The values of a government – its propensity to do what is right, and its underlying intentions and principles – are a major driver of trust in government. People expect to be informed about government actions and have opportunities to influence policies, and they expect integrity and fairness. This chapter presents results from the Trust Survey on perceptions of government openness, the fairness of public processes and the integrity of public officials.
Building Trust to Reinforce Democracy
Main Findings from the 2021 OECD Survey on Drivers of Trust in Public Institutions
Building Trust in Public Institutions
5. Openness, integrity and equal treatment: Critical for trust and for democracy
Abstract
Key findings and areas for attention
People in OECD countries see access to government information positively: almost two-thirds (65.1%) feel that information about administrative procedures is easily accessible. Governments should strengthen and consolidate information-sharing, making information and data publicly available and encouraging re-use and feedback.
Yet people are far less satisfied with opportunities to engage in the policy-making process and with government’s accountability to public feedback and demands. Around 40% of respondents believe they could voice their views about a local government’s decision concerning their community. And fewer than one-third (32.9%) of respondents believe that the government would adopt opinions expressed in a public consultation.
Many respondents perceive some public officials as furthering their own interests. Only four out of ten respondents, on average across countries, expect public employees would refuse a bribe, and a similar share expect the courts to make decisions free of political influence. This parallels findings that most people think a high-level political official would grant a political favour in exchange for the offer of a well-paid private sector job (Chapter 6).
This perception that the system is not working for everyone – and often works better for the privileged – is also demonstrated by only four in ten respondents feeling confident that a public employee would treat rich and poor people equally. This drops to one-third among economically-vulnerable respondents.
Openness and integrity matter for trust in government. Governments must recommit to engaging with the public and incorporating public feedback when such consultations occur. Government’s actions to strengthen individuals’ ability to participate in politics, and improve perception of meaningful opportunities to participate among those who are sceptical, will help to improve trust in government.
Poor public perception of the independence of the judiciary from political influence is strongly correlated with low trust in the national government and perception of fairness is strongly associated with trust in both civil service and local government, as are efforts to fight corruption, ensure integrity, and promote equal treatment by civil servants.
5.1. Many find government information accessible
Governments’ efforts to make public information easily available and make public processes more transparent help people understand what the government does. Information-sharing can help strengthen satisfaction with public services and trust between citizens and their governments.
The Trust Survey finds that, on average, almost two-thirds (65.1%) of respondents think that information about an administrative procedure would be easily available if they needed it (Figure 5.1). In Ireland, over 80% of respondents report that such information would be easily available. These results suggest that OECD governments are doing a reasonably good job in making information available about public services and administrative processes. This finding is corroborated by results in the 2020 OECD Risks that Matter Survey, where “uncertainty about how to apply” was the least-frequently cited explanation for why some people think public benefits would be hard to access (OECD, 2021[1]). Good practice examples on governments’ efforts to provide citizens with clear and regular information during the COVID‑19 crisis are outlined in Box 5.1.
Figure 5.1. In most countries, a majority feels they can easily find information about administrative procedures
Note: Figure presents the within-country distributions of responses to the question “If you need information about an administrative procedure (for example obtaining a passport, applying for benefits, etc.), how likely or unlikely do you think it is that the information would be easily available?”. The “likely” proportion is the aggregation of responses from 6-10 on the scale; “neutral” is equal to a response of 5; “unlikely” is the aggregation of responses from 0-4; and “Don't know” was a separate answer choice. “OECD” presents the unweighted average across countries. In Mexico, Norway and Finland, the question was formulated in a slightly different way. For more detailed information please find the survey method document at http://oe.cd/trust.
Source: OECD Trust Survey (http://oe.cd/trust)
Box 5.1. Providing access to information during periods of crisis
The following examples illustrate governments’ efforts to provide citizens with access to clear and regular information during the COVID-19 crisis, an important element to maintain citizens’ trust in government as the OECD Trust Survey finds that access to information and trust in government are strongly associated (Figure 5.3).
Engaging citizens in consultations and focus groups – In Finland, the government engaged in what were called “lockdown dialogues” to gather citizens’ feelings and views on the challenges they were experiencing during lockdowns and stay-at-home orders. These continued after restrictions were eased and were converted into the “Finnish National Dialogues”. In total the government engaged in over 100 dialogues.
