Political voice is a central pillar of democratic governance and a key driver of trust in public institutions. Drawing on findings from the 2025 OECD Survey on Drivers of Trust in Public institutions, this chapter examines how people across OECD and OECD accession candidate countries perceive their ability to influence government decisions, the forms of political participation they consider effective, and the barriers that limit meaningful engagement. Overall, the chapter underscores the need for policy efforts that go beyond electoral participation to rebuild responsiveness and expand meaningful civic space.
OECD Survey on Drivers of Trust in Public Institutions 2026 Results
Navigating Rising Expectations and New Horizons
Abstract
As can be expected in democracies, voting remains by far the most common political activity among participants in the 2025 OECD Trust Survey. Moreover, more than two thirds (68%) of people view voting as moderately or significantly influential on what government does.
At the same time, perceived political voice remains low across OECD countries, with most people feeling they lack influence over what government does — a persistent and central driver of low trust in public institutions. Three in ten people are confident that the political system in their country allows people like them to have a say in what government does, and four in ten are confident in their own ability to participate in politics, on average across OECD countries, with relative stability since 2021.
This contradiction between voting being seen as influential in policy decisions and people feeling they lack influence over what the government reflects that voting is not sufficient anymore for citizens to feel heard, and that, today, complementary forms of citizens’ participation in decision making are necessary for trust. However, survey data show that other forms of political participation are not sufficiently seen as effective for having a voice: For example, only 39% and 35% across the OECD think that participating in a public consultation and in a townhall, respectively, have moderate or significant influence on what government does.
In addition, the 2025 wave of the OECD Trust Survey explored, for the first time, barriers to political influence and participation. Barriers to influence are more frequently driven by perceptions of unresponsive political officials than by practical constraints. 40% of people, across OECD countries, believe elected officials “do not care about people like me,” while lack of time, resources, networks, or information are secondary (albeit not insignificant) factors.
To strengthen trust, priorities should aim at rebuilding responsiveness and strengthening civic space, creating meaningful opportunities for citizens engagement, as well as improving communication from government and reducing barriers to engagement.
Results from multiple waves of the OECD Trust Survey have found that people’s trust in government institutions is significantly associated with their sense of having an effective say in what government does (OECD, 2024[1]; OECD, 2022[2]). Indeed, the concept of political voice has been one of the strongest correlates of trust in government institutions in OECD countries (see Chapter 2), even when controlling for other perceptions of public governance and background characteristics like education (see Chapter 1).
Relatively low perceptions of political voice and efficacy – which are found in many OECD countries – are therefore troublesome for anyone interested in building or reinforcing trust in democratic public institutions. Without meaningful political voice and a sense of efficacy, democracies risk diminished participation, unequal representation, and weakened legitimacy (Dahl, 1972[3]; Verba, Schlozman and Brady, 1995[4]; Norris, 1999[5]). Structural reasons that explain this perceived lack of political voice may lie in the evolution of expectations driven by higher levels of education and the means of expression that digitalisation has brought to societies. In response, many countries have established a wide array of consultation and participation mechanisms that have multiplied over the years, but have not been taken to their full potential, lacking appropriate methodology, prioritisation, responsiveness, clarification of intent and more broadly institutionalisation as part of representative democracies (OECD, 2025[6]).
Looking across the 33 OECD and 5 OECD1 accession candidate countries in the Trust Survey, this chapter takes stock of perceptions of political voice, self-reported incidences of political participation, and people’s socioeconomic, informational and political barriers to greater engagement with government. While most individuals are skeptical about political agency, voting continues to be seen as the most impactful way to influence public policy.
6.2.1. Voting is by far the most common way by which people engage in political and civic life
As can be expected in representative democracy, voting in elections remains the most common form of political participation across OECD countries. Nearly eight in ten respondents (79%), on average across the participating OECD countries, report2 having voted in the last national election in their country. 44%, on average, report having voted in any (municipal, regional or national) election in the past twelve months (Figure 6.1).3 Participation rates in the five OECD accession countries that were part of the 2025 Trust Survey data collection are similar to those in the OECD: the share who voted in the last national election ranged from 68-88%.
