IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/intare/v21y2018i2p114-133.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Bureaucratic characteristics and citizen trust in civil service in OECD member nations

Author

Listed:
  • SeoYoun Choi

Abstract

Do various bureaucratic characteristics explain different levels of public trust in civil service? While studies have suggested various desirable traits for public administration in democratic societies, including political responsiveness, representativeness, and professionalism, their possible linkages to public evaluations of government bureaucracies are insufficiently investigated. This article examines how such attributes are related to citizens’ evaluations of civil service using a multilevel analysis across 18 Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) member nations. The bureaucratic characteristics are measured using data from the Quality of Government (QoG) Expert Survey and the OECD statistics. The survey data from the 2004 International Social Survey Programme (ISSP) are used to capture individual perceptions of public administration. The empirical results show that levels of citizens’ trust in bureaucracies is higher when an impartial and gender representative public administration exists. The findings contribute to our understanding of the correlates of public trust in government agencies, as well as consequences of emphasizing different bureaucratic traits across nations.

Suggested Citation

  • SeoYoun Choi, 2018. "Bureaucratic characteristics and citizen trust in civil service in OECD member nations," International Area Studies Review, Center for International Area Studies, Hankuk University of Foreign Studies, vol. 21(2), pages 114-133, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:intare:v:21:y:2018:i:2:p:114-133
    DOI: 10.1177/2233865917753899
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/2233865917753899
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/2233865917753899?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. 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.
    2. Christopher J. Anderson & Yuliya V. Tverdova, 2003. "Corruption, Political Allegiances, and Attitudes Toward Government in Contemporary Democracies," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 47(1), pages 91-109, January.
    3. Keiser, Lael R. & Wilkins, Vicky M. & Meier, Kenneth J. & Holland, Catherine A., 2002. "Lipstick and Logarithms: Gender, Institutional Context, and Representative Bureaucracy," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 96(3), pages 553-564, September.
    4. M A Thomas, 2010. "What Do the Worldwide Governance Indicators Measure?," The European Journal of Development Research, Palgrave Macmillan;European Association of Development Research and Training Institutes (EADI), vol. 22(1), pages 31-54, February.
    5. Dollar, David & Fisman, Raymond & Gatti, Roberta, 2001. "Are women really the "fairer" sex? Corruption and women in government," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 46(4), pages 423-429, December.
    6. B. Peters, 2010. "Bureaucracy and Democracy," Public Organization Review, Springer, vol. 10(3), pages 209-222, September.
    7. Ansolabehere, Stephen & Rodden, Jonathan & Snyder, James M., 2008. "The Strength of Issues: Using Multiple Measures to Gauge Preference Stability, Ideological Constraint, and Issue Voting," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 102(2), pages 215-232, May.
    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. 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.
    2. repec:pdn:wpaper:79 is not listed on IDEAS
    3. Irena Schneider, 2017. "Can We Trust Measures of Political Trust? Assessing Measurement Equivalence in Diverse Regime Types," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 133(3), pages 963-984, September.
    4. Graf Lambsdorff, Johann, 2005. "Consequences and causes of corruption: What do we know from a cross-section of countries?," Passauer Diskussionspapiere, Volkswirtschaftliche Reihe V-34-05, University of Passau, Faculty of Business and Economics.
    5. Eugen Dimant & Guglielmo Tosato, 2018. "Causes And Effects Of Corruption: What Has Past Decade'S Empirical Research Taught Us? A Survey," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 32(2), pages 335-356, April.
    6. Astrid Sneyers & Anneleen Vandeplas, 2013. "Girl Power in Agricultural Production: How Much Does it Yield? A Case-Study on the Dairy Sector in India," Working Papers id:5562, eSocialSciences.
    7. Maria Kravtsova & Aleksey Oshchepkov, 2019. "Market And Network Corruption," HSE Working papers WP BRP 209/EC/2019, National Research University Higher School of Economics.
    8. Gutmann, Jerg & Metelska-Szaniawska, Katarzyna & Voigt, Stefan, 2024. "Leader characteristics and constitutional compliance," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 84(C).
    9. Di Guardo, Maria Chiara & Marrocu, Emanuela & Paci, Raffaele, 2016. "The effect of local corruption on ownership strategy in cross-border mergers and acquisitions," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 69(10), pages 4225-4241.
    10. Gumber, Anurag & Zana, Riccardo & Steffen, Bjarne, 2024. "A global analysis of renewable energy project commissioning timelines," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 358(C).
    11. Matthew Blackwell & James Honaker & Gary King, 2017. "A Unified Approach to Measurement Error and Missing Data: Overview and Applications," Sociological Methods & Research, , vol. 46(3), pages 303-341, August.
    12. repec:dau:papers:123456789/5135 is not listed on IDEAS
    13. Kyunga Na & Young-Hee Kang & Yang Sok Kim, 2018. "The Effect of Corporate Governance on the Corruption of Firms in BRICs (Brazil, Russia, India & China)," Social Sciences, MDPI, vol. 7(6), pages 1-16, May.
    14. Thushyanthan Baskaran & Sonia Bhalotra & Brian Min & Yogesh Uppal, 2024. "Women legislators and economic performance," Journal of Economic Growth, Springer, vol. 29(2), pages 151-214, June.
    15. Cavaillé, Charlotte & Chen, Daniel L. & Van Der Straeten, Karine, 2022. "Who Cares? Measuring Preference Intensity in a Polarized Environment," IAST Working Papers 22-130, Institute for Advanced Study in Toulouse (IAST).
    16. Stadelmann, David & Portmann, Marco & Eichenberger, Reiner, 2013. "How do Female Preferences Influence Political Decisions by Female and Male Representatives?," VfS Annual Conference 2013 (Duesseldorf): Competition Policy and Regulation in a Global Economic Order 79748, Verein für Socialpolitik / German Economic Association.
    17. Marta Santagata & Enrico Ivaldi & Riccardo Soliani, 2019. "Development and Governance in the Ex-Soviet Union: An Empirical Inquiry," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 141(1), pages 157-190, January.
    18. Gebka, Bartosz & Kanungo, Rama Prasad & Wildman, John, 2024. "The transition from COVID-19 infections to deaths: Do governance quality and corruption affect it?," Journal of Policy Modeling, Elsevier, vol. 46(2), pages 235-253.
    19. Helen McLaren & Cassandra Star & Ida Widianingsih, 2019. "Indonesian Women in Public Service Leadership: A Rapid Review," Social Sciences, MDPI, vol. 8(11), pages 1-16, November.

    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:sae:intare:v:21:y:2018:i:2:p:114-133. 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: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.hufs.ac.kr/user/hufsenglish/re_1.jsp .

    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.