Government at a Glance 2013

© OECD 2013

Chapter 1

Trust in government,
policy effectiveness
and the governance agenda

The statistical data for Israel are supplied by and under the responsibility of the relevant Israeli
authorities. The use of such data by the OECD is without prejudice to the status of the Golan Heights,
East Jerusalem and Israeli settlements in the West Bank under the terms of international law.

19
1. TRUST IN GOVERNMENT, POLICY EFFECTIVENESS AND THE GOVERNANCE AGENDA

Introduction
The financial and economic crisis that started in 2008 led to a significant loss of trust in
government. By 2012, on average only four out of ten people in OECD member countries
expressed confidence in their government. As governments search for a path to economic
recovery, the challenge they face is not only knowing what policies to choose, but also how
to implement those policies. Yet, capacity to implement depends crucially on trust. Without
trust in governments, markets and institutions, support for necessary reforms is difficult to
mobilise, particularly where short-term sacrifices are involved and long-term gains might be
less tangible. The sharp decline in trust in government is serving to underline that trust is an
essential, yet often overlooked, ingredient in successful policy making.
A decline in trust can lead to lower rates of compliance with rules and regulations.
Citizens and businesses can also become more risk-averse, delaying investment, innovation
and employment decisions that are essential to regain competitiveness and jumpstart
growth. Nurturing trust represents an investment in economic recovery and social
well-being for the future. Trust is both an input to public sector reforms – necessary for the
implementation of reforms – and, at the same time, an outcome of reforms, as they influence
people’s and organisations’ attitudes and decisions relevant for economic and social
well-being. As a result, trust in government by citizens and businesses is essential for the
effective and efficient policy making both in good times and bad. Investing in trust should be
considered as a new and central approach to restoring economic growth and reinforcing
social cohesion, as well as a sign that governments are learning the lessons of the crisis.
The challenge of maintaining trust is complicated by a faster and more diversified
flow of information across society, such as through civil society, the Internet and social
networks. Together these suggest a more complex environment for governments with
respect to maintaining the confidence of stakeholders. In this environment, good policy
design and economic recovery may not be sufficient to restore trust if citizens are
suspicious of the policy-making process and perceive the distribution of costs and benefits
as unfair. Understanding what drives trust in government is essential to build a virtuous
cycle that is able to sustain economic growth and well-being in the medium term.
The objective of this chapter is to explore the links between trust in government and
the policies and institutions of public governance. It looks at how trust and specifically
trust in government can be defined, how it is measured and how it may influence citizens’
attitudes and responses to public policies. Drawing on the available evidence, the chapter
discusses what drives trust and identifies a number of ways to make policies more reliable,
responsive, open, inclusive and fair. The analysis is a preliminary exploration of a subject
that has been approached by governance experts, economists and sociologists from rather
disparate angles in the past. Even though more research may be needed to build a common
perspective and stronger policy conclusions, trust in government already provides a
different lens through which to look at public governance – a lens that pays much more
attention to people’s perceptions and how this influences their reaction to policy measures
and reforms. Understanding trust may thus make policy makers and analysts of public
governance more sensitive and responsive to the expectations of citizens.

20 GOVERNMENT AT A GLANCE 2013 © OECD 2013

 1. TRUST IN GOVERNMENT, POLICY EFFECTIVENESS AND THE GOVERNANCE AGENDA

What do we mean by trust in government?

Trust means holding a positive perception about the actions of an individual or an
organisation. It is a subjective phenomenon, reflected in the “eyes of the beholder” that
matters especially to the extent that it shapes behaviour. Trust in government represents
confidence of citizens in the actions of a “government to do what is right and perceived fair”
(Easton, 1965). It depends on the congruence between citizens’ preferences – their
interpretation of what is right and fair and what is unfair – and the perceived actual
functioning of government (Bouckaert and van de Walle, 2003). As citizens’ preferences are
diverse, they use a multitude of different criteria to evaluate government actions/performance.
What is considered right and fair by one individual may not be considered so by another. In
order to analyse what influences trust in government, the preferences of citizens need to be
compared to their perceptions of the functioning of government. As it is not the actual
performance of government but its perceived performance that matters for trust in
government, the drivers of perceptions besides governmental performance need to be
identified as well.
At a broad level, trust in government builds on two main components: 1) social trust,
that represents citizens’ confidence in their social community; and 2) political trust, when
citizens appraise government and its institutions. Political trust includes both macro-level
trust, which is diffuse and system based, and institution-based trust. Civic engagement in
the community and interpersonal trust have been shown to contribute to overall social
trust (Putnam, 2000). This relationship, however, is not mechanical and may be affected by
a number of contextual factors. For example, there are countries where people mistrust
each other – social trust is low –, and then rely on institutions to represent their interest
(Aghion et al., 2010).
Citizen expectations are key to their trust in government. As citizens become more
educated, their expectations of government performance rise. If citizens’ expectations rise
faster than the actual performance of governments, trust and satisfaction could decline.
These changes in expectations may explain more of the erosion of political support than
real government performance (Dalton, 2005) and may surprise policy makers that are
anchored in past diagnoses.
In addition, citizens’ trust towards government is influenced differently whether they
have a positive or negative experience with service delivery. A negative experience has a much
stronger impact on trust in government than a positive one. Targeting public policies
towards dissatisfied citizens will therefore have a stronger impact on trust in government
(Kampen et al., 2006).
Much of the analysis on citizens’ trust in government also applies to businesses and
even to the government’s own employees, but the formation of perceptions and the factors
that influence them may be different.

Why does trust in government matter?

Trust in government has been identified as one of the most important foundations
upon which the legitimacy and sustainability of political systems are built. Trust is essential for
social cohesion and well-being as it affects governments’ ability to govern and enables them to
act without having to resort to coercion. Consequently, it is an efficient means of lowering
transaction costs in any social, economic and political relationship (Fukuyama, 1995).
A high level of trust in government might increase the efficiency and effectiveness of
government operations.

