Trust In Local Government Research Articles

Political Legitimacy and Democracy

The term ‘political legitimacy’ is unfortunately ambiguous. One serious source of confusion is the failure to distinguish clearly between political legitimacy and political authority and to conflate political authority with authoritativeness. I will distinguish between (1) political legitimacy, (2) political authority, and (3) authoritativeness. I will also articulate two importantly different variants of the notion of political authority. Having drawn these distinctions, I will argue first that political legitimacy, rather than political authority, is the more central notion for a theory of the morality of political power. My second main conclusion will be that where democratic authorization of the exercise of political power is possible, only a democratic government can be legitimate. Another ambiguity is also a source of confusion. Sometimes it is unclear whether ‘legitimacy’ is being used in a descriptive or a normative sense. In this article I am concerned exclusively with legitimacy in the normative sense, not with the conditions under which an entity is believed to be legitimate. However, a normative account of legitimacy is essential for a descriptive account. Unless one distinguishes carefully between political legitimacy, political authority, and authoritativeness, one will not be clear about what beliefs in legitimacy are beliefs about.

Crime and Trust in Local Government

Prior research has indicated that the election of a black mayor is accompanied by increased trust in local government on the part of the black electorate. The authors explore contextual effects of the crime and drug epidemic on black trust in local black government. They draw on seven public opinion surveys of citizens of New Orleans, a black empowerment area, conducted between 1985 and 1994. Black confidence in local black government declined during that period, partially as a result of rising crime and the declining quality of urban life. Models of trust in government and the future of black empowerment are discussed.

Dealing with Cynical Citizens

Widespread concern exists about public cynicism toward government (Gore, 1994; Dubnick and Rosenbloom, 1995; Greider, 1992; Lipset and Schneider, 1987; Ruscio, 1995; Cisneros and Parr, 1990). Manifestations of public cynicism include pervasive beliefs that government policies and public officials are corrupt, inept, or out to take advantage of citizens (Johnson, 1993). Such disillusionment causes alienation and disengagement and is therefore of key interest to public administration and processes of democratic governance. Yet, little is written about the role of public administrators in shaping public attitudes. Much of what is written focuses on typologies of citizen roles (Frederickson, 1991; Luton, 1993) and administrative processes for managing citizen involvement (Stivers, 1994; Thomas, 1993; Box, 1992). This article responds to the need for a theory of citizen cynicism that is relevant to public administration. It also reports on the results of a national survey among city managers and chief administrative officers about perceptions of trust in local government. It finds that cities that foster positive citizen attitudes through a variety of strategies of participation, information, and reputation experience less cynicism than cities that do not. The effect of community conditions on trust is also examined. A Theory of Cynicism Cynicism is discussed in general terms in the literatures of trust and social capital. Many authors argue that all human relations and exchanges (economic, political, and social) require trust that promises will be honored, and that individuals are not taken advantage of (Coleman, 1990; Putnam, 1993; Bellah, et al., 1991; Mansbridge, 1990). Trust is seen as purposive, a lubricant of relations. It also provides a sense of belonging that serves the emotional needs of individuals. Cynicism is defined as low trust, specifically, a pervasive "disbelief in the possibility of good" in dealing with others (Damon, 1995; Barber, 1983; Merton, 1957). Cynicism increases social distance and diminishes the public spirit (Gore, 1994). "Social capital" refers to the number of trusting and mutually supportive relationships that members of a group draw on in realizing their economic, social, and political aims (Loury, 1987). Individuals in groups with low levels of social capital often have too few interdependent relations to achieve their goals and are likely to experience disenfranchisement. Disappointment over unrealized goals contributes to cynical attitudes, which, in turn serve as barriers to forming productive relations, thus causing social capital to further erode in a vicious circle. Cynical attitudes toward government often center on the integrity, purpose, and effectiveness of government and its officials (Starobin, 1995; Durant, 1995; O'Connell, Holzman, and Armandi, 1986; Jurie, 1988). The literature makes a distinction between ardent cynicism and milder forms. Ardent cynicism is usually linked to ideological beliefs that are highly critical of government, for example, "government is always out to get the ordinary citizen." Facts are used selectively to justify claims that "nothing ever changes" and that authorities use smoke and mirrors to appease and mislead the masses. Milder expressions of cynicism are often characterized by beliefs that are less critical of government (e.g., "government tries its best, but it just doesn't have the resources"), and by beliefs that give greater weight to facts (e.g., "government doesn't deliver on its promises: the roads are still not fixed"). Because of the greater dependence on facts, the milder form of cynicism may be more open to influence by reason.(1) Theories of human motivation and behavior adapted from organizational behavior (McClelland, 1985; Bianco, 1994; Robertson and Tang, 1995) suggest that citizens question their relationship with government and experience disenfranchisement when the following conditions are present: (1) citizens believe that local government is using its power against them or otherwise not helping them; (2) citizens do not feel part of local government, or they feel misunderstood or ignored, and (3) citizens find local government services and policies to be ineffective. …