Bringing the scientific community into the communication process – Many political leaders have chosen to involve experts from the scientific community or senior civil servants in press conferences and statements. For instance, the Prime Minister of Canada (among others such as the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom) appeared along with the country’s chief health officer in all his speeches in order to validate the underlying scientific evidence and thus bolster the public credibility of the messaging. In some cases experts also led their own communication interventions without policy makers.
Delivering communication that is frequent, transparent and inclusive – Some governments have tried to remain transparent and acknowledge the unknown. There have also been efforts to better reach groups that have traditionally been excluded or have reason to doubt what the government tells them. For example, in Canada focus groups with diverse segments of society, including Indigenous groups and migrants, helped to understand specifically how messages could be communicated more effectively. As part of this effort government messages have been translated into 30 languages.
The Trust Survey confirms also that the ease of access to information is positively linked with satisfaction with administrative services. Countries in which respondents consider that information about administrative procedures is easily available also have higher levels of public satisfaction with the quality of administrative services (Figure 5.2).
Figure 5.2. Perception that information is easily available is positively linked with satisfaction with administrative services cross-nationally
Note: This scatterplot presents the share of “satisfied” responses to the question “On a scale of 0 to 10, how satisfied or dissatisfied are you with the quality of administrative services (e.g. applying for an ID or a certificate of birth, death, marriage or divorce)”, equal to the values of responses 6-10 on the response scale, on the y axis. The x axis presents the share of “likely” responses to the question “If you need information about an administrative procedure (for example obtaining a passport, applying for benefits, etc.), how likely or unlikely do you think it is that the information would be easily available?” equal to the values of 6-10 on the response scale. “OECD” presents the unweighted average of responses across countries. Finland, Mexico and Norway are excluded from this figure as data on satisfaction with administrative services was not available or compatible. For more detailed information, please find the survey method document at http://oe.cd/trust.
Source: OECD Trust Survey (http://oe.cd/trust)
People who perceive governmental information to be open and transparent also have higher levels of trust in government. Indeed, on average across countries, among those who find information about administrative processes easily available, 50.8% have trust in national government. Among those who find that information is not easily available, trust in national government is only 22.1% -- a difference of almost 30 percentage points (Figure 5.3).
Figure 5.3. Trust in government is strongly associated with whether people can easily access information
Note: Figure presents the average share of respondents who trust their national government, sorted by respondents’ level of confidence that information on administrative processes is easily accessible. The share of respondents who trust their national government is the aggregation of responses from 6-10 to the question “On a scale of 0 to 10, where 0 is not at all and 10 is completely, how much do you trust the national government?”; The group of people saying that information about administrative procedures is easily accessible consists of responses from 6-10 to the question “If you need information about an administrative procedure (for example obtaining a passport, applying for benefits, etc.), how likely or unlikely do you think it is that the information would be easily available?”. “OECD” presents the unweighted average across countries. Mexico and New Zealand are excluded from this figure as respondents were not asked about trust in the national government. For more detailed information please find the survey method document at http://oe.cd/trust.
Source: OECD Trust Survey (http://oe.cd/trust)
Of course it is worth noting that openness principles are necessary but may not be sufficient when it comes to trust. For instance, increased transparency will not necessarily immediately lead to increased trust if it exposes controversial information or incidences of corruption (OECD, 2017[5]).
5.2. Few see opportunities to influence policy making
Trust in public institutions is derived from factors beyond the conventional measures of service quality, suggesting that attention should be paid not only to performance, but also to processes (OECD, 2017[5]; Schmidthuber, Ingrams and Hilgers, 2020[6]). People’s feelings of inclusive governance depend not only on the ends of public service provision (to achieve good results and outcomes of services) but also the means (how governments design and provide these services, for example through consulting with citizens and if they were achieved with integrity, fairness and including everyone).
How are governments perceived when it comes to giving people opportunities to provide inputs to the policy-making process? On average across countries, only four out of ten respondents think that they would have the opportunity to voice their views if the local government makes a decision affecting their community (Figure 5.4). In Canada, Ireland, Mexico, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom a majority of the respondents think they would be consulted for such a decision.
Figure 5.4. Few people feel they would be able to voice their views about a local government decision affecting their community
Note: Figure presents the within-country distributions of responses to the question “If a decision affecting your community is to be made by the local government, how likely or unlikely do you think it is that you would have an opportunity to voice your views?” The “likely” proportion is the aggregation of responses from 6-10 on the scale; “neutral” is equal to a response of 5; “unlikely” is the aggregation of responses from 0-4; and “Don't know” was a separate answer choice. “OECD” presents the unweighted average across countries. In Mexico, Norway and Finland, the question was formulated in a slightly different way. For more detailed information please find the survey method document at http://oe.cd/trust.
