Intellectual Capital Management and Trust in Public Administration in European Countries

  • Florinda Matos
  • Valter Vairinhos
  • Ana Josefa Matos


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.


Public administration Trust Intellectual capital National intellectual capital 


  1. Asiaei, K., & Jusoh, R. (2015). A multidimensional view of intellectual capital: The impact on organizational performance. Management Decision, 53(3), 668–697.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bannister, F., & Connolly, R. (2011). Trust and transformational government: A proposed framework for research. Government Information Quarterly, 28(2), 137–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bontis, N. (1999). Managing organizational knowledge by diagnosing intellectual capital: Framing and advancing the state of the field. International Journal of Technology Management, 18(5), 433–462.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 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
  5. Cumming, D., Hou, W., & Lee, E. (2016). Business ethics and finance in greater China: Synthesis and future directions in sustainability, CSR, and fraud. Journal of Business Ethics, 138(4), 601–626.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. European Commission. (2015). JRC science and policy report – Trust, local governance and quality of public service in EU regions and cities. Luxembourg.Google Scholar
  7. European Commission. (2016). European semester thematic factsheet – Quality of public administration. Brussels. Retrieved from:
  8. European Research Centre for Anti-Corruption and State-Building (ERCAS), Hertie School of Governance. (2015). Public integrity and trust in Europe. Berlin. Retrieved from:
  9. 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
  10. Gabriel, K. R. (1971). The biplot graphic display of matrices with application to principal component analysis. Biometrika, 58(3), 453–467.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Galindo, Ma Purificación V. (1986). Una Alternativa de Representación Simultánea: HJ-Biplot. Questiió: Quaderns d’Estadística, Sistemes, Informatica I Investigació Operativa. Retreived from:
  12. Grimmelikhuijsen, S., Porumbescu, G., Hong, B., & Im, T. (2013). The effect of transparency on trust in government: A cross-national comparative experiment. Public Administration Review, 73(4), 575–586.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Guiso, L., Sapienza, P., & Zingales, L. (2006). Does culture affect economic outcomes? Journal of Economic Perspectives, 20(2), 23–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hain, D., Johan, S., & Wang, D. (2016). Determinants of cross-border venture capital investments in emerging and developed economies: The effects of relational and institutional trust. Journal of Business Ethics, 138(4), 743–764.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 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.
  16. Inkinen, H., Kianto, A., Vanhala, M., & Ritala, P. (2017). Structure of intellectual capital – An international comparison. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 30(5), 1160–1183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Jordahl, H. (2007). Inequality and Trust. IFN Working Paper, (715), 1–21.
  18. Kim, S.-E. (2005). The role of trust in the modern administrative state an integrative model. Administration and Society, 37(5), 611–635.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kim, S., & Lee, J. (2012). E-participation, transparency, and trust in local government. Public Administration Review, 72(6), 819–828.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Leana, C. R., & van Buren, H. J. (1999). Organizational social capital and employment practices. The Academy of Management Review, 24(3), 538–555. Retrieved from: Scholar
  21. Lin, C. Y.-Y., & Edvinsson, L. (2011). National intellectual capital: A comparison of 40 countries. New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lin, C. Y.-Y., & Edvinsson, L. (2013). National intellectual capital in Israel and financial crisis impact. International Journal of Knowledge-Based Development, 4(3), 245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 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
  24. Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. (1995). An integrative model of organizational trust. The Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 709–734. Retreived from: Scholar
  25. Morgeson, F. V., III, Vanamburg, D., & Mithas, S. (2011). Misplaced trust? Exploring the structure of the e-government-citizen trust relationship. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 21(2), 257–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Nahapiet, J., & Ghoshal, S. (1998). Social capital, intellectual capital, and the organizational advantage. The Academy of Management Review, 23(2), 242–266. Retrieved from: Scholar
  27. OECD. (2015). Trust in government. In OECD Publishing (Ed.), Government at a glance 2015 (pp. 156–157). Paris: OECD Publishing.Google Scholar
  28. Ortiz-Ospina, E., & Roser, M. (2016). Trust.
  29. Rose, R. (1994). Postcommunism and the problem of trust. Journal of Democracy, 5(3), 18–30. The Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Rousseau, D. M., Sitkin, S. B., Burt, R. S., & Camerer, C. (1998). Not so different after all: A cross-discipline view of trust. Academy of Management Review, 23(3), 393–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Tolbert, C. J., & Mossberger, K. (2006). The effects of e-government on trust and confidence in government. Public Administration Review, 66(3), 354–369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 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
  33. Van de Walle, S., Van Roosbroek, S., & Bouckaert, G. (2008). Trust in the public sector: Is there any evidence for a long-term decline? International Review of Administrative Sciences, 74(1), 47–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Wang, X., & Wan Wart, M. (2007). When public participation in administration leads to trust: An empirical assessment of managers’ perceptions. Public Administration Review, 67(2), 265–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Welch, E. W., Hinnant, C. C., & Moon, M. J. (2005). Linking citizen satisfaction with e-government and trust in government. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 15(3), 371–391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. World Bank. (2017). World development report 2017: Governance and the law. Washington, DC: World Bank. Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Florinda Matos
    • 1
  • Valter Vairinhos
    • 1
  • Ana Josefa Matos
    • 1
  1. 1.ICLab – ICAA – Intellectual Capital Accreditation AssociationSantarémPortugal

Personalised recommendations