This final section of the review seeks to operationalise the concept of trust in empirical research on public service production. To better understand how trust is lost, consolidated or gained, we need to understand how to measure it. There is an extensive literature that attempts to identify the key indices of trust. The literature tends to focus on three sets of indicators (OECD 2017: 21):
Trust as Competence – the capacity and good judgment to effectively deliver the agreed goods/mandate;
Trust as Values – the underpinning intentions and principles that guide actions and behaviours;
Trust as Satisficing –the degree to which citizens’ expectations of a service have been satisfied.
These sets of indicators are considered in more detail below.
Trust as competence (responsiveness and reliability)
Competence is not just a component of trust, but a necessary condition (see Forsyth, Adams and Hoy, 2011 in OECD 2017 p.21). Individuals and institutions need to be able to deliver on their agreed intentions in order to be trusted. Competence to deliver is further nuanced by two critical dimensions of trustworthiness[17] – responsiveness and reliability (OECD 2017).
For the delivery of government public services responsiveness brings democratic principles right back into the forefront. Public service responsiveness as a driver of trust recognises the core objective of government and associated public administration – to serve citizens (see: OECD 2017 and the 1999 Public Service Act). Responsiveness is about more than how governments organize themselves to deliver quality public services in a timely manner, it is also about providing authentic opportunities for citizen engagement in the design and delivery of their public services – respecting, engaging and responding to citizens (OECD 2017, see also Stoker et al., 2018a, 2018b).
Reliability refers to the capacity for individuals or institutions to be able to adapt and act appropriately in response to changing circumstances. A reliable government can minimize uncertainty by anticipating citizens’ needs and responding effectively with appropriate policy and programs, including public services. To be effective in responding, public services must first be reliable.
Trust as values (integrity, transparency and fairness)
Perceptions of trust are heavily influenced by values and the guiding motivations they set on future actions and behaviours (OECD 2017). The OECD (2017: 22) presents three values or dimensions of trustworthiness: i) integrity, ii) transparency and iii) fairness.
Research undertaken by Murtin and colleagues (2018) on trust and its determinants demonstrates that citizens’ perceptions of government integrity and institutional performance are the strongest determinants of trust in government. Integrity refers to “the application of values, principles and norms in the daily operations of public sector organisations” (Stoker et al 2018b: 19). It is the behaviour of individuals and institutions, and their ethics which determine how they conduct themselves, and in the case of government, how it safeguards the public interest over private interests. Integrity reinforces the credibility and legitimacy of individuals or institutions (OECD, 2017).
In behaving with integrity you behave ethically and adhere to established social norms and governance expectations. Integrity is the cornerstone of good governance (Stoker et al. 2018b), and in Australia, as in many democratic nations, good governance expectations would typically include the dimensions of transparency (transparent decision-making and the inclusion of stakeholder or citizens in the design and delivery of proposed actions such as public services), and fairness (consistency and equity in the distribution of costs and benefits of proposed actions across society).
In considering the full scope of integrity its connection with issues of procedural justice can be observed as an important driver of citizens’ perceptions (see Tyler 2001 & 2006). Many scholars have observed that in evaluating government, citizens base their approval not only on the delivery of policy outcomes, but also on ethical judgements of both the actions of political leaders and institutions and the fairness of political processes (see for example: Tyler 2001; Hibbing and Theiss-Morse 2002; Van Ryzin 2011; & OECD 2017). Similarly, the consistency of service delivery across socio-economic, geographic and cultural boundaries informs perspectives of fairness driving perceptions of trust (Guerrero, 2011; OECD 2017).
The review of trust undertaken by the OECD (2017) found three elements of process and behaviour affecting fairness outcomes: i) voice, an authentic opportunity to present interests and be informed on how such interests were considered in decision-making; ii) polite and respectful treatment, the capacity to co-operate without the fear of being excluded or exploited (citizen feels safe and valued as a member of society); and iii) explanations, the effective communication of information about relevant regulatory and administrative processes and reasons for decisions. While each of these elements need to be considered in the design and delivery of public services and broader policy reforms, these elements can predominantly be addressed through openness (voice and explanations), integrity (polite and respectful treatment).
Given this focus on ethical behaviours, implementing government integrity approaches can also have negative impacts on trust which needs to be considered. For example, transparency is an important component of government integrity through the provision of openness in government decision-making. Transparency is strongly linked to improved citizens’ trust (see for example Stoker et al 2018a, 2018b), with Park and Blenkinsopp (2011) identifying transparency as a predictor of trust and satisfaction. However, the link between transparency and trust is not so simple, with increased transparency potentially reducing levels of trust as controversial policy decisions and outcomes are shared publicly and highlighted by the media and/or political advocates (Margetts 2011; OECD 2017).
The interactions between the two dimensions, competence and values, also needs to be recognised when understanding the drivers of trust in government public services and designing associated policy reforms. A key example of this interaction is the importance of citizens’ participation. Participation works to both improve competence through assisting responsive government outcomes in the delivery of services tailored for the citizens needs reducing the gap between expectations and performance (Yang and Holzer 2006; Wang and Wart 2007); and improving integrity by enabling openness in policy and/or service delivery planning through transparency and inclusivity. This (and other potential interactions) highlights the need to consider the drivers of trust as a system rather than discrete dimensions.
