Trust in government and its antecedents and development remain leading policy and research concerns. Drawing on a broadly representative online survey of 3100 respondents in Japan, we examine measures of trust in three local government actors. We find political participation is not associated with trust in local government, contrary to our expectations. Civic participation is associated with trust in the mayor, but not councillors or administrators. Satisfaction with services provided by local government, and positive perceptions of policy process, are associated with trust, with interactions suggesting process is the stronger antecedent. To develop greater trust in local government, it is important that public sector actors exhibit respect for rights and follow procedure, laws, and regulations, as well as deliver positive outcomes.
Points for practitioners
Building trust in government remains a key concern for policy makers, as it is related to successful adoption of policies.
Trust in local government in Japan is related to perceived performance and citizen satisfaction.
Civic participation is also related to some forms of trust in government.
However, possibly more important are citizen perceptions that policy processes respect rights, procedures, and laws.
To increase trust in government, practitioners need to practice, and show that they practice, good processes in developing and delivering policy, and show that policy leads to better perceived outcomes.
AokiN (2015) Let’s get public administration right, but in what sequence? Lessons from Japan and Singapore. Public Administration and Development35(3): 206–218.
2.
BouckaertGvan de WalleS (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 Sciences69(3): 329–343.
3.
BoyneG (1998) Public Choice Theory and Local Government: A Comparison of the UK and the USA. Houndmills: Macmillan.
4.
CAO (2017) Designing 100-Year Life Society. Tokyo: CAO.
5.
Cabinet Office (2020) Public Opinion Survey on Social Awareness(in Japanese). Tokyo: Cabinet Office.
6.
ChristensenTLægreidP (2005) Trust in government: The relative importance of service satisfaction, political factors, and demography. Public Performance & Management Review28(4): 487–511.
7.
ChyungSYRobertsKSwansonI, et al. (2017) Evidence-based survey design: The use of a midpoint on the Likert Scale. Performance Improvement56(10): 15–23.
8.
CichockaAJostJ (2014) Stripped of illusions? Exploring system justification processes in capitalist and post-communist societies. International Journal of Psychology49(1): 6–29.
9.
DahlbergSLindeJHolmbergS (2015) Democratic discontent in old and new democracies: Assessing the importance of democratic input and governmental output. Political Studies63(S1): 18–37.
10.
DolleryBKinoshitaYYamazakiK (2020) Humanitarian co-production in local government: The case of natural disaster volunteering in Japan. Local Government Studies46(6): 959–978.
11.
DowneJCowellRChenA, et al. (2013) The determinants of public trust in English local government: How important is the ethical behaviour of elected councillors?International Review of Administrative Sciences79(4): 597–617.
12.
FukuyamaF (2001) Social capital, civil society and development. Third World Quarterly22(1): 7–20.
13.
GoldfinchSYamamotoK (2019) Citizen perceptions of public management: Hybridisation and post-new public management in Japan and New Zealand. Australian Journal of Public Administration78(1): 79–94.
14.
GoldfinchSGauldRHerbisonP (2009) The participation divide? Political participation, trust in government, and E-government in Australia and New Zealand. Australian Journal of Public Administration68(3): 333–350.
15.
GoldfinchSTaplinRGauldR (2021) Trust in government increased during the COVID-19 pandemic in Australia and New Zealand. Australian Journal of Public Administration80(1): 3–11.
16.
GreasleyS (2013) Trust in government, performance information and democracy. In: LlewellynSBrookesSMahonA (eds) Trust and Confidence in Government and Public Services. New York: Routledge, pp. 65–79.
17.
GrimesM (2017) Procedural fairness and political trust. In: ZmerliSMeerT (eds) Handbook of Political Trust. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, pp.256–269.
18.
GrimmelikhuijsenSKniesE (2017) Validating a scale for citizen trust in government organizations. International Review of Administrative Sciences83(3): 583–601.
19.
HoustonDJAitalievaNRMorelockAL, et al. (2016) Citizen trust in civil servants: A cross-national examination. International Journal of Public Administration39(14): 1203–1214.
20.
IkedaK (2016) The Japanese Way of Thinking and World People’s Thinking: From the World Values Survey(in Japanese). Tokyo: Keiso Shobo.
21.
ImadaM (2010) Civil society in Japan: Democracy, voluntary action, and philanthropy. In: VinkenHNishimuraYWhiteB, et al. (eds) Civil Engagement in Contemporary Japan. New York: Springer, pp. 21–40.
22.
KaminJ (2010) Of sunlight and sausages. Kennedy School Review10(10): 45–49.
23.
KettlD (2017) Can Governments Earn Our Trust?New York: Polity.
24.
KimS (2010) Public trust in government in Japan and South Korea: Does the rise of critical citizens matter?Public Administration Review70(5): 801–810.
25.
LaninDHermantoN (2019) The effect of service quality toward public satisfaction and public trust on local government in Indonesia. International Journal of Social Economics46(3): 377–392.
26.
