This chapter examines how day‑to‑day interactions between people and public institutions shape trust, drawing on evidence from the 2025 OECD Survey on Drivers of Trust in Public Institutions. It focuses on people’s experiences with essential public services and administrative procedures, recognising that trust is built not only through major policy decisions but also through the experience and views of public services. This chapter sheds light on how competencies and values such as efficiency, fairness, responsiveness and integrity are experienced and viewed in these everyday encounters and how they relate to trust today.
OECD Survey on Drivers of Trust in Public Institutions 2026 Results
Navigating Rising Expectations and New Horizons
Abstract
Satisfaction with essential public services is relatively high in OECD countries. Among individuals who have come into contact with the respective services in the past two years, an average of 54% are satisfied with the healthcare system, 60% with the education system and 68% with public administrative services. Satisfaction rates are lower among the participating OECD accession candidate countries, though in several of them, 50% or more of respondents are satisfied with recent experience of administrative services.
Satisfaction with administrative services among the overall population across the OECD has increased modestly but steadily over time, rising by three percentage points relative to 2021 in countries with available data. Satisfaction with healthcare and education are likewise higher in 2025 than in 2023, though the share who are satisfied with healthcare remains below 2021 levels.
When looking at different aspects of service access and delivery, the two most important drivers of overall satisfaction are the perceived speed and ease of accessing a service.
A majority of people across the OECD find it likely that information on administrative services would be easily available (68%) and that their applications for government benefits and services would be treated fairly (53%). Confidence in the integrity of government employees is lower (37%). People who indicate that they accessed an administrative service in the past year on average hold more positive views of day-to-day interactions, and more frequently indicate that they place high or moderately high trust in the national government and civil service.
About four in ten people across the OECD find it likely that public services are responsive to innovative ideas and complaints. These positive views have become very slightly more prevalent since 2023.
Improved satisfaction with administrative services is associated with increased trust in all public institutions, while improved perceptions of many of the other day-to-day interactions described in this chapter are most strongly associated with higher trust in local government and the civil service.
Trust in public institutions is built and earned in ways big and small. The relationship between people and administrations is shaped both by day-to-day interactions (for example when people access public services, comply with administrative requirements, or engage with local government) and by how governments make decisions and deliver outcomes on complex, long-term policy issues.
Nevertheless, as seen in Chapter 1, trust in national government is more strongly associated with how governments handle long term policy issues than in their day-to-day interactions with citizens: people who have confidence that policymakers take decisions that are well informed by evidence and public preferences, that private interests do not outweigh the public good, and that decisions are fair and transparent are more likely to trust the national government and other public institutions.
Nevertheless, day-to-day interactions remain very important, notably for trust in the civil service and local government (see Chapter 1). It is also likely that the relatively high degree of satisfaction is hiding the importance of day-to-day interactions in case of decrease of quality or failures in day-to-day interactions.
Evidence from the 2025 OECD Trust Survey shows that, on average across OECD countries and to a lesser extent in the participating OECD accession candidate countries, perceptions of these day-to-day interactions tend to be more positive than perceptions of government decision-making processes and outcomes on complex issues. Chapter 1 also highlights that perceptions of day-to-day interactions are particularly important drivers of trust in local government and in the civil service.
OECD governments have recognised the potential that modernising public administration could yield in terms of creating institutions that are more responsive and agile. Such shifts could contribute to further improvements in the perceptions of day-to-day interactions and contribute to strengthening trust, at least in some institutions.
This chapter provides evidence on how individuals across the OECD and OECD accession countries view the competencies and values that public institutions exhibit in their daily interactions, such as when they need to comply with administrative requirements or request benefits or services. Well-managed digitalisation and the adoption of artificial intelligence tools can also contribute to greater efficiency and human-centredness. They are treated in detail in Chapter 5.
The most common way in which the vast majority of people come into contact with public institutions is when they make use of public services or undertake administrative tasks, such as filing taxes or applying for a marriage license or a passport. Through fulfilling people’s expectations in these areas and creating positive experiences, individual civil servants and the public administration at large can play a decisive role in shaping people’s assessment of the competencies and values of public institutions. And in this regard, evidence from the OECD Trust Survey shows that on average, a stable majority across OECD is satisfied with essential public services. This is true for satisfaction with the health and education systems, and even more so for satisfaction with administrative services. Nevertheless, about one quarter of people across the OECD still identify healthcare and other essential services as a top-three issue facing their country (see Chapter 1). And an important though varying share of the population remains unsatisfied, showing that there remains scope for improvements.
3.1.1. People with immediate experience of education and health services are more likely to be satisfied with these systems
Across the OECD, six in ten (60%) people who had recent contact with the education system, either because they were enrolled themselves in the past two years or someone in their household was, are satisfied with it (Figure 3.1, Panel A). This is nine percentage points higher than among those without recent personal contact with the education system. In 26 out of the 33 participating OECD countries, a majority of users are satisfied, and in two among them – Finland and Switzerland – satisfaction reaches at least 85%. Across the participating OECD accession candidate countries, satisfaction is lower overall and remains below the 50% threshold, although it exceeds 40% in Brazil, Croatia, and Romania. The satisfaction gap between those with and without recent experience with the system is smaller on average in the participating OECD accession countries than in the OECD, amounting to seven percentage points.
