‘If we fix the potholes and cut the waiting lists, we can restore trust in government.’ This is a common refrain from the political class, concerned about collapsing public trust in government.

But is it true?

At a forum on ‘Trust in Institutions’ organised by our partners at Cambridge University this week, OECD Senior Economist Dr Sarah Kups presented data from their 2024 global report “Drivers of Trust in Public Institutions”, which provided the answer:

Not really, no.

The OECD measures trust in government according to a range of metrics relating to public perception of government’s competency and values. Across the 30 countries included in the survey, trust in government is in decline, with only 39% of respondents expressing high or moderately high trust in their country’s national government. Britain fares relatively poorly:

By contrast, the majority of people feel that that government is a reliable provider of public services, including health, education and administrative services. And the UK has among the highest satisfaction scores for administrative service delivery. As speaker Simon Baugh, CEO of the Government Communications Service, pointed out, GOV.UK is popular with, and trusted by, the public.

The OECD’s regression analysis of their data from 30 markets shows that levels of public trust in national government are primarily determined by the public’s sense of political agency and their faith in the quality of decision making, with the four most important factors being:

1. Whether government takes into consideration intergenerational interests (long-term thinking and fairness)
2. Whether government bases its decisions on (good) evidence
3. Whether the public feels people like them have a voice in government decision making
4. Whether parliament holds government accountable, providing checks and balances in decision making processes

By contrast, citizens’ day-to-day experience with public institutions and services has much less impact on trust in national government, with “satisfaction with administrative services” the least important factor of all measured.

So state capacity and competency appears to be much less important than whether citizens feel heard and respected, and whether they believe people in power are doing their jobs properly. Fixing the potholes is not enough.

As Southampton University’s Professor Gerry Stoker, author of ‘Saving Democracy’ told the conference: “This is a political problem, requiring a political solution.”

But what does having a political voice mean and how does the public decide whether government is making good decisions? After all, lower trust audiences are less likely to participate in political processes and less likely to engage with the news.

Here’s where the potholes re-enter the equation.

Low trust audiences are rational actors. They don’t need to sign a petition to feel represented, they need to see that their interests are reflected in both debate and outcomes. Nor do they need to watch BBC Parliament to examine the quality of decision making – they can infer it from observable outcomes in the real world.

In both cases, people decide whether politicians represent them well based on performance against the things that matter most to them, such as crime, house prices, and whether the potholes get fixed.

However, despite this vindication of the pothole fetishists, political communication still matters, since it shapes our perception of reality.

Prosperity is not just a function of hard numbers, it’s also about vibes. Positive change takes a long-time, communication can convey the direction of travel and keep people on board the pain train during transitional periods. And low trust audiences may not be listening to Any Questions, but they are still primed to detect any hint of contempt from the Westminster bubble.

Our latest Polarisation Tracker data found that low trust audiences were the most likely to criticise the Prime Minister for his lack of a positive vision and the most likely to describe him as corrupt, cruel and authoritarian. These reflect concerns about transcendental issues like freedom, respect and dignity, rather than transactional issues like train ticket prices.

To rebuild trust in government therefore, we don’t just need to do a better job of fixing cracks in the road, but the widening fissure between voters’ wishes and political decision making.

It is perhaps for this reason that Labour has turned its attention to the democratic deficit caused by the Blob. Starmer and Streeting justified the decision to scrap NHS England by emphasising accountability as well as efficiency, while Labour backbencher Jonathan Hinder MP wrote this week that:

“The British government does not run this country. It has given away much of its decision-making power… More power to politicians you say? Well yes, actually. The policy options available have been artificially narrowed, across a whole range of issues, and over many decades, causing even more frustration amongst voters already angry at politicians’ inability to deliver on their priorities.”

To rebuild trust, the Overton window for political debate is going to have to widen, to reflect the concerns of a broader range of voters. Meanwhile, political decision makers will have to find a way out of the bureaucratic quagmire that snuffs out ideas and action.

Most importantly, it will have to deliver results that citizens, rather than pundits, approve of.