Dealing with Cynical Citizens

Widespread concern exists about public cynicism toward (Gore, 1994; Dubnick and Rosenbloom, 1995; Greider, 1992; Lipset and Schneider, 1987; Ruscio, 1995; Cisneros and Parr, 1990). Manifestations of public cynicism include pervasive beliefs that policies and public officials are corrupt, inept, or out to take advantage of citizens (Johnson, 1993). Such disillusionment causes alienation and disengagement and is therefore of key interest to public administration and processes of democratic governance. Yet, little is written about the role of public administrators in shaping public attitudes. Much of what is written focuses on typologies of citizen roles (Frederickson, 1991; Luton, 1993) and administrative processes for managing citizen involvement (Stivers, 1994; Thomas, 1993; Box, 1992). This article responds to the need for a theory of citizen cynicism that is relevant to public administration. It also reports on the results of a national survey among city managers and chief administrative officers about perceptions of trust in local government. It finds that cities that foster positive citizen attitudes through a variety of strategies of participation, information, and reputation experience less cynicism than cities that do not. The effect of community conditions on trust is also examined. A Theory of Cynicism Cynicism is discussed in general terms in the literatures of trust and social capital. Many authors argue that all human relations and exchanges (economic, political, and social) require trust that promises will be honored, and that individuals are not taken advantage of (Coleman, 1990; Putnam, 1993; Bellah, et al., 1991; Mansbridge, 1990). Trust is seen as purposive, a lubricant of relations. It also provides a sense of belonging that serves the emotional needs of individuals. Cynicism is defined as low trust, specifically, a pervasive disbelief in the possibility of good in dealing with others (Damon, 1995; Barber, 1983; Merton, 1957). Cynicism increases social distance and diminishes the public spirit (Gore, 1994). Social refers to the number of trusting and mutually supportive relationships that members of a group draw on in realizing their economic, social, and political aims (Loury, 1987). Individuals in groups with low levels of social capital often have too few interdependent relations to achieve their goals and are likely to experience disenfranchisement. Disappointment over unrealized goals contributes to cynical attitudes, which, in turn serve as barriers to forming productive relations, thus causing social capital to further erode in a vicious circle. Cynical attitudes toward often center on the integrity, purpose, and effectiveness of and its officials (Starobin, 1995; Durant, 1995; O'Connell, Holzman, and Armandi, 1986; Jurie, 1988). The literature makes a distinction between ardent cynicism and milder forms. Ardent cynicism is usually linked to ideological beliefs that are highly critical of government, for example, government is always out to get the ordinary citizen. Facts are used selectively to justify claims that nothing ever changes and that authorities use smoke and mirrors to appease and mislead the masses. Milder expressions of cynicism are often characterized by beliefs that are less critical of (e.g., government tries its best, but it just doesn't have the resources), and by beliefs that give greater weight to facts (e.g., government doesn't deliver on its promises: the roads are still not fixed). Because of the greater dependence on facts, the milder form of cynicism may be more open to influence by reason.(1) Theories of human motivation and behavior adapted from organizational behavior (McClelland, 1985; Bianco, 1994; Robertson and Tang, 1995) suggest that citizens question their relationship with and experience disenfranchisement when the following conditions are present: (1) citizens believe that local is using its power against them or otherwise not helping them; (2) citizens do not feel part of local government, or they feel misunderstood or ignored, and (3) citizens find local services and policies to be ineffective. …

Vanuatu: The evolution of the administrative and political context of decentralization

AbstractLocal government came late to Vanuatu (formerly the New Hebrides) and even then was more a response to external events than a reflection of community interests. The first local council experiment, from 1957 to 1958, failed because of rivalry between the colonial powers, Britain and France. Subsequently national political developments set up additional obstacles to the successful functioning of local government. Political conflicts at the national level, reflecting the divisions created by the Anglo‐French condominium, delayed implementation and undermined the administrative viability and democratic quality of local councils. Popular support for and trust in local government has not developed. A system created in haste and altered to serve the interests of competing national elites has not been able to adapt to the needs of local communities. A viable system of decentralization requires a degree of national consensus to be combined with local involvement in planning and implementation.