This chapter discusses the complex link between the information environment and trust in Slovenia. It first shows how the trust level in media in Slovenia compares to other OECD countries, and how different media usage patterns relate to trust in the national government. It then presents evidence from the OECD Trust Survey questions added specifically for Slovenia on the sources and nature of information acquisition on government policies and activities and provides insights into the population’s view of public communication in Slovenia compared to the OECD average. Finally, it proposes opportunities for government action to enhance trust in the realm of public communication.
Lessons from the 2023 OECD Trust Survey in Slovenia
Abstract
Information the public receives can shape their perception of public institutions. In most countries, including Slovenia, this information is produced and disseminated from a wide variety of sources, including traditional news outlets but also social media, one’s own experiences and interactions with other people. Slovenian public institutions themselves are crucial sources of information in this wider ecosystem, primarily through their public communication function, as well as the production of statistics.1 Slovenian authorities were particularly interested in exploring through the Trust Survey how Slovenians receive public communication and how it affects their views of public institutions. Accordingly, two additional questions were added to the survey (see Box 1.1) and their results are discussed in this chapter.
Based on data from the 2023 OECD Trust Survey in Slovenia, as well as a qualitative questionnaire administered to four communication offices at the centre of government and in line ministries, this chapter seeks to investigate the complex relationship between information, public communication, and public trust in Slovenia. The chapter underscores the importance of a shared understanding of reality, based on the integrity of information, to foster healthy, sceptical trust in public institutions. The chapter then identifies ways in which changes in the media ecosystems may undermine this common ground in Slovenia. Finally, it explores how Slovenian institutions shape public perceptions through their communication functions and proposes ways to utilise this governmental role to enhance trust in public institutions.
Trustworthy and reliable information is fundamental to democracy (OECD, 2024[1]), but some Slovenians are concerned that such information is under threat: The OECD Trust Survey finds 15% of Slovenians view the spread of misinformation as one of the top three issues facing their country, which puts Slovenia in the upper quartile of countries in terms of the share of people who identify it at a top three issue. Reliable information can generate a shared sense of reality, which is needed for productive public debates. These open public debates are a defining feature of democracies (Lewandowsky et al., 2023[2]). However, this sense of shared reality is under threat in many OECD countries, due to changes in the media ecosystem which intensify societal divisions and hinder consensus-building (More in Common, 2021[3]; Matasick, Alfonsi and Bellantoni, 2020[4]; Norris, 2022[5]; Newman et al., 2023[6]). These conditions create an environment ripe for disinformation campaigns (OECD, 2022[7]).
A robust information ecosystem also fosters healthy scepticism, allowing the population to critically evaluate government actions and hold public institutions accountable (OECD, 2024[8]). This, coupled with an education system that imparts cognitive and critical skills, enables the public to discern the credibility of information (OECD, 2024[1]). Therefore, a sound information ecosystem contributes to trust being a reliable indicator of government performance, rather than a product of blind faith or cynical distrust (Norris, 2022[9])
A majority of people in Slovenia express concerns over the trustworthiness of media. Only 26% of Slovenians express high to moderately high trust in the media, compared to the OECD average of 39%, and below levels of trust in most public institutions in the country (see Chapter 2). The number of Slovenians with low or no trust in the media is significantly higher at 57% versus 44% across the OECD (Figure 5.1). These findings align with those of a local survey on public trust which found that in 2023, both news and social media were among the least trusted institutions in Slovenia (Valicon, 2023[10]). Younger people and those who identify as belonging to a group that is discriminated against in the country are 8-9 percentage points less likely to have high or moderately high trust in media than older people or those who do not identify as belonging to a group that is discriminated against.
Share of population who indicate different levels of trust in news media, 2023
Note: The figure shows the within-country distributions of responses to the question “On a scale of 0 to 10, where 0 is not at all and 10 is completely, how much do you trust the news media?”. A 0-4 response corresponds to ‘low or no trust’, a 5 to ‘neutral’ and a 6-10 to ‘high or moderately high trust’.
Source: OECD Trust Survey 2023.
