Political Trust : An Empirical Perspective

In this book, trust is defined as “one’s willingness to be vulnerable to another based on the confidence that the other is benevolent, honest, open, reliable, and competent.” (page xiii) The author recognizes that trust is complex and dynamic. She views trust as the “lubricant” that greases the machinery of the organization. Trust is particularly important where parties are interdependent, or the “interests of one party cannot be achieve without reliance upon another.” In schools “teachers and principals are

The authors themselves are credible for this topic. McCarty is a professor of Politics and Public Affairs at Princeton University. Poole is A Professor of Political Science at the University of California. Rosenthal is a Professor of Politics at

This trust paper explores the 2013 United States Federal Government shutdown incident along with the trust theory as it relates to this issue. The more recent shutdown was contributed to the split party lines and Congress resisting to pass a budget with the Affordable Care Act (ACA) in place. Trust between government and constituents have been a long struggle as public servants work to build trust after an issue like the Federal Government shutdown occurs. The research provided in the paper analyzes theories on the reasons for the lack of trust and how public servants can build trust. Not only does trust involve the political environment

The public trust in government has declined over the years, and now the people think they can do little to influence the government actions. According to the book We the people by Benjamin Ginsberg, in 2013 only 19 percent of americans reported trusting the government with their decisions in Washington. On the contrary, compare to 1960s and 1970s americans had a lot of more respect and trust for the american government due to the fact that the government did what was best for the people. But now, the trust that his great nation once had has been declining in a

The concept of trust is most easily grasped at the interpersonal level which (is) perhaps the most important for unit cohesion and effectiveness. Another contributor to cohesion and effectiveness is the trust that exists between members of the Army profession and the bureaucracy, which should serve as the Profession. Interpersonal trust is based on predictable behavior resulting in an individual’s perception and feeling that the gains associated with cooperation outweigh the uncertainty and risk inherent in the relationship.” (Allen, C.D & Braun III W.G. (2012). Trust: Implications for the Army Profession, Unpublished

Trust links citizens with governments and the institutions that represent them. This connection, in turn, enhances the legitimacy and stability of democratic government. To some great extent, trust benefits both citizens and governments. For citizens, trust “reduces the complexity of choice and allows them to relax the need of constantly monitor governmental institutions.” For governments, trust provides them with “the certainty that they will be obeyed, relaxing the need for use of coercive force.” Trust is, as Citrin and Muste (1999) argue, also a source of power for the

If it is fair to assume that social performance and economic conditions cause variations in the degree of trust individuals place in their government, it is also fair to assume that members of the same birth cohort, who have experienced similar economic and social changes at the same lifecycle stages, will then place a similar degree of trust in their government, and on a micro level, the party which they belong to. Therefore, the dramatic historical events experienced by individuals in the youth stage of their life, such as economic depression, war, immigration, and cultural change, have an especially strong impact on their political attitudes, as they are in the formative stage of their political learning (Braungart & Braungart 1986). The attitudes that are formed during a cohort's youth provide the foundation for the way they will interpret the political events that follow, which, in opposition to the theories of lifecycle theorists, suggests that attitudes and behavior do not obviously change over time (Braungart & Braungart 1986). Cohorts that grew up during the economic depressions of the 1930s, and experienced World War II hold different beliefs, and we would argue, different degrees of trust, then the cohorts that grew up during some of the more affluent, post-WWII years. Because of this difference in

An important relationship exists between confidence in government and social trust which can be linked to public goods provision (Newton & Norris, Confidence in Public Institutions: Faith, Culture or Performance?, 1999). Social trust is broadly defined as trusting in others and can refer to both individuals and higher levels of analysis. Netwon & Norris found that social trust is not strongly associated with measure of public confidence at the individual level and personality types or cultural factors may be more significant at this level. However, at the national level there is a significant relationship between social trust and public confidence. The relationship is that social trust and high public confidence are highly

A truth universally acknowledged in political science is that while politicians are strategic actors, voters are not. Converse’s The Nature of Belief Systems in Mass Politics broke the electorate into five groups based on the manner in which they form the belief systems that then serve to inform their vote. From this, he determined that only about 15% of the electorate has a moderate to fully formed ideology which guides their opinions and their votes (Converse 17).

According to many studies and “We the People” there has been a steady decline in the trust our nation has in the government system. From the mid 1960’s until 1980, a drastic decrease in trust occurred. This marked a time when trust in government had dropped to extremely low levels of about 25 percent. Between that time period and the new millennium the trust in government fluctuated, but for the most, not much change occurred. By the year 2001, soon after 9/11, trust had risen to the above 50 percent level. However, by 2011 trust in government had reached an all-time low point of nearly 10-15 percent, and has not made much of an increase since. This causes many problems in the United States for many different reasons. The government controls a huge part of every American citizen’s daily life, and because of this we must place a lot of trust in our government; this makes trust a highly important trait for U.S Politics. When levels of trust are high, the government can function more to their full potential.

A promise, including trust, is a statement that assures an individual it will be accomplished. When a promise is made by a person and it is kept, they are seen as reliable or able to be counted on in the future. If the promise is broken, the person is seen as “untrustworthy.” Candidates are known for making promises during their campaign election to the public in order to win. For a candidate to win, he or she assures the public they will do a particular thing or make a change if they are elected. Many voters have trust issues because the candidate who wins the election often tends to abandon those promises. The voter must ask his or herself if this candidate is qualified for the promises that are being made or will all the promises be

Results that will inform Policy: The success of USHI is showcases an amount of trust for such systems. Understanding the causes of trust for these systems will help policy makers create strategies to undo such trust.

Social trust: a touchy subject is a published in voices 2015-2016. As a USU published book, it is intended for college students attending USU. This book is a required textbook for ENGL 2010, an intermediate

In my paper, I discuss how the varying amount of ethnicities in a country leads to trust and in-group bias, which points to the differentiation in welfare state spending. I analyze two countries that have varying percentages of ethnicities and different sized welfare states. Denmark has an extremely large social welfare state, and a very small amount of ethnic diversity. Brazil, on the other hand, has high ethnic diversity with a very small welfare state. This paper proves that there is a direct connection between why having a small ethnic diversity in a country creates differing amounts of interpersonal trust, which creates a large welfare state, and vice-versa.

In order for interpersonal trustworthiness to exist in organizations, a leader-follower relationship must first exist between the parties involved (Caldwell et al., 2010, p. 500). Once that leader-follower relationship is established, leaders have to earn trust. Leaders earn trust by their respective actions, morals and virtues. Trust is can also be based on past history. If something was done in the past which questions a leader’s values, morals or judgment, it would be unlikely that the leader would be trusted in the future. One of the most important parts of being an effective leader is building and maintaining trust. Trust can further be defined as a “multi-dimensional construct comprising different dimensions of the trustee’s attributes that the trustor evaluates” (Ingenhoff and Sommer, 2010, p. 341).