For other forms of political participation, those with relatively low barriers to entry, such as signing a petition (23%), posting political content on social media (15%), and boycotting products for political reasons (14%) are, on average across OECD countries, more commonly reported than more time-intensive activities. These include attending contacting a politician or government official (10% on average cross-nationally); attending a townhall (7%) or meeting of a trade union or political party (6%); participating in a public consultation (8%); demonstrating (9%) or participating in a strike (5%); and running for or holding an elected office (2%). These more explicitly “political” activities are notably less common than volunteering for a social or environmental cause, which 13% of respondents report doing, on average across countries.
These reported behaviours are very similar across the five participating OECD accession countries. The only exception is a substantially higher prevalence of participating in strikes (12%), which is driven by a higher prevalence in Brazil and especially in Peru.
Patterns of engagement with politics and civics vary from country to county. Putting aside voting in an election or a referendum in the past year, in some countries a relatively high share of people report participating across multiple activities. In other countries, a few items stand out:
In Ireland (53%), Iceland (49%), and – to a lesser extent -- Luxembourg (39%), a relatively higher share of the population signed a petition in the past year. Irish and Icelandic people also more frequently posted political content on social media or boycotted products for political reasons.
A higher share of people in Ireland (49%) and Slovenia (31%), as well as Brazil (20%) in comparison to other participating OECD Accession countries, contacted a politician.
Over one in five people in Ireland (23%) and Mexico (20%) participated in a public consultation.
Share of population who have engaged in activity in the past year, 2025
Note: The figure shows the respective share of population who answered “yes” to one of the given activities in the question “Over the last 12 months, have you done any of the following activities?”. “OECD” refers to the unweighted average of weighted OECD country averages.
Source: OECD Survey on Drivers of Trust in Public Institutions 2025.
6.2.2. Most say voting has an impact on government actions
Voting is seen as the key tool to influence policy (Chapter 7). A majority across the OECD believe that when people like them vote in elections or in a referendum, this can influence the policy decisions government takes. The share across the OECD who believe that voting in an election has a significant or moderate influence on what government does are 40% and 28%, respectively – in total, a solid majority at 68% (Figure 6.2). A slightly smaller share of 60% believe that voting in a regional or national referendum has a moderate or significant influence. In the European accession countries, the assessments are slightly less positive, but those who believe that voting in elections (56%) or referendums (50%) carries moderate or significant weight still make up a majority. Running or holding office is only seen as moderately or significantly influential by 45% across the OECD and 37% across the European OECD accession candidate countries. Since the question did not specify whether the office in question was at local, regional or national level, it is possible that respondents would have provided a different reply if the question had focused on national-level office specifically.
Share of population who indicate different levels of influence of indicated form of civic participation on what government does, OECD, 2025
Note: The figure shows the unweighted OECD averages of responses to the question “In your opinion, how much influence can each of the following actions, when taken by people like you, have on what government does? By 'significant influence', we mean an action that is likely to lead to direct policy changes or serious consideration by decision makers.”
Source: OECD Survey on Drivers of Trust in Public Institutions 2025.
6.2.3. Despite people’s views that they can influence what government does through voting, there is widespread scepticism that political systems let people have a say
The positive view that people have about their influence through voting in elections or referenda, which is what would be expected in democracies, does not translate into a broader perception that they are heard by government. Only 31% of people across the OECD are confident that the political system in their country allows people like them to have a say in what government does (Figure 6.3), on average, and 52% are not confident. In only one country – Switzerland (65%) – do greater than 50% of people say the system allows people like them to have a say. Cross-nationally, this rate of 31% confident is a very small increase of around 1 percentage point compared to results in 2023, regardless of whether the sample of OECD countries is restricted to those with available data for all 2021-2025 survey waves or only the 2023 and 2025 waves. In the OECD accession countries participating in the 2025 Trust Survey, even fewer individuals believe that they have a say: proportions range from 14 to 28%.
Confidence in one’s own ability to participate in politics is also relatively low. Four in ten individuals are confident in their own ability to participate in politics, on average across OECD countries, with rates exceeding 50% in only Ireland, Mexico and Switzerland (Figure 6.3). The cross-national average shows very little movement since 2023. Contrary to the results on perceived political voice, people in participating OECD accession countries do not necessarily feel less confident in their ability to participate in politics.