Source: OECD Trust Survey (http://oe.cd/trust)
Trust Survey data also show that an individual’s feeling that they have the opportunity to voice views on local governance issues is strongly associated with one’s confidence in their own ability to participate in politics. Among respondents who are confident in their ability to participate in politics, 54.8% are confident that they would have the opportunity to voice their views about a local government decision affecting their community, while in the group with low confidence in their ability to participate in politics, this share is only 28.5%, a difference of 26.3 percentage points (Figure 5.5).
Figure 5.5. Confidence in own ability to participate in politics matters for whether people feel like they can voice views on local government decisions
Note: Figure presents the average share of respondents who are confident to have the opportunity to voice their views on local governance issues, sorted by respondents’ level of confidence in their own ability to participate in politics. The share of respondents who are confident to have the opportunity to voice their views is the aggregation of responses from 6-10 to the question “If a decision affecting your community is to be made by the local government, how likely or unlikely do you think it is that you would have an opportunity to voice your views?”; The group of people with high confidence in their ability to participate in politics consists of responses from 6-10 to the question “On a scale of 0 to 10, where 0 is not at all confident and 10 is completely confident, how confident are you in your own ability to participate in politics?”; the group with low confidence consists of responses from 0-4. In Finland and Norway the question was phrased slightly differently. Mexico is excluded from this figure as data on confidence in own ability to participate in politics are not available. New Zealand is excluded from this figure as the question was phrased substantially differently. For more detailed information please find the survey method document at (http://oe.cd/trust).
Source: OECD Trust Survey (http://oe.cd/trust)
Asking for the public’s views is an important first step in engaging stakeholders in the policy-making process. But do people feel that these views will be taken into consideration in the decision-making process?
When asked whether their government would adopt the opinions expressed in a public consultation, the share of confident respondents drops to almost three out of ten (Figure 5.6). On average across countries, 42.8% of respondents say it is unlikely that the views shared in a public consultation would influence policy making. This aligns with other results in the Trust Survey, for example on responsiveness, where only 36.5% say a national policy would be changed if a majority of the population opposed the policy (Chapter 4). These findings also align with other OECD survey results on stakeholder engagement in policy making. For example, the OECD indicators on Regulatory Policy and Governance find that 33 out of 38 OECD member countries publish participants’ views from consultation processes, but less than one-third of countries systematically require a public response to consultation comments, explaining how comments were taken into account and, when relevant, reasons for their exclusion (OECD, 2021[7]). These findings suggest that governments should step up their efforts to engage with people in the policy-making process.
Figure 5.6. Very few think that the government would adopt views expressed in a public consultation
Note: Figure presents the within-country distributions of responses to the question “If you participate in a public consultation on reforming a major policy area (e.g. taxation, healthcare, environmental protection), how likely or unlikely do you think it is that the government would adopt the opinions expressed in the public consultation?” The “likely” proportion is the aggregation of responses from 6-10 on the scale; “neutral” is equal to a response of 5; “unlikely” is the aggregation of responses from 0-4; and “Don't know” was a separate answer choice. “OECD” presents the unweighted average across countries. In Mexico, the question was formulated in a slightly different way. Finland and Norway are excluded from the figure as the data are not available. For more detailed information please find the survey method document at http://oe.cd/trust.
Source: OECD Trust Survey (http://oe.cd/trust)
The Trust Survey results confirm that citizens who are satisfied with their opportunities to provide inputs into the policy-making process have in general higher levels of trust in government. Indeed, trust in national government is 64.9% among those who consider that government would adopt opinions expressed in a public consultation and down to 20.8% among those who consider it unlikely that government would take these options into account, a difference of over 40 percentage points (Figure 5.7). This confirms previous results with data from European countries which found that government openness is, in general, positively associated with higher trust but is affected by an individual's perception that they have meaningful opportunities for participation and influence on governmental systems (Schmidthuber, Ingrams and Hilgers, 2020[6]).
