and institutional theory (Mishler & Rose, 2001). The cultural perspective explains that political trust is an interper - sonal trust or trust formed through life stages that involve emo- tions that will lead to political institutions and influence the as- sessment of individual performance. The cultural perspective emphasizes the influence of the environment over a long period and affects individual differences in seeing political trusts. The cultural perspective explains that political trusts are influenced byindividualbackgroundssuchas gender, age, education, politi- cal preferences, and minority status. Institutional Trust explains that institutions with good per - formance will be trusted by the community, while institutions with poor performance or not according to community expecta- tionswill distrust thepublic andleadtoskepticism. Political trust is formed on the fulfilment of people’s expectations of the per- formance or performance of political institutions according to society’s expectations, which means that political trust impacts Vol. 13 No. 1 February 2022 10 institutional performances. Institutional and individual political trusts are categorization based on the object to which the trust is directed. Political trust also has variants based on various types of motivation that individuals have when trusting their institu - tions or political leaders (Mishler & Rose, 2001). Two factors influence political trust, namely, rational and re- lational reasoning. Rational political trust involves interest-based calculations in which citizens evaluate the government or indi- viduals acting according to the ideals of society’s expectations (Blind, 2007). Blind argues that a trust is a form of rational ac- tion based on cognitive and assessment of the benefits of trust- ing other individuals. Trust built on a rational choice framework focusesoncognitionthatformsthebasisofappropriatenessjudg- ments and decisions to place trust in others and theattachment of trusting relationships in networks, groups, and institutions (Blind, 2007; Cook & Santana, 2018). Rational trust is a measure based on competence, honesty, integrity, and perceived fairness under individual expectations of the government or individuals (Weinhardt, 2015). Rational trust is a process of imaginative anticipation of an individual or group performance based on reputation, evaluation, perception, action, and trust in self-perspective relational factors (Blind, 2007). Relational trust is affective factors, meaning that relational trust is based on ethics and individual goodness. Relational trust is more inclined towards relationships between individuals. Re- lational trust is an interpersonal trust that relies on assumptions about relationships with other individuals formedthrough a pro- cess of interaction regarding identity and affective (Blind, 2007; Weinhardt, 2015). Rathbun argues that relational trust is a personal attach- ment relationship that can develop over time. The basis of rela- tional, political trusts is the individual’s identity, which is the pri mary driver influencing the collaboration process (Weinhardt, 2015). According to Hardin, relational trust is based on indi- vidual optimistic expectations about other individuals frompast J URNA L ST UDI PEMERI NTAH AN experiences with other individuals, which manifest as subjective 11 trusts. Relational trust is trust in other individuals individually based on past relationships and events that arise under certain conditions (Robbins, 2016). According to Grim and Knies, three characteristics can be used to measure institutional political trust, namely, perceived competence, benevolence, and integrity (Grimmelikhuijsen & Knies, 2017)10. First, Perceived Competence is a condition in which society assesses and sees capable, practical, skilled and pro - fessional institutions. Individuals need trust in how well indi- viduals perform institutional performance regarding highlight- ing specific tasks and situations that have construct properties. Second, Perceived Benevolence is a condition in which the com- munityassessesand seesinstitutionsthat have exceptional atten- tion to welfare and run programs under public interests, the de- sire of individuals to provide satisfaction that benefits society, including attention, empathy, trust, and acceptance. Third, Per- ceived Integrity is a condition in which society assesses and sees institutions as an honest group and fulfils all promises, related to how the habits of individuals who say or act according to facts reasonably, keep promises, are loyal, honest, and can be trusted (Grimmelikhuijsen & Knies, 2017). Based on the description above, it can be concluded that an institutional political