There is no one simple explanation for what drives or undermines trust. The research on the issue is one of the most voluminous in the social sciences and has been a concern in many countries for decades. The literature can be loosely organised around demand-side and supply-side theories of trust (Stoker and Evans, 2018).
Demand-side theories focus on how much individuals trust government and democratic politics and explore the key characteristics of the citizenry. What is it about citizens, such as their educational background, class, location, country or cohort of birth that makes them trusting or not? What are the barriers to citizen engagement? And what makes citizens feel that that their participation could deliver value? In general, the strongest predictors of distrust continue to be attitudinal and are connected to negativity about politics.[3]
Demand-side interventions therefore focus on overcoming various barriers to social, economic or political participation (or well-being). Most interventions tend to focus on dealing with issues of social disadvantage through education, labour market activation, public participation, improved representation, place-based service delivery and other forms of empowerment such as the provision of citizenship education to enhance political literacy (see Table 1).[4]
Supply-side theories of trust start from the premise that public trust must in some way correspond with the trustworthiness of government. The argument here is that it is the performance (supply) of government that matters most in orienting the outlooks of citizens, together with its commitment to procedural fairness and quality.
Supply-side interventions therefore seek to enhance the integrity of government and politicians, and the quality and procedural fairness of service delivery or parliamentary processes through open government or good governance. This normally includes transparency, accountability, public service competence and anti-corruption measures (see Table 1).
A further challenge in bridging the divide between citizens and government is that reforms that seem to provide part of the solution can sometimes make the problem worse. Offering more participation or consultation can turn into a tokenistic exercise, which generates more cynicism and negativity among citizens. The conclusion from much of the academic and practice-based literature is not that more participation is needed but that better participation is needed (Evans, 2014).[5]
Given that the Citizen Experience project focuses on how we can use the public service experience as a space for trust building between government and citizen our attention is best placed on the supply-side literature.
Table 1. A selection of demand and supply-side interventions to address the trust divide
Demand side problems and solutions
| Problem | Intervention | Design Principles |
|---|---|---|
| Need for education to increase understanding and capacity of citizens | Better Citizenship education | Input through programs of “learning and doing” will build citizens who are confident and pragmatic enough to build trust |
| Citizens/stakeholders want more of a say as they become more challenging and critical | Quality participation | Contingent on the purpose of the engagement. Varied with different foci on hard to reach groups, deliberation and selection by sortition. Having a say in a decision increases the prospects of trust |
| Opportunities to exploit capacity created by new technologies | Internet politics | Build on surge and waves of interest to deliver rapid responses to public concerns and build trust |
Supply side problems and solutions
| Problem | Intervention | Design Principles |
|---|---|---|
| If government did the small things in service delivery well this would improve levels of trust to tackle bigger problems | Improve the quality of service delivery | User-centred design, use innovation and new technology to increase customer satisfaction and improve performance in measurable ways |
| Closed government, corrupt practices | Open government and indicative transparency measures | People trust processes that are clear, transparent and accountable. Focus on driving out the practice and even the appearance of corruption or malpractice |
| Representative democracy has lost legitimacy because of the financing of parties and elections and the representative failings and poor practices of elected assemblies | Improved citizen-party linkage | Regulation of election spending, reform of party system, change parliamentary practices |
| The way that political choices and decisions are presented through new and traditional media creates a climate of distrust | Communication dynamics | Encourage through soft regulation and influence support changes in communication to better manage tension between freedom of media and a better governance context |
Enhancing Public Service performance
If the focus is on the performance of government to build trust one suggestion is that the best way forward is to do service delivery better. Public management reform advocates argue that “there’s a powerful – and positive – case that government officials can improve government’s standing by treating their citizens in trust-earning ways”.[6] These strategies might involve demonstrating good performance, creating positive customer experiences and transparently demonstrating the effort and commitment that goes into public service. Others might see improved digital capacity and service as a way of building trust in government;[7] although some evidence suggests that it is possible to boost the standing of the agency involved but not necessarily government as a whole.[8]
However, it should be noted that providing performance data – the bread and butter of modern government – so that citizens can judge if promises have been kept does not always produce more trust. Rather, it can lead to government officials trying to manipulate the way citizens judge their performance. Positive data is given prominence, less helpful data sometimes hidden. On the ground, frontline public servants and many citizens find the claims of success contrasting with their own more negative experiences. Far from promoting trust, the packaging of performance may in fact have contributed to the emergence of populism and loss of trust by citizens.[9]
Nonetheless, there is significant support within the literature for the micro-performance hypothesis; that by improving public services we can improve trust in government due to improved satisfaction and associated attitudes towards government, with Guerrero (2011) going as far as saying that the performance of public services is a predictor of trust in government.[10] As explained by Hetherington (1998) and Morgeson and colleagues (2010), public services are a component of the government and hence trust towards public services should help reinforce trust in the government as a whole.
[3] For a review of this literature see Levi, M and Stoker, L. (2000), ‘Political Trust and Trustworthiness’, Annual Review of Political Science, 3: 475–507. 14. The standard work here is Verba S., Schlozman K., Brady H. (1995), Voice and Equality: Civic Voluntarism in American Politics. Cambridge: Harvard. For a framework designed for reformers see Lowndes, V, Pratchett, L and Stoker, G (2006), ‘Diagnosing and Remedying the Failings of Official Participation Schemes: The Clear Framework,’ Social Policy & Society 5:2, 1–11. For recent updates see: Evans, M. & Pratchett, L. (2013), ‘The Localism Gap – the CLEAR failings of official consultation in the Murray Darling Basin’, Policy Studies, 34, 5/6: 541-558 and, Dalton, R.J (2017), The Participation Gap. Social Status and Political Inequality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
[4] See Torney-Purta, J., Lehmann, R., Oswald, H., & Schulz, W. (2001), Citizenship and education in twenty-eight countries: Civic knowledge and engagement at age fourteen, Amsterdam, the Netherlands: International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA).
[5] For a detailed account of different methods of public participation see: Involve Organisation (UK), (2005), ‘People and Participation. How to put the citizens at the heart of decision-making’, London, Involve. Retrieved 15 May 2019 from: https://www.involve.org.uk/resources/publications/ practical-guidance/people-and-participation.
[6] Kettl, D. (2017), Can Government Earn Our Trust? Cambridge: Polity Press, p.120
[7] Parent, M., C. A. Vandebeek, and A. C. Gemino (2005), ‘Building citizen trust through E-government’, Government Information Quarterly 22:720–36.
[8] Morgeson, F., VanAmburg and Mithas, S (2011), ‘Misplaced Trust? Exploring the Structure of the E-Government-Citizen Trust Relationship’, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, Volume 21, 2: 257–283.
[9] See Christina Boswell (2018), Manufacturing Political Trust. NY: CUP.
[10] See: Glaser & Hildreth, 1999; Kampen et al., 2003; Van de Walle & Bouckaert, 2003; Christensen and Laegreid 2005; Yang and Holzer, 2006; Morgeson et al 2010; Van Ryzin 2011; Kettl 2017; and OECD 2017.