Figure 5.7. Trust in government is strongly associated with perceptions whether the government would adopt opinions expressed in a public consultation
Note: Figure presents the level of trust in the national government, sorted by respondents’ confidence that governments would adopt opinions gathered via public consultation. The share of respondents who trust their national government is the aggregation of responses from 6-10 to the question “On a scale of 0 to 10, where 0 is not at all and 10 is completely, how much do you trust the national government?” The group that is confident that government would adopt opinions gathered via public consultation consists of responses from 6-10 to the question “If you participate in a public consultation on reforming a major policy area (e.g. taxation, healthcare, environmental protection), how likely or unlikely do you think it is that the government would adopt the opinions expressed in the public consultation?”. The group of sceptical people consists of responses from 0-4. Finland and Norway are excluded from the figure as the question on likelihood that government adopts opinions gathered via a public consultation was not available. Mexico and New Zealand are excluded from the figure as respondents were not asked about trust in the national government. For more detailed information please find the survey method document at http://oe.cd/trust.
Source: OECD Trust Survey (http://oe.cd/trust)
5.3. Few OECD governments inspire confidence in public sector integrity and accountability
Public sector integrity is a key element of democratic governance and fundamental for a system that has the ambition to work in the same way for everyone. Public sector integrity and trust in government are closely linked; corruption and mismanagement in the public sector are cited among the most important sources of distrust (Nolan-Flecha, 2017[8]; Rothstein, 2018[9]), while ethical behaviour and the absence of corruption is associated with greater trust (Norris, 2022[10]; Van de Walle and Migchelbrink, 2020[11]). Corruption can take many different forms, such as bribes at the individual level, more subtle ways of undue influence or the abuse of high-level power that benefits some powerful groups at the expense of the public interest. Different forms of corruption have different policy implications and require different policy responses. The Trust Survey looks at several hypothetical scenarios, including petty corruption of public employees and revolving door practices among high-level political officials.
When asked about the likelihood that a generic public employee would accept or refuse a bribe, about 40% of respondents say that a civil servant in their country would refuse a bribe, on average across countries (Figure 5.8).
Yet a sizeable share predict the opposite: 35.7% of respondents, on average across countries, consider it likely that a public employee would accept money by a citizen or a firm in exchange for speeding up access to a public service. This average conceals considerable variation between countries: in Colombia and Mexico, in particular, over six out of ten respondents say that a public employee in that country would accept a bribe, and relatively few people hold a neutral opinion or report “don’t know”. In Denmark and Norway, fewer than one-quarter of respondents say that a public employee would accept a bribe. Of course, perceptions of possible bribery do not necessarily reflect actual bribery or the reality of levels of integrity, and may be related to expectations rather than actual experience.
Figure 5.8. Over one-third find it likely that a public employee would accept a bribe
Note: Figure presents the within-country distributions of responses to the question “If a public employee were offered money by a citizen or a firm for speeding up access to a public service, how likely or unlikely do you think it is that they would refuse it?”. The “Likely accepts a bribe” proportion is the aggregation of responses from 6-10 on the scale; “neutral” is equal to a response of 5; “Likely refuses a bribe” is the aggregation of responses from 0-4; and “Don't know” was a separate answer choice. “OECD” presents the unweighted average across countries. In Mexico, Norway and Finland, the question was asked in a slightly different way. For more detailed information please find the survey method document at http://oe.cd/trust.
Source: OECD Trust Survey (http://oe.cd/trust)
How are elected officials perceived? A lack of integrity in leadership – demonstrated by misuse of public resources or poor behaviour – can affect public opinion on the overall trustworthiness of the government (OECD, 2017[5]). Confronted with different forms of unethical behaviour for public employees and politicians, people surveyed in the OECD Trust Survey anticipate less virtuous behaviour from elected leaders than they do from civil servants.
On average across countries, 47.7% of respondents say it is likely that a high-level political official would grant a political favour in exchange for the offer of the prospect of a well-paid job in the private sector (Chapter 6). This suggests that while petty corruption of public employees seems to be prevalent only in a few countries, perception of the abuse of high-level power is widespread in a much larger range of countries. This aligns with findings that many people feel they do not have a say in what government does and that their interests are not considered, while the “powerful” may use unethical or even unlawful means to influence policies and make their interests heard.
The Trust Survey results also confirm that countries with lower levels of perceived corruption among public employees have in general higher levels of trust in national government (Figure 5.9). Likewise, although to a less extent, countries with lower levels of perceived corruption among high-level political officials have higher levels of trust in local government.