trust is a form of public expectations of the government that is assessed through the performance, design, and political system to meet community needs precisely and as expected and needed by society. Due to rational and relational factors, which in the end can be assessed from the three aspects of political trust, namely: Perceived competence, perceived be- nevolence, and perceived integrity. INDONESIAN YOUTH Youth as the pioneer of change movement towards the im- provement of a country. Based on Article 1 of Law Number 40 of 2009 concerning Youth (Undang-Undang No. 40 Tahun 2009 Vol. 13 No. 1 February 2022 12 Tentang Kepemudaan, 2009), “youth are Indonesian citizens who enter an important period of growth and development aged 16 to 30 years”. Then, continued in article 16, it is explained that “youth play an active role as a moral force, social control, and agents of change in all aspects of national development.”. It means that youth have a role in developing ethical and moral aspects, strengthening na- tional insight, increasing legal awareness, raising awareness of responsibilities, rights, and obligations as citizens, increasing participation in the formulation of public policies, and develop- ing science technology. The period of the younger generation or youth is marked by attitudes and mental maturity, the ability to participate in the context of community life. There are many young people in Indonesia, and it is recorded that based on data from the Central Statistics Agency in 2020, the number of youths in Indonesia has reached 64.50 million people or 1 in 4 of Indonesia’s population is youth. There is more male youth than female youth, with a sex ratio of 103.18, which means that for every 103 male youth, there is 100 female youth. The percentage of youth in urban areas is more signifi - cant than in rural areas (57.83% compared to 42.17%). Based on the distribution by region, more than half of youth are concen- trated in Java (55.11%) (Badan Pusat Statistik, 2020b)11. In Indonesia’s historical records, the youth played a role in the struggle that began during the national movement, long be- fore Indonesia’s independence. The concept of Indonesia was echoed by youth during the youth oath of 28 October 1928 12. The role and function of youth should be a concern for the gov- ernment. Therelatedministries/agencies shouldcontinue tomake vari- ous efforts to develop all existing potentials through awareness, empowerment, development in various fields, including the most important is politics. It means that the role of youth even before Indonesia’s independence had a considerable role. The youth had great power in helping the government in efforts to improve various things in the future. J URNA L ST UDI PEMERI NTAH AN REGIONAL GOVERNMENT 13 The government is a public organization with the aim of pub- lic service through the government and bureaucratic system run bybureaucratstoachievesociety’sideals(Martias,2019). Based on Article 1 of Law No. 23 of 2014 concerning Local Govern- ment Law no. 23 of 2014 concerning Regional Government (2014) states that “regional government is the head of the region as an element of regional government administration who leads the implemen- tation ofgovernmentaffairswhichfallundertheauthorityofautono - mous regions.”. The government is an organization or organiza- tion of individuals with powers and institutions that take care of state matters, the welfare of the people, and the state (Afifah & Yuningsih, 2016). The functions and objectives of local government are the ba- sis for the structure of a democratic political system and sustain- able development with a role as the primary vehicle at a certain level to ensure increased understanding, participation, and pub- lic support for governance (Setiawan,2018). Based on this. It means that the government must meet the needs of its people, in this case, the people’s expectations to ful- fil the functions and objectives of the government to increase the participation and political trust of the people in the govern- ment to gain legitimacy from the community. REGIONAL PEOPLE’S REPRESENTATIVE COUNCIL The Regional People’s Representative Council (DPRD) is regu - lated in the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia. In the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia, Article 22C Chapter VIIA concerning the Regional Representative Council states that “members of the regional people’s representative council are elected from each province through general elections.” Then, in the general provisions of Law No. 7 of 2017 concerning the General Election states, “Regional People’s Representative Council, hereinaf- ter abbreviated to DPRD, isthe Provincial