Satisfaction with the healthcare system is lower than with education, but the gap between recent users (within the last year) and others is also smaller. On average across the OECD, 54% of people who used healthcare services in the past year are satisfied (Figure 3.1, Panel B), compared with 48% of those without recent contact. Across the five participating OECD accession candidate countries, rates of satisfaction stand at 33% among recent service users and 29% among non-recent users. Luxembourg has the highest satisfaction with healthcare among recent users in OECD countries (80%), while Brazil has the highest share among the surveyed OECD accession countries at 44%.
Note: The figure presents the within-country distributions of responses to the questions “On a scale of 0 to 10, how satisfied are you with the education system in [COUNTRY]?” (Panel A) and “On a scale of 0 to 10, how satisfied are you with the healthcare system in [COUNTRY]?” (Panel B). Respondents with recent contact are defined as those who reply in the affirmative to the question “In the last 2 years, have you or somebody in your household been enrolled in an educational institution in [COUNTRY]?” (Panel A)/” In the last 12 months, have you or somebody in your household personally made use of the healthcare system in [COUNTRY]?” (Panel B). The “satisfaction” proportion is the aggregation of responses from 6-10 on the scale; “neutral” is equal to a response of 5; “dissatisfaction” is the aggregation of responses from 0-4; and “do not know” was a separate answer choice. “OECD” presents the unweighted average of the weighted OECD country averages.
Source: OECD Survey on Drivers of Trust in Public Institutions 2025.
Following a drop in satisfaction with education and health systems across OECD countries between 2021 and 2023, satisfaction with both systems has risen again between 2023 and 2025. In the 191 OECD countries with available data on this indicator for all three waves of the OECD Trust Survey (2021, 2023, 2025), satisfaction with the education system declined from 63% to 60% between 2021 and 2023, before rising to 64% in 2025 (Figure 3.2). The increase in satisfaction is even stronger among the 29 OECD countries that participated in both 2023 and 2025, where satisfaction increased from an average of 57% to 61% in that time span. Satisfaction has been consistently rising in Australia, Canada, New Zealand and Sweden over the 2021 to 2025 period.
Trust in the healthcare system has likewise increased between 2023 and 2025, although it remains below 2021 levels. In the 19 countries with data for all three years, satisfaction among recent users fell from 63% to 55% and then returned to 58% in 2025 (Figure 3.2). For the 29 countries, the average rose by two percentage points, from 52% to 54%. Australia, Denmark, Iceland, Luxembourg and the Netherlands are the only countries which satisfaction has increased relative to 2021. For Australia, the share was already higher in 2023 than in 2021.
Share of recent users reporting different levels of satisfaction with the education and healthcare system, OECD-19 average
Note: The OECD-19 average is the unweighted average of the responses across the 19 countries with available data for all three survey waves.
The figure presents the average distributions of responses to the questions “On a scale of 0 to 10, how satisfied are you with the education system in [COUNTRY]?” (Panel A) and “On a scale of 0 to 10, how satisfied are you with the healthcare system in [COUNTRY]?” (Panel B). Respondents with recent contact are defined as those who reply in the affirmative to the question “In the last 2 years, have you or somebody in your household been enrolled in an educational institution in [COUNTRY]?” (Panel A)/” In the last 12 months, have you or somebody in your household personally made use of the healthcare system in [COUNTRY]?” (Panel B). The “satisfaction” proportion is the aggregation of responses from 6-10 on the scale; “neutral” is equal to a response of 5; “dissatisfaction” is the aggregation of responses from 0-4; and “do not know” was a separate answer choice.
Source: OECD Survey on Drivers of Trust in Public Institutions 2021, 2023, and 2025.
3.1.2. Satisfaction with administrative services is generally high and rising
Public administrative services – which include for example the processing of applications for passports, birth certificates and government benefits – are seen positively by a comfortable majority of people. Across the OECD, more than two thirds (68%) of people who have had recent contact with public administrative services report being satisfied with them overall (Figure 3.3). Among those without recent contact, the share is 61%. Satisfaction exceeds 50% in all OECD countries except Chile, and in all participating accession countries with the exceptions of Bulgaria and Peru. It is particularly high – above 80% - in Estonia, Finland, Luxembourg and Switzerland. Satisfaction with administrative services is a particularly important driver of trust in the civil service and local government but also affects, though less strongly, the probability of people placing high or moderately high trust in the national government and legislature (see Chapters 1 and 7).
Share of recent users reporting different levels of satisfaction with administrative services in their country, 2025
Note: The figure presents the within-country distributions of responses among recent users to the question “On a scale of 0 to 10, how satisfied are you with the quality of administrative services in [COUNTRY] (for example applying for an ID, registering a birth or applying for benefits)?” Recent users replied in the affirmative to the question “In the last 12 months, have you personally made use of an administrative in [COUNTRY] (for example, applying for a passport, registering a birth, or applying for benefits etc.)?”. The “satisfied” proportion is the aggregation of responses from 6-10 on the scale; “neutral” is equal to a response of 5; “dissatisfied” is the aggregation of responses 0 to 4. OECD is the unweighted average of the weighted OECD country averages.
