The Role of Governance on Trust in Public Administration on the 100th Anniversary of the Republic: A Local Governance Analysis

Abstract

The Republic, at its core, is a political system based on sharing, participation, and trust. Therefore, the state of the relationship between the government and the citizens is of paramount importance for the health of the system. The aim of this study is to elucidate a small part of this relationship at the local level on the occasion of the 100th anniversary of our Republic. In this context, the study attempts to analyze the impact of good governance practices on trust in public administration. This is because the level of trust that citizens have in public administration is one of the key determinants of the distance in the state-citizen relationship. Additionally, it is acknowledged that well-functioning governance mechanisms also have an impact on trust in public administration. The study, the impact of the governance practices of responsiveness, accountability, transparency, and participation on trust was analyzed. Data were collected from 367 citizens living in the Uşak province (Turkey) through face-to-face and online surveys. The Structural Equation Modeling analysis revealed that all four dimensions of governance had a statistically significant positive effect on citizens' trust in public administration. The lowest impact on trust was observed in the dimension of participation. As a result, it can be said that well-functioning governance mechanisms and processes are a necessity to enhance citizens' trust in public administration at the local level. Furthermore, the development of methods that encourage greater citizen participation in these mechanisms and processes will contribute to increasing trust.

Keywords

• the republic
• governance
• trust
• participation
• local government

Cumhuriyetin 100. Yılında Kamu Yönetimine Duyulan Güven Üzerinde Yönetişimin Rolü: Bir Yerel Yönetim Analizi

Abstract

ÖZ Cumhuriyet özünde paylaşımın, katılımın ve güvenin bulunduğu bir siyasi sistemdir. Bu nedenle devletle vatandaş arasındaki ilişkinin durumu sistemin sağlığı açısından çok önemlidir. Çalışmanın amacı da Cumhuriyetimizin 100. Yılında bu ilişkinin küçük bir parçasını yerel düzeyde açıklamaktır. Bu bağlamda çalışmada iyi yönetişim uygulamalarının kamu yönetimine olan güven üzerindeki etkisi analiz edilmeye çalışılmıştır. Çünkü vatandaşların kamu yönetimine olan güven düzeyi devlet-vatandaş ilişkisinin mesafesini belirleyen etkenlerin başında gelmektedir. Bunun yanında iyi işleyen yönetişim mekanizmalarının da kamu yönetimine olan güven üzerinde etkisi olduğu kabul edilmektedir. Çalışmada iyi yönetişim boyutları olarak cevap verebilirlik, hesap verebilirlik, şeffaflık ve katılımın güven üzerindeki etkisi analiz edilmiştir. Veriler, Uşak ilinde yaşayan 367 vatandaştan yüz yüze ve online uygulanan anket formu aracılığı ile toplanmıştır. Yapılan Yapısal Eşitlik Modellemesi analizi sonucunda, yönetişimin dört boyutunun da vatandaşların kamu yönetimine güveni üzerinde istatistiksel olarak pozitif yönde anlamlı bir etkisi olduğunu bulgulanmıştır. Güven üzerinde en düşük etki ise katılım boyutunda görülmektedir. Sonuç olarak yerel düzeyde vatandaşların kamu yönetimine olan güvenin artırılması için iyi işleyen yönetişim mekanizma ve süreçlerinin bir gereklilik olduğunu söylemek mümkündür. Bununla birlikte vatandaşların bu mekanizma ve süreçlere daha fazla katılımını sağlayacak yöntemlerin geliştirilmesi güvenin artırılmasına katkıda bulunacaktır.