Figure 5.9. Lower levels of perceived corruption among public employees are associated with higher levels of trust in national government cross-nationally
Note: This scatterplot presents the share of “trust” responses to the question “On a scale of 0 to 10, where 0 is not at all and 10 is completely, how much do you trust each of the following? The national government”, equal to the values of responses 6-10 on the response scale, on the y axis. The x axis presents the share of “likely” responses to the question “If a public employee were offered money by a citizen or a firm for speeding up access to a public service, how likely or unlikely do you think it is that they would refuse?”, equal to the values of 6-10 on the response scale. “OECD” presents the unweighted average of responses across countries. In Finland and Norway the question was phrased slightly differently. Mexico and New Zealand are excluded from the figure as respondents were not asked about trust in the national government. For more detailed information please find the survey method document at http://oe.cd/trust.
Source: OECD Trust Survey (http://oe.cd/trust)
The rule of law is one of the cornerstones of the democratic governance model and trust in legal and justice services matters for trust in government, too, by providing citizens with recourse mechanisms to protect their rights. These protection mechanisms create safeguards against possible misbehaviour by different actors in society, and integrity in the justice sector is thus essential for trust in fellow citizens, businesses and other public institutions (OECD, 2017[5]).
The Trust Survey shows that citizens’ overall trust in the judiciary is relatively high: on average, across countries, a solid majority (56.9%) of respondents say they trust the courts and legal system (Chapter 2). Yet this confidence is bounded. Only about four out of ten (42.1%) respondents, on average, believe that a court in their country would make a decision free from political influence that could negatively influence the government’s image (Figure 5.10). Perceptions are most positive in Denmark, Ireland, and the Netherlands, where more than half of respondents expect the judiciary to make decisions free from political influence. Related to this, 34.8% on average across countries say that a court in their country would not make a decision free from political influence that could negatively influence the government’s image.
Figure 5.10. Only four out of ten respondents believe judiciaries make decisions free of political influence
Note: Figure presents the within-country distributions of responses to the question “If a court is about to make a decision that could negatively impact on the government’s image, how likely or unlikely do you think it is that the court would make the decision free from political influence?” The “likely” proportion is the aggregation of responses from 6-10 on the scale; “neutral” is equal to a response of 5; “unlikely” is the aggregation of responses from 0-4; and “Don't know” was a separate answer choice. “OECD” presents the unweighted average across countries. Finland, Mexico, and Norway are excluded from the figure as the data were not available. For more detailed information please find the survey method document at http://oe.cd/trust.
Source: OECD Trust Survey (http://oe.cd/trust)
5.4. Unfair treatment? The equal treatment of the rich and poor remains elusive
Perceptions of fairness and equality – both in policy processes and in socioeconomic outcomes – are important components of trust. In recent decades, the gap between the rich and poor has widened and social mobility has stagnated, often with negative implications for trust (OECD, 2021[12]; OECD, 2018[13]). Yet apart from lived socioeconomic outcomes, such as placement in the income distribution, fairness in people’s treatment by government institutions also matters (Lind and Arndt, 2016[14]; Frey, Benz and Stutzer, 2004[15]). The perceived fairness and competence of government may also influence preferences for redistribution of income and wealth – thereby affecting income inequality outcomes (OECD, 2021[12]).
To what degree, then, do people anticipate and experience equal and fair treatment in their access to public benefits and their treatment by public employees? Respondents are largely sceptical that rich and poor people would be treated equally by a public employee. On average, only four out of ten respondents (39.9%) across OECD countries think that rich and poor people would be treated equally by a public employee (Figure 5.11). An almost equally high share of respondents (37.8%) find it unlikely that rich and poor people would be treated equally. In only two countries, Denmark and the Netherlands, more than half of respondents are confident that people would be treated the same way, independent of their economic status.
Figure 5.11. Only four in ten think that a public employee would treat rich and poor people equally
Note: Figure presents the within-country distributions of responses to the question “If a public employee has contact with the public in the area where you live, how likely or unlikely is it that they would treat both rich and poor people equally?“. The “likely” proportion is the aggregation of responses from 6-10 on the scale; “neutral” is equal to a response of 5; “unlikely” is the aggregation of responses from 0-4; and “Don't know” was a separate answer choice. “OECD” presents the unweighted average across countries. In Mexico and Norway, the question was formulated in a slightly different way. Finland is excluded from the figure as the data were not available. For more detailed information on the survey questionnaire and processes in specific countries, please find the survey method document at http://oe.cd/trust.
