Public service performance and trust in government: The problem of causality

International Journal of Public Administration

Volumn 26, Issue 8-9, 2003, Pages 891-913

  Van de Walle, Steven ^a   Bouckaert, Geert ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF LEUVEN   (Belgium)

Author keywords

Causality; Context; Performance; Stereotype; Trust in govenment

Indexed keywords

EID: 85071217790     PISSN: 01900692     EISSN: 15324265     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1081/PAD-120019352     Document Type: Article

References (59)

1. Legrand, J.-J., and Staes, P., 1998. La Charte De L'Utilisateur Des Services Publics Bruxelles: Editions Labor.
2. Wunsch, G., 1988. Causal Theory and Causal Modelling Leuven: Leuven University Press.
3. Mackie, J. L., 1965. Causes and conditions. Am. Philos. Quart., 2 (4): 245–264.
4. Bok, D., 2001. The Trouble With Government Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
5. Sims, H., 2001. Public Confidence in Government and Government Service Delivery Canadian Centre for Management Development.
6. Norén, Y., Explaining Variations in Political Trust in Sweden: Lessons Learned by Theories and Data. Workshop No. 13—Voluntary associations, social capital and interest mediation, April 14–19. pp. 30Denmark: ECPR Joint Sessions, University of Copenhagen. Forging the link
7. Glaser, M. A., and Hildreth, B. W., 1999. Service delivery satisfaction and willingness to pay taxes. Public Productivity and Management Review, 23 (1): 48–67.
8. Hoogland DeHoog, R., Lowery, D., and Lyons, W. E., 1990. Citizen satisfaction with local government: a test of individual, jurisdictional, and city-specific explanations. J. Polit., 52 (3): 807–837.
9. Kobi, S., 1998. Y a-t-Il Un Lien Entre Le Déclin De La Confiance Citoyenne Et L'Évaluation Que Font Les Gouvernés Du Rapport “Couts-Bénéfices” De L'Action Étatique?. XXIVth International Congress of Administrative Science. Sep7–111998, Paris.
10. Rose, L. E., and Pettersen, P. A., 2000. “ The legitimacy of local government: what makes a difference? Evidence from Norway ”. In Citizen Responsive Government Edited by: Hoggart, K., and Nichols, C. T., 25–66. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science.
11. Brudney, J. L., and England, R. E., 1982. Urban policy making and subjective service evaluations: are they compatible?. Public Admin. Rev., 42 (2): 127–135.
12. Parks, R. B., 1984. Linking objective and subjective measures of performance. Public Admin. Rev., 44 (2): 118–127.
13. Watson, D. J., Juster, R. J., and Johnson, G. W., 1991. Institutionalised use of citizen surveys in the budgetary and policy-making processes: a small city case study. Public Admin. Rev., 51 (3): 232–239.
14. Brown, K., and Coulter, P. B., 1983. Subjective and objective measures of police service delivery. Public Admin. Rev., 43 (1): 50–58.
15. Stipak, B., 1979. Citizen satisfaction with urban services: potential misuse as a performance indicator. Public Admin. Rev., 39 (1): 46–52.
16. 1996. “ Public Management Foundation ”. In The Glue That Binds: The Public Value of Public Services London: Public Management Foundation & MORI.
17. 1997. “ Direction Générale Information, communication, culture, audiovisuel ”. In L'Opinion Des Européens Sur Les Services Publics Bruxelles: Commission européenne.
18. Dinsdale, G., and Marson, B. D., 1999. Citizen/Client Surveys: Dispelling Myths and Redrawing Maps Canadian Centre for Management Development.
19. Swindell, D., and Kelly, J. M., 2000. Linking citizen satisfaction to performance measures: a preliminary evaluation. Public Performance and Management Review, 24 (1): 30–52.
20. Uslaner, E. M., 2001. “ Is Washington really the problem ”. In What Is It About Government That Americans Dislike? Edited by: Hibbing, J., and Theiss-Morse, E., New York: Cambridge University Press.
21. Newton, K., and Norris, P., 1999. Confidence in Public Institutions: Faith, Culture or Performance. Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Panel 14-T2: What's troubling the trilateral democracies?. Sep1–51999, Atlanta.
22. Kuechler, M., 1991. “ The dynamics of mass political support in Western Europe: methodological problems and preliminary findings ”. In Eurobarometer: The Dynamics of European Public Opinion: Essays in Honour of Jacques-René Rabier Edited by: Reif, K., and Inglehart, R., 275–293. Houndmills: Macmillan.
23. Huseby, B. M., 2000. Government Performance and Political Support: A Study of How Evaluations of Economic Performance, Social Policy and Environmental Protection Influence the Popular Assessments of the Political System Trondheim: Institutt for Sosiologi og Statsvitenskap.
24. Miller, A. H., and Listhaug, O., 1999. “ Political Performance and Trust ”. In Critical Citizens Edited by: Pippa, N., 204–216. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
25. Kornberg, A., and Clarke, H. D., 1994. Beliefs about democracy and satisfaction with democratic government: the Canadian case. Polit. Res. Quart.,: 537–564.