Keywords

• cumhuriyet
• yönetişim
• güven
• katılım
• yerel yönetim

References

1. Aldemir, C., & Şen, E. (2020). Yerel Katılım Ölçeği Geçerlik ve Güvenirlik Çalışması, Atatürk University Journal of Economics and Administrative, 34(4), 1473-1490. doi:10.16951/atauniiibd.760978
2. Askvik, S., Jamil, I., & Dhakal, T. N. (2010). Citizens’ trust in public and political institutions in Nepal. International Political Science Review, 32(4), 417-437.
3. Aulich, C. (2009). From citizen participation to participatory governance. Commonwealth Journal of Local Governance, 2, 44-60.
4. Barbalet, J. M. (1996). Social emotions: Confidence, trust and loyality. International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, 16(9/10), 75-96.
5. Bell, S., & Park, A. (2006). The problematic metagovernance of networks: Water reform in new south wales. Journal of Public Policy, 26(1), 63-83.
6. Beshi, T. D., & Kaur, R. (2020). Public trust in local government: Explaining the role of good governance practices. Public Organization Review, 20, 337-350. doi:10.1007/s11115-019-00444-6
7. Bevir, M. (2011). Governance as theory, practice and dilemma. In M. Bevir (Ed.), The SAGE handbook of governance (pp. 1-16). SAGE Publications.
8. Bhargava, V., Cutler, K., & Ritchie, D. (2011). Stimulating the demand for good governance. The Partnership for Transparency Fund.

