While the dynamics of trust in the national government have been shown to be responsive to political events and governmental performance, less is known about why the publics trust in U.S. state and local government rises and falls over time. We examine the trends in confidence in subnational government using an aggregate level approach. First, we consider whether levels of trust are defined by reactions to the national government. Second, we consider how factors specific to subnational politics such as governmental performance and the quality of community life influence trust. Using measures of confidence in state and local government from 1968 to 2004 and a set of error correction models, we find evidence for both accounts. Confidence in subnational governments reflects national trends such as economic tides and public preferences for more or less government, but also exhibits unique dynamics explained by factors specific to subnational politics.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AlfordRobertEugeneC. Lee1968. “Voting Turnout in American Cities.” American Political Science Review62:796–813.
2.
AndersonJennifer L.AdamJ. Newmark2002. “A Dynamic Model of U.S. Senator Approval, 1981–2000.” State Politics and Policy Quarterly2:298–316.
3.
ArceneauxKevin2006. “The Federal Face of Voting: Are Elected Officials Held Accountable for the Functions Relevant to Their Office?” Political Psychology27:731–54.
4.
BannerjeeAnindyaJuanDoladoJohnW. GalbraithDavidF. Hendry1993. Integration, Error Correction, and the Econometric Analysis of Non-Stationary Data. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
5.
BennettLinda L.StephenE. Bennett1990. Living with Leviathan: Americans Coming to Terms with Big Government. Lawrence, KS: University of Kansas Press.
6.
BewleyR. A.1979. “The Direct Estimation of the Equilibrium Response in a Linear Model.” Economic Letters3:357–61.
7.
BiancoWilliam T.1994. Trust: Representatives and Constituents. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
8.
BracePaul1993. State Government and Economic Performance. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
9.
ChanleyVirginia A.ThomasJ. RudolphWendyM. Rahn2000. “The Origins and Consequences of Public Trust in Government: A Time Series Analysis.” Public Opinion Quarterly64:239–56.
10.
ChubbJohn E.1988. “Institutions, the Economy, and the Dynamic of State Elections.” American Political Science Review82:133–54.
11.
CitrinJack1974. “Comment: The Political Relevance of Trust in Government.” American Political Science Review68:973–88.
12.
ColeRichard L.JohnKincaidAlejandroRodriguez2004. “Public Opinion on Federalism and Federal Political Culture in Canada, Mexico, and the United States 2004.” Publius34:201–21.
13.
ConlanTimothy J.1993. “Federal, State, or Local? Trends in the Public's Judgment.” The Public Perspective4:3–10.
14.
De BoefSuzannaLukeKeele2008. “Taking Time Seriously.” American Journal of Political Science52:184–200.
15.
DurrRobert H.AndrewD. MartinChristinaWolbrecht2000. “Ideological Divergence and Public Support for the Supreme Court.” American Journal of Political Science44:768–76.
16.
DurrRobert H.JohnB. GilmourChristinaWolbrecht1997. “Explaining Congressional Approval.” American Journal of Political Science41:175–207.
17.
EriksonRobertMichaelMacKuenJamesStimson2002. The Macro Polity. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
18.
GamsonWilliam A.1968. Power and Discontent. Homewood, IL: Dorsey Press.
19.
HansonRussell L.1999. “Intergovernmental Relations.” In Politics in the American States: A Comparative Analysis, 7th ed., eds. VirginiaGrayRussellL. HansonHerbertJacobWashington, DC: CQ Press.
20.
HetheringtonMark J.1999. “The Effect of Political Trust on the Presidential Vote, 1968–1996.” American Political Science Review93:311–26.
21.
HetheringtonMarc J.JohnD. Nugent2001. “Explaining Public Support for Devolution: The Role of Political Trust.” In What is it About Government that Americans Dislike?, eds. JohnR. Hibbing and Elizabeth Theiss-Morse. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
22.
