Periodic Reporting for period 3 - EnTrust (Enlightened trust: An examination of trust and distrust in governance – conditions, effects and remedies)
Période du rapport: 2022-08-01 au 2024-04-30
Public and academic debates increasingly express concern about the erosion of trust in politics at the level of politicians, institutions and political systems. The EnTrust project set out to shed light on the state of public trust in politics in order to provide robust scientifical evidence on the topic. The project had five core objectives: 1) to develop an interdisciplinary and multidimensional theoretical framework on the dynamic relationship between trust and distrust in democratic governance in the European context, and to develop a better understanding of critical or enlightened forms of trust; 2) to present a comprehensive dataset that measures trust and distrust in governance at different levels (individual citizens, organisations, mass media and public spheres) and with respect to different governance actors (political, economic or civil society actors, experts and academics) at different levels (local, national and European); 3) to map and compare different cultures of trust and distrust in seven different European countries and at the EU level; 4) to identify appropriate constellations of trust and distrust, to elaborate on good practice models for fostering enlightened trust and to provide evidence-based, practice-oriented recommendations for policy and practice; and 5) to proactively promote the uptake of the project’s results, increase the knowledge of different actors, and help citizens and governance actors to promote a well-functioning democracy.
The EnTrust project implemented a work plan to reach the above-stated objectives, which consisted of seven evidence-generating work packages (WPs). WP1 was devoted to ongoing theoretical reflection, WP2 to WP4 were focused on arenas of trust and distrust formation at the micro, meso and macro levels, while WP5 and WP6 analysed individual trust and distrust dispositions, and WP7 monitored trust relations between organised civil society and EU institutions.
The comprehensive datasets and analyses presented by EnTrust show that both citizens and political actors see trust and distrust as separate, coexisting dimensions of the same phenomenon. An excess of trust and distrust is considered undesirable, as it could lead to blind loyalty or categorical rejection. Furthermore, trust and distrust in institutions are based on personal experience, implying a reciprocal relationship in which citizens tend to trust or distrust depending on their experience of being trusted or distrusted by political institutions. Finally, political trust or distrust depends strongly on different principles of (un)trustworthiness, such as competence, integrity, transparency, participatory involvement, accountability or predictability. The findings of EnTrust thus show that moderate levels of trust and expressions of public distrust are not necessarily detrimental, but rather necessary for a vibrant democracy, as long as there are arenas and procedures for expressing and processing political distrust. The findings also help to identify challenges. While the majority of citizens are attached to enlightened forms of trust that combine trust and distrust, a categorical distrust is widespread, as is a disenchanted attitude that has given up on both trust and distrust. Challenges to trust arise when societal problems, inadequate institutional performance and failures of distrust-processing institutions converge. Under such conditions, EnTrust foresees the spread of generalised distrust, as well as spill-over effects, as distrust in institutions may, by default, extend to distrust in office holders, thereby reducing the capacity of institutional representatives to restore trust. Similar spill-over effects can be expected between political institutions, the mass media and organised civil society, further limiting the ability to express and process distrust, and facilitate the restoration of trust. The EnTrust project recommends that counter-strategies for restoring enlightened trust should be based on the principles of trustworthiness, as they provide concrete guidance for remedial action.
As a cross-cutting activity, EnTrust engaged in ongoing dissemination, communication and exploitation activities. These activities were aimed firstly at policy-makers and stakeholders, for example through policy briefs, handbooks and guides on enlightened trust. In addition, policy-makers and stakeholders were actively involved in a continuous policy dialogue through several lunch debates, roundtable discussions, workshops and conferences, thus ensuring exploitation. Second, public communication and dissemination made use of easily accessible tools, such as a project website (www.entrust-project.eu) social media accounts, press articles, several documentary videos and a wiki for social and civic activism. Finally, EnTrust data and findings were disseminated to an international academic audience through scientific conferences and workshops, as well as conference papers and publications. All outputs have been made available through the project website, and many documents are available in different languages to facilitate dissemination and exploitation.