Source: OECD Survey on Drivers of Trust in Public Institutions 2025.
It is important to note that while the OECD Trust Survey, with its focus on understanding how satisfaction with administrative services is related to trust in different public institutions, takes a bird-eye view of satisfaction with administrative services, people’s views may vary considerably across different administrative services.
To further understand what drives satisfaction with public administrative services, the OECD deployed in 2024 a population survey carried out in the context of an EU Technical Support Instrument project on ‘Measuring Citizen’s Satisfaction with key Government Services for Better Performance and Enhanced Trust’. The population survey, deployed in 10 EU Member States (Austria, Croatia, Estonia, Finland, Greece, Ireland, Latvia, Lithuania, Slovenia, Spain) measures user satisfaction with public services delivered through Life Events experienced over a 12 month period. The survey finds that, overall, 72% of users across the EU-10 are satisfied with public services when experiencing a Life Event. In addition, 82% of users got what they wanted from the services they accessed, demonstrating that key drivers of satisfaction rest within the user journey, when users access and navigate services.
The data gathered through the Survey shows that while users are, overall, satisfied with public services they used in the last 12 months, the overall level of satisfaction varies depending on the Life Event experienced. For instance, in one participating country, an overall satisfaction level of 80% is recorded. However, this satisfaction level varies from 56% (for the Life Event ‘I lost a loved one’) to 90% (for the Life Event ‘I retired’. Variations can also be observed in satisfaction levels across countries. For example, for the Life Event ‘I had a baby/adopted a child’, the satisfaction level varies from 57% to 93% depending on the country.
Satisfaction with administrative services among the overall population2 across the OECD has increased modestly but steadily over time. For the 17 countries with available information for all three years, the share who are satisfied rose from 64% in 2021 to 65% in 2023 and 67% in 2025 (Figure 3.4). This upward trend is confirmed across the 29 countries with available data in both 2023 and 2025. In some countries such as Australia, Denmark and Luxembourg, improvements have been continuous over the 2021-2025 period. In others, such as Ireland, Korea and Portugal, important declines between 2021 and 2023 were followed by substantial increases between 2023 and 2025.
Share of population who are satisfied with administrative services, 2021, 2023 and 2025
Note: The figure presents share who provided a ‘satisfied’ response to the question “On a scale of 0 to 10, how satisfied are you with the quality of administrative services in [COUNTRY] (for example applying for an ID, registering a birth or applying for benefits)?”. The “satisfied” proportion is the aggregation of responses from 6-10 on the scale; “neutral” is equal to a response of 5; “dissatisfied” is the aggregation of responses 0 to 4. The OECD averages are the unweighted averages of the weighted country averages for the countries with available data for 2021, 2023 and 2025 (OECD-17 countries) and with available data for 2023 and 2025 (OECD-29 countries).
Source: OECD Survey on Drivers of Trust in Public Institutions 2021, 2023 and 2025.
3.1.3. Positive experiences with individual quality aspects underpin the high level of satisfaction with administrative services
When asked about their satisfaction with individual aspects of the most recent administrative service that they used, the levels of satisfaction with these aspects generally exceeds the share that are satisfied overall among recent users. One reason for the discrepancy may be that a single bad experience with administrative services can colour views negatively, but that if people were asked about their satisfaction with the most recent administrative service they used specifically, satisfaction levels would be even higher still.
The share who are satisfied with several important quality aspects exceeds 70% in OECD and 50% in OECD accession candidate countries. 74% are satisfied with the courtesy of public employees during their most recent interaction with an administrative public service. 72% are satisfied with the competence of public employees on average across the OECD, and with the share not being lower than 50% across any OECD or OECD accession country. 74% find the language and information they were provided clear; and this share exceeds 50% in all OECD and OECD accession countries. Across the OECD, 71% are satisfied with the ease of obtaining the service.
Areas in which satisfaction is somewhat lower include the speed at which services can be accessed, the ability to access the service in the preferred manner, the ease of using digital services and the amount of fees (if applicable). An average of 69% across the OECD are satisfied with the ability to access the service in the manner that they prefer and with the amount of information they had to provide. In the OECD accession candidate countries with available data on these indicators, the satisfaction rates with accessing the service in the preferred manner and the information that needs to be provided reaches 55% and 50%, respectively. Moreover, 67% across the OECD and 50% across the five OECD accession countries are satisfied with how quickly they could access the service (Figure 3.5). 68% of recent users for whom this was applicable across the OECD and 54% across the OECD accession countries think that digital services were easy to use. Among concerned users, only 56% across the OECD and 46% in the European OECD accession countries were satisfied with the amount of the service fee they had to pay, making this the least positively viewed service aspect.