Regional People’s Represen - tative Council and Regency/Municipal Regional People’s Representa- Vol. 13 No. 1 February 2022 14 tive Council as referred to in the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia”. Then, it is described in more detail in Article 363 of the Regional Representative Council and the Regional People’s Representative Council Law No 17 of 2014 concerning the People’s Consultative Assembly, the Regional Representative Council, and the Regional People’s Representative Council. States that “Regency/city DPRD consists of members of political par- ties participating in general elections who are elected through general elections,” and Article 364 that “The Regency / Municipal DPRD is a regional people’s representative institution which is positioned as an elementinadministeringregency/ municipalgovernment.”. Article 1 paragraph (1) of Law No. 17 of 2014 concerning the People’s Consultative Assembly, the People’s Representative Council, the Regional Representative Council, and the Regional Representative Council. Confirms that “DPRD functions to carry out legislative, budgeting andsupervisory functions.”. Then contin- ued in paragraph (2) that “the three functions as referred to in para - graph (1) shall be implemented within the framework of people’s repre- sentation in districts/cities”. In carrying out the functions of the City DPRD, it is required to be responsive and sensitive to the interests of the people it represents and the political organiza - tions where DPRD members take shelter. Based on the above discussion, it can be seen that the DPRD has the primary function, namely legislation, budgeting and su- pervision. In these three functions, one of the indicators and themostimportant thingis howthe DPRD can bringthe people’s aspirations and make it happen to achieve political trust for the legitimacy of the DPRD itself. RESEARCH METHOD This research uses a quantitative approach by making com- parisons in 3 different situations. This study uses data taken by researchers themselves based on a questionnaire that has been considered valid and refers to aspects of institutional political trusts. J URNA L ST UDI PEMERI NTAH AN RESPONDENTS, INSTRUMENTS ANDDATA ANALYSIS 15 The data collection technique in this study used research instrument in the form of a Likert scale. Researchers assume that the information obtained from respondents is reliable. Self- administered questionnaires were distributed according to pre- determinedcharacteristicsbasedonaspectsofperceivedcompe- tence, perceived benevolence and perceived integrity based on aspects of institutional political trust ( Gri mmelikhuijsen &Knies, 2017). The analysis used in this research is descriptive, and the hypothesis test used is the comparative test (T-test) using SPSS 24.0. This study involved 1121 respondents with respondent char- acteristics as described below (see Table 1 and Table 2). Table 1. Number of Research Respondents Respondent Year 2019 2020 2021 Number of Respondents 400 415 307 Total 1122 The number of respondents in each study as described in Table 1 that is, in 2019 as many as 400 respondents, 2020 as many as 415 respondents and 2021 as many as 307 respondents, so that the total respondents used in this study were 1122 young people with the criteria of living in South Sulawesi Province and 17-30 years old. Table 2. Characteristics Based on Gender Year 2019 2020 2021 Sex M F M F M F Total 191 209 187 228 173 134 Ket: M= Male, F= Female In Table 2, the characteristics of respondents based on gender are described, it can be seen that in 2019, male respondents were 191 and 209 females, in 2020 males were 187 and females were 288, while in 2021, maleswere 173 and 134 females. All respon- dents are young people who live in Makassar City, aged 17-30 Vol. 13 No. 1 February 2022 16 years(seeTable3).ThesampleinthisstudywastakenusingStrati- fied Cluster Random Sampling. Table 3. Characteristics by age Age 2019 2020 2021 Mean 22.2 22.4 23.3 In Table 3, shows the mean age of all respondents, namely in 2019 the mean is 22.2 years, 22.24 years in 2020 and 23.3 years in 2021. This is important to show how the responses can be seen and state that each year does not have much difference. RESULT AND DISCUSSION After carrying out data collection, the most crucial step is to select the appropriatetestforstatistical analysis. In thisstudy, we areusingthe One-Way ANOVATestwiththehelpof SPSS 24.0. The usefulness of the Anova test is intended to see the differ - ences as the hypothesis has been presentedabove. Before conducting the Anova test, the researcher first calcu- lates trust, which is then described as a percentage (%), to get a clear picture of the difference in