Building Institutional Trust Through Service Experiences—Private Versus Public Provision Matter

Abstract

Welfare service experiences are known to shape citizens' trust in public institutions and their support of the welfare state. But, there is poor understanding of how this relationship is shaped in systems of mixed provision, that is, welfare states that use public in-house as well as contracted private providers for publically funded services. Drawing on the notion of system trust this article provides a theoretical account of how mixed-provision welfare systems condition the relationship between service experience and trust, affecting the legitimacy of the state. Utilizing a randomized vignette experiment with participants in a general citizen survey in Sweden, we investigate whether it matters for the formation of institutional trust if the welfare service is provided by a public or third-party private provider. The main result show that the spillover of trust from positive service experiences with the provider to trust in public institutions is higher in cases of public service provision. Thus, the possibility of using welfare services to build trust in the welfare system seems to be greater when public provision is used.

Taking the bite out of administrative burdens: How beneficiaries of a Mexican social program ease administrative burdens in street‐level interactions

“…Therefore, Moynihan and Soss (2014) argue that bureaucratic experiences also trigger feedback mechanisms. This is supported by the literature on public service performance (Berg & Johansson, 2020; Van Ryzin, 2011; Wichowsky & Moynihan, 2008), which has demonstrated that people's expectations of government performance are informed by previous interactions with the state (Kumlin, 2004), by prior beliefs regarding the state (Baekgaard & Serritzlew, 2016) or by secondary information from experts, media and fellow citizens (Van Ryzin, 2007).…”

Exploring the role and nature of trust in institutional capacity building in low- and middle-income countries: a systematic review

“…For example, research done by Andriani and Sabatini in Palestinian territories show that institutional trust is the strongest predictor of prosociality, and that in collectivist societies with low levels of trust, the strengthening of institutional trust has the potential to reinforce prosocial behavior (prosocial individuals "tend to be natural cooperators that will strive to maximize joint outcomes and equality in outcomes, or sometimes even other outcomes (altruism) and they seek win-win situations to disagreement" (57) (58). Similar research done in Africa, Sweden, and Chile showed that higher institutional capacity was associated with increased levels of individual trust in institutions and governments across these countries (59)(60)(61). These support the notion that trust is important to promote innovation and e ciency, and support development.…”

Acting out or playing along: A typology of citizens' low trust responses to public organizations

“…For instance, waiting times (Mettler, 2002), arbitrary enforcement (Heinrich, 2018), and other negative bureaucratic experiences (Moynihan & Soss, 2014) have a negative effect on people's willingness to engage with the state (Bruch et al, 2010; Mettler & Soss, 2004). Prior negative bureaucratic experiences (Kumlin, 2004), beliefs regarding the state (Baekgaard & Serritzlew, 2016), or secondary information from experts, media, and fellow citizens (Van Ryzin, 2007) all shape citizen participation (Campbell, 2012), convey messages about someone's place in society and the way government works (Wichowsky & Moynihan, 2008), and feed back into assessments about the trustworthiness of government in general (Berg & Johansson, 2019; Van Ryzin, 2011). Specifically for low trust settings, studies have shown the negative feedback produced by, for instance, information about corrupt acts uncovered by transparency reforms (Bauhr & Grimes, 2014), corruption by street‐level bureaucrats (Justesen & Bjørnskov, 2014), fear of arbitrary enforcement (Heinrich, 2018, p. 9), or lack of trust in government's ability to provide equal access to rights and services (Peeters et al, 2018).…”