GOVERNMENT AT A GLANCE 2013 © OECD 2013 21

1. TRUST IN GOVERNMENT, POLICY EFFECTIVENESS AND THE GOVERNANCE AGENDA

Core levels of trust in government are necessary for the fair and effective functioning of
government institutions – such as adherence to the rule of law, or the delivery of basic public
services and the provision of infrastructure. The rule of law and independent judiciary are
particularly important as their proper functioning is a key driver of trust in government, as
established in several studies (Knack and Zak, 2003; Johnston, Krahn and Harrison, 2006;
Blind, 2007). As well-functioning government institutions matter for business investment
decisions, trust in them is a necessary ingredient to spur economic growth (Dasgupta,
2009; Algan and Cuha, 2013).
Trust in government institutions at the same time influences individual behaviour in
ways that could support desired policy outcomes. This may range from rather narrowly
defined policies and programmes (such as participation in vaccination campaigns) to
broader policy reforms (e.g. environmental regulation or pension reform). Trust is
important because many public programmes create the opportunity for free riding and
opportunistic behaviour. Trust could reduce the risk of such behaviour to the extent that
people are prepared to sacrifice some immediate benefits if they have positive
expectations of the longer-term outcome of public policies, either at a personal level
(pensions) or by contributing to the common good (redistribution of income through
taxation).
Trust in government may help governments to implement structural reforms with long term
benefits. Many reforms involve sacrificing short-term satisfaction for longer-term gains and
will require broader social and political consensus to be effective and sustainable. In a
high-trust environment, such reforms may not only be properly enacted and implemented,
but could be sustained long enough to bear their fruits. This extends the time frame for
policy decisions. In a low-trust climate, citizen will prioritise immediate, appropriable and
partial benefits, and will induce politicians to seek short-term and opportunistic gains
through free-riding and populist attitudes (Gyorffy, 2013).
Trust in government could improve compliance with rules and regulations and reduce the cost
of enforcement. Rules and regulations are never perfect or complete enough to eliminate
abuse. Their effectiveness depends on the extent to which people see them as fair and
legitimate enough to outweigh the benefits of non-compliance. This is particularly
important for regulations where the gap between the cost of compliance and personal
benefits is large and where control is more difficult. Taxation is an example of the first,
while traffic regulations are an example of the second. Trust in the regulator can lead to
higher voluntary compliance (Murphy, 2004).
Trust in government institutions could help to increase confidence in the economy by
facilitating economic decisions, such as on investment and consumption that foster
economic growth. Trust in institutions as well as interpersonal trust may reduce the
perception of risks linked to decisions ranging from the consumption of durables to job
mobility, worker hiring and investment. An increase in trust among people raises total
factor productivity, therefore fosters economic progress (Dasgupta, 2009). This, in turn,
supports economic growth and extends the planning horizon of economic agents,
increasing economic dynamism.
Trust in government seems to be especially critical in crisis situations, such as natural
disasters, economic crisis or political unrest which focuses attention on the core functions
of public governance. The capacity of governments to manage crises and to implement
successful exit strategies is often a condition for their survival and for their re-election. In
the aftermath of major disasters, lack of trust may hamper emergency and recovery

22 GOVERNMENT AT A GLANCE 2013 © OECD 2013

 1. TRUST IN GOVERNMENT, POLICY EFFECTIVENESS AND THE GOVERNANCE AGENDA

procedures causing great harm to society and damaging government’s capacity to act.
Likewise, the current economic crisis may reveal dimensions of trust that were not evident
in the gradual evolution of countries in the years that preceded it.
Trust may run in different directions. It is not only trust of citizens and organisations in
government that matters for policy effectiveness; trust of government in citizens and
organisations and trust within government may shape policy design and its outcomes
(Bouckaert, 2012). How much citizens and businesses are trusted by government is reflected
in how government functions and how public services are organised as well as their
efficiency and effectiveness – e.g. the tax system, the use of self-regulation and
self-monitoring. In addition, citizens’ and businesses’ trust in government and governments’
trust in citizens and businesses feed off one another. An open and responsive government is
an enabling environment to reinforce trust between government and citizens in both
directions. Unfortunately, trust from and within government is considerably less documented
in the literature than trust in government.
While trust takes time to be established, it can be lost quickly. It is not sufficient to discuss
the impact of trust in government on the performance of government, the economy and
society, it is also necessary to describe what might happen if there is an increasing distrust
in government. This might lead to less willingness on the part of citizens (and businesses) to
obey the law, to make sacrifices during crises or to pay taxes. This could raise costs for
government – resulting in declining efficiency – or erode revenues. Declining trust in
government might also make it more difficult to attract and retain talent to work for
government institutions.

Measuring trust in government

Trust is based on perceptions and its measurement is fraught with many challenges.
This is true at the national level, and even more so at the international level. As trust
represents a positive perception of government, it is measured by perception surveys,
asking citizens, businesses or experts whether they trust (or have confidence) in
government, leadership, and/or specific government institutions (e.g. local authorities or
the justice system). Questions are often asked also about their satisfaction with public
services, such as the local police, education or health care, although they represent a
somewhat different concept than trust.
Several international surveys collect data on citizens’ trust in government (see
Table 1.1). The World Gallup Poll provides data across all 34 OECD member countries with
sufficient regularity to capture the impact of the global financial and economic crisis on
trust in government. The World Values Survey has measured trust in government for the

Table 1.1. International surveys measuring trust or confidence in government

Number
Years covered
Name of survey of OECD countries Measurement Answer scale
and frequency
covered

World Gallup Poll 34 2005-12 (annually) Confidence in national government 2: yes/no

World Values Survey 25 4 waves: 1989-93; 1994-98; Confidence in the government 4: a great deal/quite
1999-2004; 2005-08 a lot/not very much/not at all
Eurobarometer 23 2003-13 (biannually) Trust in government 2: tend to trust/tend not to trust
Edelman Trust Barometer 15 2001-13 (annually) Trust in government 9 point scale: 1 means
“do not trust at all” and 9 means
“trust them a great deal”
Latinobarómetro 3 1995-2012 (annually) Trust in government 4: a lot/some/a little/no trust