Share of users of administrative services during the past year who were satisfied with the respective service aspect, OECD average, OECD minimum and OECD maximum, 2023 and 2025
Note: The figure shows the share of recent users who were satisfied with the respective aspect during the last time they accessed an administrative service over the past year. The OECD average is the unweighted average of weighted country averages for the 29 OECD countries that participated in both survey waves.
Source: OECD Survey on Drivers of Trust in Public Institutions 2023 and 2025.
Compared to 2023, recent administrative service users across the OECD view the speed and ease of accessing a service slightly more positively. Among the 29 countries with available data for both years, the share who are satisfied with the ease and with the ability to access the service in the preferred way rose by two percentage points and who are satisfied with the speed of service access by three percentage points (Figure 3.5). The other perceptions have remained stable over time.
Some countries perform exceptionally well across many service aspects; while for others, some stand out.3 In Estonia, Finland and Switzerland, more than four out of five recent users are satisfied with many service aspects; and in Brazil, more than three out of five are. In addition to the already named countries, the share who are satisfied also is equal to or exceeds 80% in:
Korea when it comes to the ease and speed of accessing the service;
Luxembourg, Latvia and the Netherlands when it comes to the courtesy of public employees;
the Netherlands with regards to the competence of public employees;
Lithuania, Luxembourg and Mexico with regards to the clarity of information;
Luxembourg and Mexico with regards to how the service met the needs;
and Mexico in terms of accessing the service in the preferred manner.
In a similar vein, at least six out of ten people are satisfied with selected aspects in Romania (ease of using digital services and courtesy of public employees) and Croatia (clarity of information).
Other than in Finland and Switzerland, there is no country in which more than 80% are satisfied with the amount of information they had to provide, showing a potential area for improvement. Among users where this question was applicable, the share who were satisfied with the fee they had to pay is below 50% in several OECD countries and only exceeds 70% in Korea and Luxembourg.
The relative stability in the evaluation of individual quality aspects between 2023 and 2025 is mirrored in a large stability in the relationship of these evaluations and overall satisfaction with administrative services. The differences in the point estimates of the average marginal effects between 2023 and 2025 are not statistically significant, meaning that there is no change in the pattern of how evaluations of the individual quality features relate to overall satisfaction.
As in 2023, across the OECD, the most important drivers of overall satisfaction among recent service users are that people are satisfied with the speed at which they can access the service – associated with an eleven percentage point increase in the likelihood of being satisfied with administrative services – and with the ease of accessing the service – a ten percentage point increase (Figure 3.6). The ease of using the digital service, where applicable, has the third highest association with overall satisfaction, with an average marginal effect of eight percentage points. The remaining quality aspects are all associated with a six to seven percentage point boost in the probability of being satisfied.
Percentage point change in likelihood of being satisfied with administrative services if an individual is satisfied with the respective service aspect compared to not being satisfied, OECD, 2023 and 2025
Note: The percentage point change in satisfaction with administrative services corresponds to the average marginal effect of a being satisfied as compared to not being satisfied with any of the service aspects on the overall satisfaction with administrative services among recent users of administrative services in a logistic regression analysis, when all the other service aspects are kept constant and controlling for individuals’ demographic characteristics and whether they (would have) voted for the current government and country fixed effects. The average marginal effects are statistically significant at p<0.01.
Source: Estimation based on the OECD Survey on Drivers of Trust in Public Institutions 2023 and 2025.
While the presented results of the regression analysis provide interesting pointers towards service aspects whose improvement could contribute to a rising overall satisfaction with administrative services, it is important to recognize the limits of this analysis. The adjusted R-squared of the regression analysis is only equal to 0.25. This means that only about a quarter of the variation in whether someone indicates that they are satisfied with administrative services (as opposed to not being satisfied, providing a neutral reply or saying that one does not know) is explained by the included variables. Other factors that are not included but which may affect overall satisfaction are experiences with other administrative services aside from the most recent one. Moreover, it is unclear whether improvements, for example in the speed at which individuals can access service, would be associated with increased satisfaction with this quality aspect. Instead, such improvements might lead to further increased expectations, while the share who are satisfied with the speed remains constant. Because of this and other reasons, the results of the analysis should not be interpreted as service improvements necessarily causing overall satisfaction to increase.
People with positive views on the ease of accessing information about administrative services and the fairness with which government employees treat applications for benefits and services tend to place more trust in the civil service and local government. People who come into contact with administrative services display improved perceptions of these public governance drivers and higher institutional trust.
3.2.1. A majority of the OECD population find it likely that administrative information are easily available and that they would be treated fairly in service applications
Across the OECD, people tend to have more positive expectations about how easy it is to access information about administrative services than about the fairness of their treatment or the integrity of government employees.
Before seeking a public service or benefit, or completing a required administrative task, people typically look for information on the steps they need to take. Clear, accessible information about administrative services is thus an important pre-requisite for a positive interaction.
