Social Indicators Research

, Volume 123, Issue 3, pp 879–895 | Cite as

Measuring Trust in European Public Institutions

Article

Abstract

The problem of measuring the general level of trust in public institutions is addressed. A very general framework to compute an index of trust in public institutions is proposed and it is shown how to perform an uncertainty analysis of an index of trust to test its robustness. An application to data from the sixth round of the European Social Survey is presented. It is found that Scandinavian countries are the most trustful European countries in public institutions, whereas former communist countries as well as Iberian and Mediterranean ones are much less trustful. The governments of the least trustful countries in public institutions should be very careful in monitoring this issue and should think about introducing reforms to improve citizens’ trust. Improving trust in public institutions is central to improve social capital, participation in civic activities and law-abiding behavior and then governmental legitimacy.

Keywords

Composite indicator Trust in public institutions Uncertainty analysis Monte Carlo methods 

References

  1. Algan, Y., & Cahuc, P. (2010). Inherited trust and growth. The American Economic Review, 100, 2060–2092.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Arboretti Giancristofaro, R., Pesarin, F., & Salmaso, L. (2007). Nonparametric approaches for multivariate testing with mixed variables and for ranking on ordered categorical variables with an application to the evaluation of PhD programs. In S. Sawilowsky (Ed.), Real Data Analysis (pp. 355–385). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
  3. Arboretti Giancristofaro, R., Bonnini, S., & Salmaso, L. (2009). Employment status and education/employment relationship of PhD graduates from the University of Ferrara. Journal of Applied Statistics, 36, 1329–1344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Blanco, L. (2013). The impact of crime and insecurity on trust in democracy and institutions. The American Economic Review, 103, 284–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bouckaert, G., Van de Walle, S., & Kampen, J. K. (2005). Potential for comparative public opinion research in public administration. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 71, 229–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Carlin, R. E. (2014). Whats not to trust? Rubrics of political party trustworthiness in Chile and Argentina. Party Politics, 20, 63–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cook, T. E., & Gronke, P. (2005). The skeptical American: Revisiting the meanings of trust in government and confidence in institutions. Journal of Politics, 67, 784–803.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cox, D. R., Fitzpatrick, R., Fletcher, A. E., Gore, S. M., Spiegelhalter, D. J., & Jones, D. R. (1992). Quality-of-life assessment: Can we keep it simple (with discussion)? Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, 155, 353–393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Downe, J., Cowell, R., Chen, A., & Morgan, K. (2013). The determinants of public trust in English local government: how important is the ethical behaviour of elected councillors? International Review of Administrative Sciences, 79, 597–617.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. European Social Survey (2014). ESS Round 6 (2012/2013). Technical Report.Google Scholar
  11. Fayers, P. M., & Hand, D. J. (2002). Causal variables, composite indicators and measurement scales: An example from quality of life. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, 165, 233–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Graeff, P., & Svendsen, G. T. (2013). Trust and corruption: The influence of positive and negative social capital on the economic development in the European Union. Quality and Quantity, 47, 2829–2846.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hoskins, B. L., & Mascherini, M. (2009). Measuring active citizenship through the development of a composite indicator. Social Indicators Research, 90, 459–488.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Marozzi, M. (2009). A composite indicator dimension reduction procedure with application to university student satisfaction. Statistica Neerlandica, 63, 258–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Marozzi, M. (2012a). Tertiary student satisfaction with socialization: A statistical assessment. Quality and Quantity, 46, 1271–1278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Marozzi, M. (2012b). Composite indicators: A sectorial perspective. In C. Perna & M. Sibillo (Eds.), Mathematical and statistical methods for actuarial sciences and finance (pp. 287–294). Milan: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Marozzi, M. (2014). Construction, dimension reduction and uncertainty analysis of an index of trust in public institutions. Quality and Quantity, 48, 939–953.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Michalek, J., & Zarnekow, N. (2012). Application of the rural development index to analysis of rural regions in Poland and Slovakia. Social Indicators Research, 105, 1–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Munda, G., Nardo, M., Saisana, M., & Srebotnjak, T. (2009). Measuring uncertainties in composite indicators of sustainability. International Journal of Environmental Technology and Management, 11, 7–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Munda, G., & Nardo, M. (2009). Noncompensatory/nonlinear composite indicators for ranking countries: A defensible setting. Applied Economics, 41, 1513–1523.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. OECD (2008). Handbook on constructing composite indicators. Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
  22. OECD (2011). Citizens as partners: OECD handbook of information, consultation and public participation in policy making. Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
  23. Saisana, M., Saltelli, A., & Tarantola, S. (2005). Uncertainty and sensitivity analysis techniques as tools for the quality assessment of composite indicators. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, 168, 307–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Saisana, M., D’Hombres, B., & Saltelli, A. (2011). Rickety numbers: Volatility of university rankings and policy implications. Research Policy, 40, 165–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Saltelli, A. (2007). Composite indicators between analysis and advocacy. Social Indicators Research, 81, 65–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Saltelli, A., D’Hombres, B., Jesinghaus, J., Manca, A. R., Mascherini, M., & Nardo, M. (2011). Indicators for European Union policies. Business as usual? Social Indicators Research, 102, 197–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Shlapentokh, V. (2006). Trust in public institutions in Russia: the lowest in the world. Communist and Post-Communist Studies, 39, 153–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. United Nations Development Programme (2013). Human development report. New York: UNDP.Google Scholar
  29. Uslaner, E. M. (2013). Trust and corruption revisited: How and why trust and corruption shape each other. Quality and Quantity, 47, 3603–3608.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Zhou, P., & Ang, B. W. (2009). Comparing MCDA aggregation methods in constructing composite indicators using the Shannon–Spearman measure. Social Indicators Research, 94, 83–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of CalabriaRendeItaly

Personalised recommendations