GOVERNMENT AT A GLANCE 2013 © OECD 2013 23

1. TRUST IN GOVERNMENT, POLICY EFFECTIVENESS AND THE GOVERNANCE AGENDA

longest period of time, but the dataset is fragmented, and data is only available for multiple
year periods, the latest wave being 2005-07. The European Union’s Eurobarometer provides
the most consistent dataset (including biannual data points) but unfortunately covers only
23 OECD member countries. The Edelman Trust barometer provides time series only for a
restricted sample of the population (sampling criteria includes college educated and
household income in the top quartile).
As international surveys were designed to offer cross country comparisons, their
questions measuring trust in government are subject to ambiguity and they are often
restricted down to the respondent’s interpretation as no definition of the term government
is usually provided. The international surveys apply similar methodologies in terms of
sampling, but diverge in terms of question formulation (e.g. nuances between a question
on confidence and a question on trust in government, different response scales) and also in
terms of other measures of trust that could provide comparators (e.g. trust in national
parliament, financial institutions, politicians, civil servants, international organisations,
public services such as health care and education, businesses, religious institutions).
The limitations of international surveys make it difficult to gain a thorough
understanding of how citizens’ trust in government is evolving over time and what
influences levels of trust in government across OECD countries and beyond. The incidence
of cultural factors on how people approach public institutions makes pure cross country
comparisons of trust in government especially challenging. Perhaps most importantly for
the purpose of this analysis, the existing surveys were not designed to support policy
analysis or lead to policy recommendations.
Although national surveys measuring trust in government cannot be used in a cross
country comparative exercise, they better support policy analysis for many reasons.
Compared to international surveys, they provide greater insight into the drivers of trust
and can be corrected for election cycles. For example, the Barometer of Citizen Confidence
conducted by Metroscopia in Spain publishes data on a monthly basis that allows
government satisfaction to be compared with the perception of the economy. National
surveys also cover trust across the public spectrum more in depth. For example, IPSOS Mori
in the United Kingdom publishes twice a year trends of trust across public institutions
(e.g. different levels of government, parliament), public services, economic policies
(e.g. economic growth, unemployment, inflation, purchasing power), political parties and
political representatives (leaders in the executive, politicians, members of parliament), and
perceptions of corruption in government. National surveys can also provide measures of
trust on existing policies. For example, IFOP in France asks citizens whether they trust their
government to meet specific policy targets announced when they took office. National
surveys also usually have much longer time series, for example the PEW Research Center
in the United States provides trust in government data since the late 1950s.
The discussion above suggests that more could be done to increase comparability of data
on citizens’ trust from perception surveys and support policy discussion. First, surveys may be
made more representative. Current surveys work with small sample sizes and are seldom
representative geographically inside a country. Additional respondents’ characteristics – such
as their age, gender, race, educational level, marital status, income level, whether they have
used a government service or not, etc. – influence their perception of government so it would
be worthwhile that the sample reflect these as well. Second, survey questions could be
improved. Key terms need to be defined precisely: e.g. in the Gallup World Poll, respondents are
asked about how much confidence they have in national government, without any explanation
of what is meant by that. Respondents might equate government with political leadership or

24 GOVERNMENT AT A GLANCE 2013 © OECD 2013

 1. TRUST IN GOVERNMENT, POLICY EFFECTIVENESS AND THE GOVERNANCE AGENDA

the bureaucracy. Survey questions and the attached response categories need also to be
worded in ways that allow governments to act upon – e.g. change their behaviour – based on
the information gained. Lastly, collection of information at regular intervals will allow, in
addition to cross-country comparisons at one point in time, to detect changes over time and
trends both in individual countries and across countries.

Patterns and trends of trust in government in OECD countries

Despite the methodological difficulties in measuring trust in government, the
available data reveals some distinct patterns, trends and correlations that are revealing of
the state of trust in government in OECD countries and may assist policy makers in digging
deeper into the subject.
First, the most recent data available for OECD countries indicates that when citizens
are asked about their confidence in the national government, their answers differ
substantially across countries, with an average well below 50% (Figure 1.1). In other words,
when asked through surveys, less than half the citizens of OECD countries respond that
they have confidence in their national government. National averages rank between
almost 80% in Switzerland and 12% in Greece. The distribution within this range does not
appear to reflect standards of living, per capita GDP levels or speed of growth. While Japan
and Korea – an upper income and fast growing country respectively – score below the OECD
average, Turkey, with a lower per capita GDP scores well above it. This suggests that trust
in government may not respond to long-term economic developments or absolute
standards of living as much as it does to cultural factors, evolving expectations and
political developments. This conclusion is reinforced by the available evidence for some
emerging countries, which underscores the influence of expectations on government
action of citizens on government on their levels of trust (Box 1.1).

Figure 1.1. Confidence in national government in 2012 and its change since 2007
Arranged in descending order according to percentage point change between 2007 and 2012

Percentage point change 2007-12 (left axis) % in 2012 (right axis)

Percentage points %
100 100
90 90
80 80
70 70
60 60
50 50
40 40
30 30
20 20
10 10
0 0
-10
-20
-30
-40
d Isr d
ng l

ov l
er c

Fr m
Po c e
rm d
S w any
N e Ic e en
Ze nd

Ko d
a
No t al y
Tu ay
Un Hu ke y
d ar y

OE s
nm D
Lu J r k
m an

Ne Me rg
e c er o
p s
st c
li a
A u il e
C a tr ia

Sp a
E s a in
B e ni a
F i um
Po land

Gr n i a
Ir e c e
nd
K i ae

Sl ug a
i t z bli

Re d
e

A u ub li

d
re
n

Ge lan

an

C z th x ic
De C
do

u
rw

at
an

Ch

ee
ra
ed

xe a p

h lan

na
la

w la

la
to

e
i
i te ng

s
bo
r
S w epu

I
al

lg
St

n
rt
R
ak

i te
ov

Un
Sl

Note: Data refer to percentage of “yes” answers to the question: “In this country, do you have confidence in each of the following, or not?
How about national government?” Data for Chile, Germany and the United Kingdom are for 2011 rather than 2012. Data for Iceland and
Luxembourg are for 2008 rather than 2007. Data for Austria, Finland, Ireland, Norway, Portugal, the Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Switzerland
are for 2006 rather than 2007.
Source: Gallup World Poll.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888932940740

GOVERNMENT AT A GLANCE 2013 © OECD 2013 25

1. TRUST IN GOVERNMENT, POLICY EFFECTIVENESS AND THE GOVERNANCE AGENDA

Box 1.1. Confidence in national government in BRIICS countries (2012)

On average across BRIICS countries, a majority of citizens expressed confidence in
national government (54%) in 2012. Confidence in national government was the highest in
Indonesia and China (two-thirds of citizens) and the lowest in South Africa, Brazil and the
Russian Federation (all within a range of 45-47%). Trust in government in all BRIICS
countries was higher than the OECD average (40%). Over the 2007-12 period, confidence in
national government decreased on average by three percentage points across the BRIICS
countries (excluding China), which was less than across OECD member countries (five
percentage point decrease on average). Confidence increased the most in Indonesia
(15 percentage points) and decreased the most in India (27 percentage points). Higher
levels of confidence across BRIICS countries compared to most OECD member countries
can be due to cultural and context-specific factors, but can also be explained by different
expectations that citizens have of government services and performance due to different
stages of socio-economic development. Nevertheless, there is an agreement among
researchers that reaching the optimal level of trust is more important than reaching the
maximum level of trust (Knack and Keefer, 1997; Nooteboom, 2006; Dasgputa, 2009;
Bouckeart, 2012).

