No abstract

Momentous events in Western democracies have brought renewed attention to how various aspects of government-controlled policy outputs and outcomes affect citizens' trust in politics. Unlike most previous research this study uses individual-level panel data to test the link between government performance evaluations and political trust. Moreover, we gauge performance in more policy areas than previous research including key aspects of government-controlled social services as well as a wide range of economic risks. We find that evaluations of government performance affect political trust but that the evidence is stronger for evaluations of social protection than for economic risks. Crucially, our analysis suggests that the relationship between performance evaluations and distrust is reciprocal. The relationship may be described as a "downbound spiral" where dissatisfied groups develop distrust, which in turn makes for a more pessimistic interpretation of economic risks and welfare state performance.

This chapter considers if and how social and political trust are affected by policy outputs and outcomes related to the welfare state. We survey how (dis)similar explanatory variables, causal mechanisms, and methodology are across four accumulations of studies. Specifically, we discuss contextual factors in “normal times” as well as effects of economic crises. We also assess individual-level factors focusing on “performance evaluations” and “personal experiences” of welfare state aspects and institutions. Overall, we find evidence for relationships between welfare state related variables and both types of trust. However, the evidence currently seems somewhat stronger and broader for political trust, suggesting that welfare state consequences for trust may well be “more political than social.”

Momentous events in Western democracies have brought renewed attention to how various aspects of government-controlled policy outputs and outcomes affect citizens' trust in politics. Unlike most previous research this study uses individual-level panel data to test the link between government performance evaluations and political trust. Moreover, we gauge performance in more policy areas than previous research including key aspects of government-controlled social services as well as a wide range of economic risks. We find that evaluations of government performance affect political trust but that the evidence is stronger for evaluations of social protection than for economic risks. Crucially, our analysis suggests that the relationship between performance evaluations and distrust is reciprocal. The relationship may be described as a "downbound spiral" where dissatisfied groups develop distrust, which in turn makes for a more pessimistic interpretation of economic risks and welfare state performance.

Moderation or radicalisation? How executive power affects right-wing populists' satisfaction with democracy This paper investigates if access to executive power strengthens or weakens the positive relationship found in previous research between dissatisfaction with democracy and electoral support for the populist right. Research on political trust and satisfaction with democracy thus far has almost exclusively focused on cases in which the populist right has been excluded from governing coalitions. Will access to executive power incite these parties to moderate their populist rhetoric and boost satisfaction among their supporters, or will limited policy impact and sustained populist messages even from within governments generate disappointment and therefore exacerbate dissatisfaction with the political system? This study investigates one of the few countries in Europe where a populist rightwing party has assumed national office, namely Norway. Using individual-level panel data I find support for the moderation perspective in that assuming office indeed weakens the relationship between dissatisfaction with democracy and electoral support for the populist right.