MagniG (2015) It’s not fair! The impact of perceived injustice on political participation. In: Proceedings of European Political Science Association Annual Conference, Vienna, Austria, 25–27 June 2015. EPSA.
27.
MahmoodMWeerakkodyVChenW (2020) The role of information and communications technology in the transformation of government and citizen trust. International Review of Administrative Sciences86(4): 708–728.
28.
ManningNGuerreroA (2013) Why do politicians reform? Do they know something about the drivers of trust in government? In: LlewellynSBrookesSMahonA (eds) Trust and Confidence in Government and Public Services. New York: Routledge, pp. 80–120.
29.
MIC (2017a) Trends of Voting Rate by Age. Tokyo: MIC.
30.
MIC (2017b) Survey on Results of the 18th Local Elections. Tokyo: MIC.
31.
MizrahiSVigoda-GadotECohenN (2010) Trust, participation and performance. Public Management Review12(1): 99–126.
32.
NapierJLJostJT (2008) Why are conservatives happier than liberals?Psychological Science19(6): 565–572.
33.
NewtonKStolleDZmerliS (2018) Social and political trust. In: UslanderE (ed.) The Oxford Handbook of Social and Political Trust. New York: Oxford University Press, pp.37–56.
34.
NodaY (2017) Trust in the leadership of governors and participatory governance in Tokyo Metropolitan Government. Local Government Studies43(5): 776–797.
35.
NodaY (2019) Citizen expectations and satisfaction of service performance: Lessons from subnational governments in Japan. Asia Pacific Journal of Public Administration41(3): 142–156.
36.
OECD (2019) Government at a Glance 2019. Paris: OECD.
37.
Oyama K (2015) Which effects trust in the civil service, NPM or Post-NPM? Outcomes and process from comparative perspective. Journal of Law, Politics, and Sociology 88(9): 1–24.
38.
ParkSMJoaquinME (2012) Of alternating waves and shifting shores: The configuration of reform values in the US federal bureaucracy. International Review of Administrative Sciences78(3): 514–536.
39.
PekkanenR (2006) Japan’s Dual Civil Society: Members without Advocates. Redwood, CA: Stanford University Press.
40.
PopkinSL (1991) The Reasoning Voter: Communication and Persuasion in Presidential Elections. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
41.
PutnamR (2000) Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community. New York: Simon & Schuster.
42.
PutnamRLeonardiRNanettiR (1993) Making Democracy Work: Civic Traditions in Modern Italy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
43.
ReitanMGustafssonKBlekesauneA (2015) Do local government reforms result in higher levels of trust in local politicians?Local Government Studies41(1): 156–179.
44.
SuzukiK (2017) Government expenditure cuts and voluntary activities of citizens: The experience of Japanese municipalities. Asia Pacific Journal of Public Administration39(4): 258–275.
45.
SuzukiKDemirciogluMA (2021) Is impartiality enough? Government impartiality and citizens’ perceptions of public service quality. Governance34(3): 727–764.
46.
SuzukiKHaHAvellanedaCN (2020) Direct and non-linear innovation effects of demographic shifts. Australian Journal of Public Administration79(3): 351–369.
47.
TieboutC (1956) A pure theory of local expenditures. Journal of Political Economy64: 416–424.
48.
Theiss-MorseEHibbingJR (2005) Citizenship and civic engagement. Annual Review of Political Science8(1): 227–249.
49.
TylerT (2006) Why People Obey the Law. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
50.
UddinSMoriYAdhikariP (2019) Participatory budgeting in a local government in a vertical society: A Japanese story. International Review of Administrative Sciences85(3): 490–505.
51.
Van der WalZDemirciogluMA (2020) Public sector innovation in The Asia-Pacific trends, challenges, and opportunities. Australian Journal of Public Administration79(3): 271–278.
52.
Van de WalleS (2011) New public management: Restoring the public trust through creating distrust? In: ChristensenTLægreidP (eds) Ashgate Research Companion to New Public Management. Aldershot: Ashgate, pp.309–320.
53.
Van de WalleSMigchelbrinkK (2022) Institutional quality, corruption, and impartiality: The role of process and outcome for citizen trust in public administration in 173 European regions. Journal of Economic Policy Reform, 25(1): 9–27.
54.
Van RyzinGG (2011) Outcomes, process, and trust of civil servants. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory21(4): 745–760.
55.
WilkinsonCBriggsJSaltK, et al. (2019) In participatory budgeting we trust? Fairness, tactics and (in)accessibility in participatory governance. Local Government Studies45(6): 1001–1020.
56.
World Economic Forum (2018) The Global Gender Gap 2018. Geneva: World Economic Forum.
YamagishiTYamagishiM (1994) Trust and commitment in the United States and Japan. Motivation and Emotion18(2): 129–166.
59.
ZhangMZhaoX-yXueY-x, et al. (2021) A meta-analysis of how the culture and technical development level influence citizens’ adoption of m-government. International Review of Administrative Sciences. DOI: 10.1177/00208523211057358.