Confidence in national government in BRIICS countries

is higher than in OECD

% 2012 2007
100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0
a

il

CD
n
in
si

di

ric

az

tio
ne

OE
Ch

In

Br
Af

ra
do

de
h
ut
In

Fe
So

n
ia
ss
Ru

Note: Data refer to percentage of “yes” answers to the question: “In this country, do you have confidence in
each of the following, or not? How about national government?”
Source: Gallup World Poll.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888932940740

Second, the evidence shows that the average level of trust in government in 2012 was
below its pre-crisis level in 2007 (lower panel in Figure 1.1). The share of respondents
expressing confidence in national government in 2012 is lower on average by five
percentage points (from 45% to 40%) than in 2007. This comparison masks much larger
variations at the country level, as more than two-thirds of OECD countries reported a loss
of confidence in government from 2007 to 2012. The larger drops in trust occurred in
countries facing either a political, fiscal or economic crisis, such as Greece, Slovenia,

26 GOVERNMENT AT A GLANCE 2013 © OECD 2013

 1. TRUST IN GOVERNMENT, POLICY EFFECTIVENESS AND THE GOVERNANCE AGENDA

Ireland, Spain, Belgium and Portugal. In other countries, however, confidence in

government increased, notably in the Slovak Republic, Israel, the United Kingdom, Poland,
France, Switzerland, Germany, and Sweden.
Third, trust in government is, on average, similar to trust on two key institutions of the
private sector: a) financial institutions and banks; and b) the media, but, again, with
significant variations across OECD countries. Overall across OECD countries financial
institutions and banks are trusted slightly more (43%) than government (40%) (see
Figure 1.2). In some countries, which were least affected by the 2008 financial crisis,
financial institutions and banks enjoy a high level of trust, such as Canada, Poland,
Finland, Norway, Mexico, Australia and Japan. Conversely, in some countries that were
most affected, trust in government tends to be relatively higher than in financial
institutions, such as in Ireland, Spain, and Italy.

Figure 1.2. Trust in financial institutions compared to government

Comparison of confidence in financial institutions/banks and government (2012)
Confidence in national government (%)
100

90

80
CHE
LUX
70
NZL NOR
SWE
60 NLD FIN
TUR DNK CAN
50 GBR
FRA DEU
40 BEL AUT AUS
IRL OECD SVK
ESP CHL MEX
30 USA ISR
ISL ITA PRT EST POL
SVN
20
GRC HUN KOR CZE JPN
10

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Confidence in financial institutions and banks (%)
Note: Confidence in national government data refer to percentage of “yes” answers to the question: “In this country,
do you have confidence in each of the following, or not? How about national government?” Confidence in financial
institutions and banks data refer to percentage of “yes” answers to the question: “In this country, do you have
confidence in each of the following, or not? How about financial institutions or banks?” Data for Chile, Germany and
the United Kingdom are for 2010 rather than 2011. In the countries below the line, confidence in financial institutions
and banks is higher than confidence in government.
Source: Gallup World Poll.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888932940759

Trust in the media was significantly higher than trust in government in Ireland, Spain
and Portugal in 2010 – the year for which data are available – while it was significantly
lower in Turkey, Sweden, the Netherlands and Luxembourg (see Figure 1.3). As countries in
the first group include the ones with the largest deterioration in trust in government in the
course of the crisis and the ones in the second are among the countries with highest and
most stable levels of trust, the comparison may be more revealing of the evolution of trust
in government than of trust in the media. The opposite may be happening in the
comparison between trust in government and trust in financial institutions, with the
dynamics of the latter dominating over the former.

GOVERNMENT AT A GLANCE 2013 © OECD 2013 27

1. TRUST IN GOVERNMENT, POLICY EFFECTIVENESS AND THE GOVERNANCE AGENDA

Figure 1.3. Trust in the media and government

Comparison of confidence in national government and the media (2010)
Confidence in national government (%)
100

90

80
LUX
70 NLD
SWE AUS NZL
60 TUR CHE
NOR CAN
FRA AUT
50 GBR DNK
FIN CHL
ISR
40 USA DEU MEX
KOR OECD SVN
CZE POL BEL
JPN IRL
30 HUN
ITA SVK PRT ESP
GRC
20
EST ISL
10

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Confidence in the media (%)
Note: Confidence in national government data refer to percentage of “yes” answers to the question: “In this country,
do you have confidence in each of the following, or not? How about national government?” Confidence in media data
refer to percentage of “yes” answers to the question: “In this country, do you have confidence in each of the following,
or not? How about quality and integrity of the media?” Data for Iceland and Norway refer to 2008 rather than 2010.
Data for Switzerland and Estonia refer to 2009 rather than 2010. In the countries below the line, confidence in the
media is higher than confidence in government.
Source: Gallup World Poll.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888932940778

Drivers of trust in government

Trust in government is multifaceted and based on a mix of economic, social and
political interactions between citizens and government. A broad empirical literature1
discusses the relationships between trust in government and economic, social and
governance parameters. It identifies four broad groups of drivers of trust in government:
1) culture; 2) institutional setting; 3) economic and social outcomes; and 4) performance of
institutions. While there is more or less a consensus on the range of drivers involved, the
evidence is conflicting on the magnitude of their influence and the depth of their reciprocal
relationship with trust. A general finding is that trust and most of its drivers are interlinked
and self-fulfilling, and therefore complementary in their relationship to public governance
and economic development.
Bouckaert (2012) argues that trust in government can be analysed at three levels. At
the macro-level, trust relates to political institutions and the functioning of democracy. At the
meso-level, trust relates to policy making – the ability of governments to manage economic
and social issues, and to generate positive expectations for future well-being. Finally, at the
micro-level, trust refers to the impact of government on people’s daily lives through service
delivery. Although distinct, these three levels interact and a significant lag in trust at one
level may affect trust at other levels and influence policy outcomes. Efforts to strengthen
trust therefore need to reinforce synergies across each of these different spheres.
Bouckaert’s taxonomy is especially useful for two reasons. First, because it suggests that
trust is not just something that happens to governments but something that governments
can influence through their actions and policies. Second, because it suggests that when it
comes to influencing trust, it is not only the what of public policies that matters, but also the
how, the for whom and the with whom. Consequently, not only the final results but the
processes used to attain them are also important for the citizens and business.

