Abstract
This chapter examines trust in democratic institutions. The chapter argues that representative democracy is founded on a relationship between citizens and state premised on trust. Trust is important for two reasons: (1) sovereignty is transferred from the people to a legislative body, meaning that the stability and vitality depend, in part, upon trust; and (2) trust serves as a creator of collective power, enabling leaders to make commitments on the basis of it and govern more effectively. Multivariate models confirm that trust in democratic institutions is multidimensional. The research pinpoints its values-based components, its rootedness in civil society, its performance-based aspects and its grounding in political partisanship. In addition, the research not only shows that trust differ between the east and the west, but that it is conditioned by different theoretical mechanisms. The findings have implications for democratic reform and for research about cultivating trust in new democracies.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Robert Rohrschneider and Rüdiger Schmitt-Beck, ‘Trust in Democratic Institutions: Theory and Evidence Ten Years after Unification’. German Politics, 11/3 (1998), pp. 35–58.
- 2.
See, for example, Kendall Baker, Russell J. Dalton and Kai Hildebrandt, Germany Transformed: Political Culture and the New Politics (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1981). The authors write: ‘[T]he post-war regime has inspired widespread support among the general public and this support has become at least partially diffuse … Satisfaction with the political system was more or less universal in 1972’ (p. 270).
- 3.
The details of these proposals are complex and sharply contested—not least since it is disputed if reforms will reverse the erosion of trust. Although voters are undoubtedly confronted with an increasingly demanding electoral setting, it is far from clear that creating greater access points generates increased efficacy. Indeed, they may complicate voters’ ability to hold representatives accountable, spread their attention more thinly or simply result in them perceiving that each vote is of diminished significance. Equally, whilst instruments of transparency are widely lauded for having diversified and democratised citizens’ access to information, the long-term consequences of this may not necessarily contribute to nurturing public trust in democracy.
- 4.
David Beetham, ‘The Future of Parliaments’, in Sonia Alonso, John Keane and Wolfgang Merkel (eds.) The Future of Representative Democracy (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2011), pp. 124–143.
- 5.
See, for example, Mark Warren, ‘A Second Transformation of Democracy?’ In Bruce E. Cain, Russell J. Dalton and Susan E. Scarrow, Democracy Transformed? Expanding Political Opportunities in Advanced Industrial Democracies (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006), pp. 223–249.
- 6.
Hans-Dieter Klingemann and Dieter Fuchs, Citizens and the State: A changing relationship? In Citizens and the State (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995), p. 22.
- 7.
Geoffrey Brennan, ‘Democratic Trust: A Rational-Choice Theory View’ in Margaret Levi and Valerie Braithwaite, Trust and Governance (New York, NY: Russell Sage, 1998), pp. 197–217.
- 8.
This point is outlined most clearly by Giddens, who argues that the processes of modern democratic government implicitly depend upon trust. Electoral systems, for example, secure representation but also facilitate access points which connect citizens to elites. Manifestos, handshaking and the imagery surrounding leaders and parties, meanwhile, are embedded in conceptions of trustworthiness. See Anthony Giddens, The Consequences of Modernity. London: Polity Press (1990), p. 91.
- 9.
Ross Campbell, ‘Values, Trust and Democracy: Still in Search of ‘Inner Unity’?’ European Journal of Political Research, 51/4 (2012), pp. 646–670.
- 10.
William T. Mishler and Richard Rose, ‘Trust in Untrustworthy Institutions: Culture and Institutional Performance in Post-Communist Societies’, Studies in Public Policy 310 (Centre for the Study of Public Policy; University of Strathclyde, 1998).
- 11.
William T. Bianco, Trust: Representatives and Constituents (Ann Arbor, MI: The University of Michigan Press, 1994), 23.
- 12.
William Gamson, Power and Discontent (Homewood, IL: Dorsey Press, 1968), pp. 42–43.
- 13.
Tom Tyler, ‘The Psychology of Public Dissatisfaction with Government’. In John R. Hibbing and Elisabeth Theiss-Morse, What is it About Government that Americans Dislike? (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001), pp. 227–242.
- 14.
Levi makes the point via obligations: compliance stems from ‘the perception that all relevant interests have been considered, that the game is not rigged’. See, for example, Margaret Levi, ‘A State of Trust’, in Margaret Levi and Valerie Braithwaite, Trust and Governance (New York, NY: Russell Sage, 1998), p. 90.
- 15.