percentage (See Table 4) Table 4. Trust Level from 2019, 2020 to 2021 in the Government and DPRD 2019 2020 2021 Institution PR DP PR DP PR DP Percentage (%) 62% 50% 55% 53% 60% 46% Table5.TheSignificanceValue of DifferencesinYouth Political Trustinthe Government from 2019-2021. Variable Sig. description KP 2019 -> KP 2020 0.000 Significance KP 2020 -> KP 2021 0.001 significance KP 2019 -> KP 2021 0.995 No Significance Based on data in Table 4. It can be seen that the level of youth trust in the government in 2019-2021 has experienced ups and downs. However, each year the DPRD has decreased. Further- J URNA L ST UDI PEMERI NTAH AN more, the data is tested using one-way ANOVA to see whether 17 the difference is significant or not, illustrated in the following table (See Table 5). Based on data in Table 5 shows that there was a significant difference in the political trust of youth in the government be- fore the Covid-19 pandemic (2019) and when it occurred(2020), which was based on Table 4, the difference is quite far, namelya difference of 7%, meaning that there has been a significant de- creasesince 2019-2020. Then, youthpoliticaltrustinthegovern- ment in 2020 when the Covid-19 pandemic occurred and in 2021 also shows a significant difference. This means that a 5% increase in trust from 2020 to 2021 is said to increase signifi - cantly (See Table 4). Furthermore, there is no significant difference in the politi- cal trust of youth before the covid pandemic (2019) compared to 2021. As we have seen in Table 4, there was a difference of about 2%, which is considered not a significant change. Furthermore, it can be concluded that the trust levels in 2019 and 2021 do not differ significantly despite the previous ups and downs. Table 6. The Significance Valueof Differences inYouthPolitical Trustsinthe DPRD from 2019-2021. Variables Sig. description DPRD 2019 -> DPRD 2020 0.005 Significant DPRD 2020 -> DPRD 2021 0.000 Significant DPRD 2019 -> DPRD 2021 0.007 Significant Based on data in Table 6 shows that. There is a significant difference in youth political trust in DPRD in 2019 and 2020, based on Table 4. The difference is 3%, meaning that there has been a significant increase since 2019-2020. Then, the youth’s political trust in the DPRD in 2020 and 2021 also shows a sig- nificant difference. This means that a 9% decrease in trust from 2020to2021issaidtohavedecreasedsignificantly(SeeTable4). Furthermore, there is a significant difference in the political Vol. 13 No. 1 February 2022 18 trust of youth before the covid pandemic (2019) compared to 2021. As we have seen in Table 4, there is a difference of about 4%, which is a significant change. Furthermore, it can be con- cluded that the level of trust in 2019 and 2021 will change sig- nificantly. Furthermore, youth’s trust in the DPRD is not af- fected by the situation amid the pandemic. Based on the com- prehensive research data found, it can be concluded that H1, H2, H4, H5 and H6 are accepted and H3 is rejected. CONCLUSION We found that youth’s trust in government during 2019-2021 there were ups and downs. Before the pandemic, the political trust was at 62%. Then in 2020 (when the pandemic) fell to 55%. Furthermore, in 2021 it could be increased again by the government to 60%, which can be said that only a difference of 2% from before the pandemic (See Figure 2). This means that the government can resolve the issue of youth political trust quickly and adequately. Figure 2. Youth Level of Trust in South Sulawesi’s Government Itcanbeansweredbecause,in2020,adisasterwillcausepeople to question the government’s readiness to face various disasters, including the Covid-19 pandemic. This can be seen from the various policies that fluctuated at the beginning of the Covid-19, which automatically confused the public and ultimatelylowered their political trust. In addition, during the pandemic, various activities had to be J URNA L ST UDI PEMERI NTAH AN stopped (lockdown) and the holding of the PSBB, which ulti- 19 mately made the community utterly dependent on the govern- ment. Because the community’s expectations were not fulfilled, suchas gettingimmediate assistance, thisultimatelyloweredthe youth’s trust. This is also supported by the theory that political trust is formed by the perception of society those political institutions havesatisfactory performance and have a clear i mpact (Mishler & Rose,2001) and in carrying out their duties and obligations for the common interest in the political system (Wahyudi et al., 2017). Furthermore, the youth’s trust in the DPRD during 2019- 2021 had ups and downs, which is 2019, the level of trust was at50%. At the pandemic (2020), it increased to 53% and 2021after vaccines and