People's trust in government is closely related to their chosen media platforms for political news and current affairs. This trend is evident across OECD countries (OECD, 2024[8]), including Slovenia. In Slovenia, just 7% of those who choose to avoid political news express high or moderate trust in the government, a stark contrast to the 29% trust level among those who follow the news in some way (Figure 5.2). People in Slovenia who use traditional media like tv and radio or the (printed or online) written press for news have higher trust in the national government, at 31% and 33% respectively, compared to 18% and 24% among those who do not. Trust levels between those who use social media and those who do not use are not drastically different, at 26% and 29% respectively, with mildly decreasing trust among those who obtain most of their news from social media. Moreover, across OECD countries, people who rely on multiple types of information sources tend to have higher trust in government than people who rely on only one type, making a case that government support for media pluralism could be beneficial for informed trust in the long term (OECD, 2024[8]). While these figures shed some light on the relationship between media usage and trust, it is important to note socio-economic factors can also shape individual's media choices and interest in news (Strömbäck, Djerf-Pierre and Shehata, 2016[11]; Norris, 2000[12]). Nevertheless, in a regression that analyses the link between trust in the national government, socio-economic characteristics and media choices, the likelihood that someone will have high or moderately high trust in the national government remains higher among television, radio and newspaper consumers even compared to people with an otherwise similar background in terms of age, gender and education level.
Share of population in Slovenia and OECD average with high or moderately high trust in the national government by whether they obtain information about politics or current affairs from named source
Note: The figure presents the share with high or moderately high trust in the national government, depending on whether respondents use the media or information source about politics and current affairs on a typical day. The share with high or moderately high trust corresponds to respondents who select an answer from 6 to 10 to the question “On a scale of 0 to 10, where 0 is not at all and 10 is completely, how much do you trust the national government?”. Whether or not the respondent uses the selected source of information is derived from their answer(s) to the question “On a typical day, from which of the following sources, if any, do you get information about politics and current affairs?”, for which they can select all options that apply. The figure shows the weighted Slovenia averages and unweighted OECD averages.
Source: OECD Trust Survey 2023
As information environments become more polarised, agreement on what constitutes the best evidence is likely to decrease. In Slovenia, only 29% believe the government uses the best available evidence when making decisions, compared to 41% across the OECD (Figure 5.3). This suggests that some may perceive the process of government decision-making as opaque. Indeed, in Slovenia, 38% of those who voted for the party in power were confident that the government would use the best available evidence, against 20% of those who did not. The implications of differing beliefs about what constitutes robust evidence and whether government is informed by it in its decisions are significant. According to findings based on the Trust Survey, the assessment of whether government uses the best available evidence when taking a decision is the most important driver of trust in the national government, both across the OECD and in Slovenia (see Chapter 4). Moreover, a study based on European Social Survey data from 23 countries, including Slovenia, found that political polarisation can foster negative attitudes towards vaccination in part due to the erosion of trust in science, and heightened susceptibility to conspiracy theories (Wróblewski and Meler, 2024[13]).
Share of population with high or moderately high trust in the national government (y-axis) by share of respondents who find it likely that government takes decisions based on best available evidence (x-axis), 2023
Note: The scatterplot above shows the share of “high to moderately high trust” responses to the question “On a scale of 0 to 10, where 0 is not at all and 10 is completely, how much do you trust the national government?” on the y-axis. The x-axis presents the share of “likely” responses to the question “If the national government takes a decision, how likely do you think it is that it will draw on the best available evidence, research, and statistical data?”. Both ‘high or moderately high trust’ and ‘likely’ correspond to the 6-10 responses on the 0-10 scale.
Source: OECD Trust Survey 2023
Levels of trust in institutions are tied to the chosen media source for obtaining political news and current affairs. In Slovenia, most people still primarily rely on traditional media sources, such as TV, radio, and written press, for news about politics and current affairs, similar to the average across OECD countries. On any given day, 71% of people get their news from television or radio, and 48% use newspapers, magazines, or online news websites. Almost half (46%) of the population also uses social media as a news source, from which Slovenians estimate they get about a third of their information.
News consumption habits are changing across socio-economic groups, particularly the young. In Slovenia, as in most OECD countries, among the younger generation (18-29), the share among 18-29 year olds who use social media for news on politics and current affairs (59%) surpasses the share who use traditional media sources (Figure 5.4). Social media algorithms and the competition for the finite attention of users is driving a trend for more sensationalist content by traditional and new media alike, which is increasingly amplified over balanced and nuanced reporting (Matasick, Alfonsi and Bellantoni, 2020[4]). This dynamic therefore potentially plays a role in declining levels of trust in media and polarisation.