See, for example, Tom Tyler and Peter Degoey, ‘Trust in Organizational Authorities: The Influence of Motive Attributions on Willingness to Accept Decisions’, in Roderick M. Kramer and Tom Tyler (eds) Trust in Organizations (Thousand Oaks, CA: Russell Sage, 1998).
- 16.
Giddens, ibid., p. 89.
- 17.
Russell Hardin, ‘Do We Want Trust in Government?’ Trust and Governance (New York, NY.: Russell Sage, 1998), pp. 22–41.
- 18.
Claus Offe, ‘How Can we Trust our Fellow Citizens?’ in Mark E. Warren (ed.), Democracy and Trust (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999), p. 50.
- 19.
Mark E. Warren, ‘Introduction’ in Mark E. Warren (ed.), Democracy and Trust (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999), pp. 1–21.
- 20.
Russell Hardin, ‘Trust in Government’, in Margaret Levi and Valerie Braithwaite, Trust and Governance (New York, NY.: Russell Sage, 1998), pp. 9–27.
- 21.
Ibid. p. 23.
- 22.
Piotr Sztompka, Trust: A Sociological Theory (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999), pp. 24–25.
- 23.
Claus Offe, ‘How Can we Trust our Fellow Citizens?’ in Mark E. Warren (ed.), Democracy and Trust (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999), pp. 42–87.
- 24.
Russell J. Dalton, Democratic Challenges Democratic Choices: Political Support in Advanced Industrial Democracies (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004).
- 25.
Michel Crozier, Samuel P. Huntington and Joji Watanuki, The Crisis of Democracy: Report on the Governability of Democracies to the Trilateral Commission (New York, NY.: New York University Press, 1975), pp. 6–7.
- 26.
Jack Citrin, ‘Political Alienation as a Social Indicator: Attitudes and Action’, Social Indicators Research, 4 (1977), pp. 381–419, especially, p. 392.
- 27.
Brian D. Silver, ‘Political Beliefs of the Soviet Citizen: Sources of Support for Regime Norms’ in James R. Millar, Politics, Work, and Daily Life in the USSR (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1987), pp. 100–141.
- 28.
Jack Citrin, ‘Comment: The Political Relevance of Trust in Government’, American Political Science Review, 68 (1974), pp. 973–988 (pp. 974–975).
- 29.
William Mishler and Richard Rose, ‘Trajectories of Fear and Hope: Support for Democracy in Post-communist Europe’. Comparative Political Studies, 28/4 (1995), pp. 553–581.
- 30.
Arthur Miller, ‘Political Issues and Trust in Government’ American Political Science Review, 68, 951–972 (p. 951)
- 31.
These trends largely confirm research findings uncovered by other scholars. See, for example, Renate Köcher, Allensbacher Jahrbuch der Demoskopie 2003–2009: Die Berliner Republik (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter GmbH, 2009), p. 120. Detlaf Pollack, ‘Trust in Institutions and the Urge to be Different’, German Politics, 8/3 (1999), p. 98.
- 32.
Ross Campbell, ‘The Sources of Institutional Trust in Germany; Civic Culture and Economic Performance?’ German Politics, 24/1 (2004), pp. 401–425.
- 33.
Richard Rose, Wolfgang Zapf, Wolfgang Seifert and Edward Page, ‘Germans in Comparative Perspective’ Studies in Public Policy 218 (Centre for the Study of Public Policy, 1993).
- 34.
Oscar Gabriel and Eva-Maria Trüdinger, ‘Embellishing Welfare State Reforms? Political Trust and Support for the Welfare State Reforms in Germany’, German Politics, 20/2 (2011), pp. 273–292, especially, p. 284.
- 35.
Perhaps the most persuasive account of this is Marc J. Hetherington, Why Trust Matters: Declining Political Trust and the Demise of American Liberalism (Princeton, NJ.: Princeton University Press, 2005).
- 36.
Article 28 paragraph 2 of the Basic Law states that ‘Municipalities must be guaranteed the right to regulate all local affairs on their own responsibility’.
- 37.
Brigitte Geissel, ‘Participatory Governance: Hope or Danger for Democracy? A Case Study of Local Agenda 21’, Local Government Studies, 35/4 (2009), pp. 401–414.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Campbell, R. (2019). Trust in Democratic Institutions: Evidence and Explanations Beyond Unification. In: Popular Support for Democracy in Unified Germany. New Perspectives in German Political Studies. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-03792-5_7
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-03792-5_7
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-03791-8
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-03792-5
eBook Packages: Political Science and International StudiesPolitical Science and International Studies (R0)