Political trust in the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic: a meta-analysis of 67 studies

Trust in political actors and institutions has long been seen as essential for effective democratic governance. During the COVID-19 pandemic, trust was widely identified as key for mitigation of the crisis through its influence on compliance with public policy, vaccination and many other social attitudes and behaviours. We study whether trust did indeed predict these outcomes through a meta-analysis of 67 studies and 426 individual effect sizes derived from nearly 1.5 million observations worldwide. Political trust as an explanatory variable has small to moderate correlations with outcomes such as vaccine uptake, belief in conspiracy theories, and compliance. These correlations are heterogenous, and we show that trust in health authorities is more strongly related to vaccination than trust in the government;but compliance is more strongly related to the government than other institutions. Moreover, the unique case of the United States indicates that trust in President Trump had negative effects across all observed outcomes, except in increasing conspiracy beliefs. Our analysis also shows that research design features (such as response scales) and publication bias do not importantly change the results. These results indicate that trust was important for the management of the pandemic and supports existing work highlighting the importance of political trust. [ FROM AUTHOR]

How trust, mistrust and distrust shape the governance of the COVID-19 crisis

It is commonplace to claim that trust is essential to effective governance in many contexts, including that of a public health crisis such as the COVID-19 pandemic. We argue that trust is better understood as a family of concepts – trust, mistrust and distrust – and each of these may have different implications for the governance of COVID-19. Drawing on original measures tested through nationally representative surveys conducted in Australia, Italy, the UK and the USA between May and June 2020, we explore how these distinct types of trust are associated with citizens’ perceptions of the threat posed by COVID-19, and their behavioural responses to it. We show how public policy dynamics around the COVID-19 crisis are driven by each of the trust family members and that policymakers might gain more from promoting an information-seeking and mistrusting society, rather than a trusting one. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] Copyright of Journal of European Public Policy is the property of Routledge and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Care to trust? Gender and trust in leaders during the Coronavirus pandemic

There has been praise of how female leaders have handled the Coronavirus pandemic relative to their male counterparts by presenting a more "caring" leadership. Of similar coverage has been the role of public trust for how successful governments have been in containing outbreaks. In this paper, we build on these two literatures to understand different determinants of trust during the pandemic between men and women. Following social role theory, we argue that female citizens' trust judgements are more likely to be driven by the perception that leaders are more caring than are men, whilst men's judgements are more likely to be driven by competence judgements than women's. We test this argument using original survey data from three countries. We find that this relationship holds in the United States, but not the United Kingdom or Italy. This adds to variation in gender gaps in the USA and Europe;at the same time, it also suggests that the propensity for women to be less trusting than men is not down to (perceived) leadership traits. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] Copyright of Journal of Elections, Public Opinion & Parties is the property of Routledge and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Lack of Trust, Conspiracy Beliefs, and Social Media Use Predict COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy.

As COVID-19 vaccines are rolled out across the world, there are growing concerns about the roles that trust, belief in conspiracy theories, and spread of misinformation through social media play in impacting vaccine hesitancy. We use a nationally representative survey of 1476 adults in the UK between 12 and 18 December 2020, along with 5 focus groups conducted during the same period. Trust is a core predictor, with distrust in vaccines in general and mistrust in government raising vaccine hesitancy. Trust in health institutions and experts and perceived personal threat are vital, with focus groups revealing that COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy is driven by a misunderstanding of herd immunity as providing protection, fear of rapid vaccine development and side effects, and beliefs that the virus is man-made and used for population control. In particular, those who obtain information from relatively unregulated social media sources-such as YouTube-that have recommendations tailored by watch history, and who hold general conspiratorial beliefs, are less willing to be vaccinated. Since an increasing number of individuals use social media for gathering health information, interventions require action from governments, health officials, and social media companies. More attention needs to be devoted to helping people understand their own risks, unpacking complex concepts, and filling knowledge voids.

Covid-19 and the Blunders of our Governments: Long-run System Failings Aggravated by Political Choices.

More urgently than ever we need an answer to the question posed by the late Mick Moran in The Political Quarterly nearly two decades ago: 'if government now invests huge resources in trying to be smart why does it often act so dumb?'. We reflect on this question in the context of governmental responses to Covid-19 in four steps. First, we argue that blunders occur because of systemic weaknesses that stimulate poor policy choices. Second, we review and assess the performance of governments on Covid-19 across a range of advanced democracies. Third, in the light of these comparisons we argue that the UK system of governance has proved itself vulnerable to failure at the time when its citizens most needed it. Finally, we outline an agenda of reform that seeks to rectify structural weaknesses of that governance capacity.