The comprehensive datasets and analyses presented by EnTrust show that both citizens and political actors see trust and distrust as separate, coexisting dimensions of the same phenomenon. An excess of trust and distrust is considered undesirable, as it could lead to blind loyalty or categorical rejection. Furthermore, trust and distrust in institutions are based on personal experience, implying a reciprocal relationship in which citizens tend to trust or distrust depending on their experience of being trusted or distrusted by political institutions. Finally, political trust or distrust depends strongly on different principles of (un)trustworthiness, such as competence, integrity, transparency, participatory involvement, accountability or predictability. The findings of EnTrust thus show that moderate levels of trust and expressions of public distrust are not necessarily detrimental, but rather necessary for a vibrant democracy, as long as there are arenas and procedures for expressing and processing political distrust. The findings also help to identify challenges. While the majority of citizens are attached to enlightened forms of trust that combine trust and distrust, a categorical distrust is widespread, as is a disenchanted attitude that has given up on both trust and distrust. Challenges to trust arise when societal problems, inadequate institutional performance and failures of distrust-processing institutions converge. Under such conditions, EnTrust foresees the spread of generalised distrust, as well as spill-over effects, as distrust in institutions may, by default, extend to distrust in office holders, thereby reducing the capacity of institutional representatives to restore trust. Similar spill-over effects can be expected between political institutions, the mass media and organised civil society, further limiting the ability to express and process distrust, and facilitate the restoration of trust. The EnTrust project recommends that counter-strategies for restoring enlightened trust should be based on the principles of trustworthiness, as they provide concrete guidance for remedial action.
As a cross-cutting activity, EnTrust engaged in ongoing dissemination, communication and exploitation activities. These activities were aimed firstly at policy-makers and stakeholders, for example through policy briefs, handbooks and guides on enlightened trust. In addition, policy-makers and stakeholders were actively involved in a continuous policy dialogue through several lunch debates, roundtable discussions, workshops and conferences, thus ensuring exploitation. Second, public communication and dissemination made use of easily accessible tools, such as a project website (www.entrust-project.eu) social media accounts, press articles, several documentary videos and a wiki for social and civic activism. Finally, EnTrust data and findings were disseminated to an international academic audience through scientific conferences and workshops, as well as conference papers and publications. All outputs have been made available through the project website, and many documents are available in different languages to facilitate dissemination and exploitation.
The EnTrust project has contributed to the advancement of existing knowledge on at least three levels. Theoretically and empirically, it has helped to overcome some of the existing limitations of a well-developed field of research. Previous studies have tended to focus on trust alone, downplaying the role of distrust as a relevant issue in its own right. At the same time, they have privileged an atomistic analysis of trust and distrust as individual dispositions, ignoring relational, reciprocal and institutional embeddedness. Finally, research has not systematically analysed the relationship between trust and trustworthiness, thus a clear understanding of the situatedness and conditionality of trust and distrust is lacking.
EnTrust has helped to provide corrective insights into all these analytical dimensions by engaging in collaborative research that has three distinctive qualities. First, the work programme is based on a rigorously comparative research agenda covering seven European countries (the Czech Republic, Denmark, Germany, Greece, Italy, Poland and Serbia). Additionally, research was based on a mixed-methods approach, combining survey-based statistical analysis with experimental research and qualitative, interpretative research tools. Second, the research provides a systematic analysis of different forms, levels and targets of trust/distrust, allowing us to compare trust and distrust in different economic, institutional and social contexts, and to identify the conditioning factors that pattern these differences. Finally, EnTrust provides practical and relevant insights through a dialogical process involving researchers, experts, research participants, stakeholders and policy-makers, through internal reviews and repeated policy dialogues.
EnTrust promises to have a lasting impact on vibrant, resilient and reinvigorated forms of democratic governance. Through its comprehensive datasets and analyses, it effectively contributes to a better understanding of enlightened trust in governance, its conditions and consequences. Its commitment to proactive communication and dialogue-based forms of dissemination helps to sensitise citizens, practitioners, stakeholders and policy-makers to the specificities of enlightened trust in governance, and to identify avenues for remedial action.
EnTrust has helped to provide corrective insights into all these analytical dimensions by engaging in collaborative research that has three distinctive qualities. First, the work programme is based on a rigorously comparative research agenda covering seven European countries (the Czech Republic, Denmark, Germany, Greece, Italy, Poland and Serbia). Additionally, research was based on a mixed-methods approach, combining survey-based statistical analysis with experimental research and qualitative, interpretative research tools. Second, the research provides a systematic analysis of different forms, levels and targets of trust/distrust, allowing us to compare trust and distrust in different economic, institutional and social contexts, and to identify the conditioning factors that pattern these differences. Finally, EnTrust provides practical and relevant insights through a dialogical process involving researchers, experts, research participants, stakeholders and policy-makers, through internal reviews and repeated policy dialogues.
EnTrust promises to have a lasting impact on vibrant, resilient and reinvigorated forms of democratic governance. Through its comprehensive datasets and analyses, it effectively contributes to a better understanding of enlightened trust in governance, its conditions and consequences. Its commitment to proactive communication and dialogue-based forms of dissemination helps to sensitise citizens, practitioners, stakeholders and policy-makers to the specificities of enlightened trust in governance, and to identify avenues for remedial action.