Share of population who find it likely that the political system allows them to have a say in what government does and in their own ability to participate in politics, 2025
Note: The chart illustrates the percentage of respondents reporting “likely/confident” to the question: “How much would you say the political system in your country allows people like you to have a say in what the government does?” and “How confident are you in your own ability to participate in politics?”. The “likely/confident” proportion is the aggregation of responses from 6-10 on the 0-10 scale. “OECD” presents the unweighted average of the weighted OECD country averages. Shares for OECD countries are shown in dark and for OECD accession candidate countries in light blue.
Source: OECD Survey on Drivers of Trust in Public Institutions 2025.
Given the consistent finding that people are not confident that the political system lets people like them have a say in what government does, the 2025 Trust Survey included new questions on the impacts of different activities, the perceived barriers to influence, participation and reasons for non-participation.
6.3.1. Public consultations or self organised political participation are not filling the gap
There is a disconnect between the 68% who assign moderate or significant influence on the process of voting, and the 31% who are confident that people like them have a say in what government does. Yet other types of political and civic participation, self-organised, organised by civil society, or organised proactively by government do not appear to be adequately filling the gap in the extent of influence on government affairs that people feel they should have versus what they perceive having.
Different types of in-person participation are perceived as less impactful than voting but still noteworthy. Volunteering (47% across the OECD and 45% across the European OECD accession candidate countries), striking (43% and 42%) and taking part in a protest (37% and 40%) are assessed as significantly or moderately influential by a relatively large minority, while a similar share have a positive view of the effect of creating or signing petitions (43% and 42%). Other types of participation such as contacting a politician (35% in OECD and 27% in European accession countries), boycotting products for political reasons (35% and 34%) or posting or forwarding political content online (32% and 33%) are only seen as moderately or significantly impactful around a third of people.
Directly engaging with officials or in participatory democratic activities such as public consultation is seen as only slightly more impactful. Across the OECD and OECD accession candidate countries, 39% and 32%, respectively, expect that participating in a public consultation can have significant or moderate influence on what government does. 35% across the OECD and 27% across the European OECD accession candidate countries view attending townhall meetings as potentially impactful.
The relatively muted optimism towards the impact of public consultation tracks with widespread scepticism that government would adopt opinions that are expressed in a public consultation (Figure 6.4). Across the OECD, 32% find it likely that government would adopt opinions expressed in a public consultation. In the participating OECD accession countries, the share is higher in Brazil (39%).
Share of population who find it likely or unlikely that government would adopt opinions gathered in public consultation, 2025
Note: The figure presents the within-country distributions of responses to the question “If you participated in a public consultation on reforming a policy area, how likely do you think it is that the government would adopt the opinions expressed in the consultation?”. 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 0-4; and “Don't know” was a separate answer choice. “OECD” presents the unweighted average of weighted OECD country averages.
Source: OECD Survey on Drivers of Trust in Public Institutions 2025.
6.3.2. Political officials are viewed as out of reach
Looking at self-reported barriers to having a say in what government does reveals three noteworthy groupings. One sizeable group of barriers is characterised by the view that political officials are out of reach. A remarkable 40% of all respondents, cross-nationally for the OECD, say elected officials “do not care about what people like me want,” on average across countries, with slight majorities in Estonia, Ireland, Latvia and Mexico reporting feeling like elected officials do not care about people like them. Iceland and Japan are in fact the only two countries where “elected officials do not care about people like me” is not the most commonly cited answer (Figure 6.6). The common identification of this perceived barrier can be related to the relatively low confidence in the responsiveness of public consultation mechanisms (Section 6.3.1), along with limited confidence in elected representatives responding meaningfully to people's contacts (see Chapter 7).
Cross-nationally, 28% report that a reason for people like them to not have a say is a lack of opportunities to talk with elected officials or government representatives, and around 15% (figure not shown) say it is a lack of networks or organisations they could use to engage in politics – potentially reinforcing this sense of distance with public officials. In the European OECD accession countries, all three sentiments are more common: 49% state that elected officials do not care about people’s opinions, 30% that there are no opportunities to talk with elected officials, and 18% that there are no organisations they could use to engage in politics. (Respondents could select more than one barrier).
The 2025 wave of the OECD Trust Survey also explored the reasons people report for not engaging in various activities with democratic institutions and public officials.
