Intellectual Capital Management and Trust in Public Administration in European Countries
This chapter presents an overview of the relationship between intellectual capital (IC) indicators and trust in public administration in European Countries. It intends to highlight empirical evidence that the countries with better indicators of trust are also those with better IC management and vice versa. In terms of originality, this chapter aims to contribute to the development of the practice and theory in this knowledge area, stimulating data-driven discussions about the factors that can explain trust and guide the formulation of policies and strategic planning. The way that countries deal with IC indicators is a decisive factor in their international reputations and in the success of a wide range of public policies that depend on behavioral responses from the public.
KeywordsPublic administration Trust Intellectual capital National intellectual capital
- Bouckaert, G., & Van de Walle, S. (2003). Comparing measures of citizen trust and user satisfaction as indicators of ‘good governance’: Difficulties in linking trust and satisfaction indicators. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 69(3), 329–343.Google Scholar
- European Commission. (2015). JRC science and policy report – Trust, local governance and quality of public service in EU regions and cities. Luxembourg.Google Scholar
- European Commission. (2016). European semester thematic factsheet – Quality of public administration. Brussels. Retrieved from: https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/file_import/european-semester_thematic-factsheet_quality-public-administration_en.pdf
- European Research Centre for Anti-Corruption and State-Building (ERCAS), Hertie School of Governance. (2015). Public integrity and trust in Europe. Berlin. Retrieved from: https://www.government.nl/documents/reports/2016/01/18/public-integrity-and-trust-in-europe
- European Union. (2014). Sixth report on economic, social and territorial cohesion. Investment for jobs and growth. Promoting development and good governance in EU regions and cities. Luxembourg.Google Scholar
- Galindo, Ma Purificación V. (1986). Una Alternativa de Representación Simultánea: HJ-Biplot. Questiió: Quaderns d’Estadística, Sistemes, Informatica I Investigació Operativa. Retreived from: http://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/articulo?codigo=2360880&info=resumen&idioma=SPA
- Hamm, J. A. (2016). On the cross-domain scholarship of trust in the institutional context. In Interdisciplinary perspectives on trust: Towards theoretical and methodological integration. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-22261-5_8.
- Jordahl, H. (2007). Inequality and Trust. IFN Working Paper, (715), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1012786
- Lörincz, B., Tinholt, D., van der Linden, N., Colclough, G., Cave, J., Schindler, R., Cattaneo, G., Lifonti, R., Jacquet, L., & Millard, J. (2010). Digitizing Public Services in Europe: Putting ambition into action. RAND Europe, 7–8.Google Scholar
- OECD. (2015). Trust in government. In OECD Publishing (Ed.), Government at a glance 2015 (pp. 156–157). Paris: OECD Publishing.Google Scholar
- Ortiz-Ospina, E., & Roser, M. (2016). Trust. OurWorldInData.org
- Rose, R. (1994). Postcommunism and the problem of trust. Journal of Democracy, 5(3), 18–30. The Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
- Vairinhos, V. M., & Ma Purificación Galindo. (2004). Biplots PMD – Data Mining Centrada Em Biplots. Apresentação de Um Protótipo. In XI Jornadas de Classificação E Análise de Dados, 1–18.Google Scholar