Share of population in Slovenia and OECD average reporting different sources for information about current and political affairs by age groups, 2023
Note: Each share corresponds to the average of the response to the question: “On a typical day, from which of the following sources, if any, do you get information about politics and current affairs? [OPTION]”. They could select 'TV or radio,' 'Social media,' 'Newspapers, magazines, or online media,' or 'Don’t know'. “OECD Average” presents the unweighted average of responses across 30 countries participated in 2023 wave.
Source: OECD Trust Survey 2023
The criteria that Slovenians use to judge the trustworthiness of a news item largely mirror those seen across the OECD. 53% of Slovenians primarily rely on the cited sources, compared to an average of 54% across the OECD. The next prevalent criterion in Slovenia, accounting for 45% of responses, is the journalist or organisation that is reporting the story. However, the number of organisations covering a story is deemed more critical on average across the OECD (35%) than in Slovenia (24%), potentially due to Slovenia's smaller media market. In terms of criteria related to social media use, 37% of Slovenian respondents consider who shares the story (OECD: 35%). The number of shares, likes, and comments is the least commonly cited approach both in Slovenia and across the OECD, at 9%. Moreover, 15% of Slovenian participants consider their agreement with the story's viewpoint in determining its trustworthiness. Lastly, a small percentage in both the OECD (5%) and Slovenia (6%) do not rely on any of the suggested criteria, prompting the question of what they might use to determine their confidence in a news item.
In the realm of media literacy, Slovenia has positioned itself as a leader in Central and Eastern Europe for over two decades. Slovenia has incorporated media literacy in the school curriculum since 1996, with a focus on developing critical thinking skills (Džajić Uršič and Pandiloska Jurak, 2023[14]). Slovenia's current media development strategy from 2021 establishes both media and digital literacy is part of the compulsory basic school curriculum (Hill, 2022[15]). However, a 2009 evaluation by the European Commission of national curricula in 23 European countries, including Slovenia, found that the actual implementation of such education is inconsistent and uneven (European Commission, 2011[16]). Moreover, the effectiveness of Slovenia's media literacy curriculum does not appear to be the subject of a regular robust monitoring and evaluation process. This is not unique to Slovenia, but rather a very prevalent challenge among OECD countries (OECD, 2024[1]). Some countries, such as the UK have nevertheless developed rigorous assessment strategies which Slovenia could deploy to help maximise the effectiveness of its media literacy programmes (see Box 5.1) Despite these challenges, these methods seem to have promoted some degree of societal resilience in Slovenia. In the 2022 Media Literacy Index, Slovenia ranks 20th out of 41 countries. This places Slovenia in a cluster alongside thirteen other European countries including Austria, Czechia, France, Germany, Poland and the United Kingdom (Lessenski, 2022[17]).
UK Ofcom toolkit for evaluating media literacy interventions
The Making Sense of Media programme within the UK telecommunication regulator Ofcom published a toolkit in 2023 to help guide evaluations of media literacy interventions. The toolkit, which provides a series of how-to guides for planning and carrying out an evaluation of media literacy interventions, is an important element of Ofcom’s programme of work supporting the media literacy in the United Kingdom.
The toolkit gives practical and straightforward guidance and advocates for an evaluation process that is part of the project from the start. It explains that evaluation proves (in that an initiative has achieved its desired outcomes) and improves (in that the initiative provides insights and learnings for an organisation). The Toolkit also details the importance of demonstrating impact – notably, change at an individual or societal level that can be attributed to a project – and takes organisations through steps to help them show evidence.
The Toolkit is divided into three sections that represent stages in the evaluation process: Preparing; Doing; and Sharing. First, it discusses how to write a theory of change and how to create an evaluation framework. Second, it provides information about research methods and proposes model questions; the third section suggests how organisations can structure evaluation reports. There is a separate evaluation framework template, as well as searchable libraries that help map media literacy research and media literacy initiatives within the United Kingdom.
Source: From (OECD, 2024[1]) - Ofcom (2023), A toolkit for evaluating media literacy interventions, https://www.ofcom.org.uk/research-and-data/medialiteracy-research/approach/evaluate/toolkit ; Morris (2023), Ofcom’s Toolkit for Evaluating Media Literacy Interventions, https://media-and-learning.eu/type/featured-articles/ofcoms-toolkit-for-evaluating-media-literacy-interventions;
In Slovenia like in many OECD countries, the information ecosystem and public discourse are growing more fragmented and vulnerable to polarisation (OECD, 2024[1]), This environment is less conducive to constructive debate around important policy issues, and more prone to passive news exposure. In light of these trends, there is a need for new public communication approaches to reach and engage the public and supply relevant, relatable and trustworthy information. Public communication, distinct from political communication, can build trust in public institutions by raising awareness of government actions, improving user outcomes through information exchange, and demonstrating commitment to values like openness, integrity, and fairness.