Perceptions of how easy it is to find information on administrative procedures are broadly in line with satisfaction with administrative services, and they appear to be improving over time. Across the OECD, 68% find it likely that information on administrative procedures are easily available (Figure 3.7). This share has moved in a slight positive direction, rising by one percentage point relative to 2023 (for both the group of OECD-20 or OECD-29 countries) and five percentage points relative to 2021. In Ireland and in Romania, which have the most positive perceptions across the participating OECD and OECD accession candidate countries, 84% and 57% of the population respectively find it likely that such information is easily available. In almost every OECD and some of the OECD accession countries, more than half of the population shares this view. More positive perceptions of information availability are associated with a 2.0 and 1.3 percentage points higher likelihood of placing trust in the national civil service and local government.
Share of population who find it likely or unlikely that information on an administrative service would be easily available if needed, 2025
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?” 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 “do not know” was a separate answer choice. “OECD” presents the unweighted average of the weighted OECD country averages.
Source: OECD Survey on Drivers of Trust in Public Institutions 2025.
In contrast, a smaller share of the population finds it likely that their application for government benefits or services would be handled fairly. In 2025, 53% across the OECD find it likely that this would be the case; rising to 75% in Finland (Figure 3.8). This share has remained stable since 2023. In participating OECD accession candidate countries, views are substantially less positive, with an average of 35% finding positive treatment likely. More positive perceptions of fair treatment in these type of interactions with public bodies are correlated with 2.4 percentage point higher likelihood of trust in the national civil service and 1.8 percentage points higher likelihood of trust in local government.
These results correspond well with the findings of the OECD’s cross-national Risks that Matter (RTM) Survey on perceptions of social services and benefits (OECD, 2025[1]). RTM respondents are most confident in their knowledge of how to apply for social programmes, with 46% – on average across 27 countries – saying they would know how to apply for services or benefits. People are more skeptical that they would be treated fairly by the public office processing their claim (39% believe this, on average) and that the application process would be simple and quick (28%).4
Share of population who find it likely or unlikely that their application for a government benefit or service would be treated fairly, 2025
Note: The figure shows the within-country distributions of replies to the question “If you or a member of your household applied for a government benefit or service, how likely do you think it is that your application would be treated fairly?”. 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 “do not know” was a separate answer choice. “OECD” presents the unweighted average of the weighted OECD country averages.
Source: OECD Survey on Drivers of Trust in Public Institutions 2025.
While a majority across the OECD still expects to be treated fairly in interactions with civil servants, expectations about civil servants’ integrity are markedly lower. Across the OECD, 37% of people find it likely that a government employee would refuse money offered by an individual or business to speed up access to a public service; and 43% find it unlikely (Figure 3.9). Positive perceptions of this indicator have dropped from 41 in 2021 to 39% in 2023, but have remained stable since then. In some OECD and non-OECD countries, fewer than one in five find such refusal likely; and there are only a handful of countries – primarily the Nordic countries and Switzerland – where a majority do. Among the participating OECD accession countries, views are most positive in Brazil, where more than a third of people find it likely that public employees would refuse attempts at petty corruption.
Share of population who find it likely or unlikely that a government employee would refuse to accept money to speed up access to a service, 2025
Note: The figure presents the within-country distributions of responses to the question “If a government employee was offered money by a citizen or a firm for speeding up access to a public service, how likely do you think it is that they would refuse it?”. 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 “do not know” was a separate answer choice. “OECD” presents the unweighted average of the weighted OECD country averages.
Source: OECD Survey on Drivers of Trust in Public Institutions 2025.
Despite the rather pessimistic views that many people hold about the integrity of government employees, recent direct experiences with petty corruption remain rarely reported (noting, of course, that this is an issue prone to underreporting). On average across the OECD, fewer than 2% (1.6%, to be exact) indicate that during the past year, they or another member of their household were asked or felt compelled to pay a bribe to a government employee; and the share rarely exceeds 3%.
3.2.2. Even simple interactions with government institutions can contribute to improving perceptions
Those with recent experience using administrative services report more positive views across three different dimensions related to day-day-day interactions (see Figure 3.10), with especially large gains in a few countries.
Direct experience with civil servants can improve how people perceive the openness, fairness and integrity of public institutions. In 2025, among people in OECD countries who had recently used an administrative service, the share who thought that government employees were likely to turn down a bribe and treat them fairly when they applied for benefits was on average six and five percentage points higher, respectively, than among those without a recent interaction (Figure 3.10). Recent service users were also six percentage points more likely to say that information on administrative services would be easy to find. Unsurprisingly, people who rate the competence and courtesy of public employees highly during recent interactions (Figure 3.5) hold even more favourable views. In the participating OECD accession candidate countries, similar patterns hold.
These more positive assessments borne out of recent interactions can translate into higher levels of trust: the share with high or moderately high trust in the national government and in the national civil service is three and four percentage points higher, respectively, among recent service users (Figure 3.10). With the exception of Croatia, this finding also holds in the participating OECD accession countries.
