Outcomes, Process, and Trust of Civil Servants

The contemporary performance movement has tended to assume that a key to restoring public trust in civil servants lies in a focus on outcomes or results. But there is growing evidence from various fields that trust in people and institutions of authority often depends more on process (such as fairness and equity) than on outcomes. This finding that process matters in the formation of trust judgments appears across a wide range of settings (police, courts, work places), yet it has not been adequately recognized in the public administration literature and rhetoric on government performance—especially in an era of outcomes-based, results-driven government. Using data from the International Social Survey Program (ISSP), the World Bank Governance Indicators, and the UN Human Development Index, this article empirically examines the relative influence of process versus outcomes on the perceived trustworthiness of civil servants. Individual-level structural equation models are tested for the United States as well as all 33 countries in the ISSP. Country-level path models are tested using both World Bank/UN indicators and aggregated ISSP survey data. Results show that process has a consistently large effect on trust of civil servants, in some models several times larger than the effect of outcomes on trust. Although it has methodological limitations, this study should at least encourage more theoretical and empirical attention to government process, and not just outcomes, as a factor in explaining citizens' trust of civil servants.

[1]  S. Van de Walle,et al.  Perceptions of Productivity and Performance in Europe and The United States , 2007 .

[2]  Kenneth P. Ruscio,et al.  Trust, Democracy, and Public Management: A Theoretical Argument , 1996 .

[3]  Craig W. Thomas.  Maintaining and Restoring Public Trust in Government Agencies and their Employees , 1998 .

[4]  Evan M. Berman,et al.  Dealing with Cynical Citizens , 1997 .

[5]  Marc Holzer,et al.  The Performance–Trust Link: Implications for Performance Measurement , 2006 .

[6]  E. Vigoda-Gadot,et al.  Citizens' Perceptions of Politics and Ethics in Public Administration: A Five-Year National Study of Their Relationship to Satisfaction with Services, Trust in Governance, and Voice Orientations , 2006 .

[7]  Gordon P. Whitaker.  Coproduction: Citizen Participation in Service Delivery , 1980 .

[8]  Geert Bouckaert,et al.  Trust in the public sector: is there any evidence for a long-term decline? , 2008 .

[9]  Lisa M. V. Gulick,et al.  Drivers and Consequences of Citizen Satisfaction: An Application of the American Customer Satisfaction Index Model to New York City , 2004 .

[10]  Montgomery Van Wart,et al.  When Public Participation in Administration Leads to Trust: An Empirical Assessment of Managers’ Perceptions , 2007 .

[11]  S. Kim,et al.  The Role of Trust in the Modern Administrative State , 2005 .

[12]  E. Vigoda-Gadot,et al.  Public Sector Management and the Democratic Ethos: A 5-Year Study of Key Relationships in Israel , 2006 .

[13]  S. Walle.  The state of the world's bureaucracies , 2006 .

[14]  Geert Bouckaert,et al.  Public Service Performance and Trust in Government: The Problem of Causality , 2003 .

[15]  Gregg G. Van Ryzin,et al.  Pieces of a Puzzle: Linking Government Performance, Citizen Satisfaction, and Trust , 2007 .

[16]  J. Brudney,et al.  Toward a Definition of the Coproduction Concept , 1983 .

[17]  T. Bovaird.  Beyond Engagement and Participation: User and Community Coproduction of Public Services , 2007 .