5.3.1. Sources of information about government activities in Slovenia
In Slovenia, public communication is coordinated by the Government Communication Office (UKOM). UKOM directly implements communication projects for interdepartmental policies or programmes, leads the development of communication plans and crisis communication, and is the main interface between the government and the press.2 Some sections of UKOM are staffed exclusively by civil servants, while press officers can sometimes be political appointees. Smaller communication offices or public relations offices embedded within line ministries carry out public communication activities with regards to sectoral policies or programmes.
OECD Trust Survey data reveal people rely more on media and less on government sources when seeking to learn about government activities and policies. A majority (62%) use TV or radio as a source of information on government activities and policies, while a smaller percentage (41%) rely on newspapers, magazines or online news websites (Figure 5.5). Conversations with friends, family, colleagues, or teachers are used as a source of information on this topic by 30% of people. Official government pages or profiles on social media on the one hand and government websites on the other hand are used much less frequently, with only 23% and 19% using them respectively.
Share of population in Slovenia reporting different sources for information about government policies and activities, 2023
Note: The figure shows the weighted Slovenia average of the share of respondents who answered “yes” to one of the given sources in the question “On a typical day, from which of the following sources do you get information about the national government activities and policies of Slovenia?”. On the right side, government sources are listed, while on the left, non-governmental sources are given.
Source: OECD Trust Survey 2023
The way individuals engage with information sources—either actively seeking out information or passively stumbling upon it— also has a profound impact on their retention of the information and their subsequent actions (Gil de Zúñiga et al., 2017[18]). Trust Survey results suggest that 31% of Slovenians encounter information about government activities and policies by chance, while 20% actively seek it out. The remaining 44% sometimes seek out this information and sometimes stumble upon it. When broken down by education level, those with higher education seem to be more proactive, though the differences are not drastic: Among those with a university degree, 23% actively seek out political information, compared to 18% and 20% for those with medium and low education levels, respectively.
These patterns are of interest, as active and passive information-seeking have different effects on knowledge formation, and therefore likely on the assessments of government performance. An online survey experiment across four Western European countries for instance found that while exposure to information generally increases knowledge, individuals actively seeking information are more engaged with the topic, more likely to be persuaded by it, and more likely to take action, such as signing a petition (Giger et al., 2023[19]). Passive information encounters, on the other hand, mainly resulted in knowledge increase, especially if the information came from an “expert” source.
Share of population in Slovenia who reported whether they get information passively or actively, 2023
Note: The figure presents the share of Slovenians by their education levels who reported their answer to: “In general, do you tend to come across information about national government activities and policies by chance, or do you deliberately look for such information?”. Respondents were able to choose one of response options: “1=I tend to come across the information by chance, 2=I tend to deliberately look for such information, 3=It varies: sometimes I come across the information by chance and sometimes I deliberately look for it.” “High” education refers to ISCED 2011 levels 5-8, which refers to university-level degrees such as Bachelors, Masters or PhD, while “Middle” education refers to levels 3-4, or upper and post-secondary, non-tertiary education. “Low” refers to less than a completed upper secondary degree. * means that differences in proportions are statistically significant at the 90% significance level; ** means that differences are statistically significant at the 95% level; *** means that differences are statistically significant at the 99% level. Reference group is presented in light blue.
Source: OECD Trust Survey 2023
5.3.2. Perceptions of public communication and trust in public institutions
People in Slovenia tend to be more satisfied with the more “technical” or routine aspects of public communication. More than six in ten (62%) believe that clear information about administrative services would be readily available, which is relatively close to the 67% average across OECD countries (Figure 5.7). This type of public communication can be understood as an essential public service in itself and may an integral part of the user or customer journey (OECD, 2023[20]). There is some evidence indicating that satisfaction with the clarity of information related to administrative services can enhance satisfaction with the service itself, and therefore could indirectly be beneficial to trust in local government and the civil service (see Chapter 4).