This deeper understanding of trust as consisting of two interacting components, competence and values, enables a more informed and nuanced definition of institutional trust, the form of trust that this study is predominantly focused on. Again, following the work of the OECD, for this study of public governance institutional trust is defined as “A citizen’s belief that [the institutions of government] fulfil their mandates with competence and integrity, acting in pursuit of the broader benefit of society” (2017: 23). Trusting the Australian government to deliver effective public services that benefit all Australian citizens.
Trust and user satisfaction
Trust is often seen as an outcome of citizens’ expectations of a service and satisfaction with a service (see for example Morgeson 2012; OECD 2017). While often statistically correlated, it is important to recognise that trust and satisfaction are distinct concepts (Fledderus 2015; Wang and Wart 2007). As discussed earlier, trust is the perceived competence and integrity of the government to design and deliver the service fairly to its citizens over time. Satisfaction, on the other hand, relates directly to the outcomes of service delivery in comparison to the citizens pre-conceived expectations (Bouckaert & van de Walle, 2003; Morgeson III 2012; Van Ryzin, 2015) depicted in Figure 1.
Figure 2. Process of trust development (Adapted from van Ryzin 2007 & Morgeson III 2012)
Many studies have found a strong correlation between satisfaction and trust (e.g. van Ryzin et al., 2004), with the relationship further highlighted by Vigoda-Gadot (2007) who found that satisfaction was the strongest predictor of trust in governance. However, it is important to recognise that there are many context-specific factors which also affect trust, including socio-economic characteristics, historical and political contexts, cultural factors, media etc. (OECD 2017). As such, satisfaction with public services is only one of many drivers of trust and while convenient, the depiction of trust development in Figure 2 is highly simplified and hides the multiple drivers influencing each element within the process as explored further in Section 3.
As observed in this review, there are numerous internal and external factors which can influence trust, captured both within and across the various trust drivers and categorised as demand-side or supply-side factors (see Table 1). Similarly, there are multiple drivers of satisfaction which again are predominantly captured within the various dimensions of trust (see Table 2). This overlap, as shown in Table 2, highlights that there are not in-fact a myriad of drivers affecting trust and satisfaction, but rather a set of core drivers which when implemented properly capture all the necessary pre-requisites for achieving trust – ideally by behaving with integrity and with that, implementing good governance. If a public service is designed and implemented following good governance practices it will:
- be a competent and well-managed process that is transparent and consistent in its approach (accountable, reliable);
- provide authentic opportunities for citizens voice in development and implementation (responsive);
- provide open and transparent information about the service and its governance, including privacy; will ensure adherence to ethical behaviours and intent to ensure equity of service provision for all citizens (values).
Table 2. Drivers and dimensions of trust and satisfaction in public services
| Trust Drivers | Satisfaction Drivers | ||||||
Professionalism (Capable and efficient officers, treated with dignity and respect) | Information (clear and accurate information) | Access & Coordination (Ease to access consistent and seamless service) | Personalised Service (Service able to respond to individual needs) | Privacy (Privacy is maintained and information available on privacy protocols) | Effort (Level of effort required to engage and access services) | ||
| Competence | Reliability (Predictable, dependable, adaptive, well-managed) | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
Responsiveness (Accessible, timely, respectful, receptive and reactive to feedback) | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | |
| Values | Fairness (Equitable, open to citizens voice, polite and respectful treatment, effective explanation of process) | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
Openness (Open to citizens voice and transparent on processes and outcomes) | Yes | Yes | Yes | ||||
Integrity (ethical behaviours and good governance mechanisms) | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | |
Notably, most of these dimensions are supply-side factors – so what is the role of demand-side factors?
Demand-side factors
As noted previously, here we are only interested in indicators that the APS can influence in the context of public service production and can measure. Demand-side factors, are mostly related to the key characteristics of the individual citizen. Let’s pause here and think carefully about what we are trying to ‘measure’ or ‘influence’ – trust or trustworthiness? Cho and Lee (2011) spend some time explaining the difference between these discrete but related concepts, describing trustworthiness as being about characteristics of the trustee (supply-side factors) and trust being about the psychological state of the individual trustor (demand-side factors interacting with supply-side factors). That is, trust is an individual’s perception of the trustworthiness of another (i.e. individual, government, service etc.) (see Figure 3).
Three core dimensions of trustworthiness have been identified in the literature: ability, benevolence, and integrity.[18] Associated with competence, good intentions, and honesty and consistency, these dimensions of trustworthiness are eerily similar to those of trust e.g. responsiveness and values.[19] We therefore argue that it is more practical to focus on trustworthiness and the supply side factors that make the APS or a public service trustworthy.
Figure 3. The relationship between trust and trustworthiness
Source: adapted from Cho and Lee (2011)
[17] Trust and trustworthiness are two linked but fundamentally distinct concepts (Yang and Anguelov 2013). Trustworthiness is a perception of the characteristics of a trustee (i.e. government institutions), whereas trust concerns a trustor’s psychological state, i.e. trust is an individual’s perception of the trustworthiness of by another (see Cho and Lee 2011; Yang and Anguelov 2013).
[18] See Mayer, Davis, and Schoorman 1995, in Jenssen et al., 2018, 649.
[19] See Yang and Anguelov 2013 and Jenssen et al., 2018.