Realism is needed to restore trust in government

Until the early 2020s, trust in government hovered around 40%. Meanwhile, trust has fallen to 25% (SCP, 2022). This is cause for concern for public organisations: how can a good relationship with citizens exist when there is very little or no trust? And how do you win trust back? 

A lot goes well with the government. If, as a Dutch person, you have an income you can get by on, reasonable health and a stable (social) environment, the government is a fantastic service provider. Your tax return is completed in advance, and your rubbish is collected weekly. The government has its essential tasks, which every resident of the Netherlands has to deal with, and they are well taken care of.

The fact that the government delivers such good work is one of the consequences of New Public Management (NPM), in which more attention is paid to government efficiency—an approach in which every euro of taxpayers' money should serve the most significant possible public interest. However, the downside of NPM is that the exact drive for efficiency can lead to not properly designing services for people who are left out. NPM argues that governments should be run like a business. At the same time, our expectations for companies differ from those of governments. People do not find it strange that Netflix has no physical shop where older people can buy a subscription with cash or decide which series to watch with an employee. The costs that Netflix has to incur for this do not outweigh the marginal group of extra customers. So, we accept that some people cannot take out a Netflix subscription.

From governments, we expect everyone to be served, no matter how exceptional a case is or what costs are involved. Indeed, the most remarkable cases (those outside any happy flow) are often the most dependent on public services, leading to the most distressing cases if not served. What has yet to contribute to the willingness to step towards citizens in complex cases is a human image based on distrust. That human image assumes that citizens are out to abuse public services and, therefore, do not deserve leniency but strict control. This image of man has long been a guiding principle in the political landscape and, hence, in decision-making on policy and its application. From that perspective, an incorrectly filled-out form is not incompetence (and a signal that services need to be improved) but malicious intent - and, therefore, needs punishment.

Therefore, appropriate services for the lion's share of the population have a downside. A small but significant group of residents with more complicated duties and needs need help in the standard (efficient) way of handling things. If they make mistakes in contacting the government, they are not quickly helped outside the standard processes with personal support but punished for the mistakes made. The government should pay more attention to resolving the complex cases that fall outside these in an integrated manner.

One frequently heard solution is to bring back the 'human touch'. This approach should ensure that exceptional cases are noticed, considered with a human touch and can be chosen for special treatment. An official can then decide not to follow the policy strictly but to interpret how the policy is intended (or socially desirable) and fits the specific case. Employing the human touch can provide (part of the) solution to harsh action by the government and thus help build trust. However, it is not a panacea that can be used for everything.

Firstly, government organisations must still be equipped to give civil servants autonomy. Civil servants have primarily been trained and 'grown up' in government organisations where NPM has long been the norm. They are used to serving citizens as efficiently and effectively as possible in a way that works for the largest group of citizens. Standardised procedures and protocols are used, and the focus is on routine. The skills and capabilities of officials are geared to this. However, it requires a high degree of autonomy and substantive expertise of officials to apply the human touch properly: procedures and protocols are no longer leading but their interpretation and assessment. This also requires different competencies and skills. 

Second, officials run a personal risk when they apply the human touch while pursuing a collective goal. When they do not follow standard policy rules in complex cases but act in the spirit of the policy, there is always a chance that they will have to account for this afterwards.

A third factor is the danger of (apparent) arbitrariness: applying the human touch requires a lot of autonomy and interpretative power from officials. This can ensure that in the same case, one official chooses a different solution from another based on his knowledge, experience and personality. The danger of (apparent) arbitrariness is a trait usually not accepted by public authorities. 

Putting the human touch at the front end of government policy (the desk clerk), this will only solve part of the problem. After all, if civil servants have to keep moving around the policy to help citizens properly, that is also a signal that the policy should be changed. However, there are elements in the system that prevent an effective and fast feedback loop. These elements make it challenging to work on trust in government. For instance, there is an overreaction in extreme cases: these get a lot of attention from society and the government itself. The most harrowing cases (such as from the benefits affair or earthquakes in Groningen) linger best in the collective memory and are discussed most often. This contributes to a negative image of the government. Such emergencies force the government to adopt emergency solutions. This helps solve short-term problems but fails to ensure a sustainable outcome.

In addition, policies are slowly adjusted in less extreme cases. Compared to the few extreme examples, many more situations are less distressing but give reason for policy adjustments. The problem, however, is that the system only sometimes helps with this. In the political-official system, politics sets the direction, and civil servants execute. There is room for structured evaluation but not for direct feedback—let alone contradiction—from civil servants to politicians.

Both situations (overreaction in extreme cases and slow adaptation to less extreme cases) are not conducive to policies' effectiveness, quality and efficiency, and ultimately trust in government.

We expect the government to be there for everyone, regardless of citizens' situations. Applying the human touch is seen as a solution, but its implementation can be challenging. Several things can help increase trust in government - and the application of the human touch.

Governments must set up their organisation so that it is possible to apply the human measure properly. They can do this by equipping and rewarding civil servants at the individual level for using the human touch well, for instance, by offering training and organising knowledge sharing on how to deal with the space needed to apply the human measure. The risk of using the human touch must be taken away from individual civil servants at the organisational level. This necessitates a significant cultural change in the current system where officials bear risks. It also requires a change, or at least a nuance, of the NPM philosophy. 

It helps governments get their expectation management right. In today's society, much and more is expected from the government. Because those expectations are not adequately managed beforehand, citizens are likelier to be disappointed in the service. Those disappointments can be avoided by communicating sharp and realistic expectations inside and outside the organisation. Governments should also communicate their success stories more actively. It's crucial to remember that governments often only get to the media once there are examples and stories where things do not go well. This is where good spokespersons and communications play a vital role in bringing positive stories to the forefront.

A more relaxed relationship between politics and civil service—making implementation ability not an annoying afterthought but an essential part of the (political) consideration for introducing policy—is conducive to policy effectiveness, quality, efficiency, and trust in government. 

Finally, governments must put more effort into digitalisation and implementing new technologies. Thus, appropriate service delivery can grow from 90% to 95%. Flexible and intuitive AI chatbots of tomorrow can better help citizens with slightly more complex questions than the rigid multiple-choice systems of yesterday. Reasonable technological solutions can lead to citizens getting the correct answers or quickly signalling that someone needs more help. Thus, more targeted, intensive personal attention can be offered to the ever-smaller group of citizens who need more support. 

In short, a lot is already going well in the organisation of public services. At the same time, governments' expectations are even higher than what can be delivered. To meet extraordinary expectations, what is already going well should be optimised, expectations should be clear beforehand, and competence should be built to handle complex cases outside standard processes. By focusing on this, trust in government can and should be restored.