Around one-third choose to abstain from political activities
Putting aside the sizeable shares who had no possibility to participate because of the absence of activities, the most common explanation for non-participation is “I chose not to participate”, selected by around 30% of people who did not participate in the activity in question (Figure 6.5, yellow bar). Another 6% to 11% of all respondents say they were not eligible, and 7% to 12% select “other” as their reason for not participating in different activities. Yet it is difficult to assess who chose not to participate versus who was constrained from participating from the survey responses offered (Figure 6.3). Both groups present challenges for representative democracy fulfilling its potential, but people who chose not to participate and those who were constrained from participating would benefit from different policy responses to engage them in policymaking.
Indicated reason for non-participation in respective activity, OECD average, 2025
Note: The stacked bars present reported reasons for not participating in each of the four activities in response to the question “For each of the following activities you did not participate in during the past 12 months, what was the main reason you did not participate?”. The OECD average is equal to the unweighted average of the weighted OECD country shares among respondents who had not participated in the activity who selected the respective reason.
Source: OECD Survey on Drivers of Trust in Public Institutions 2025.
Many feel politicians do not care about people like them, while those abstaining are more likely to report disinterest
When asked about barriers for “people like [them] to have a say in what government does”, the “chose not to participate” group shows a similar overall pattern of responses as the full population, but with subtle differences. In both groups, an assumed lack of care by public officials towards people was by far the most commonly cited reason. Explanations such as a lack of time, money or networks were mentioned slightly less frequently among those who abstained from participating. Those who abstained were more likely to report a lack of interest – suggesting that, for many, non-participation may reflect an active choice, rather than financial or time constraints. This result merits following over time, as political apathy presents risks for democracy – it can erode accountability and the representativeness of democratic decision making.
6.3.3. Socioeconomic factors, like financial insecurity, influence ability to participate
A second set of barriers is socioeconomic. Around 21% of people, on average across OECD countries, say that a barrier to political voice is having no time to engage in politics; around 19% mention insufficient money to engage in politics; and 18% geographical distance from sites of decision making (Figure 6.6). These reasons are slightly more frequently mentioned in the full population than in the groups who chose not to participate. Reported barriers vary across socioeconomic groups (Box 6.2).
Countries in which socioeconomic barriers are relatively infrequently mentioned are Spain (11%) with regards to time constraints; Portugal and the Netherlands (12%) with regards to financial constraints; and – perhaps unsurprisingly – Luxembourg (8%) with regards to distance from decision-making centres. In the European OECD Accession countries, slightly more people identify financial barriers (23%) and slightly fewer time barriers (19%), while geographic distance is selected with similar frequency as in OECD countries.
Share of people who identify the statement as a potential barrier for people like them to have a say in what government does, 2025
Note: The figure shows the selected responses to the question “Which of the following are barriers for people like you to have a say in what government does?”. Respondents could select multiple options from ten possible explanations, and “I do not think there are barriers for people like me to have a say” was an answer option as well. Across the OECD, 13.1% of respondents selected this option. “OECD” corresponds to the unweighted averages of the weighted OECD country averages.
Source: OECD Survey on Drivers of Trust in Public Institutions 2025.
Different groups of people may face conditions that differentially affect their ability to participate in political and civic spaces. The 2025 Trust Survey results show that reported financial stress is associated with consistently higher levels of reported barriers to political participation across several dimensions. Respondents with financial concerns are more likely to report both a lack of information about government action and difficulties in understanding how to engage, with differences of around 6 percentage points compared to those without financial concerns. Financial cost also emerges as a particularly salient barrier for this group, with around one in five indicating that lack of money limits their ability to have a say, compared to around one in ten among people without financial concerns.
Differences across income groups point to additional constraints related to time and perceived responsiveness. Low-income individuals are more likely to report lack of time as a barrier (22% compared to 16%) and are also more likely to feel that elected officials do not care about people like them (43% compared to 35%). A similar gap in perceived responsiveness is observed between men and women, with 44% of women reporting that officials do not take their needs into account compared to 36% of men. Differences in reported access to information are narrow across both income and gender groups.
By contrast, differences by education are smaller and less consistent. While access to information about government action is broadly similar across education levels, higher shares of more highly educated respondents report not having enough information about how to engage with policymaking (30.6% compared to 25.4%).
Source: OECD Survey on Drivers of Trust in Public Institutions 2025.