efforts were made. It has fallen far from beforethe pandemic to 50% (See Figure 3). This is an exciting discover, because the level of youth trust in DPRD was not affected by the Covid-19 pandemic. However, there was a significant decrease. Figure 3. Youth Level of Trust in South Sulawesi’s DPRD From the two levels of trust in the government and DPRD in South Sulawesi, it can be seen that the results are very contradic- tory (See Figure 2 and Figure 3). This shows that the state of the Covid-19 pandemic influences the level of public trust in local governments through programs carried out by the local govern- ment itself. This means that youth expectations for the govern- ment are moving and formed here. The community judges these Vol. 13 No. 1 February 2022 20 expectations whether they are fulfilled or not so that there is an increase and a decrease, primarily when a pandemic occurs. This is seen from the third 3-point table, which states that the differ- ence in 2019 and 2021 does not have a significant difference, meaning that through programs carried out by the government by procuring vaccines and accelerating the handling of the COVID-19 pandemic, these are apparent factors in increasing public trust meet his expectations. Political trust is a form of youth’s evaluative orientation to the political process or part of an ongoing process based on individuals who respond to the normative expectations of society (Colquitt et al., 2007; Hetherington, 1998). The government itself is closely related to Colquitt et al., 2007 and Hetherington, 1998, which in the gov- ernment, the form of program expectations that influence pub- lic trust. Then, in the Government, Rational trust is something that is seen by youth in society. Thus, for trust in local govern- ments, researchers agree that Rational trust is an aspect that is highlyvaluedbythe communityas statedby(Blind,2007) stated that Rational trust is a process of imaginative anticipation of an individual or group performance based on reputation, evalua- tion, perception, action, and trust in self-perspective relational factors Meanwhile, at the DPRD, the community did not give their expectations because they saw that the DPRD did not have pro- grams or matters directly related to the Covid-19 pandemic. It tends to appear that the expectations that form trust in the DPRD are not related to the pandemic itself because the DPRD is not directly related to the problem. With the public about the issue of the pandemic. Based on this, the researcher finally agrees that trust in the DPRD itself will focus on relational trust because it can be seen that public trust will fluctuate whether there is a pandemic or not, public trust will fluctuate and what is seen is thesympathyofyouthin DPRDwhichhasaninfluence. As stated by (Robbins, 2016) stated that Relational trust is trust in other individuals individually based on past relationships and events J URNA L ST UDI PEMERI NTAH AN that arise under certain conditions. This is seen in table 4, which 21 explains that the DPRD’s confidence level is still very volatile whether there is a pandemic or a vaccine. Even when the pan- demic occurs (2020), the confidence level is higher than in 2019 and 2021. This clearly shows that The Covid-19 pandemic is not a factor in the ups and downs of youth’s level of trust in the DPRD. So, we can find that basically, the government is an institu- tion that clearly will be very concerned with the community and the level of trust will depend on what the local government itself implements programs. appropriate to meet community expecta- tions that are more focused on implementing programs accord- ing to community expectations. Meanwhile, in DPRD, commu- nityexpectationsaremorefocusedontheformofcollectiveviews related to the behavior and attitudes of the DPRD itself. Basedonwhatwefound,basicallythe youthofSouthSulawesi had a low level of trust in the local government and the DPRD for the province of South Sulawesi. Even though the number of youths in Makassar is quite large, this is a serious matter that needs to be improved bythe Government and DPRD. Especially forthe Government, itismorelikelytorunprogramsaccordingto theexpectationsof youth, because what we find is that youth will give confidence to see the programs being launched or imple- mented. In contrast to the DPRD, in order to increase its trust in youth, it prioritizes the emotional approach to the youth of South Sulawesi Province. ENDNOTES 1 The central statistical agency is the government statistical agency for providing data 2 In This resignation, there are many factors and cause declinilng the level of trust and anger from the public 3 National Development Planning of the Republic of Indonesia. The Duty to orga- nizes government affairs in the field of national development planning to assist the President in running the government 4 PILKADA is a regional head election conducted directly by residents of the local administrative area who meet the requirements 5 Indonesia’s productive age population in 2035 will reach 70.7% of the total popula- Vol. 13 No. 1 February 2022 tion of Indonesia or around 191 million and around 70 million of them are youth. 