Share of population reporting different levels of perceived likelihood that information on an administrative service would be easily available and that government clearly explains the impact of reforms, 2023
Note: The figure presents the within-country distributions of responses to the question “If you needed information about an administrative service (for example obtaining a passport, registering a birth, applying for benefits, etc.), how likely do you think it is that clear information would be easily available?” and “If the national government was carrying out a reform, how likely do you think it is that it would clearly explain how you will be affected by the reform?”. The “likely” proportion is the aggregation of responses from 6-10 on the scale; “neutral” is equal to a response of 5; “unlikely” is the aggregation of responses from 1-4; and “don't know” was a separate answer choice. “OECD” presents the unweighted average of responses across countries.
Source: OECD Trust Survey 2023
Slovenians tend to be more sceptical about the government's ability or willingness to explain how policy changes will affect them. Only a minority in Slovenia (31%, compared to 39% across the OECD) believe that the government is likely to clarify the impact a reform would have on them, while half the population thinks the government would not do so (Figure 5.7). The public relations and communication offices in Slovenia, which participated in the OECD's qualitative questionnaire for this study, acknowledges challenges in connecting effectively with the population when communicating a policy change. Three institutions identified this as a primary challenge, while another highlighted the lack of coordination among different stakeholders as a barrier to their communication efforts. Despite these challenges, effective communication regarding policy reforms could potentially enhance trust in the Slovenian national government; as government communication on reform is identified as a driver of trust in government in both Slovenia and across the OECD (see Chapter 4).
Scepticism of government communication extends to the public’s views of government statistics. Just 24% of Slovenians believe government statistics are always or often trustworthy, compared to 37% on average across the OECD (Figure 5.8). Views on the other quality features of statistics the survey asked about – the degree to which they are understandable, easy to find, and allow to verify whether government keeps its promises – align more closely to the OECD average, though a larger share of the population in Slovenia than across the OECD believe that government statistics rarely or never allow them to verify whether government keeps its promises. Government institutions present statistics as part of transparency efforts, helping the population to assess economic, social, and government developments. Official statistics should thus be relevant, impartial, accessible, and informative for assessing government performance, and ideally be perceived as such (UNSTATS, 2014[21]; UNSTATS, 2023[22]).This is also significant with regards to trust in government, as just 10% of those who do not find government statistics trustworthy in Slovenia report high to moderately high trust in the government, against 52% of those who do.
However, this perception does not align with objective quality assessments of government statistics in Slovenia. The Statistical Office of the Republic of Slovenia (SURS) is consistently involved in the Open Data Inventory (ODIN), ranking 6th globally for openness and coverage of statistical data in 2022, and 1st in the Southern Europe region (Republic of Slovenia, 2023[23]).
Share of population reporting different assessments of the characteristics of statistics provided by government institutions, Slovenia and OECD averages, 2023
Note: The figure presents the averages for the distribution of responses to the four sub-questions of the question “In general, would you say that government institutions (such as ministries and the national statistical office) provide statistics that…trustworthy/easy to understand/easy to find/allow you to verify whether the government keeps its promises.” The ‘likely’ includes respondents who stated that this was always or often the case, the ‘neutral’ those who stated this was sometimes the case and the ‘unlikely’ category those who said that it was rarely or never the case. “OECD” presents the unweighted average of responses across 30 countries participated in 2023 wave.
Source: OECD Trust Survey 2023.
This discrepancy between perception of government statistics and their quality, may suggest some believe that information coming from the government can be politicised. The perception of blurred lines between institutional and political aims in public communication, which may exist in populations across the OECD, is somewhat reflected in responses from the qualitative questionnaire administered to public relation offices. In these questionnaires, some respondents suggested the need for additional human resources, such as a personal public relations advisor in each minister's cabinet distinct from the ministries’ public relations offices, to help delineate mandates.
This tension between political and public communication is not unique to Slovenia. This is likely in no small part a product of the highly divisive discourse in which communicators operate, which may bring some groups to associate institutions with the party in power and trust/distrust because of partisan beliefs This context makes it even more important to have a clearly distinct institutional communication and project the aura of impartiality and trustworthiness as contrast to the wider polarised environment. Based on current practices in other OECD member states, the government of Slovenia could put in place a range of measures to mitigate perceptions of politicisation and risks for public communication. UKOM, in collaboration with communication and public relation offices in line ministries, could co-create standards or guidelines to distinguish public from political communication (see Box 5.2).The effort could involve revising the definition, scope, and methods for reputation management to reduce ambiguities that blur the line of impartiality (OECD, 2023[20]).