Source: OECD Trust Survey (http://oe.cd/trust)
When looking separately at respondents that indicated economic vulnerability, expectations that rich and poor people would be treated equally are even lower. While a slight majority (50.5%) of respondents who are not worried about their household’s finances expect that a public employee would treat rich and poor people equally, the share drops to only about one-third of respondents among those who are concerned about their household’s finances (Figure 5.12). An individual’s economic vulnerability thus seems to be associated with the perception of unfair treatment by government. This finding aligns with the findings of the previous section, pointing to a perception that the system does not work in the same way for everyone and often leaves disadvantaged people behind.
Figure 5.12. Perceptions of economic vulnerability influence expectations of (un)equal treatment by government employees
Note: Figure presents the share of “likely” responses to the question “If a public employee has contact with the public in the area where you live, how likely or unlikely is it that they would treat both rich and poor people equally?” (aggregation of responses from 6-10 on a 0-10 scale). This share is presented separately for those who are “concerned” and “not concerned” about their household's finances and overall social and economic well-being. The “concerned” group is the aggregation of responses “somewhat concerned” and “very concerned” to the question “In general, thinking about the next year or two, how concerned are you about your household's finances and overall social and economic well-being?”; the “not concerned” group is the aggregation of responses “not at all concerned” and “not so concerned”. “OECD” presents the unweighted average across countries. Finland, Norway and Mexico are excluded from this figure as the data were not available. For more detailed information please find the survey method document at http://oe.cd/trust.
Source: OECD Trust Survey (http://oe.cd/trust)
References
[15] Frey, B., M. Benz and A. Stutzer (2004), “Introducing Procedural Utility: Not Only What, but Also How Matters”, Vol. 160/3, pp. 377-401.
[14] Lind, E. and C. Arndt (2016), “Perceived Fairness and Regulatory Policy: A Behavioural Science Perspective on Government-Citizen Interactions”, OECD Regulatory Policy Working Papers, No. 6, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/1629d397-en.
[8] Nolan-Flecha, N. (2017), “The influence of integrity on public trust”, in Trust and Public Policy: How Better Governance Can Help Rebuild Public Trust, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264268920-4-en.
[10] Norris, P. (2022), Trust in Government Redux: The Role of Information Environments and Cognitive Skills, HKS Faculty Research Working Paper Series, https://www.hks.harvard.edu/publications/trust-government-redux-role-information-environments-and-cognitive-skills (accessed on 7 February 2022).
[12] OECD (2021), Does Inequality Matter? : How People Perceive Economic Disparities and Social Mobility, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/3023ed40-en.
[4] OECD (2021), “Draft Principles of Good Practice for Public Communication Responses to Mis- and Disinformation”, https://www.oecd.org/governance/reinforcing-democracy/ (accessed on 24 March 2022).
[3] OECD (2021), Drivers of Trust in Public Institutions in Finland, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/52600c9e-en.
[1] OECD (2021), Main Findings from the 2020 Risks that Matter Survey, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/b9e85cf5-en.
[7] OECD (2021), OECD Regulatory Policy Outlook 2021, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/38b0fdb1-en.
[2] OECD (2020), “Building resilience to the Covid-19 pandemic: the role of centres of government”, OECD Policy Responses to Coronavirus (COVID-19), OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/883d2961-en.
[13] OECD (2018), A Broken Social Elevator? How to Promote Social Mobility, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264301085-en.
[5] OECD (2017), Trust and Public Policy: How Better Governance Can Help Rebuild Public Trust, OECD Public Governance Reviews, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264268920-en.
[9] Rothstein, B. (2018), “Fighting Systemic Corruption: The Indirect Strategy”, Daedalus, Vol. 147/3, pp. 35-49, https://doi.org/10.1162/daed_a_00501.
[6] Schmidthuber, L., A. Ingrams and D. Hilgers (2020), “Government Openness and Public Trust: The Mediating Role of Democratic Capacity”, Public Administration Review, Vol. 81/1, pp. 91-109, https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13298.
[11] Van de Walle, S. and K. Migchelbrink (2020), “Institutional quality, corruption, and impartiality: the role of process and outcome for citizen trust in public administration in 173 European regions”, Journal of Economic Policy Reform, pp. 1-19, https://doi.org/10.1080/17487870.2020.1719103.