6 PSBB is Limitation of certain community activities in an area that is suspected of being infected with a disease and / or contamination in such a way as to prevent the possibility of spreading disease or contamination 7 BLT is government assistance programs provide cash or various other assistance for the poor or those affected by Covid-19 8 assistance with training costsfor Indonesians whowish to acquire or upgradetheir skills. 9 KPK or The Corruption Eradication Commission of the Republic of Indonesia is a state institution established with the aim of increasing the effectiveness and effi- ciency of efforts to eradicate corruption. 10 Researchers use thisperspective asmeasurement becausethe research conducted by Grim and Knies in 2017 saw the similarities that researchers would do and also through research entitled “Validating a scale for citizen trust in government organi- zations”. we consider it veryappropriate to be usedasthemainreference inform- ing the questionnaire. 11 The Central Bureau of Statistics in its publication on 2020 Indonesian Youth Statis- tics 12 Prior to 1928, the concept of Indonesia was not yet known. On October 28, 1928 which is the day of the pledge of Indonesian youth. At that time, it began to be determined that the entire territory that was colonized by the Dutch at that time was Indonesia and must be fought for, the unifying language used was Indonesian. and overall this was initiated by the Indonesian Youth through the Indonesian Youth Pledge REFERENCES Afifah, D. F., & Yuningsih, N. Y. (2016). Analisis Kebijakan pemerintah tentang pencegahan dan penanganan korban perdagangan (trafficking) perempuan dan anak di Kabupaten Cianjur. CosmoGov, 2(2), 330–340. Akhrani, L. A., Imansari, F., & Faizah. (2018). Kepercayaan politik dan partispasi politik pemilih pemula. Jurnal MediaPsi, 4 (1), 1–6. https://doi.org/10.21776/ ub.mps.2018.004.01.1 Badan Perencanaan dan Pembangunan Nasional. (2017). Indeks pembangunan pemuda indonesia 2017. Badan Perencanaan dan Pembangunan Nasional. Badan P usat Statistik. (2020a). Statistik Indonesia dalam infografis. B adan Pusat Statistik. Badan Pusat Statistik. (2020b). Statistik Pemuda Indonesia 2020. Bakar, D. M. (2019). Tingkat kepercayaan politik pemuda Sulawesi Selatan pada calon legislatif pada pemilu 2019. Pustaka Pemilu, 2(1), 36–45. Bakar, D. M. (2020). Kepercayaan politik pemuda aktivis dan nonaktivis pada pemerintah, DPRD dan partai politik ditinjau dari motif sosial. Universitas Negeri Makassar. Blind, P. K. (2007). Building trust in government in the twenty-first century: Review of literature and emerging issues. 7th Global Forum on Reinventing Government, June, 1–31. Centre for Strategic and International Studies. (2017). 3 Tahun Jokowi: Kenaikan Elektoral & Kepuasan Publik. Colquitt, J. A., Scott, B. A., & LePine, J. A. (2007). Trust, trustworthiness, and trust propen- sity: A meta-analytic test of their unique relationships with risk taking and job per- formance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(4), 909–927. Cook, K. S., & Santana, J. J. (2018). Trust and rational choice. In Eric M U slaner (E d.), The Oxford Handbook of Social and Political Trust. Oxford University Press. 22 http://jurnal.unpad.ac.id/cosmogov/article/view/10007 http://jurnal.unpad.ac.id/cosmogov/article/view/10007 http://jurnal.unpad.ac.id/cosmogov/article/view/10007 https://doi.org/10.21776/%20ub.mps.2018.004.01.1 https://doi.org/10.21776/%20ub.mps.2018.004.01.1 https://www.scribd.com/document/398155434/Indeks-Pembangunan-Pemuda-Indonesia-2017-pdf https://www.scribd.com/document/398155434/Indeks-Pembangunan-Pemuda-Indonesia-2017-pdf https://www.bps.go.id/publication/2020/04/27/0a44c683a28ef50c7586adee/statistik-indonesia-dalam-infografis-2020.html https://www.bps.go.id/publication/2020/12/21/4a39564b84a1c4e7a615f28b/statistik-pemuda-indonesia-2020.html file:///C:/Users/hp/Downloads/almendron.com/tribuna/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/building-trust-in-government-in-the-twenty-first-century.pdf file:///C:/Users/hp/Downloads/almendron.com/tribuna/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/building-trust-in-government-in-the-twenty-first-century.pdf file:///C:/Users/hp/Downloads/csis.or.id/uploaded_file/event/pemaparan_hasil_survei_opini_publik_tiga_tahun_pemerintahan_joko_widodo___jusuf_kalla__kinerja_pemerintahan_dan_peta_politik_nasional__notulen.pdf file:///C:/Users/hp/Downloads/csis.or.id/uploaded_file/event/pemaparan_hasil_survei_opini_publik_tiga_tahun_pemerintahan_joko_widodo___jusuf_kalla__kinerja_pemerintahan_dan_peta_politik_nasional__notulen.pdf https://psycnet.apa.org/doiLanding?doi=10.1037%2F0021-9010.92.4.909 https://psycnet.apa.org/doiLanding?doi=10.1037%2F0021-9010.92.4.909 https://psycnet.apa.org/doiLanding?doi=10.1037%2F0021-9010.92.4.909 https://books.google.co.id/books?hl=en&lr&id=mg5EDwAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PA253&dq=Cook%2C%2BK.