Trust in the discourse of public administration

Keywords: societal trust in government, government trust in society, trust within government, proto-concepts of trust, effects of trust

Abstract

Many interdisciplinary issues in the past two decades were focused on the concept of trust as a constituent of good governance. But specific studies on the role of trust in the public sector remain scarce. However, the analytics of scientific publications reveal that attention to trust in the discourse of public administration had been increased. That became significant especially in the period of the Covid-19 pandemic. Citizens, politicians, public activists still believe that trust should be an essential goal and means of effective management. Despite considerable attention to the «trust» definition, the research community has failed to formulate a fundamental theory of trust. Rather, it is possible to observe a large spread of various theories, some of them exposing incompatible categorical apparatuses and various levels of abstraction. This article presents some thought-provoking issues arisen in discussions about the role of (no)confidence in the government,  ongoing for several decades. This article describes the main aspects ( clusters) of trust:

– citizens’ trust in public authorities and government (societal trust in government)- (Т1);

– citizens’ confidence in the state (governmental trust in society) (Т2);

– internal administrative trust (trust within government) (Т3).

One of the key unresolved issues still remains the question of balance between trust  (crucial for the effective functioning of a democratic system) and distrust of citizens required for the implementation of social control. The above question becomes particularly important in situations of low trust in institutions of public authority and, as a consequence, the growth of social tension in society, which fosters social and political movements. The failure of existing forms of institutionalization of distrust is a significant threat to the current socio-political system and therefore requires further study.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Author Biography

Olena Knyazeva , ОRIPA NAPA, Odesa

PhD in Sociology, Associate Professor,

Associate Professor of Regional Policy and Public Administration Department,

ОRIPA NAPA, Odesa

References

Selyhmen, A. (2002). Problema doveryia. M : Ydeia – Press [in Russian].

Castaldo, S. (2002). Meanings of Trust: a Meta Analysis of Trust Definitions: Paper presented at Second Euram Conference. Stockholm.

Luhmann, N. (1979). Trust and Power. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.

Carnevale, D.G. and Wechsler, B. (1992). Trust in the Public Sector: Individual and organizational determinants. Administration and Society, 23, 471–494.

Merton, R.K. (1984). Socially Expected Durations. In Powell, W.W. and Robbins, R. (Eds.). Conflict and Consensus. A Festschrift in Honor of Lewis A. Coser. New York: The Free Press, 262–283.

Kniazeva, E.V. (2008). Otrazhenye fenomena doveryia/nedoveryia v obydennom soznanyy. Visnyk ONU im. I.I. Mechnykova, issue 6 (12), 399 [in Ukrainian].

Eremychevam, H.V., Sympuram, Yu. (1999). Nedoverye kak sotsyalnaia problema sovremennoj Rossyy. Zhurnal sotsyolohyy y sotsyalnoj antropolohy, issue 4 (2), 147 [in Russian].

Shtompka, P. (1996). Sotsyolohyia sotsyalnykh yzmenenyj. Moscow: Aspekt Press

[in Russian].

Shtompka, P. (2012). Doverye – osnova obschestva. Moscow: Lohos [in Russian].

Coulson, A. (1998). Trust and contract in public sector management. A. Coulson (Ed.). Trust and contracts: Relationships in local government, health and public services. Bristol: The Policy Press, 9–34.

Teryn, D.F.(2018). Konstruktsyia polytycheskoho doveryia v Rossyy: effektyvnost’ y spravedlyvost’ polytycheskykh ynstytutov. Sotsyolohycheskyj zhurnal, vol. 24, 2, 90–109 [in Russian].

Wu, J. & Yang, Y. (2011). Does public servants’ trust in citizen raters really matter? evidence from mainland China. International Public Management Review, 12 (1), 1–21.

Yang, K. (2005). Public administrators trust in citizens: A missing link in citizen involvement efforts. Public Administration Review, 65 (3), 273–285.

Published
2020-09-01
Section
Theory and Philosophy of Public Administration