Share of individuals who find a positive outcome likely or who have high or moderately high trust in the respective institution depending on whether the individual used an administrative service in the past year or not, OECD average, 2025
Note: Recent administrative service users are those who respond ‘yes’ to the question “In the last 12 months, have you personally made use of an administrative service in [COUNTRY] (for example, applying for a passport, registering a birth, or applying for benefits etc.)?”. The figure shows the share of individuals who find an indicated outcome likely/who have high or moderately high trust in the national civil service or in the national government (as indicated by a response of 6-10 on the 0-10 scale), depending on whether they were recent users or not.
Source: OECD Survey on Drivers of Trust in Public Institutions 2025.
These findings suggest that public employees may act as ‘ambassadors’ of public institutions, and that dealing with them directly can improve perceptions of day-to-day public governance, and in turn trust. While some individuals with exceptionally low levels of trust in public institutions may deliberately avoid using administrative services, in many cases, people do not have a choice whether they do or not. This means that the findings can be cautiously interpreted as the use of administrative services causing some individuals to view day-to-day interactions more positively and to have higher trust in institutions than they would have had otherwise. Outward communication around the share of satisfied service users could help improve perceptions even among people who are not in immediate contact with administrative or other essential services, though whether this can translate into improved perceptions and trust would have to be carefully studied.
However, in several countries - Belgium, Denmark, Finland, Germany and Norway, as well as Croatia – there are no substantial differences (defined as a difference in the positive perception of five percentage points or more) between any of the perceptions of the three public governance drivers and trust in the national government and civil service between those who have and who have not used an administrative service in the past year. In these countries, the general population’s experience with the public service seems to coincide with their expectations, meaning that direct interactions do not lead to a boost in positive perceptions or in trust.
In contrast, Japan and Korea stand out as countries where interactions with administrative services is associated with exceptionally large increases in the share with positive perceptions of the day-to-day public governance drivers shown in Figure 3.10 and trust in the national government and national civil service. The increased share among recent service users who trust or who find it likely that there would be a positive outcome exceeds ten percentage points for all of the five measures shown in Figure 3.10, and can even be boosted by twenty percentage points. This finding is suggestive of a systematic ‘image problem’ of public services and civil servants in these countries: actual interactions appear to be more positive than initially anticipated by the general population, and this can contribute to improved trust levels.
3.2.3. A perceived ‘right to error’ in administrative interactions has ambiguous relationship with institutional trust
While many interactions with public institutions are straightforward, others need to take into account a variety of factors and can therefore lead to error. A classic example are tax declarations: when declaring their incomes, individuals may benefit from relevant exemptions, inadvertently commit errors, or deliberately mis-declare their income. Similarly, when people apply for a public benefit or service, they may accidentally forget to indicate a relevant income stream or circumstance that could affect their eligibility.
Depending on the legal statutes on the book in the respective country, public employees who uncover mistakes for example in tax declarations or benefit applications may have different latitude in how they react. In some cases, they may not have a choice but to impose a sanction, even if they have reason to believe that the individual or business in question was acting in good faith. In other cases, they may have some discretion in how they handle these cases. Finally, in France, the ‘right to error’ is enshrined in the code of relations between the public and the administration, and goes so far as demanding that public agencies would have to prove that an individual was acting deliberately. It is applicable to all interactions with public institutions where an individual cannot be held liable if they do not know a rule that applies to them or if they mis-state their personal situation. This right applies as long as the error was not committed deliberately or with fraudulent intentions, the individual contacts the relevant administration him- or herself or immediately reacts when contacted, and as long as the error can be regularised (Service Public, 2025[2]).
The extent to which individuals perceive public employees as being willing to grant them a ‘right to error’ might be interpreted as a measure of ‘reciprocal trust’, meaning the trust that people feel individual civil servants or the public administration overall place in them in terms of believing that errors are due to mistakes rather than deliberate. However, some people may also perceive the non-application of certain statutory foreseen sanctions as arbitrary or as benefitting some people unduly. If so, this could even undermine how trustworthy they perceive institutions to be. It is also possible that these perceptions may evolve with time, as society understands and reaches a level of comfort with the ‘right to error’. A priori, therefore, it is unclear how the presence of a perceived ‘right to error’ relates to trust.
On average across the OECD, four in ten (39%) find it likely that if they committed an error, a public employee would help them correct it rather than sanction them (Figure 3.11). In contrast, 42% find it unlikely. The share who find it likely can be as low as around 20%, and does not rise much above 50% in any OECD country. Notably, perceptions of the ‘right to error’ do not need to correspond to legal rights or practices: In France with its strongly codified right, the share who find it likely is no different from the perception in other European countries such as Ireland or Iceland, although this may be attributed to the fact that the right to error was enacted only in 2018 in France and the experience of individuals yet relatively limited.
As expected, the relationship between the perception of the prevalence of ‘right to make an error’ and trust in public institutions is somewhat ambiguous. At the country level, there is a positive correlation between the share who finds it likely that public employees act this way and trust in the national government and national civil service. This relationship is however stronger when it comes to trust in the national civil service (Figure 3.11, Panel B) than in the national government (Figure 3.11, Panel A). At the individual level, once controlling for the perceptions of other public governance drivers and the personal background characteristics as well as country fixed effects, people who find it likely that public employees grant a ‘right to error’ are however only marginally more likely to place trust in the national civil service. They are also marginally less likely to trust the national government than respondents with otherwise similar backgrounds and views are.