28 GOVERNMENT AT A GLANCE 2013 © OECD 2013

 1. TRUST IN GOVERNMENT, POLICY EFFECTIVENESS AND THE GOVERNANCE AGENDA

The public governance dimension – the institutional setting and its performance – of
trust may be better understood when this concept is broken down into a set of inter-related
process components that encapsulate what citizens expect from government. The OECD
has proposed the following components:
● Reliability: the ability of governments to minimise uncertainty in the economic, social and
political environment of their citizens, and to act in a consistent and predictable manner.
● Responsiveness: the provision of accessible, efficient and citizen-oriented public services
that effectively address the needs and expectations of the public.
● Openness and inclusiveness: a systemic, comprehensive approach to institutionalising a
two-way communication with stakeholders, whereby relevant, usable information is
provided, and interaction is fostered as a means to improve transparency, accountability
and engagement.
● Integrity: the alignment of government and public institutions with broader principles
and standards of conduct that contribute to safeguarding the public interest while
preventing corruption.
● Fairness: in a procedural sense the consistent treatment of citizens (and businesses) in
the policy-making and policy-implementation processes.
In what follows, we use Bouckaert’s three-level framework to identify potential drivers of
trust in the governance domain and point at evidence from international surveys that is
suggestive of a statistical correlation. This is still a preliminary exercise that is far from
conclusive on causality relations, but one that could guide further research and discussion.

Macro-level
At the macro-level what matters for trust in government are political institutions and the
functioning of democracy. A crucial prerequisite of becoming a member of the OECD is to be
a democracy with well-developed political institutions.2
Regarding political institutions, at least in the European countries for which data are
available, citizens consistently express more trust in government than in political parties
(see Figure 1.4 and Figure 1.5). In 2013 among the European OECD member countries only
in one country – Denmark – do people trust government and political parties at a similar
level; in all other countries political parties are less trusted. Political parties are trusted the
least – below 10% of respondents – in the countries most affected by the fiscal crises,
e.g. Slovenia, Greece, Spain, Italy and Portugal. These are the same countries where trust in
government is also the lowest.
A basic tenet of democracy, beside free and fair elections, is the adherence to the rule
of law – which is both an outcome and a process measure – meaning that no one, including
government, is above the law, where laws protect fundamental rights, and justice is
accessible to all. This is reflected in a strong correlation between the confidence people
have in their national government and in the judicial system (see Figure 1.6). Confidence in
the judicial system represents both an outcome and a key governance dimension, most
closely related to integrity.
Another conventionally used proxy measure for trust in the political system is voters’
turn-out. However, there are competing hypotheses regarding the relationship between
voters’ turn-out and trust – the first one being that larger voter turn-out might reflect a
higher trust in the political system; while the competing one: lower trust in the incumbent
government might lead to higher propensity to vote in order to defeat it. However, the
correlation coefficient between trust in government and voters’ turn-out is negligible.

GOVERNMENT AT A GLANCE 2013 © OECD 2013 29

1. TRUST IN GOVERNMENT, POLICY EFFECTIVENESS AND THE GOVERNANCE AGENDA

Figure 1.4. Trust in political parties is much lower than trust in government
in Europe over time (2005-13)

% Trust in political parties Trust in national government

50

40

30

20

10

0
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Note: Data refer to percentage of “tend to trust” answers to the questions: “For each of the following institutions,
please tell me if you tend to trust it or tend not to trust it: the (national) government; political parties.” Data refers to
annual averages for 23 OECD member countries: data not available for Australia, Canada, Chile, Israel, Japan, Korea,
Mexico, New Zealand, Norway, Switzerland and the United States.
Source: Eurobarometer (database), OECD calculations.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888932940797

Figure 1.5. Trust in government and in political parties

in European OECD member countries (2013)

% Trust in national government Trust in political parties

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0
g
en

Au d
ria

Ic y
Be d
Ge m

th ny

De ds

Es k
a
CD

Re r y

ic

ng e
m

nd

Re nd

ic

Po y

Sl al

Gr a
ce
a in
e

ni
ar

nc

i
l
an

an
ur

bl

bl

g
en
It a
iu

do
ak ga
rk

ee
ed

Ne ma

la
ec Pola
st

OE
to

r tu

Sp
nm
bo

i te Fr a
pu

pu
nl

la
el

lg

ov
Tu

Ir e
ov un
Sw

er
r
Fi
m

Ki
H
xe

h
d
Lu

Cz
Un
Sl

Note: Data refer to percentage of “tend to trust” answers to the questions: “For each of the following institutions,
please tell me if you tend to trust it or tend not to trust it: the (national) government; political parties.” Data refers to
annual averages for 23 OECD member countries: data not available for Australia, Canada, Chile, Israel, Japan, Korea,
Mexico, New Zealand, Norway, Switzerland and the United States.
Source: Eurobarometer (database).
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888932940816

When expressing their confidence in national government, citizens also pass

judgement on the leadership of their country (R squared: 0.9) (see Figure 1.7). Whether this
leadership means political leaders only or also includes the top bureaucracy is open to
question. However, it shows the utmost importance of leadership in public governance,
and the need for a well-functioning political-administrative interface that supports the
government’s vision, performance and integrity.