26. Anderson, C., 1995. Blaming the Government: Citizens and the Economy in Five European Democracies Armonk: ME Sharpe.
27. Beck, U., 1992. Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity London: Sage.
28. Easton, D., and Dennis, J., 1969. Children in the Political System: Origins of Political Legitimacy New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company.
29. Citrin, J., and Green, D. P., 1996. Presidential leadership and the resurgence of trust in government. Brit. J. Polit. Sci., 16 (4): 431–453.
30. Hibbing, J. R., and Theiss-Morse, E., 1995. Congress As Public Enemy: Public Attitudes Toward American Political Institutions Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
31. Clarke, H. D., Kornberg, A., and Stewart, M. C., 1984. Parliament and political support in Canada. Am. Polit. Sci. Rev., 78 (2): 452–469.
32. Box, R. C., Marshall, G. S., Reed, B. J., and Reed, C. M., 2001. New public management and substantive democracy. Public Admin. Rev., 61 (5): 608–619.
33. Sztompka, P., 1999. Trust: A Sociological Theory Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
34. Ruscio, K. P., 1996. Trust, democracy, and public management: a theoretical argument. J. Publ. Adm. Res. Theor., 6 (3): 461–477.
35. Berger, P. L., and Luckmann, T., 1966. The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge New York: Doubleday.
36. Mishler, W., and Rose, R., 1997. Trust, distrust and skepticism: popular evaluations of civil and political institutions in post communist societies. J. Polit., 59 (2): 418–451.
37. Loveless, T., 1997. The structure of public confidence in education. Am. J. Educ., 105 (2): 127–159.
38. Herzog, R. J., and Claunch, R. G., 1997. Stories citizens tell and how administrators use types of knowledge. Public Admin. Rev., 57 (5): 374–379.
39. Elchardus, M., 1998. “ Was u Vandaag Al Slachtoffer of Werd u Al Beschuldigd? Gebruiksaanwijzing Voor Een Wantrouwige Samenleving ”. In Wantrouwen En Onbehagen Edited by: Elchardus, M., 37–76. Brussels: VUB Press.
40. Poister, T. H., and Henry, G. T., 1994. Citizen ratings of public and private service quality: a comparative perspective. Public Admin. Rev., 54 (2): 155–160.
41. Klingemann, H.-D., 1999. “ Mapping political support in the 1990s: a global analysis ”. In Critical Citizens: Global Support for Democratic Governance Edited by: Norris, P., 31–56. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
42. 2000. Customers Judge the Performance of Federal Government Agencies: Report on the Findings Princeton Survey Research Associates; Pew Charitable Trust
43. Peters, G., Dec 4 2000. “ Administrative traditions [Web Page] ”. Dec 4, Available at http://www1.worldbank.org/publicsector/civilservice/traditions.htm
44. Stipak, B., 1977. Attitudes and belief systems concerning urban services. Public Opin. Quart., 41 (1): 41–56.
45. 1998. Citizens First Canadian Centre for Management Development. Erin Research inc
46. Steen, A., 1996. Confidence in institutions in post-communist societies: The case of the Baltic states. Scand. Polit. Stud., 19 (3): 205–255.
47. Hetherington, M. J., 1998. the political relevance of political trust. Am. Polit. Sci. Rev., 92 (4): 791–808.
48. Glaser, M. A., and Denhardt, R. B., 1997. Local Government Performance Through the Eyes of Citizens Newark: University of Delaware.
49. Citrin, J., 1974. Comment: The political relevance of trust in government. Am. Polit. Sci. Rev., 68 (3): 973–988.
50. Sztompka, P., 1996. Trust and emerging democracy: lessons from Poland. Int. Sociol., 11 (1): 37–62.
51. Fox, C. J., 1996. Reinventing government as postmodern symbolic politics. Public Admin. Rev., 56 (3): 256–262.
52. Glynn, C. J., Hayes, A. F., and Shanahan, J., 1997. Perceived support for one's opinion and willingness to speak out: a meta-analysis of survey studies on the “spiral of silence.”. Public Opin. Quart., 61: 452–463.
53. Augoustinos, M., and Walker, I., 1996. Social Cognition: An Integrated Introduction London: Sage.
54. Janssens, P., Sept 12 2000. “ Voor Ons Doen Ze Nooit Niks ”. Sept 12, 29De Morgen
55. Allport, G. W., 1958. The Nature of Prejudice New York: Doubleday.
56. Goodsell, C. T., 1994. The Case for Bureaucracy: A Public Administration Polemic Chatham: Chatham House Publishers Inc.
57. Katz, D., Gutek, B. A., Kahn, R. L., and Barton, E., 1977. Bureaucratic Encounters: A Pilot Study in the Evaluation of Government Services Ann Arbor: Institute for Social Research.
58. Allport, G. W., and Postman, L., 1965. The Psychology of Rumor New York: Russell & Russell.
59. Beck Jorgensen, T., 1994. “ The Giaconda smile of authorities: an essay of fictional pictures of public administration and citizens ”. In Good Novels, Better Management. Reading Organizational Realities Edited by: Czarniawska-Jourges, B., and Guillet de Monthoux, P., 267–303. Chur: Harwood Academic Publishers.