HibbingJohn R.ElizabethTheiss-Morse1995. Congress as Public Enemy. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
23.
HolbrookThomas1987. “National Factors in Gubernatorial Elections.” American Politics Quarterly15:471–83.
24.
JenningsM. Kent1998. “Political Trust and the Roots of Devolution.” In Trust and Governance, eds. ValerieBraithwaiteMargaretLeviNew York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.
25.
KarnigAlbertWalterB. Oliver1983. “Decline in Municipal Voter Turnout: A Function of Changing Structure?” American Politics Quarterly11:491–506.
26.
KarpJeffrey A.1995. “Explaining Public Support for Legislative Term Limits.” Public Opinion Quarterly59:373–91.
27.
KeeleLuke2005. “Macro Measures and Mechanics of Social Capital.” Political Analysis13:139–56.
28.
KeeleLuke2007. “Social Capital and the Dynamics of Trust in Government.” American Journal of Political Science51:241–54.
29.
KellstedtPaul M.2000. “Media Framing and the Dynamics of Racial Policy Preferences.” American Journal of Political Science44:245–60.
30.
LeviMargaretLauraStoker2000. “Political Trust and Trustworthiness.” Annual Review of Political Science3:475–507.
31.
MorlanRobert1984. “Municipal vs. National Election Turnout: Europe and the United States.” Political Research Quarterly99:457–70.
32.
MutzDiana C.GregoryFlemming1999. “How Good People Make Bad Collectives: A Social-Psychological Perspective on Public Attitudes Toward Congress.” In Congress and the Decline of Public Trust, ed. JosephCooper, Boulder. CO: Westview Press.
33.
OrrenGary1997. “Fall from Grace: The Public's Loss of Faith in Government.” In Why People Don't Trust Government, eds. JosephS. NyePhilipD. ZelikowDavidC. KingCambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
34.
RahnWendy2000. “Affect as Information: The Role of Public Mood in Political Reasoning.” In Elements of Reason, eds. ArthurLupiaMathewD. McCubbinsSamuelL. PopkinNew York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
35.
RahnWendy M.ThomasJ. Rudolph2002. “Trust in Local Governments.” In Understanding Public Opinion, 2nd ed., eds. BarbaraNorranderClydeWilcoxWashington, DC: CQ Press.
36.
RoederPhillip W.1994. Public Opinion and Policy Leadership in the American States. Tuscaloosa, AL: The University of Alabama Press.
37.
SchneiderSaundra K.WilliamG. Jacoby2003. “Public Attitudes toward the Policy Responsibilities of the National and State Governments: Evidence from South Carolina.” State Politics and Policy Quarterly3:246–69.
38.
SharpElaine B.1999. Culture Wars and Local Politics. Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas.
39.
SimonDennis M.CharlesW. OstromJr.RobinF. Marra1991. “The President, Referendum Voting, and Subnational Elections in the United States.” American Political Science Review85:1177–92.
40.
StimsonJames A.1999. Public Opinion in America: Moods, Cycles, and Swings, 2nd ed.Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
41.
StimsonJames A.2004. Tides of Consent: How Public Opinion Shapes American Politics. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
42.
StokesDonald E.1962. “Popular Evaluations of Government: An Empirical Assessment.” In Ethics and Business: Scientific, Academic, Religious, Political, and Military, eds. HarlanClevelandHaroldD. LaswellNew York, NY: Harper & Brothers.
43.
TylerTom R.1998. “Trust and Democratic Government.” In Trust and Governance, eds. ValerieBraithwaiteMargaretLeviNew York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.
44.
UslanerEric M.2001. “Is Washington Really the Problem?” In What is it About Government that Americans Dislike?, eds. JohnR. HibbingElizabethTheiss-MorseNew York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
45.
YackeeSusan WebbDavidLowery2005. “Understanding Public Support for the US Federal Bureaucracy.” Public Management Review7:515–36.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