The United Kingdom Government Communication Service Propriety Guidance specifies that government communication:
Should be relevant to government responsibilities.
Should be objective and explanatory, not biased or polemical.
Should not be – or liable to be – misrepresented as being party political.
Should be conducted in an economic and appropriate way.
Should be able to justify the costs as an expenditure of public funds.
The guidance outlines a three-step procedure whereby communicators can raise concerns on issues relating to impartiality or propriety, stipulating that in the first instance, concerns should be raised with individuals’ line managers and at the team level, before then being escalated to the departmental Director of Communications if the concern has not been resolved. Further advice beyond that is available via the dedicated GCS propriety email inbox. The latter is a new centralised reporting email mechanism whereby communicators can report issues directly to the central GCS team, who aim to reply within three working days.
Source: From (OECD, 2023[20]) - GCS (2022), Government Communication Service Propriety Guidance, https://gcs.civilservice.gov.uk/publications/propriety-guidance
5.3.3. More inclusive public communication could help strengthen trust
Securing public acceptance of policy reform is influenced by several factors, which can help inform communication strategies. These include having a clear electoral mandate for change, ensuring government promises on the effectiveness of reforms are credible, and the belief that the government will compensate those adversely affected by the reforms (Reynolds et al., 2020[24]; OECD, 2010[25]). Successful reforms also often require coordinated efforts to persuade stakeholders and voters about the necessity of change, particularly communicating the costs of maintaining the status quo (OECD, 2010[25]; Aphecetche et al., 2022[26]).
When communicating an important policy change or reform to the public, public communication may at times struggle to find a language and format that connects with the population. Most respondents to the qualitative questionnaire identified this as one of the top five challenges their office face. Effective public communication in this regard should inform people in a manner that is easy to understand. For example, in reforms in which different people may be differentially affected depending on their demographic and employment characteristics, online calculators can be helpful. This includes being inclusive by maximising the reach of the message to diverse societal groups, tailored to specific audience needs and preferences. It should also be responsive, reflecting a genuine understanding of citizens and allowing continuous interaction. Furthermore, the communication should be compelling enough to stand out in a complex information space. These key attributes significantly enhance the value of public communication. Box 5.3 for instance provides some specific guidance on pension reform communication, from the OECD Reviews of Pension Systems in Slovenia.
The 2022 OECD Review of Pensions Systems in Slovenia includes a discussion on possible ways to improve communication about pensions. Looking at past Slovenian communication efforts and good practices from other countries, it highlights some possible solutions to increase the understanding of the pension system and garner support for reform:
National pension communication campaigns can help fill information gaps around pensions and can help build a case for reform.
Pension statements are useful documents but should be designed in a way that provides information clearly and engages people to act.
Calculators and dashboards are good digital tools to engage people on their pensions and help them visualise the effects of different decisions.
Engagement with employers and social partners can help open communication channels to people.
The media is a powerful channel to disseminate messages about pensions and reforms.
Using different communication channels can help reach more people and tailor messages to different audiences.
Communication language is crucial. A key principle when it comes to communication is that there should not be an expectation that people should understand, but rather that communicators should make themselves understood.
Policy makers should account for people’s behavioural biases when communicating with them.
Communicating to people the choices and the consequences that their actions can have on their financial security in retirement is essential.
Source: (OECD, 2022, pp. 230, 232[27])
Public communication around systemic policy change should therefore not be confined to a “marketing” approach, but involve real engagement with citizens and stakeholders, including listening to their concerns and being open to potential reform modifications (OECD, 2010[25]). Slovenian public relations and communications offices who completed this study’s qualitative questionnaire report limited involvement in the early stages of the policy cycle. There is a case for involving communicators early in the policy cycle as they tend to have a wider understanding of audiences and their attitudes (OECD, 2023[20]). Policy makers’ deep involvement in their specific area may lead to an overestimation of public understanding or acceptance of the policy. On the other hand, only communicating at the announcement stage, after policies are fully formed, can create public perceptions that the government is unresponsive, and thus negatively influence trust.
In Slovenia, socio-economic and demographic backgrounds significantly influence people's perceptions of public communication activities. This creates potential information gaps among certain groups. For example, younger and more educated people as well as those who do not report financial concerns find it significantly more likely that administrative service information is easily available compared to their older, less educated and more financially strained counterparts. In contrast, while there is some difference in the share who find it likely that government explains how they would be affected by a reform across these groups, results are more consistently negative. This suggests that in terms of ‘information as a public service’, tailored communication strategies that meet the information needs of diverse socio-demographic groups are needed; while for reform communication, all groups need to be better served.