Note: The scatterplots present 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/national civil service?” on y-axis of chart A/B. The x-axis presents the share of “likely” responses (6-10 on the 0-10 scale) to the question “If you made an honest mistake when applying for public benefits or declaring your taxes, how likely do you think it is that public employees would help you correct the error, rather than penalise you?”.
Source: OECD Survey on Drivers of Trust in Public Institutions 2025.
The way in which people perceive public institutions’ competence in day-to-day interactions depends in large part on how responsive institutions are to complaints or innovative ideas. Perspectives on these and other dimensions of responsiveness are considerably less positive than views on the quality of essential services and the openness and fairness with which these can be accessed, and are only more positive than views on the integrity of government employees. However, they are on a slight upward trend.
Across the OECD, 42% find it likely that public services would improve if they complained (Figure 3.12). A similar share (41%) find it likely that innovative ideas which could improve services would be adopted. In Australia, Mexico and Switzerland, both shares exceed 50%; and in Brazil, both are above the OECD averages. More positive perceptions of responsiveness in day-to-day interactions are associated with modest increases, around 1–1.5 percentage points, in the likelihood of reporting high or moderately high trust in local government and the national civil service.
Adapting public services to changing societal needs is another key dimension of responsiveness that has day-to-day consequences, even if it requires quite long-term thinking. As will be seen in Chapter 4, four in ten people (40%) across OECD countries find it likely that public services would be adapted to changing needs of society (Figure 4.5 in Chapter 4). This share is similar in Romania. Use cases from across and beyond the OECD show that efforts to anticipate future needs through working with users and stakeholders is one of the main areas of innovations in public services (see Box 3.1).
Share of population who find it likely that public services improve in response to many complaints or that innovative ideas that could improve them are adopted, 2025
Note: The figure shows the average share of the population who respond that it is ‘likely’ (responses 6-10 on a 0-10 scale) to the questions “If many people complained about a public service that is working badly, how likely do you think it is that it would be improved?” and “If there was an innovative idea that could improve a public service, how likely do you think it is that it would be adopted by the responsible public institution?”. “OECD” presents the unweighted averages of the weighted OECD country averages.
Source: OECD Survey on Drivers of Trust in Public Institutions 2025.
Across the OECD, perceptions of public service responsiveness have modestly improved over time. Among countries that participated in all three waves of the OECD Trust Survey, the share who found it likely that institutions would be responsive to complaints or innovative ideas stayed relatively stable or slightly declined between 2021 and 2023. It has since increased by 2.8 percentage points with regards to listening to complaints; and 3.2 percentage points with regards to adopting innovative ideas. Improvements in the perceptions for both variables have been consistent in Australia, Finland and Mexico.5
Share of population who find it likely that innovative ideas that could improve them are adopted or that that public services improve in response to many complaints, OECD-19
Note: OECD-19 is the unweighted average of the weighted averages from the 19 countries with available data for all three survey waves. The figure shows the average distribution of responses to the questions “If many people complained about a public service that is working badly, how likely do you think it is that it would be improved?” and “If there was an innovative idea that could improve a public service, how likely do you think it is that it would be adopted by the responsible public institution?”. 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 “do not know” was a separate answer choice.
Source: OECD Survey on Drivers of Trust in Public Institutions 2021, 2023 and 2025.
The OECD Observatory of Public Sector Innovation, founded in 2011, works with governments, the private and non-profit sectors and academia to provide support and guidance on public sector innovation. Through its annual Calls for Government Innovation, it collects case studies on government innovation with a changing focus from year to year. In 2024, the Annual Call was dedicated to the topic of public services innovations. As such, it was the first step to create an evidence base on good practices related to the OECD Recommendation on Human-Centred Public Administrative Services (OECD, 2024[3]).
Based on the analysis of the nearly 800 use cases from 83 countries, the report identified five trends in public services innovation:
“Future-oriented and co-created public services: Governments are working with users and stakeholders to co-design solutions and anticipate future needs, creating public services that are flexible and responsive to change, and are therefore more resilient in the long term. (…)
Digital and innovative foundations for efficient public services: Governments are investing in scalable digital infrastructure, experimenting with emergent technologies (such as automation, AI and modular code), and expanding innovative and digital skills to make public services more efficient. (…)
Personalised and proactive public services for accessibility and inclusion: Governments are making public services more personalised and proactive to better meet people's needs and expectations, reduce psychological costs and administrative frictions, ensuring they are more accessible and empowering, especially for persons and groups in disadvantaged circumstances. (…)
Data-powered public services for better decision-making: Governments are drawing on traditional and non-traditional data sources to guide public service design and execution. They are increasingly using experimentation to navigate highly complex and unpredictable environments. (…)
Public services as opportunities for public participation: Governments are seeing public services as an opportunity to engage citizens in exercising their rights, building trust, and holding governments accountable for upholding democratic values including involving all groups of citizens. (…).”