%2BS.%2C%2B%26%2BSantana%2C%2BJ.%2BJ.%2B(2018).%2BTrust%2Band%2Brational%2Bchoice.%2BIn%2BEric%2BM%2BUslaner%2B(Ed.)%2C%2BThe%2BOxford%2BHandbook%2Bof%2BSocial%2Band%2BPolitical%2BTrust.%2BOxford%2BUniversity%2BPress.&ots=1jl0wvRfRx&sig=CGaRHOlSx6V97V5x-XlVFc_AKnY&redir_esc=y%23v%3Donepage&q&f=false https://books.google.co.id/books?hl=en&lr&id=mg5EDwAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PA253&dq=Cook%2C%2BK.%2BS.%2C%2B%26%2BSantana%2C%2BJ.%2BJ.%2B(2018).%2BTrust%2Band%2Brational%2Bchoice.%2BIn%2BEric%2BM%2BUslaner%2B(Ed.)%2C%2BThe%2BOxford%2BHandbook%2Bof%2BSocial%2Band%2BPolitical%2BTrust.%2BOxford%2BUniversity%2BPress.&ots=1jl0wvRfRx&sig=CGaRHOlSx6V97V5x-XlVFc_AKnY&redir_esc=y%23v%3Donepage&q&f=false J URNA L ST UDI PEMERI NTAH AN Costa, P. (2019). The edge of democracy. Busca Vida Filmes. Dalton, R. (2017). Political Trust in north America. In S Zmerli & C. van der Mee (Eds.), Handbook of Political Trust (pp. 375–394). Edward Elgar. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 21515581.2017.1364481 Edelman. (2018). 2018 E delmen Trust Barometer Global R eport. Edelman. (2019). 2019 Edelman Trust Barometer GlobalR eport. Grimmelikhuijsen, S., & Knies, E. (2017). Validating a scale for citizen trust in government organizations. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 83(3), 583–601. Hetherington, M. J. (1998). The political relevance of political trust. American Political Science Review, 92(4), 791–808. International IDEA. (2018). Global Stateof Democracy (C. Natalia (ed.)). Kirana Karya. KPK. (2020, November 25). KPK Tangkap Menteri Kelautan dan Perikanan. Siaran Pers. https://www.kpk.go.id/id/berita/siaran-pers/1949-kpk-tangkap-menteri-kelautan-dan- perikanan Krastev, I. (2012). Can democracy exist without trust? TED. https://www.ted.com/talks/ ivan_krastev_can_democracy_exi st_without_trust# Letki, N. (2018). Trust in newly democratic regimes. In Eric M Uslaner (Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Social and Political Trust. Oxford University Press. Mardiansyah,W. (2020, December 9). TotalKorupsiMensosJuliariBatubaraCapai3.59 Trilliun? Ini Faktanya. Medcom.Id. https://www.medcom.id/telusur/cek-fakta/ yN L4GzyN-cek-fakta-total-korupsi-mensos-juliari-batubara-capai-rp3-59-triliun-ini- faktanya#:~:text=Lembaga Antirasuah akanmendalamilebih,Rp3%2C59 Triliun. Martias, A. (2019). Analisa peranan komunikasi dan psikologi audit proses audit di pt.alarsy. Jurnal Perspektif, 17(1), 63–70. Min, C., Shen, F., Yu, W., & Chu, Y. (2020). The relationship between government trust and preventive behaviors during the COVID-19 pandemic in China: Exploring the roles of knowledge and negative emotion. Preventive Medicine, 141, 106288. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ypmed.2020.106288 Mishler, W., & Rose, R. (2001). Whatarethe origins of political trust?Testing institutional and cultural theories in post-communist societies. Comparative and General Phar- macology, 34(1), 30–62. OECD. (2015). In It Together: Why Less Inequality Benefits All. OECD Publishing. Putra, A., Susanti, C. D., Yusari, I., Silitonga, I., Amrie, M. H., & Dhakidae, D. (2014). Politik pemilih muda: Partisipasi politik anak muda di Pekanbaru, Jakarta, Cirebon, Palu dan Jayapura. Demos. Robbins, B. G. (2016). From the general to the specific: How social trust motivates rela- tional trust. Social Science Research, 55, 16–30. Setiawan, I. (2018). Handbook pemerintahan daerah. Wahana Resolusi. Shi, T. (2001). Cultural values and political trust: A comparison of the people’s republic of China and Taiwan. Comparative Politics, 33(4), 401–419. https://www.jstor.org/stable/422441 Undang-undang No. 40 tahun 2009 tentang Kepemudaan, Pub. L. No. 148, Lembaran Negara Republik Indonesia (2009). https://doi.org/10.7202/1016404ar Van Der Meer, T. W. (2018). Economic performance and political trust. In E. M Uslaner (Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Social and Political Trust. Oxford University Press. Wahyudi, J., Milla, M. N., & Muluk, H. (2017). Persepsi