Trust in Government and Support for Municipal Services

• Date: 01 June 2014
• DOI: 10.1177/0160323X14533706
• Author: Mitchel N. Herian
• Published date: 01 June 2014
• Subject Matter: General Interests

General Interest
State and Local Government Review
2014, Vol. 46(2) 82-90
Trust in Government and
ª The Author(s) 2014
Reprints and permission:
Support for Municipal
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0160323X14533706
Services
slgr.sagepub.com
Mitchel N. Herian1
Abstract
This article examines the relationship between trust in government and support for local govern-
mental services. It is hypothesized that trust in government will predict support for local government
services, but that trust will differentially predict support across policy areas. The results demonstrate
that trust predicts support for human services and infrastructure but is not related to support for
emergency services. The findings of this article contribute to the broader literature on attitudes
toward local governmental services and may hold potential clues for policy makers interested in
understanding the factors that shape public preferences for governmental service delivery.
Keywords
trust, trust in government, support for services, municipal government, public policy
Introduction
public preferences for governmental service
delivery and public attitudes toward spending
Recent research has shown that political trust
on services on specific services.
has the potential to shape public preferences for
The purpose of this article is to examine the
policies and services. For example, research
link between political trust and support for
has demonstrated that political trust impacts
local governmental delivery through the
attitudes toward governmental policy (e.g.,
‘‘trust-as-heuristic’’ perspective. This perspec-
Hetherington and Globetti 2002; Rudolph
tive provides a positive account of trust such
2009; Herian, Adbel-Monem, and Shank in
that as political trust increases, support for
press) and can also impact individual behaviors
governmental policies also increases. This
related to governmental policy (e.g., Scholz
relationship is tested in the context of a local
and Lubell 1998; Tyler and Huo 2002). This
collaborative management effort that asked citi-
research is significant, as it represents a shift
zens to participate in the budget development
in scholarship that has primarily focused on
understanding the sources of trust; grasping the
causes of distrust (e.g., Hibbing and Theiss-
1 University of Nebraska Public Policy Center, Lincoln, NE,
Morse 2002); and dealing with measurement
USA
issues related to trust (e.g., Hamm et al. 2011),
to research that has sought to better understand
Corresponding Author:
Mitchel N. Herian, University of Nebraska Public Policy
the potential manifestations of political trust.
Center, 215 Centennial Mall South, Suite 401, Lincoln, NE
The research is also notable in that it provides
68588, USA.
an avenue for exploring the factors that shape
Email: mherian2@unl.edu

---

Herian
83
efforts of a moderately sized city in the Mid-
overlooked in much of the research has been
west. Residents were surveyed on their atti-
the potential impact of trust in local govern-
tudes toward the city’s budget by indicating
ment upon attitudes toward local government.
the importance of a number of services pro-
Service delivery at the local level is likely dis-
vided by the city. Respondents were then asked
tinct from service delivery at the national or
a number of questions related to trust in local
even state level. Localities have a variety of
government. These measures were aggregated
governing responsibilities including police
and used to predict support for government
powers and programs related to health and
involvement and spending. Drawing on the
human services. The direct nature of these pro-
trust-as-heuristic perspective, it was hypothe-
grams, where administrators interact directly
sized that trust would be a positive predictor of
with constituents, may yield a unique relation-
support for governmental services. But given the
ship between trust and governance not seen at
unique nature of service delivery at the local
the national level (e.g., Yang and Holzer,
level, and given the wide range of services
2006). Moreover, state and local governments
offered by localities, it was hypothesized that the
are increasingly asked to shoulder the burdens
effects of trust on support would vary across ser-
of implementing federal programs. Considering
vice types.
the unique role of local governments in the U.S.
political system, the direct nature of the ser-
vices provided, and the variety of services pro-
Trust and Policy Attitudes
vided trust and confidence in government may
As noted previously, scholars have documented
take on a different role at the local level than at
the relationships between trust and various atti-
the national level. To date, however, little
tudes and behaviors at the individual level. For
research has examined this link, thus limiting
example, research has provided evidence that
our knowledge of the ways in which trust in
trust impacts individuals’ support for tax cuts
local government manifests itself in the atti-
(Rudolph 2009), attitudes toward governmental
tudes and behaviors of the people who reside
spending (Rudolph and Evans 2005), attitudes
in localities.
toward racial policies (Hetherington and Glo-
betti 2002), and beliefs about the appropriate
Trust and Local Governmental
roles for different levels of government
Services
(Hetherington 2005). Moreover, research has
also shown relationships between political trust
Rahn and Rudolph (2005) explored a wide
and behaviors such as taxpaying (Scholz and
range of individual- and community-level vari-
Lubell 1998), support for political candidates
ables in their analyses of trust in local govern-
(Citrin 1974), and compliance with court direc-
ment. Across their two studies, they found that
tives (Tyler and Huo 2002). In the field of risk
a variety of variables predict political trust in
management and environmental management,
local governments. Similarly, Donahue and
trust in regulation has been found to be a signif-
Miller (2006) found that individual factors such
icant predictor of acceptance of risk regulation
as race and media exposure can drive trust in
(Poortinga and Pidgeon 2003). Other work has
local police and fire services. Recent research
found that trust in regulators leads to higher rates
on the effects of e-government have provided
of compliance with tax laws (Murphy 2004).
evidence that e-government can improve
In general, the research examining the trust–
process-based evaluations of local government,
attitude and trust–behavior links has been con-
such that trust in government increases as the
ducted in the context of broadscale national
use and availability of e-government increases
policies. For example, the work of Rudolph and
(Tolbert and Mossberger 2006). Van Ryzin
Evans (2005) and Rudolph (2009) examined
(2011) found that trust in local civil servants
the relationship between trust and spending
is driven by both governmental outputs, as well
policies at the federal level. Somewhat
as the procedures used to produce those

---

84
State and Local Government Review 46(2)
outputs. His results are consistent with those of
Knotts, and Brennan 2008), the development
Tolbert and Mossberger and is consistent with a
of health care–related technologies (Herian,
line of research that has shown process fairness
Abdel-Monem, and Shank in press), and emer-
may be related to trust in government generally
gency services (Donahue and Miller 2006).
(Tyler and Huo 2002; Hibbing and Theiss-
Research has not yet examined whether trust,
Morse 2002).
for example, is a stronger predictor of support
On the other side of the equation,...