Source: Based on OECD (2024[4]), Global Trends in Government Innovation 2024: Fostering Human-Centred Public Services, OECD Public Governance Reviews, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/c1bc19c3-en.
Continue to invest in the quality and coverage of essential public services. A majority of recent service users across the OECD are satisfied with the health and education systems; and the share who are satisfied with administrative services exceeds two thirds. In OECD accession candidate countries, satisfaction rates are somewhat lower, but they still exceed 50% for satisfaction with administrative services among recent users in almost all countries. Satisfaction with administrative services is an important driver of trust in all public institutions for which the link was investigated, but especially in the national civil service and local government. For a sub-set of OECD countries with available data from 2021 to 2025, satisfaction with these essential services has slightly improved relative to 2023. Continuing to adjust public services in a manner that centers users’ needs can help support this positive trend, especially as further technological changes will continue to increase expectations over time.
Focus on service access ease and speed across multiple access channels. The high satisfaction with administrative services is built on even higher satisfaction levels with individual service quality aspects. The pattern of which quality aspects is seen most positively differs from country to country. But overall, people tend to be more satisfied with the competence and courtesy of public employees they encounter, the clarity of information and the degree to which the service met their needs than they are with how quickly they could access the service, the ability to access the service in the preferred manner and, where applicable, the ease of using a digital service and the service fee they had to pay. An analysis linking overall satisfaction with satisfaction with individual service aspects suggests that focus efforts to increase the speed and ease of which the service can be accessed can be the most impactful levers for supporting service satisfaction. While digital services, whether or not they are supported by artificial intelligence, can be one instrument to improve perceptions of these quality aspects, it is also important to acknowledge that for many people it remains important to be able to access services through their preferred channel . People who feel able to do so are likewise more likely to be satisfied with administrative services.
Strengthen the role of government employees as public sector ambassadors. People across the OECD and OECD accession candidate countries have a positive perspective on the availability of information on administrative services, with the share who find it likely that they would be easily able to find it exceeding two thirds across the OECD and one half in several of the five participating OECD accession countries. A lower but still majority share in the case of the OECD find it likely that they would be treated fairly if they applied for government benefits or services. Positive perceptions on the accessibility of information and the fairness of treatment are moderately related to higher trust in the civil service and local government. Knowing that individuals who had a recent interaction with administrative services hold more positive views of all of these dimensions suggests that direct experiences with the public administration often exceed people’s expectations. Making public employees even more aware of their role as public sector ambassadors might support their perception as key actors in the efforts to build and maintain institutional trust. This is true both of public employees who enter into direct contact with the general public, as well as those who build the digital tools for the public service that individuals interact with.
Aim to improve perceptions of civil service integrity. The share of the population that finds it likely that a government employee would refuse money to speed up service access is equal to around one third in OECD and one quarter in the five participating OECD accession candidate countries. While these perceptions improve among individuals with recent contact with administrative services, through taking actions such as ensuring that public integrity frameworks are fully implemented (OECD, 2024[5]), countries can aim to improve not just the reality but also perceptions of public service integrity.
Build on improvements in perceived public services responsiveness. About four in ten people across the OECD and one third across the participating five OECD accession candidate countries find it likely that innovative ideas and complaints will be reflected in adjustments in public service delivery. These perceptions have slightly improved in a sub-set of the OECD countries with available data since 2021. An increasing share of people who are confident in these aspects may be reflective of government efforts to create more human-centred public services, suggesting that further investments in these areas can translate to further boost perceptions and contribute to strengthening trust in local government and the civil service.
References
[1] OECD (2025), More Effective Social Protection for Stronger Economic Growth: Main Findings from the 2024 OECD Risks that Matter Survey, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/3947946a-en.
[5] OECD (2024), Anti-Corruption and Integrity Outlook 2024, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/968587cd-en.
[4] OECD (2024), Global Trends in Government Innovation 2024: Fostering Human-Centred Public Services, OECD Public Governance Reviews, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/c1bc19c3-en.
[3] OECD (2024), “Recommendation of the Council on Human-Centred Public Administrative Services”, OECD Legal Instruments, OECD/LEGAL/0503, OECD, Paris, https://legalinstruments.oecd.org/en/instruments/OECD-LEGAL-0503.
[2] Service Public (2025), Qu’est-ce que le droit à l’erreur face à l’administration ?, https://www.service-public.gouv.fr/particuliers/vosdroits/F34677 (accessed on 21 February 2026).
← 1. The questions on satisfaction with the healthcare and education system and with administrative services were not asked in Mexico in 2021. Moreover, the question on satisfaction with administrative services was also not asked in Finland in 2021.
← 2. The question on whether someone has used an administrative service in the past year was not asked in 2021. For the comparisons in satisfaction rates across time, the sample is therefore not restricted to individuals who used a service in the past year.
← 3. Detailed information on the respective satisfaction levels by country can be found in the Stat.Link of Figure 3.5.
← 4. These statistics can be accessed at https://stat.link/81ervd.
← 5. The question on adopting innovative ideas was not asked in Mexico in 2021.