If public communication is targeted and tailored, in addition to being relevant and clear, it can help bring about better outcomes for audiences, and thus improve perceptions that the government is reliable and responsive (OECD, 2023[20]; Alfonsi et al., 2022[28]). Findings from the qualitative questionnaire suggested the bulk of activities related to gathering information about the public they serve and about tailoring information are carried out at the centre of government, and that most units embedded within line ministries struggle with the ability to acquire and leverage data to develop more precise strategies.
To reduce information gaps between population groups, the Slovenian government could enhance its understanding of the public by implementing measures for better audience segmentation (OECD, 2021[29]). Firstly, the government could establish clear criteria for targeting audiences at both cross-sector and sector levels. This could be aligned with groups identified as having low trust or being underserved by public communication activities, as per the OECD Trust Survey results. To address asymmetry between sectors, resources and training could also be increased within line ministries to better gather audience insights and tailor messages to different groups. These steps ensure could help ensure communication is more inclusive and deliver policy impact for the intended beneficiaries, and in doing so may help build public trust among groups that are least trusting of government.
In Slovenia, only 29% believe the government uses the best available evidence when making decisions, compared to 41% across the OECD. There is an important relationship between trusting the national government and perceiving government decision-making as evidence informed. In light of these results, the Slovenian government may consider:
Actively communicating about the evidence, research, and statistics that inform their decisions to improve public perception of the decision-making process.
Trust in the media in Slovenia is notably low. Only 26% of the population express high to moderately high trust, a figure that is below the OECD average of 39%. Among those who do seek political news, people who rely on traditional media outlets are more likely to trust the government than those who do not This underscores the government's responsibility and vested interest in promoting a healthy, diverse, and independent media environment. The Slovenian government may consider:
Furthering efforts to promote and protect media pluralism.
Slovenia has been a leader in media literacy in Central and Eastern Europe for over two decades, and the criteria Slovenians use to gauge the credibility of a news item largely reflect those seen across the OECD. To further enhance existing media literacy efforts, the Slovenian government could consider:
Developing a monitoring and evaluation framework for media literacy interventions.
Confidence in the government's ability to explain the potential impact of reforms positively correlates with trust in the national government. Only a minority in Slovenia (31%, compared to 39% across the OECD) believe that the government is likely to clarify the impact a reform would have on them. Moreover, socio-economic and demographic backgrounds significantly influence people's perceptions of public communication activities. To remedy this, the Slovenian government may consider:
Enhancing public communication strategies, ensuring they clearly explain how policy reforms affect the public to build confidence and trust;
Engaging with stakeholders, including listening to their concerns, which may modify reform proposals to improve policy quality and support for reform;
Implementing measures for better audience segmentation to better understand the public.
References
[28] Alfonsi, C. et al. (2022), “Public communication trends after COVID-19: Innovative practices across the OECD and in four Southeast Asian countries”, OECD Working Papers on Public Governance, No. 55, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/cb4de393-en.
[26] Aphecetche, T. et al. (2022), “Understanding the political economy of reforms : lessons from the EU.”, p. 11.
[14] Džajić Uršič, E. and A. Pandiloska Jurak (2023), “Media Literacy, active citizenship and sustainable democracy: a case study of Slovenia”, POLITICS IN CENTRAL EUROPE, Vol. 19/1S, https://doi.org/10.2478/pce-2023-0018.
[16] European Commission (2011), Report from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52011DC0556 (accessed on 19 April 2024).
[19] Giger, N. et al. (2023), Looking for information? A survey experiment on citizens’ information seeking behaviour, https://archive-ouverte.unige.ch/unige:168396 (accessed on 19 April 2024).
[18] Gil de Zúñiga, H. et al. (2017), “Effects of the News-Finds-Me Perception in Communication: Social Media Use Implications for News Seeking and Learning About Politics”, Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, Vol. 22/3, pp. 105-123, https://doi.org/10.1111/JCC4.12185.
[15] Hill, J. (2022), “Policy responses to false and misleading digital content: A snapshot of children’s media literacy”, OECD Education Working Papers, No. 275, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/1104143e-en.
