IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/socsci/v102y2021i1p69-82.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Does the Bureaucracy Affect Trust in Government? Evidence from Aggregate Public Opinion

Author

Listed:
  • Louis Fucilla

Abstract

Objective This study aims to determine if attitudes toward the bureaucracy affect trust in government. Trust is a topic of interest in several disciplines but theory and empirical work are not well integrated with one another. Methods I extend previous work to create a macro‐level measure of attitudes toward the bureaucracy, bureaucratic approval, and then use time‐series analysis of aggregate public opinion to model trust in government from 1973 to 2018. Results I find that bureaucratic approval does affect trust in government, controlling for other important factors, and that the magnitude of this is comparable to that of congressional approval and consumer sentiment. Conclusion This study provides the first evidence that aggregate attitudes toward the bureaucracy affect trust. Moreover, bureaucratic approval is modestly favorable and has not substantially declined over time like congressional approval. I discuss the implications of the findings of this study for using the bureaucracy to improve trust in government.

Suggested Citation

  • Louis Fucilla, 2021. "Does the Bureaucracy Affect Trust in Government? Evidence from Aggregate Public Opinion," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 102(1), pages 69-82, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:socsci:v:102:y:2021:i:1:p:69-82
    DOI: 10.1111/ssqu.12876
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/ssqu.12876
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/ssqu.12876?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Luke Keele, 2007. "Social Capital and the Dynamics of Trust in Government," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 51(2), pages 241-254, April.
    2. Hibbing, John R., 2001. "Process Preferences and American Politics: What the People Want Government to Be," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 95(1), pages 145-153, March.
    3. Rogowski, Jon C., 2020. "The Administrative Presidency and Public Trust in Bureaucracy," Journal of Political Institutions and Political Economy, now publishers, vol. 1(1), pages 27-51, March.
    4. Hetherington, Marc J., 1999. "The Effect of Political Trust on the Presidential Vote, 1968–96," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 93(2), pages 311-326, June.
    5. Rogowski, Jon C., 2020. "The Administrative Presidency and Public Trust in Bureaucracy," Strategic Management Review, now publishers, vol. 1(1), pages 27-51, March.
    6. Thomas J. Rudolph & Jillian Evans, 2005. "Political Trust, Ideology, and Public Support for Government Spending," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 49(3), pages 660-671, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Jae Young Lim & Kuk-Kyoung Moon, 2020. "Examining the Moderation Effect of Political Trust on the Linkage between Civic Morality and Support for Environmental Taxation," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(12), pages 1-15, June.
    2. Jae-Young Lim & Kuk-Kyoung Moon, 2022. "Political Trust and Support for a Tax Increase for Social Welfare: The Role of Perceived Tax Burden," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(12), pages 1-12, June.
    3. Skali, Ahmed & Stadelmann, David & Torgler, Benno, 2021. "Trust in government in times of crisis: A quasi-experiment during the two world wars✰," Journal of Comparative Economics, Elsevier, vol. 49(2), pages 277-289.
    4. Jaeyoung Lim & Kuk-Kyoung Moon, 2022. "Does Political Participation Strengthen the Relationship between Civic Morality and Environmentally Friendly Attitudes? Evidence from South Korea," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(4), pages 1-13, February.
    5. Kukreja, Rolly, 2024. "Does representation affect trust in political institutions?: Evidence from redistricting in India," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 179(C).
    6. Kim-Lee Tuxhorn & John W. D'Attoma & Sven Steinmo, 2019. "Trust in institutions: Narrowing the ideological gap over the federal budget," Journal of Behavioral Public Administration, Center for Experimental and Behavioral Public Administration, vol. 2(1).
    7. Jaeyoung Lim & Kuk-Kyoung Moon, 2023. "Political Ideology and Trust in Government to Ensure Vaccine Safety: Using a U.S. Survey to Explore the Role of Political Trust," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(5), pages 1-15, March.
    8. Kuhika Gupta & Joseph T. Ripberger & Hank C. Jenkins‐Smith & Carol L. Silva, 2020. "Exploring Aggregate vs. Relative Public Trust in Administrative Agencies that Manage Spent Nuclear Fuel in the United States," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 37(4), pages 491-510, July.
    9. Jonathan Muringani & Rune Dahl Fitjar & Andrés Rodríguez-Pose, 2024. "Political trust and economic development in European regions," The Annals of Regional Science, Springer;Western Regional Science Association, vol. 73(4), pages 2059-2089, December.
    10. Jaeyoung Lim & Kuk-Kyoung Moon, 2021. "Can Political Trust Weaken the Relationship between Perceived Environmental Threats and Perceived Nuclear Threats? Evidence from South Korea," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(18), pages 1-13, September.
    11. Marija Džunić & Nataša Golubović & Srđan Marinković, 2020. "Determinants Of Institutional Trust In Transition Economies: Lessons From Serbia," Economic Annals, Faculty of Economics and Business, University of Belgrade, vol. 65(225), pages 135-162, April – J.
    12. Joseph A Hamm & Corwin Smidt & Roger C Mayer, 2019. "Understanding the psychological nature and mechanisms of political trust," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(5), pages 1-20, May.
    13. Ali Abdelzadeh, 2014. "The Impact of Political Conviction on the Relation Between Winning or Losing and Political Dissatisfaction," SAGE Open, , vol. 4(2), pages 21582440145, May.
    14. Paschalis Arvanitidis & Athina Economou & Christos Kollias, 2016. "Terrorism’s effects on social capital in European countries," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 169(3), pages 231-250, December.
    15. Jason Wei Jian Ng & Santha Vaithilingam & Grace H. Y. Lee & Gary J. Rangel, 2022. "Life Satisfaction and Incumbent Voting: Examining the Mediating Effect of Trust in Government," Journal of Happiness Studies, Springer, vol. 23(6), pages 2947-2967, August.
    16. Irina Georgieva & Tella Lantta & Jakub Lickiewicz & Jaroslav Pekara & Sofia Wikman & Marina Loseviča & Bevinahalli Nanjegowda Raveesh & Adriana Mihai & Peter Lepping, 2021. "Perceived Effectiveness, Restrictiveness, and Compliance with Containment Measures against the Covid-19 Pandemic: An International Comparative Study in 11 Countries," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(7), pages 1-15, April.
    17. Anne Marie Jeannet, 2017. "The Rational Public? Internal Migration and Collective Opinion about the European Union," Working Papers 103, "Carlo F. Dondena" Centre for Research on Social Dynamics (DONDENA), Università Commerciale Luigi Bocconi.
    18. Massimo Finocchiaro Castro & Calogero Guccio, 2020. "Birds of a feather flock together: trust in government, political selection and electoral punishment," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 184(3), pages 263-287, September.
    19. Zeynep Clulow & Michele Ferguson & Peta Ashworth & David Reiner, 2021. "Political ideology and public views of the energy transition in Australia and the UK," Working Papers EPRG2106, Energy Policy Research Group, Cambridge Judge Business School, University of Cambridge.
    20. Jae Young Lim & Kuk-Kyoung Moon, 2020. "Perceived Environmental Threats and Pro-Environmental Behaviors: Investigating the Role of Political Participation Using a South Korean Survey," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(9), pages 1-16, May.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:socsci:v:102:y:2021:i:1:p:69-82. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journal.asp?ref=0038-4941 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.