keadilan sosial dankepercayaan interpersonal sebagai prediktor kepercayaan politik pada mahasiswa di Indone- sia. Jurnal Psikologi Sosial, 15(1), 59–71. Weinhardt, C. (2015). Relational trust in international cooperation: The case of north– south trade negotiations. Journal of Trust Research, 5(1), 27–54. https://doi.org/10.1080/21515581.2015.1007460 23 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Edge_of_Democracy https://doi.org/10.1080/%2021515581.2017.1364481 https://www.edelman.com/trust/2018-trust-barometer https://www.edelman.com/sites/g/files/aatuss191/files/2019-02/2019_Edelman_Trust_Barometer_Global_Report.pdf https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0020852315585950 https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0020852315585950 https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/american-political-science-review/article/abs/political-relevance-of-political-trust/01A108C6CBF31F661CB9027497A8D638 http://www.kpk.go.id/id/berita/siaran-pers/1949-kpk-tangkap-menteri-kelautan-dan- http://www.kpk.go.id/id/berita/siaran-pers/1949-kpk-tangkap-menteri-kelautan-dan- http://www.kpk.go.id/id/berita/siaran-pers/1949-kpk-tangkap-menteri-kelautan-dan- http://www.ted.com/talks/ http://www.ted.com/talks/ http://www.ted.com/talks/ file:///C:/Users/hp/Downloads/oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190274801.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780190274801-e-28 http://www.medcom.id/telusur/cek-fakta/ http://www.medcom.id/telusur/cek-fakta/ http://www.medcom.id/telusur/cek-fakta/ https://ejournal.bsi.ac.id/ejurnal/index.php/perspektif/article/view/4791 https://ejournal.bsi.ac.id/ejurnal/index.php/perspektif/article/view/4791 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ypmed.2020.106288 https://abdn.pure.elsevier.com/en/publications/what-are-the-origins-of-political-trust-testing-institutional-and https://abdn.pure.elsevier.com/en/publications/what-are-the-origins-of-political-trust-testing-institutional-and https://www.oecd.org/social/in-it-together-why-less-inequality-benefits-all-9789264235120-en.htm https://www.neliti.com/publications/402/politik-pemilih-muda-partisipasi-politik-anak-muda-di-pekanbaru-jakarta-cirebon https://www.neliti.com/publications/402/politik-pemilih-muda-partisipasi-politik-anak-muda-di-pekanbaru-jakarta-cirebon https://www.neliti.com/publications/402/politik-pemilih-muda-partisipasi-politik-anak-muda-di-pekanbaru-jakarta-cirebon https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2015-56470-003 https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2015-56470-003 https://books.google.co.id/books?id=oJBiDwAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&hl=id%23v%3Donepage&q&f=false http://www.jstor.org/ http://www.jstor.org/ https://doi.org/10.7202/1016404ar https://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190274801.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780190274801-e-16 http://jps.ui.ac.id/index.php/jps/article/view/10 http://jps.ui.ac.id/index.php/jps/article/view/10 http://jps.ui.ac.id/index.php/jps/article/view/10 https://doi.org/%2010.1080/21515581.2015.1007460 Vol. 13 No. 1 February 2022 Zavecz, G. (2017). Post communist societies of central and eastern europe. In Sonja Zmerli& W.VanDeer Meer(Eds.), Handbook of Political Trust(p. 440). Edward Elgar Publishing. https://www.e-elgar.com/shop/eep/preview/book/isbn/9781782545118/ ACKNOWLEDGEMENT Acknowledgements Authors would like to express sincere gratitude to these anony - mous peer reviewers of this Journal for their constructive comments and sugges- tions on the earlier versions of this article. Author Contribution. All authors contributed to the conception and design of the study. Material preparation, data collection and analysis were carried out by (DMB) wit h assistance (NRA) to read again. In particular, the draft manuscript was written and developed by (DMB) and (NRA). Then, (AA) contributed to checking the results of the writing that had been made, including assisting with licensing for the determina- tion of the questionnaire. Confict of interest. The authors have no conficts of interest to declare that are relevant to the content of this article. Funding. No funding was received for conducting this study. Informed consent. Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants in- cluded in the study. All the data from the respective respondents was collected after due consent and clear explanation of the research objectives, along with as- suring the use of information for research purposes only. 24 http://www.e-elgar.com/shop/eep/preview/book/isbn/9781782545118/ http://www.e-elgar.com/shop/eep/preview/book/isbn/9781782545118/