[17] Lessenski, M. (2022), “How it started, how it is going: Media Literacy Index 2022”, https://osis.bg/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/HowItStarted_MediaLiteracyIndex2022_ENG_.pdf (accessed on 19 April 2024).
[2] Lewandowsky, S. et al. (2023), “Misinformation and the epistemic integrity of democracy”, Current Opinion in Psychology, Vol. 54, p. 101711, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.COPSYC.2023.101711.
[4] Matasick, C., C. Alfonsi and A. Bellantoni (2020), Governance responses to disinformation, OECD.
[3] More in Common (2021), Itʼs Complicated. People and Their Democracy in Germany, France, Britain, Poland, and the United States., Robert Bosch Stiftung GmbH, https://www.moreincommon.com/media/5yvfykfc/more-in-common-bosch-democracy-full-report-eng.pdf.
[6] Newman, N. et al. (2023), Reuters Institute Digital News Report 2023, Reuters Institute & University of Oxford, https://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/sites/default/files/2023-06/Digital_News_Report_2023.pdf.
[9] Norris, P. (2022), In Praise of Skepticism, Oxford University PressNew York, https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780197530108.001.0001.
[5] Norris, P. (2022), “Trust in Government Redux: The Role of Information Environments and Cognitive Skills”, HKS Faculty Research Working Paper, Vol. Series RWP22-001.
[12] Norris, P. (2000), A Virtuous Circle: Political Communications in Postindustrial Societies, Cambridge University Press, https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511609343.
[1] OECD (2024), Facts not Fakes: Tackling Disinformation, Strengthening Information Integrity, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/d909ff7a-en.
[8] OECD (2024), OECD Survey on Drivers of Trust in Public Institutions – 2024 Results: Building Trust in a Complex Policy Environment, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9a20554b-en.
[20] OECD (2023), Public Communication Scan of the United Kingdom: Using Public Communication to Strengthen Democracy and Public Trust, OECD Public Governance Reviews, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/bc4a57b3-en.
[7] OECD (2022), Building Trust and Reinforcing Democracy: Preparing the Ground for Government Action, OECD Public Governance Reviews, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/76972a4a-en.
[27] OECD (2022), OECD Reviews of Pension Systems: Slovenia, OECD Reviews of Pension Systems, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/f629a09a-en.
[29] OECD (2021), OECD Report on Public Communication: The Global Context and the Way Forward, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/22f8031c-en.
[25] OECD (2010), Making Reform Happen: Lessons from OECD Countries, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264086296-en.
[23] Republic of Slovenia (2023), About the Statistical Office, https://www.stat.si/statweb/en/AboutUs/AboutStatOffice (accessed on 22 April 2024).
[24] Reynolds, J. et al. (2020), “Communicating the effectiveness and ineffectiveness of government policies and their impact on public support: a systematic review with meta-analysis”, Royal Society Open Science, Vol. 7/1, https://doi.org/10.1098/RSOS.190522.
[11] Strömbäck, J., M. Djerf-Pierre and A. Shehata (2016), “A Question of Time? A Longitudinal Analysis of the Relationship between News Media Consumption and Political Trust”, The International Journal of Press/Politics, Vol. 21/1, pp. 88-110, https://doi.org/10.1177/1940161215613059.
[22] UNSTATS (2023), Classification of Statistical Activities, Version 2.0, https://unstats.un.org/unsd/classifications/CSA2 (accessed on 24 January 2024).
[21] UNSTATS (2014), Fundamental Principles of Official Statistics, https://unstats.un.org/unsd/dnss/hb/E-fundamental%20principles_A4-WEB.pdf (accessed on 24 January 2024).
[10] Valicon (2023), Valicon Ogledalo Slovenije – pomlad 2023, https://www.valicon.net/sl/2023/04/valicon-ogledalo-slovenije-pomlad-2023/ (accessed on 20 November 2023).
[13] Wróblewski, M. and A. Meler (2024), “Political polarization may affect attitudes towards vaccination. An analysis based on the European Social Survey data from 23 countries”, European journal of public health, Vol. 34/2, https://doi.org/10.1093/EURPUB/CKAE002.
← 1. As outlined in the OECD’s report, Public Communication: The Global Context and the Way Forward (OECD, 2021[29]), public communication (referred throughout also as the communication function) is the government function of delivering information, listening and responding to citizens in the service of the common good. It is distinct from political communication, which is linked to political parties or election campaigns.
← 2. Information provided by UKOM in response to the 2020 OECD survey “Understanding Public Communication”.