Why healthy distrust is an essential component of democracy
As technological infrastructure is increasingly embedded within citizens’ lives – including banking, healthcare and personal data – so too is the requirement for citizens to place trust in private companies, and the regimes that regulate them. Yet this trust, vital to support for democratic governance, has been buffeted by financial crises, food safety incidents, and scandals involving data leaks and threats to privacy from companies such as Meta, Google and Zoom.
Observing trust within society
To investigate citizens’ response to these failings, the TiGRE project team examined the conditions of trust relating to regulatory regimes. The project sought to understand the dynamics, drivers and political and socio-economic effects of trust. “We find that citizens tend to perceive regulatory agencies as rather trustworthy,” says Martino Maggetti, associate professor in the Institute of Political Studies at the University of Lausanne and project coordinator of TiGRE. “Similarly, trust between regime ‘insiders’ remains, on average, rather high across policy sectors and countries.” The TiGRE team pursued two strands of investigation. One looked at trust toward regulatory actors by those outside the regime, such as citizens and the media. The second unpacked trust relations between insiders: legislators, regulators, executive bodies, courts, regulatory intermediaries, regulated organisations and interest groups. “In TiGRE, we argue that being aware of these, less visible, trust relationships involving different actors is a prerequisite for improving regulatory governance and developing appropriate policy design,” explains Maggetti. The team employed various methods to generate a comprehensive understanding of these relationships, including large-scale surveys, interviews, experiments, social network analysis, focus groups, and media content analysis. A study was carried out comparing nine EU and non-EU countries (Belgium, Denmark, Germany, Israel, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Spain and Switzerland) across a range of policy sectors, including data protection, finance and food safety. This allowed the team to detect similarities and differences in trust relationships across the group.
Achieving a balance of trust
Relatively high levels of trust were found toward and within regulatory regimes. This is noteworthy, says Maggetti, yet he adds that maximising trust is not always desirable. A coexistence between trust and distrust – and specifically a “trust, but verify” attitude – incentivises regulatory actors to perform well. “We argue that balancing both trust and reasonable watchfulness helps sustain stable and effective regulatory regimes,” notes Maggetti. Blind trust could be detrimental and lead to ‘regulatory capture’, a theory that suggests regulatory agencies may end up prioritising their own goals rather than public interest. A healthy level of distrust, or vigilance, combined with high trust can persuade regulators to be more reflective. “This is nevertheless a balancing act, as too high distrust may lead to the erosion of the legitimacy of the regulatory regime,” Maggetti explains.
Supporting trust in democracy
The TiGRE analysis suggests that in the face of crises that give rise to distrust among citizens and users, regulators can choose appropriate strategies to maintain or improve trust in regulatory regimes and democratic governance. The team recommends a review and possible improvements to the institutional design of regulatory regimes concerning four major democratic qualities: participation, inclusiveness, accountability and especially transparency. “Rather than remaining silent or shifting the blame, a trust-repair strategy is more effective when agencies respond to criticism of regulatory failure,” says Maggetti. “By admitting the problem, explaining its causes, apologising for their responsibility and promising to learn from their errors,” trust can be restored.
Keywords
TiGRE, democracy, trust, regulatory, bodies, crises, scandals, privacy, regime