9. Bingham, L. B., Nabatchi, T., & O’Leary, R. (2005). The new governance: Practices and processes for stakeholder and citizen participation in the work of government. Public Administration Reivew, 65(5), 547-558.
10. Biondi, L., & Lapsley, I. (2014). Accounting, transparency and governance: The heritage assets problem. Qualitative Research in Accounting & Management, 11(2), 146-164. doi:10.1108/QRAM-04-2014-0035
11. Bourgon, J. (2007). Responsive, responsible and respected government: Towards a new public administration theory. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 73(1), 7-26.
12. Bovens, M. (2005). Public accountability. In E. Ferlie, L. E. Lynn, & C. Pollitt (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of public management (pp. 182-208). Oxford University Press.
13. Brillantes, A.B., & Fernandez, M.T. (2011). Restoring trust and building integrity in government: Issues and concerns in the Philippines and areas for reform. International Public Management Review, 12(2), 55-80.
14. Brinkerhoff, D. W. (2006). Accountability and good governance: Concepts and issues. In A. S. Huque & H. Zafarullah (Eds.), Handbook of international development governance, (pp. 281-299). CRC Press.
15. Brown, T. L., Potoski, M., & Van Slyke, D. M. (2007). Trust and contract completeness in the public sector. Local Government Studies, 33(4), 607-623.
16. Bryer, T. A. (2007). Toward a relevant agenda for a responsive public administration. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 17(3), 479-500. doi:10.1093/jopart/mul010
17. Burke, E. M. (1968). Citizen participation strategies. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 34(5), 287-294.
18. Byrne, B.M. (2011). Structural equation modeling with AMOS basic concepts, applications and programming. Routledge.
19. Carnevale, D. G., & Wechsler, B. (1992). Trust in the public sector: Individual and organizational determinants. Administration & Society, 23(4), 471-494.
20. Cendón, A. B. (2000). Accountability and public administration: Concepts, dimension, developments. In M. Kelly (Ed.), Front cover image for Openness and transparency in governance: Challenges and opportunities (pp. 22-61). NISPAcee and EIPA.
21. Ciborra, C. (2005). Interpreting e-government and development: Efficiency, transparency or governance at a distance? Information Technology & People, 18(3), 260-279.
22. Cooper, C. A., Knotts, H. G., & Brennan , K. M. (2008). The Importance of trust in government for public administration: The case of zoning. Public Administration Review, 68(3), 459-468., A. (2002). Locating citizen participation. IDS Bulletin, 33(2), 1-10.
23. Cornwall, A. (2002). Locating citizen participation. IDS Bulletin, 33(2), 1-10.
24. Cuthill, M., & Fien, J. (2005). Capacity building: Facilitating citizen participation in local governance. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 64(4), 63-80.
25. da Cruz, N. F., Tavares, A. F., Marques, R. C., Jorge, S., & de Sousa, L. (2015). Measuring local government transparency. Public Management Review, 18(6), 866–893. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2015.1051572.
26. Damgaard, B., & Torfing, J. (2010). Network governance of active employment policy: The Danish experience. Journal of European Social Policy, 20(3), 248-262.
27. Dean, R. J. (2018). Counter-governance: Citizen participation beyond collaboration. Politics and Governance, 6(1), 180-188. doi:10.17645/pag.v6i1.1221
28. Denhardt R. B. (2002). Trust as Capacity: The Role of Integrity and Responsiveness, Public Organization Review: A Global Journal 2 (1), 65–76. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1016027504549
29. Enroth, H. (2011). Policy network theory. In M. Bevir (Ed.), The SAGE handbook of governance (pp. 19-35). SAGE Publications.
30. Fakhoury, R., & Aubert, B. (2015). Citizenship, trust, and behavioural intentions to use public e-services: The case of Lebanon. International Journal of Information Management, 35(3), 346-351.
31. Farwell M.M., Shier M.L., & Handy F. (2019). Explaining trust in Canadian charities: The influence of public perceptions of accountability, transparency, familiarity and institutional trust. International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 30(4), 768–782.
32. Finkelstein, N. D. (2000). Introduction: Transparency in public policy. In N. D. Finkelstein (Ed.), Transparency in public policy: Great Britain and the United States (pp. 1-9). Palgrave Macmillan.
33. Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error: Algebra and statistics. Journal of Marketing Research, 18, 382-388. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3150980
34. Frederickson, H. G. (1996). Comparing the reinventing government movement with the new public administration. Public Administration Review, 56(3), 263-270.
35. Fung, A. (2015). Putting the public back into governance: The challenges of citizen participation and its future. Public Administration Review, 75(4), 513-522. doi:10.1111/puar.12361
36. Fung, A., Graham, M., & Weil, D. (2007). Full disclosure: The perils and promise of transparency. Cambridge University Press.
37. Gargan, J. J. (2007). The public administration community and the search for professionalism. In J. Rabin, W. B. Hildreth, & G. J. Miller (Eds.), Handbook of public adminislration (pp. 1125-1204). CRC Press.
