Search

Given that trust in government is a critical feature of a well-functioning democracy, research into its determinants has long been a priority among public opinion scholars. The consensus in the literature is that short-term factors drive the ebbs and flows of public trust, and a climate of mistrust has significant consequences on the government's ability to deliver on policies and enforce the law. Despite decades of extensive research on public trust, changing circumstances related to the COVID-19 pandemic support the need to investigate the factors shaping trust in this distinct period. This article, using data from the American National Election Study, explores how economic, social, and political anxieties pervasive throughout the pandemic influence trust in the United States government. Findings from ordered logistic regression analyses indicate that public trust in government is associated with views of the government's COVID-19 response, beliefs about the state of the country and government corruption, economic anxieties, and concerns about election fraud and the status of American democracy. Findings also reveal that sentiments toward institutions—including the police and the Center for Disease Control—contribute to variability in public trust. The implications of these findings for criminal justice research and policy are also considered. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

New Zealand's two intelligence and security agencies play crucial roles in preserving our democracy and protecting the public from various harms associated with political violence. Scandals involving intelligence professionals likely diminish public trust and confidence in these agencies, which appears to be very low among some marginalised communities and minority groups. While official secrecy is required for sound strategic and operational reasons, it hampers meaningful articulation of the value proposition underpinning these agencies and their work. Reassuring the public is vital for the intelligence and security agencies, given their highly intrusive powers. Rather than more reviews of, increased transparency by, or stronger accountability over the New Zealand Security Intelligence Service and the Government Communications Security Bureau, we suggest that a parliamentary commissioner for security is needed to help foster a level of public awareness and build the understanding required for trust and confidence to be restored in these agencies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

As news media face declining levels of trust, research has suggested that partisans may differ in their views of news media. Depending on their ideological positions, partisans may have different perceptions of how faithfully news media adhere to journalistic norms. This study explores the intersections of ideology, perceived ethical performance of news media, trust in news media, and news participatory behaviors. Our analyses of data from a national representative survey of 452 respondents show that liberals are more likely than conservatives to perceive that news media operate ethically. More important, we found that liberals trust news media more than conservatives because of this evaluation. Our results also suggest that participation in news is positively related to ethical performance evaluations, which partly account for different levels of participation between conservatives and liberals. Implications for regaining media trust and encouraging participatory practices are discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In order for governments to realise the qualitative elements of democratic governance, essentially good governance (the limitation of power, effectiveness in governance, accountability and transparency, and justice), and for counter-measures to be effective in the fight against the ever-present scourge of corruption, it is absolutely imperative that ethics and integrity play a central role in politics and public service. Whereas democratic governance is about responsive and responsible leadership (the attitudes of political leaders towards their roles as public trustees, transparency in public policy-making, the readiness to share information with citizens, and adherence to the rule of law), ethics and integrity rank among the qualities most valued in politicians and public servants; it is a general, all-purpose yardstick against which to measure public conduct, and it is selfless service based solely on the public interest, demonstrated by honesty in the execution of public duties. Corruption, the abuse of public office (or entrusted power) for private gain, undermines institutions, destroys lives and communities, translates into human suffering, leads to failure in the delivery of basic services, derails the building of essential infrastructure, and generates popular anger that threatens to destabilise societies. Corruption thrives because the state can be used as a mechanism for ensuring upward mobility or patronage, easing the way for private access to public resources. Thus, the apparatus of the state becomes the means for an elite to acquire wealth, rather than serving as a corrective mechanism to promote social justice and sustainable development. There is, therefore, a need to develop strategies that uncouple private wealth accumulation through corruption from access to public office through politics -- hence the development of tools and mechanisms to enhance integrity in governance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Recent contributions suggest that introducing political contracts could make liberal democracy more efficient without altering its fundamental values. Such contracts might foster the public 's trust in politics. In this article, we review and structure the current state of affairs on Contractual Democracy. We discuss four archetypes of political contracts and ways of implementing them. We outline the certification and control procedures for political contracts, and address the major concerns arising with regard to Contractual Democracy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

It is often argued that immediate government action regarding nanotechnology is needed to ensure that public opinion does not mistakenly view nanotechnology as dangerous, to restore public trust in government, and to increase the legitimacy of government action through increased public participation. This article questions whether governments can achieve these goals. As the world lurches toward regulation of nanotechnology, we should ask Why the rush? Can anticipatory action, perceived as the government doing something, fulfill the competing hopes to “restore trust,”“pave the way” for nanotechnology, “increase awareness,” and “satisfy democratic notions of accountability”? Or is government action more likely to increase existing divisions over nanotechnology's future? [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]