6.3.4. Information can be perceived as a barrier to having a say even among those relying on news media for information about politics and current affairs
A final set of barriers to participation is characterised by low information. 29% of individuals, on average across countries, say they do not have enough information about how to engage with government, and 27% say they do not have enough information about what government does, with rates ranging from 13-14% in the Netherlands to 47 to 54% in Mexico. Interestingly, people who chose not to participate in politics (Box 6.1) report higher knowledge of governments’ actions and how to engage with government than the rest of the population.
The shares in the European OECD accession countries are similar, though with a tendency towards more people feeling that they do not have information about what government does (31%) versus about how to engage with government (28%). Low information is once again less frequently mentioned by people who chose not to participate or did not participate for another reason.
Across the OECD, the most common source of information about politics and current affairs is broadcast journalism, with 68% of respondents using it (Figure 6.7Figure 6.5). This is followed by social media consumption (47%) and reading print journalism, be it online or on paper (45%). Conversations with other people are another important source of information about current affairs (36%), while 12% listen to podcasts and 6% use generative artificial intelligence as a source of this type of information.
Interestingly, media consumption is actually higher among those who report a lack of information about government than among the population overall. Among people who identify information gaps as a reason why people like them do not have a say in what government does, consumption of these different information sources is 2 to 8 percentage points higher than among the general population (Figure 6.7). The gaps are particularly large for consuming social media in a typical week and for conversations with other people. Perhaps some individuals in this group may simply have higher requirements for considering themselves well-informed than is true in the general population – in other words, they know what they do not know – or they may feel others do not have adequate information.
Share that uses the respective media as a source of information about politics and current affairs in a typical week, OECD, 2025
Note: The figure shows the unweighted OECD average of the weighted OECD country average shares of different forms of media use among 1) the overall population (blue bars); 2) individuals who say a lack of information on government action is a barrier to people like them having a say (blue diamonds); and 3) individuals who say not enough information on how to engage with government is a barrier to people like them having a say (yellow diamond). The shares are derived from 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?”. Respondents were able to select all responses that applied. The respondents who view a lack of information as a barrier were identified through their answers to the question “Which of the following are barriers for people like you to have a say in what government does?”
Source: OECD Survey on Drivers of Trust in Public Institutions 2025.
Individuals who say public officials do not care about people like them are, perhaps unsurprisingly, less likely to trust government than other respondents (Figure 6.8). The same cannot generally be said for people who see a lack of engagement options as a barrier to having a say. The gap in trust in the national government between those who perceive officials as insensitive to people’s preferences and those who do not amounts to 16 percentage points. This is a substantial trust gap that is nonetheless much smaller than the gap identified between people who feel like the political system lets people like them have a say and those who do not (see Chapter 2). In contrast, the gap in trust between individuals who identify a lack of engagement opportunities with officials as a barrier and those who do not only amounts to 3 percentage points. In other words, opportunities to engage seem to matter less than the perception that policymakers care.
Share of respondents reporting high or moderately high trust in the government among individuals who do and do not identify limited opportunities to engage with officials and officials not caring what people like them want as barriers to having a say, OECD, 2025
Note: The figure shows the share with high or moderately high trust in the national government, depending on whether they identified limited opportunities to talk to officials or officials not caring about what people want as a barrier to having a say in what government does. 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 identifies these barriers to having a say is derived from their answer(s) to the question “Which of the following are barriers for people like you to have a say in what government does?”, for which they can select all options that apply. The figure shows the unweighted OECD average of weighted OECD country averages.
Source: OECD Survey on Drivers of Trust in Public Institutions 2025.
Focus on helping more people feel like they have a say in what government does. Results from the OECD Trust Survey show that while a majority of 68% see voting in elections as moderately or significantly influential on what government does, only 31% are confident that the political process allows people like them to have a say in what government does. The biggest barriers that people identify to having an influence are beliefs that government is not adequately responsive and that public officials do not care about the people they serve. Governments have to strive to address the perception that political officials are unresponsive to the public’s concerns as one of the root causes for the perceived lack of political voice. Ensuring meaningful participatory or consultation mechanisms that complement representative democracy mechanisms with appropriate methodology, prioritisation, responsiveness, clarification of intent and result and more broadly institutionalisation will be at least part of the response (OECD, 2025[6]).