30 GOVERNMENT AT A GLANCE 2013 © OECD 2013

 1. TRUST IN GOVERNMENT, POLICY EFFECTIVENESS AND THE GOVERNANCE AGENDA

Figure 1.6. Confidence in the judicial system is important for confidence

in national government
Correlation between confidence in national government and confidence in the judicial system (2012)
Confidence in judicial system (2012), %
100
R² = 0.57
90
DNK CHE
80 NOR
FIN SWE
70 AUT NLD LUX
JPN DEU GBR
60 IRL
ISL AUS CAN NZL
50 ISR USA FRA TUR
EST BEL
GRC POL OECD
40 ITA
HUN
ESP SVK
30 KOR MEX
CZE
SVN
20 PRT CHL
10

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Confidence in national government (2012), %
Note: Confidence in national government data refer to percentage of “yes” answers to the question: “In this country,
do you have confidence in each of the following, or not? How about national government?” Confidence in the judicial
system data refer to percentage of “yes” answers to the question: “In this country, do you have confidence in each of
the following, or not? How about judicial system and courts?” Data for Chile, Germany and the United Kingdom are
for 2011 rather than 2012.
Source: World Gallup Poll.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888932940835

Figure 1.7. Leadership is the key to confidence in national government

Correlation between confidence in national government and leadership of the country (2012)
Approval country leadership (2012), %
100
R² = 0.89
90

80 CHE
LUX
70 DNK NZL NOR
OECD FIN
60 CAN SWE
DEU
ESP
50 BEL NLD
USA AUT GBR
ISR TUR
40 ITA
KOR SVN FRA
POL SVK AUS
30 JPN PRT CHL IRL
20 ISL
EST
GRC MEX
10 HUN
CZE
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Confidence in national government (2012), %
Note: Data for confidence in national government refer to the percentage of “yes” answers to the question: “In this
country, do you have confidence in each of the following, or not? How about national government?” Data for approval
of country leadership represent % of “approve” answers to the question: “Do you approve or disapprove of the job
performance of the leadership of this country?” Data for Chile, Germany and the United Kingdom are 2011 instead
of 2012.
Source: Gallup World Poll.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888932940854

GOVERNMENT AT A GLANCE 2013 © OECD 2013 31

1. TRUST IN GOVERNMENT, POLICY EFFECTIVENESS AND THE GOVERNANCE AGENDA

Meso-level
At the meso-level, trust may be related to strategic policymaking – the ability of
governments to manage economic and social issues, and to generate positive expectations
for future well-being. Government at a Glance 2013 includes several indicators that look at the
components and results of strategic policy making, such as fairness (Chapter 2), risk
management (Chapter 2), fiscal sustainability (Chapter 2), fiscal balances (Chapter 3), debt
levels (Chapter 3) as well as budget practices (Chapter 4). When relating these indicators to
levels and change in trust in government, however, none of them show a strong correlation.
However, the level of spending on social protection (including unemployment, insurance,
pensions, and welfare) showed modest correlation (R squared: 0.44) to the level of trust in
government. As social programmes have become the target of fiscal consolidation in a
number of countries, trust in government may take an additional hit from changes in the
composition and rules of access to these programmes that are seen as a change in the
social contract between the state and its citizens. The impact on public trust, however,
could be mitigated by the processes through which reforms are carried out. This shows the
importance of fairness both in terms of outcomes – focusing on who will be affected by
how much, and how fairly the burden is shared – as well as in terms of the processes by
which decisions are reached – how transparent are the decision-making process and the
supporting evidence, and what are the possibilities for participation by those affected by
the decisions. In this way, trust in government can further support itself: by encouraging
participation and by building confidence in the evidence and criteria used by decision
makers (and therefore the legitimacy of their decisions).
Fiscal prudence does not necessarily have a straightforward relationship to trust in
government. It seems that when the fiscal house of the state is in order there is not much
of a relationship. However, when countries are in serious fiscal trouble it becomes an
overriding concern. This is well documented in Figure 1.8, showing the negative and strong

Figure 1.8. The role of public debt matters only in countries in fiscal crisis
Correlation between confidence in national government (2012) and public debt (2011)
Public debt (2011), % of GDP
220
R² = 0.24 JPN Special focus
200 % of GDP
200
180 GRC GRC
180
160 R² = 0.81
160
140 ISL
140 ITA
120 PRT ITA IRL 120
IRL
BEL PRT
100 USA FRA GBR 100
HUN AUT CAN
80 DEU NLD 80 ESP
ESP
POL ISR OECD FIN 60
60 10 20 30 40
SVN SVK SWE
CZE DNK CHE %
40 KOR NZL NOR
AUS LUX
20
EST
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Confidence in national government (2012), %
Note: Confidence in national government data refer to the percentage of “yes” answers to the question: “In this
country, do you have confidence in each of the following, or not? How about national government?” Public debt refers
to general government gross financial liabilities. Data for confidence in national government for Chile, Germany and
the United Kingdom are for 2011 rather than 2012.
Source: World Gallup Poll; and OECD (2013), “OECD Economic Outlook No. 93”, OECD Economic Outlook: Statistics and
Projections (database), May 2013, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/data-00655-en.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888932940873

32 GOVERNMENT AT A GLANCE 2013 © OECD 2013

 1. TRUST IN GOVERNMENT, POLICY EFFECTIVENESS AND THE GOVERNANCE AGENDA

correlation (R square: 0.81) for the five European countries with serious public debt
problem (see Special focus). High levels of debt to GDP may thus bring into question the
reliability of government and their ability to minimise uncertainty.