38. Gbikpi, B., & Grote, J. R. (2002). Introduction: From democratic govemment to participatory govemance. In J. R. Grote, & B. Gbikpi (Eds.), Participatory governance: Political and societal implications (pp. 16-34). Springer Fachrnedien Wiesbaden.
39. Ghose, R. (2005). The complexities of citizen participation through collaborative governance. Space and Polity, 9(1), 61-75.
40. Grimmelikhuijsen, S. (2012). Linking transparency, knowledge and citizen trust in government: An experiment. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 78(1), 50–73.
41. Grimmelikhuijsen, S., Porumbescu, G., Hong, B., & Im, T. (2013). The effect of transparency on trust in government: A cross-national comparative experiment. Public Administration Review, 73(4), 575-586. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12047
42. Hair J.F., Black W.C., Babin B.J. ve Anderson R.E. (2010). Multivariate data analysis: A global perspective, upper saddle river, Pearson Prentice Hall.
43. Hale, T. N. (2008). Transparency, accountability, and global governance. Global Governance, 14(1), 73-94. doi:10.2307/27800692
44. Hardin, R. (2000). The public trust. In S. Pharr, & R. Putnam (Eds.), Disaffected democracies: What's troubling the trilateral countries? (pp. 31-51). Princeton University Press.
45. Hartanto, D. and Siregar, S.M. (2021). Determinants of overall public trust in local government: Meditation of government response to COVID-19 in Indonesian context, Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy, 15 (2), 261-274.
46. Heintzman, R., & Marson, B. (2005). People, service and trust: is there a public sector service value chain? International Review of Administrative Sciences, 71(4), 549-575.
47. Höglund, L., Mårtensson, M., & Safari, A. (2019). The impact of types of trust in the public sector – a case study approach. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 32(3), 247-263. doi:10.1108/IJPSM-08-2017-0226
48. Hood, C. (1991). A public management for all seasons? Public Administration, 69, 3-19.
49. Jessop, B. (2011). Metagovernance. In M. Bevir (Ed.), The SAGE handbook of governance (pp. 106-123). SAGE Publications.
50. Kenis, P. (2022). Network. In C. Ansell, & J. Torfing (Eds.), Handbook on theories of governance (pp. 149-157). Edward Elgar Publishing.
51. Kernaghan, K. (1993). Partnership and public administration: Conceptual and practical considerations. Canadian Public Administration, 36(1), 57-76.
52. Khine M.S. (2013). Application of structural equation modeling in educational research and practice. Sense Publishers.
53. Kiss, B., Sekulova, F., Hörschelmann, K., Salk, C. F., Takahashi, W., & Wamsler, C. (2022). Citizen participation in the governance of nature-based solutions. Environmental Policy and Governance, 32(3), 247-272. doi:10.1002/eet.1987
54. Kline, R.B. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. Guilford Press.
55. Kooiman, J. (2002). Govemance: A social-political perspective. In J. R. Grote, & B. Gbikpi (Ed.), Participatory governance: Political and societal implications (pp. 71-96). Springer Fachrnedien Wiesbaden.
56. Kooiman, J., & Jentoft, S. (2009). Meta-governance: Values, norms and principles, and the making of hard choices. Public Administration, 87(4), 818-836.
57. Kosack, S., & Fung, A. (2014). Does transparency improve governance? Annual Review of Political Science, 17, 65-87. doi:10.1146/annurev-polisci-032210-144356.
58. Kozel, E., & Dečman, M. (2022). The impact of trust in government – young voters’ behavioral intention to use I- voting in Slovenia. The NISPAcee Journal of Public Administration and Policy, 15(1), 61-87.
59. Leitzel, J. (2000). Opaque markets and firearm regulation. In N. D. Finkelstein (Ed.), Transparency in public policy: Great Britain and the United States (pp. 93-112). Palgrave Macmillan.
60. Lewis, J. D., & Weigert, A. J. (2012). The social dynamics of trust: Theoretical and empirical research, 1985-2012. Social Forces, 91(1), 25-31.
61. Liao, Y. (2018). Toward a pragmatic model of public responsiveness: Implications for enhancing public administrators’ responsiveness to citizen demands. International Journal of Public Administration, 41(2), 159-169. doi:10.1080/01900692.2016.1256305
62. Marozzi, M. (2014). Construction, dimension reduction and uncertainty analysis of an index of trust in public institutions. Quality & Quantity, 48, 939-953. doi:10.1007/s11135-012-9815-z
63. Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. (1995). An integrative model of organizational trust. The Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 709-734.
64. Mayntz, R. (1993). Governing failures and the problem of governability: Some comments on a theoretical paradigm. In J. Kooiman (Ed.), Modern governance: New government-society interactions (pp. 9-21). SAGE Publications.
65. Meuleman, L. (2010). The cultural dimension of metagovernance: Why governance doctrines may fail? Public Organization Review,10, 49-70.
66. Meuleman, L., & Niestroy, I. (2015). Common but differentiated governance: A metagovernance approach to make the SDGs work. Sustainability, 7, 12295-12321. doi:10.3390/su70912295
