Information Integrity and Public Trust
The Global Risks Forum (GRF)
Trust in governments, courts, science and media lets institutions act with consent and lets people rely on information they cannot check themselves. Trust rises and falls with performance, fairness, openness and the experience of being heard. This page sets out how institutional trust is built and lost, the surveys and records that measure it, and the institutions whose decisions shape it.
GRF · In development · service level R0
Institutional trust is the confidence people place in governments, courts, science and media to act competently and fairly. It rises and falls with performance, fairness, openness and voice, and increasingly divides along political lines. Heads of institutions, legislatures and media organizations shape it through their decisions.
For institutional trust, in GRF's situational-awareness reading, the map opens on population density and night lights with built-up and settlement extent from NASA GIBS, framed on Eastern Europe; 4 further NASA layers wait in the list.
The interactive map needs JavaScript; the layer list and sources are below.
Layers 2
People and hazards, for this page
Keyboard, with the map focused
Hold Ctrl or ⌘ and scroll to zoom
Latest available
NASA GIBS / EOSDIS · ASTER GDEM (METI, NASA) · Blue Marble (NASA) · © OpenStreetMap contributors (ODbL) · Natural Earth
Loading the latest NASA imagery.
Drag to move. Ctrl or ⌘ and scroll, pinch or the buttons to zoom; hover for the values under the pointer; reset returns to the region.
For institutional trust, in GRF's situational-awareness reading, the map opens on population density and night lights with built-up and settlement extent from NASA GIBS, framed on Eastern Europe; 4 further NASA layers wait in the list.Satellite and model products as NASA publishes them, each with its own date; indicators, not assessments of any place; claim ceiling INTEGRATED.
Layers and dates
The working screen behind this subject: its structure, terms and states. Names are placeholders and values illustrative.
Institutional trust · Crisis information cell · Week 24
| Tap water poisoned after flood | 92 | High | False | Correction out |
| Shelters charging fees | 31 | Medium | False | Drafting |
| Dam about to fail | 41 | High | Checking | Holding line |
| Aid only for registered voters | 43 | Medium | False | Prebunked |
Evidence, transparency and public confidence. The dossier below sets out how the risk develops, what is measured, where the data come from, how it is modelled and who decides.
People judge institutions on whether they deliver and whether they treat people fairly. Experiences of unfair treatment reduce trust more than general dissatisfaction with outcomes.
Publishing decisions, data and reasons lets people see how institutions work. Secrecy and unexplained reversals invite suspicion even when decisions are sound.
Trust increasingly follows political identity. An institution trusted by one group can be distrusted by another, which makes any message from it divisive.
Scandals and failures cut trust quickly; recovery takes sustained change. Corrections and accountability help only when they are visible and credible.
Each term as this page uses it. Where a standard-setting body defines the term, the wording follows that body.
| Term | Definition |
|---|---|
| Warranted trust | Trust that matches an institution's actual reliability, as distinct from blind trust or unjustified distrust. |
| Procedural fairness | The perception that decisions are made through fair, transparent and respectful processes. |
| Affective polarisation | Dislike and distrust of people and institutions associated with opposing political groups. |
Each indicator carries its unit, its cadence, the kind of source behind it and the evidence label a value would carry. No values are shown: a programme supplies them under its own authority.
| Indicator | Unit | Cadence | Source type | Label |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Trust in national government | share of respondents with high or moderately high trust | biennial | OECD Trust Survey | ESTIMATED |
| Confidence in the judiciary | share of respondents | periodic | World Values Survey and Gallup World Poll | ESTIMATED |
| Trust in scientists | share of respondents | periodic | Wellcome Global Monitor | ESTIMATED |
| Trust in news | share of respondents who trust most news most of the time | annual | Digital News Report | ESTIMATED |
| Perceived fairness of public services | share of respondents | biennial | OECD Trust Survey | ESTIMATED |
| Open government data availability | score | biennial | OECD OURdata Index | ESTIMATED |
The topic as a computational graph: named sources feed the methods, an evidence review gates the outputs, and the decisions stay with the authorities that hold them.
Fig. 02Nodes carry their type, two metric rows and a state; connectors show what feeds what; dashed frames name the owners; the timeline is the cadence. Design of the pipeline, not a record of a run.
Named public datasets and institutional records, each with its licence class. Sources by agreement are used only under their terms and never republished.
| Source | What it gives | Licence class |
|---|---|---|
| OECD Trust Survey | Trust in public institutions and its drivers across member countries | Free, OECD terms |
| World Values Survey | Values and confidence in institutions across countries and waves | Free for non-commercial use, terms to check |
| Wellcome Global Monitor | Trust in science and health | Free to read, terms to check |
| Reuters Institute Digital News Report | Trust in news and outlets | Free to read, terms to check |
| V-Dem dataset | Indicators of democracy, media freedom and accountability | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Information Integrity and Public Trust prepares evidence. The decisions below are taken by the authorities named, under their own rules, and never by the platform.
| Who decides | The question | Evidence this page serves |
|---|---|---|
| Heads of public institutions | How to publish decisions, data and reasons | Evidence on drivers of trust and comparable practice |
| Public service leaders | How to improve fairness in service delivery | Survey evidence on fairness and trust |
| Legislatures | What transparency and accountability duties apply to institutions | Comparative open government frameworks |
| Media organizations | How to show their methods and corrections | Trust research and professional standards |
Trust researchers ask what makes institutions trustworthy and how people judge them.
Research distinguishes trust, a belief held by the public, from trustworthiness, a property of institutions. People tend to judge institutions on competence, integrity and benevolence, and on whether they are treated fairly. Personal and community experience, such as encounters with police, health services or welfare offices, strongly shapes trust, and historic mistreatment of particular groups can create well-founded distrust.
Transparency can build trust when it reveals competent, fair processes and honest acknowledgement of uncertainty. It can reduce trust when it exposes failures without accountability. Trust lost through scandal or broken promises recovers slowly. The aim for institutions is not to maximise trust uncritically but to deserve it and to make that visible.
Measuring trust over time and across groups with social and behavioural science. Survey questions capture general attitudes, not specific judgements.
Testing how transparency or communication affect trust. Effects in experiments may not persist.
Linking institutional features to trust across countries. Causation is hard to establish.
Understanding how people experience institutions. Findings are rich but not generalisable alone.
The current service level is R0: information and enquiries. An enquiry receives a reference and names the next step; applications, payments, compute allocations and registrations open only when their team, terms and review capacity exist.