Micro-level
At the micro-level the focus is on the citizens’ experience with government through the
delivery of public services. Satisfaction with public services is much higher than trust in
government but higher service satisfaction does not necessarily translate into increased
confidence in government.
The evidence from surveys indicates that citizens can distinguish between different
areas and bodies that integrate the public sector when asked more specifically (Figure 1.9).
In 2012, and on average across OECD member countries, confidence was the highest in the
local police and health care (respectively 72% and 71%) followed by education (66%), the
judicial system (51%) and the least in national government (40%). This highlights the
importance of understanding what is meant by “government”: when citizens identify their
level of trust in government, which elements of the broad network of actors, institutions
and regulations make up government, as well as the infrastructures by which services are
delivered for which they are referring to.
Besides the general picture, significant differences exist across countries, in terms of
the relations between trust in national government and actual satisfaction with public
services. The difference between the two measures is particularly large in Iceland, Japan,

Figure 1.9. Satisfaction with public services is higher than trust

in government (2012)
OECD average OECD range

National government
100

80

60

40 40%
Health care 71% Judicial system
20
51%
0

66% 72%

Education system Local police

Note: OECD average based on 2012 data for all countries, except Chile, Germany, Japan, Mexico, Korea and the
United Kingdom for which data are for 2011 rather than 2012. Data for national government refer to the percentage
of “yes” answers to the question: “In this country, do you have confidence in each of the following, or not? How about
national government?” Data for the judicial system refer to the percentage of “yes” answers to question: “In this
country, do you have confidence in each of the following, or not? How about Judicial system and courts?” Data for the
local police refer to the percentage of “yes” answers to question: “In the city or area where you live, do you have
confidence in the local police force, or not?” Data for education system refer to the percentage of “satisfied” answers
to the question: “In the city or area where you live, are you satisfied or dissatisfied with the educational system or
the schools?” Data for health care refer to the percentage of “satisfied” answers to the question: “In the city or area
where you live, are you satisfied or dissatisfied with the availability of quality health care?”
Source: Gallup World Poll.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888932940892

GOVERNMENT AT A GLANCE 2013 © OECD 2013 33

1. TRUST IN GOVERNMENT, POLICY EFFECTIVENESS AND THE GOVERNANCE AGENDA

Slovenia, the Czech Republic where satisfaction with public services is high, whilst in
Switzerland, Luxembourg and Turkey confidence in national government and satisfaction
with public services are very close to each other. This reinforces the view that current
answers to questions on the confidence in the national government as displayed through
the available data may capture more short-term perceptions on the political system in
some countries than on the government and the public administrations as institutions.
Trust tends to be highest at the local level, where services are delivered and where the
link with government performance is most concrete. Trust also tends to be higher for actual
users of public services than for the non-users. An exploration of the variations of trust
across levels of governments and across different types of public institutions would provide
some clues on the factors that shape public perceptions of government and on the different
policy levers that can improve the perception of those areas of public administration.
Chapter 9 on the quality of public services is based on a general framework on service
quality (Table 1.2). The chapter is built on existing service quality indicators presented by
key dimensions of quality: access, timeliness, reliability and service satisfaction. In
addition, data on the take-up of online government services are also presented, given the
increased reliance of governments, businesses and citizens on them. These service quality
dimensions overlap with some of the key governance dimensions that matter for citizens,
such as inclusiveness (access), responsiveness and reliability. As there are many facets of
these key dimensions of quality, as a first attempt, one facet is presented for each of the
four policy areas when data are available: affordability, timeliness, accuracy and reported
satisfaction with services.

Table 1.2. The service quality framework

Access Responsiveness Reliability Satisfaction

Affordability Timeliness Accuracy/competence/customer rights Reported satisfaction

(possibilities to file complaints, (perception)
suggestions, receive support
and/or compensation
Geographic proximity “Match” of service to needs Tangible function (facilities, Reported confidence/trust
machines, etc.) (perception)
Adaptations for those Customer service Consistency/fairness
with disabilities (courtesy and treatment)
Adaptations to different cultures Integrated services Security (confidentiality, safety)
(e.g. languages, etc.) (across delivery channels)
Access to electronic services
(digital divide)

Integrity: A cross cutting issue

Integrity seems to be essential to trust in government, as the correlation between
perception of corruption and trust in government is high (see Figure 1.10). Integrity tools and
mechanisms, that are essential public governance processes, are aimed at preventing
corruption (which is the outcome) and fostering high standards of behaviour, helping to
reinforce the credibility and legitimacy of the actors involved in policy decision making,
safeguarding the public interest and restoring a sense of fairness of policy decisions. Policy
tools addressing high-risk areas at the intersection of the public and private sectors – including
effective management of conflict of interests, high standards of behaviour in the public sector
and adequate lobbying and political finance regulation – can be leveraged to limit undue
influence and build safeguards to protect the public interest.

34 GOVERNMENT AT A GLANCE 2013 © OECD 2013

 1. TRUST IN GOVERNMENT, POLICY EFFECTIVENESS AND THE GOVERNANCE AGENDA

Figure 1.10. Be aware of corruption!

Correlation between confidence in national government and perception of government corruption (2012)
Government corruption (%)
100
CZE
PRT R² = 0.80
90 GRC ITA
KOR
80 HUN ESP ISR
POL USA
SVN SVK
70
ISL CHL AUT
JPN OECD
60 EST MEX BEL TUR
IRL FRA
50 DEU CAN
40 GBR
NLD LUX
30 NOR
AUS FIN
NZL CHE
20
SWE
10 DNK

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Confidence in national government (%)
Note: Data for confidence in national government refer to the percentage of “yes” answers to the question: “In this
country, do you have confidence in each of the following, or not? How about national government?” Data for
perception of government corruption represent % of “yes” answers to the question: “Is corruption widespread
throughout the government, or not?” Data for Chile, Germany and the United Kingdom are for 2011 instead of 2012.
Source: Gallup World Poll.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888932940911

This publication contains indicators on public management practices that are aimed
at improving integrity in government: Chapter 8, “Conflict of interest and asset disclosure”;
Chapter 8, “Budget transparency”; and Chapter 7, “Fair competition in public procurement
and SMEs”.

Conclusion
The experience of the institutional challenges of the financial, economic and social
crisis of the recent past has contributed to a wide-ranging research on the role of
governments in modern economies and societies. The role of trust is increasingly
identified by leaders and analysts as the potentially missing element for better crisis
management and better performance.
Understanding and improving trust in government seem to require a comprehensive,
multi-sector, multi-actor agenda with a medium-term horizon. First, there is a need for a
more comprehensive measurement of trust in government as well as a better identification
of its drivers. This requires that our understanding and knowledge of the concept of trust
and trust in government be enhanced. In addition, a regular, internationally comparable
measurement of trust in government by citizens and by businesses would be necessary.
This could be carried out by new survey(s) that combine elements of existing surveys, or by
improving existing surveys (regarding their representativeness, survey designs, and by
including question wording and the scales attached). Currently no national statistical
offices (NSOs) are involved in the measurement of trust in government.
Secondly, further work is required on an analytical framework followed by more
sophisticated econometric techniques to explore in greater depth the relationships between
trust in government and the different institutions of government and dimensions of
government performance in order to draw conclusions that could identify areas where
government action can make a difference. It is particularly important that we understand
the roles and responsibilities of all levels and institutions of government in influencing trust
in government, starting with national leadership, the various policy sectors and service