Ensure that there is feedback on government actions. Participation is not inherently beneficial in itself. Its impact depends on how it is designed and implemented. Poorly designed or tokenistic processes can risk undermining trust, whereas high-quality, inclusive, and well-structured participation is essential to ensure that participation effectively strengthens trust in government (OECD, 2024[1]; OECD, 2025[6]). To this end, the OECD has developed a set of guidelines to support countries to strengthen the planning, implementation and evaluation of participation (OECD, 2022[7]) and deliberation (OECD, 2021[8]) processes to ensure they lead to stronger trust and better policy outcomes. When considering a participation process, governments should clearly identify the problem they aim to solve and the moment for participation, define the expected results, identify the relevant group of people to involve, choose the adequate participation method, and engage in outreach. Giving careful and respectful consideration to inputs received as part of participatory processes and reporting back to people by ‘closing the loop’, describing how feedback was used and providing explanations for when certain results are not used or implemented, can be helpful. Moreover, governments should approach people’s participation not as a default activity or a technical add-on, but as a strategic, democratic choice. They should embed participation as one of their core functions, ensuring they make strategic upstream choices about whether, when, why, and how to engage people in the policy cycle, identifying the population groups to be most impacted by the decision and whose perspective may need to be represented.
Improve the availability and quality of information on what government does. First, it is important to foster an information ecosystem that promotes access to information and protects independent media. Second, government communication needs to evolve to meet the challenges of a complex ecosystem (OECD, 2021[9]).
Lower barriers to political engagement and feeling heard. To improve public participation in political processes, it remains important to lower barriers to engagement – identifying and removing obstacles like time, distance and cost so that any interested person can participate in processes affecting governance. This means offering digital and non‑digital options, using clear and accessible information, and adapting engagement methods to better meet the needs of different publics.
A protected and promoted civic space can help ensure the effective participation of the public and stakeholders in decision making and public life more broadly. Protecting civic freedoms, promoting an enabling environment for civil society organisations, and nurturing a plural information ecosystem that supports the engagement of all in public life is key.
References
[10] Belli, R. et al. (1999), “Reducing Vote Overreporting in Surveys: Social Desirability, Memory Failure, and Source Monitoring”, Public Opinion Quarterly, Vol. 63/1, p. 90, https://doi.org/10.1086/297704.
[3] Dahl, R. (1972), Polyarchy, Yale University Press.
[11] McAllister, I. and S. Quinlan (2021), “Vote overreporting in national election surveys: a 55-nation exploratory study”, Acta Politica, Vol. 57/3, pp. 529-547, https://doi.org/10.1057/s41269-021-00207-6.
[5] Norris, P. (ed.) (1999), Introduction: The growth of critical citizens?, Oxford University Press.
[6] OECD (2025), Exploring New Frontiers in Citizen Participation in the Policy Cycle, OECD Public Governance Reviews, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/77f5098c-en.
[1] 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.
[2] OECD (2022), Building Trust to Reinforce Democracy: Main Findings from the 2021 OECD Survey on Drivers of Trust in Public Institutions, Building Trust in Public Institutions, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/b407f99c-en.
[7] OECD (2022), OECD Guidelines for Citizen Participation Processes, OECD Public Governance Reviews, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/f765caf6-en.
[8] OECD (2021), Evaluation Guidelines for Representative Deliberative Processes, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/10ccbfcb-en.
[9] OECD (2021), OECD Report on Public Communication: The Global Context and the Way Forward, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/22f8031c-en.
[4] Verba, S., K. Schlozman and H. Brady (1995), Voice and Equality, Harvard University Press, https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv1pnc1k7.
← 1. Data on perceived political voice and political participation were collected in all five participating OECD accession countries. However, the questions on perceived barriers to and impacts of political and civic participation and on the reasons for non-participation were only included in the countries in which data collection took place in the third and fourth quarter of 2025. Information on these variables is therefore not available for Brazil and Peru, where data collection took place earlier in the context of the OECD Trust Survey in Latin America and the Caribbean.
← 2. To note, voting behaviour is often overreported by respondents to surveys. This phenomenon is often explained by memory failure or social desirability – i.e., a respondent recalls that they did not vote, but claims to have voted to align with some perceived social good (Belli et al., 1999[10]; McAllister and Quinlan, 2021[11]). Moreover, participation forms that respondents may be unfamiliar with, such as voting in a referendum, may be over-reported due to misunderstandings or other response biases.
← 3. This rate includes all respondents, even those who may not have had an opportunity to vote because there was no election in their area or because they are ineligible to vote (for example due to lack of citizenship).