Before we can seek to understand the drivers of trust for public services in regional Australia, we first need to understand what we mean by trust. Trust is a complex, multi-dimensional concept with no agreed definition within the literature. However, there is sufficient common ground to understand trust as a relational concept about ‘keeping promises and agreements’ (Hetherington, 2005). The OECD’s comprehensive review of trust and public policy provides a slightly more detailed definition of this understanding of trust where trust is “holding a positive perception about the actions of an individual or an organization” (OECD 2017: 16). For the purposes of this study, this would mean that trust in Australian public services requires government to deliver services that citizens’ value to a satisfactory level of performance.
While this OECD definition provides a useful starting point, it is important to acknowledge that there are various additional dimensions of trust that are relevant to this study. For example, trust can be categorized based on ‘what’ is being trusted such as interpersonal trust which is about trust in other people and typically based on their adherence to shared values and/or norms, or institutional trust (systemic trust) which is about having trust in institutions or organisations to behave in a fair and honest manner (OECD 2009 & 2017). Similarly, trust can be categorized by how it is formed, cognitive trust for example is based on rational or experience-based perceptions (see: OECD 2017; and McKnight, Cummings, and Chervany 1998), while affective trust is informed by an individual’s emotions (OECD, 2017).
Given that the delivery of public services is an individual experience and often involves personal interactions with front-line service providers (i.e. via telephone, email, or face to face), all these forms of trust are potentially valuable when attempting to understand public trust in public services. Interpersonal and emotional trust is invoked in dealing with service providers while cognitive trust is determined based on the experience of the service delivery process and outcomes, all of which may combine to cast judgement on the level of institutional trust to be granted. These indicators of trust in public services will be discussed further in Section 5.
It is also important to recognise that trust is not an objective measure of government performance (Welch et al., 2004). Rather, trust is a subjective cognitive reflection of citizen perceptions based on available information and experience (Kim et al., 2017). As Sims (2001), observes citizen perceptions of government performance can be highly flawed as they are often shaped by media framing of contemporary issues and the public’s impressions based on poor information and personal prejudices. As such, trust is a complex and potentially “wicked” problem with multiple dimensions and causes (Stoker et al., 2018b).
Why is trust in Government and Public Services important?
There are at least three main reasons why a lack of trust may be problematic. First, it can undermine political engagement. Martin’s (2010) pioneering work in Australia shows that lack of trust impacts on levels of confidence in democracy, willingness to vote and take up of protest style activities and concludes that ‘the consequences of low levels of political trust may not be as dire as some feared… (but that) … there are grounds for concern’. Lack of trust in mainstream politics is a key factor in pushing citizens towards more populist alternatives. Second, lack of trust may make the general business of government harder to deliver. Marien and Hooghe (2011) using data from European countries, find that low political trust is strongly correlated with citizens’ willingness to tolerate illegal behaviour and potentially commit criminal acts themselves. Hetherington (2005) has expanded on these concerns to explore the impact of lack of trust on limiting what policy issues government can effectively tackle concluding that ‘scholars have demonstrated that declining trust has had important effects, mostly undermining liberal domestic policy ambitions.... Put simply, people need to trust the government to support more government’. Third, lack of political trust may make long-term policy problems less likely to be addressed. Politicians may also feel they lack the legitimacy necessary to request sacrifices from citizens (of the kind often required to solve major policy problems).
Trust requires integrity in practice and accountability for delivery; where trust is lacking the general business of government is much harder to deliver. Put simply, people need to trust the government to support more government (see Marien and Hooghe, 2011; OECD 2017).
In general then, trust is viewed to be integral for effective government. Trust stabilizes the relationship between government and citizens, providing the glue that facilitates cooperation on the provision of collective goods (Stoker et al. 2018; Van Ryzin 2011), compliance with rules (Van Ryzin 2011), democratic inclusion and ultimately social cohesion (OECD 2017; Miranti and Evans 2017; Stoker et al. 2018a).
Public services as a space for trust building
Evidence in the literature also indicates that high quality public services can lead to satisfied citizens and consequently improved trust in government (see: Van de Walle and Bouckaert, 2003; Yang and Holzer, 2006 in OECD 2017 p.48). This ‘micro-performance hypothesis’ linking public service delivery to trust in government is supported by Australian-based research which shows that public trust is partly shaped by citizen perceptions of the performance of government; particularly the quality of the provision of public services (Stoker et al., 2018b and Rothstein 2018). Here trust in government is viewed to be the glue that provides functional citizen–government relationships (Kearns 2004) and is essential for the achievement of stable governance systems and features such as:[1]
- Compliance with laws and regulations
- Cooperation in the provision of collective goods
- Reduced transaction costs as it is not necessary to constantly monitor behaviour
- Effective political engagement
- Legitimacy to act on long-term policy problems
- Confidence in the government to deliver basic functions
- Market confidence
- Social cohesion
- Effective crisis response and cooperation during emergency situations
- Leadership on key geopolitical issues
Better understanding trust in public services is therefore important because as the OECD (2017: 4) puts it – “trust is not only an indicator of success: it is, more significantly, one of the ingredients that makes success – for a business or for a government – possible.” Trust in public services matters because this is where citizens interact with government and an opportunity is provided for strengthening the quality of democratic governance (Van Ryzin 2011).
[1] See for example: Levi and Stoker,2000; Kim et al 2017; Tolbert & Mossberger, 2006; Welch et al., 2004; Martin 2010; Evans and Stoker, 2016; Marien and Hooghe 2011; Hetherington and Husser 2012; Jacobs and Matthews 2011; Evans, Halupka, and Stoker 2017; Gyorffy 2013; Stoker et al., 2018b; Van Ryzin 2011; and Bovaird 2007.