67. Mishra, J., & Attri, V. (2020). Governance, public service delivery and trust in government. Studies in Indian Politics, 8(2), 186-202. doi:10.1177/2321023020963518
68. Mitchell, R. B. (2011). Transparency for governance: The mechanisms and effectiveness of disclosure-based and education-based transparency policies. Ecological Economics, 70(11), 1882-1890.
69. Moon, M. J. (2003). Can IT help government to restore public trust? Declining public trust and potential prospects of IT in the public sector. 36th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, 2003, In proceedings of the, Big Island, HI, USA, 2003 (pp. 1-8).doi:10.1109/HICSS.2003.1174303.
70. Mulgan, R. (2000). Accountability: An ever‐expanding concept? Public Administration, 78(3), 555-573. doi:10.1111/1467-9299.00218
71. Nielsen, M. V. (2016). The concept of responsiveness in the governance of research and innovation. Science and Public Policy, 43(6), 831-839. doi:10.1093/scipol/scv078
72. Park, H., & Blenkinsopp, J. (2011). The roles of transparency and trust in the relationship between corruption and citizen satisfaction. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 77(2), 254–274
73. Peters, B. G. (2010). Meta-governance and public management. In S. P. Osborne (Ed.), The new public governance? Emerging perspectives on the theory and practice of public governance (pp. 36-51). Routledge.
74. Peters, B. G., & Pierre, J. (2018). The next public administration: Debates and dilemmas. SAGE.
75. Porumbescu, G. A. (2015). Linking transparency to trust in government and voice. American Review of Public Administration, 47(5), 520–537. https://doi.org/10.1177/0275074015607301
76. Rhodes, R. A. (2007). Understanding governance: Ten years on. Organization Studies, 28(8), 1243-1264.
77. Said, J., Alam, M., & Mohamad, A. B. A. A. (2015). Public accountability system: Empirical assessment of the public sector of Malaysia. Asian Journal of Scientific Research, 8(2), 225–236.
78. Salminen, A., & Ikola-Norrbacka, R. (2010). Trust, good governance and unethical actions in Finnish public administration. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 23(7), 647-668.
79. Scott, D. (1980). The causal relationship between trust and the assessed value of management by objectives. Journal of Management, 6(2), 157-175.
80. Sørensen, E. (2006). Metagovernance: The changing role of politicians in processes of democratic governance. The American Review of Public Administration, 36(1), 98-114.
81. Torfing, J., Peters, B. G., Pierre, J., & Sørensen, E. (2012). Interactive government: Advancing the paradigm. Oxford University Press.
82. UNESCAP (2009) . What is good governance? https://www.unescap.org/sites/default/files/good-governance.pdf (2023, January 20)
83. Van de Walle, S., & Bouckaert, G. (2003). Public service performance and trust in government: The problem of causality. International Journal of Public Administration, 26(8-9), 891-913.
84. Van de Walle, S., & Migchelbrink, K. (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. doi:10.1080/17487870.2020.1719103
85. Van de Walle, S., Van Roosbroek, S., & Bouckaert, G. (2008). Trust in the public sector: Is there any evidence for a long-term decline? International Review of Administrative Sciences, 74(1), 47-64.
86. Verschuere, B., Verhoest, K., Meyers, F., & Peters, G. B. (2006). Accountability and accountability arrangements in public agencies. In T. Christensen, & P. Laegreid (Ed.), Autonomy and regulation: Coping with agencies in the modern state (pp. 268-300). Edward Elgar.
87. Vigoda, E. (2000). Are you being served? The responsiveness of public administration to citizens’ demands: An empirical examination in Israel. Public Administration, 78(1), 165-191.
88. Vigoda-Gadot, E., & Yuval, F. (2003). Managerial quality, administrative performance and trust in governance revisited: A follow-up study of causality. The International Journal of Public Sector Management, 16(7), 502-522.
89. Wang, X. & Wan Wart, M. (2007), When public participation in administration leads to trust: An empirical assessment of managers’ perceptions. Public Administration Review, 67: 265-278.
90. Weston, R. ve Gore, P. A. (2006). A brief guide to structural equation modeling. The Counseling Psychologist, 34(5), 719-751.
91. World Bank. (1994). Governance: The World Bank's experience. World Bank Publications.
92. World Values Survey (2021). Online Data Analysis, Wave 7, https://www.worldvaluessurvey.org/WVSOnline.jsp (2023, February 11)
93. Yang C., & Northcott D. (2019). How can the public trust charities? The role of performance accountability reporting. Accounting and Finance.59(3), 1681–1707.
94. Yang, K. (2007). Responsiveness in network governance: Revisiting a fundamental concept: Symposium introduction. Public Performance & Management Review, 31(2), 131-143.
95. Yang, K., & Pandey, S. K. (2011). Further dissecting the black box of citizen participation: When does citizen ınvolvement lead to good outcomes? Public Administration Review, 71(6), 880-892.
96. Young, S. L., & Tanner, J. (2022). Citizen participation matters. Bureaucratic discretion matters more. Public Administration, 1-25. doi:10.1111/padm.12867
97. Yousaf, M., Ihsan, F. and Ellahi, A. (2016). Exploring the impact of good governance on citizens’ trust in Pakistan. Government Information Quarterly, 33(1), 200-209.