GOVERNMENT AT A GLANCE 2013 © OECD 2013 35

1. TRUST IN GOVERNMENT, POLICY EFFECTIVENESS AND THE GOVERNANCE AGENDA

delivery agents at local level of government in how decisions are made, transmitted and
implemented. The OECD could assist in developing international comparisons, and help
countries to exchange with each other in terms of strategies and actions that have succeeded
in rebuilding trust in government. A precursor to this work could be country specific case
studies carried out – among others – as part of the OECD’s Public Governance Reviews.
Most important of all, however, a renewed focus on trust in government can bring a new
perspective to public governance, enhancing the role of the citizens. At an institutional level,
this should reinforce the notion of a social contract between citizens and the state, where the
former contribute not only by paying taxes and obeying the law, but also by being receptive
to public policies and co-operating in their design and implementation. To gain this support
from citizens, however, governments need to be more inclusive, more transparent, more
receptive and more efficient. Recognising and better understanding the critical role that trust
plays in effective public policies should assist governments better shape their policy and
reform agendas, improving outcomes for all.

Notes
1. See GOV/PGC(2013)1 (www2.oecd.org/oecdinfo/info.aspx?app=OLIScoteEN&Ref=GOV/PGC(2013)1).
2. This publication (available on line in the “Country Contextual Factors Annex”) contains basic
information on political institutions, as well as government structure for each member country.
How those institutions function is captured by other indicators in the publication.

Bibliography
Aghion, P., Y. Algan, P. Cahuc and A. Shleifer (2010), “Regulation and distrust”, The Quarterly Journal of
Economics, Vol. 125(3), Oxford, pp. 1015-1049.
Algan, Y. and P. Cahuc (2010), Handbook of Economic Growth, Vol. 1, North-Holland Publishing, Amsterdam.
Blind, P.K. (2007), “Building trust in government in the twenty-first century: Review of literature and
emerging issues”, in 7th Global Forum on Reinventing Government Building Trust in Government, pp. 26-29.
Bouckaert, G. (2012), “Trust and Public Administration”, Administration, Vol. 60, No. 1, pp. 91-115.
Bouckaert, G. and S. van de Walle (2003), “Comparing measures of citizen trust and user satisfaction as
indicators of ’good governance’: Difficulties in linking trust and satisfaction indicators”, International
Review of Administrative Sciences, Vol. 69(3), pp. 329-344.
Dalton, R.J. (2005), “The social transformation of Trust in Government”, International Review of Sociology,
Vol. 15, No. 1, March, pp. 133-154.
Dasgupta, P. (2009), “A Matter of Trust: Social Capital and Economic Development”, prepared for
presentation at the Annual Bank Conference on Development Economics (ABCDE), Seoul, June.
Easton, D. (1965), A Systems Analysis of Political Life, John Wiley, New York.
Fukuyama, F. (1995), Trust: the Social Virtues and the Creation of Prosperity, Free Press, New York.
Gyorffy, D. (2013), Institutional Trust and Economic policy, Central European University Press, Budapest.
Johnston, W., H. Krahn and T. Harrison (2006), “Democracy, Political Institutions, and Trust: The Limits
of Current Electoral Reform Proposals”, The Canadian Journal of Sociology, Vol. 31.2, pp. 165-182.
Kampen, J.K., S.V. De Walle and G. Bouckaert (2006), “Assessing the relation between satisfaction with
public service delivery and trust in government: The impact of the predisposition of citizens
toward government on evaluations of its performance”, Public Performance and Management Review,
Vol. 29(4), pp. 387-404.
Knack, S. and P.J. Zak (2003), “Building trust: Public policy, interpersonal trust, and economic
development”, Supreme Court Economic Review, No. 10, pp. 91-107.
Knack, S. and P. Keefer (1997), “Does social capital have an economic payoff? A cross country
investigation”, The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol. 112(4), Oxford, pp. 1251-1288.

36 GOVERNMENT AT A GLANCE 2013 © OECD 2013

 1. TRUST IN GOVERNMENT, POLICY EFFECTIVENESS AND THE GOVERNANCE AGENDA

Murphy, K. (2004), “The role of trust in nurturing compliance: A study of accused tax avoiders”, Law and
Human Behavior, Vol. 28(2), pp. 187-209.
Nooteboom, B. (2006), Social Capital, Institutions and Trust, Tilburg University.
Putnam, R. (2000), Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community, Simon and Schuster,
New York.

International surveys measuring trust or confidence in government: Weblinks

World Gallup Poll: www.gallup.com/strategicconsulting/en-us/worldpoll.aspx.
World Values Survey: www.worldvaluessurvey.org.
Eurobarometer: www.ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/index_en.htm.
Edelman Trust Barometer: www.edelman.com/insights/intellectual-property/trust-2013.
Latinóbarometro: www.latinobarometro.org.

GOVERNMENT AT A GLANCE 2013 © OECD 2013 37

 From:
Government at a Glance 2013

Access the complete publication at:

https://doi.org/10.1787/gov_glance-2013-en

Please cite this chapter as:

OECD (2013), “Trust in government, policy effectiveness and the governance agenda”, in Government at a
Glance 2013, OECD Publishing, Paris.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1787/gov_glance-2013-6-en

This work is published under the responsibility of the Secretary-General of the OECD. The opinions expressed and arguments
employed herein do not necessarily reflect the official views of OECD member countries.

This document and any map included herein are without prejudice to the status of or sovereignty over any territory, to the
delimitation of international frontiers and boundaries and to the name of any territory, city or area.

You can copy, download or print OECD content for your own use, and you can include excerpts from OECD publications,
databases and multimedia products in your own documents, presentations, blogs, websites and teaching materials, provided
that suitable acknowledgment of OECD as source and copyright owner is given. All requests for public or commercial use and
translation rights should be submitted to rights@oecd.org. Requests for permission to photocopy portions of this material for
public or commercial use shall be addressed directly to the Copyright Clearance Center (CCC) at info@copyright.com or the
Centre français d’exploitation du droit de copie (CFC) at contact@cfcopies.com.