What do you think?
Why People Don’t Trust Government
Confidence in American government has been declining for three decades. Three-quarters of Americans said they trusted the Federal government to do the right thing in 1964. Today, only a quarter do. Why the decline? Is this mistrust a healthy reflection of America's long-lasting skepticism of a strong state? Is mistrust a problem for the future of governance?
Bringing together essays by leading Harvard scholars, this book explores the roots of mistrust. It first examines government's current scope, its actual performance, and citizens' perceptions of its performance. It then assesses many possible explanations that have been offered for the decline of trust, including the end of the Cold War, elevated expectations following World War II, a weakened economy, the effects of globalization, resentment over political scandals, and incompetence of bureaucrats. The book clarifies thinking about the sources of public disaffection.
Mistrust, the contributors find, is largely unrelated to national economic conditions, to challenges of a global economy, to the Cold War, or to bumbling bureaucrats and venal politicians. Rather, they show that the most likely culprits are all around us―an interacting blend of cultural and political conflicts stirred by an increasingly corrosive news media.
Bringing together essays by leading Harvard scholars, this book explores the roots of mistrust. It first examines government's current scope, its actual performance, and citizens' perceptions of its performance. It then assesses many possible explanations that have been offered for the decline of trust, including the end of the Cold War, elevated expectations following World War II, a weakened economy, the effects of globalization, resentment over political scandals, and incompetence of bureaucrats. The book clarifies thinking about the sources of public disaffection.
Mistrust, the contributors find, is largely unrelated to national economic conditions, to challenges of a global economy, to the Cold War, or to bumbling bureaucrats and venal politicians. Rather, they show that the most likely culprits are all around us―an interacting blend of cultural and political conflicts stirred by an increasingly corrosive news media.
352 pages, Paperback
First published October 1, 1997
About the author
Joseph S. Nye Jr.
77 books302 followersJoseph Samuel Nye Jr. was an American political scientist. He and Robert Keohane co-founded the international relations theory of neoliberalism, which they developed in their 1977 book Power and Interdependence. Together with Keohane, he developed the concepts of asymmetrical and complex interdependence. They also explored transnational relations and world politics in an edited volume in the 1970s. More recently, he pioneered the theory of soft power. His notion of "smart power" ("the ability to combine hard and soft power into a successful strategy") became popular with the use of this phrase by members of the Clinton Administration and the Obama Administration. These theories from Nye are very commonly seen in courses across the U.S., such as I.B. D.P. Global Politics.
Nye was the Dean of the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University, where he later held the position of University Distinguished Service Professor, Emeritus. In October 2014, Secretary of State John Kerry appointed Nye to the Foreign Affairs Policy Board. He was also a member of the Defense Policy Board. He was a Harvard faculty member since 1964. He was a fellow of the American Academy of Arts & Sciences, a foreign fellow of the British Academy, and a member of the American Academy of Diplomacy.
The 2011 Teaching, Research, and International Policy (TRIP) survey of over 1,700 international relations scholars ranked Nye as the sixth most influential scholar in the field of international relations in the past 20 years. He was also ranked as one of the most influential figures in American foreign policy. In 2011, Foreign Policy magazine included him on its list of top global thinkers. In September 2014, Foreign Policy reported that international relations scholars and policymakers ranked Nye as one of the field's most influential scholars.
Nye was the Dean of the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University, where he later held the position of University Distinguished Service Professor, Emeritus. In October 2014, Secretary of State John Kerry appointed Nye to the Foreign Affairs Policy Board. He was also a member of the Defense Policy Board. He was a Harvard faculty member since 1964. He was a fellow of the American Academy of Arts & Sciences, a foreign fellow of the British Academy, and a member of the American Academy of Diplomacy.
The 2011 Teaching, Research, and International Policy (TRIP) survey of over 1,700 international relations scholars ranked Nye as the sixth most influential scholar in the field of international relations in the past 20 years. He was also ranked as one of the most influential figures in American foreign policy. In 2011, Foreign Policy magazine included him on its list of top global thinkers. In September 2014, Foreign Policy reported that international relations scholars and policymakers ranked Nye as one of the field's most influential scholars.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews
October 14, 2024
The more things change, the more they stay the same -- We still don't trust government today
The book was published in 1997. However, it is still worthy of your time today. The issue dissected in the book -- the declining trust in US government, is very much alive today in 2016. The rise of Trump in US political arena is partly accredited to, or even enhances the sentiment of an incompetent and corrupted Washington establishment. According to a recent poll from PEW research center, the trust in government remains low in 21st century despite a temporary spike after 9/11.
The focus of the book is the causes of the declining trust. As a collection of multiple essays from different authors, the book often illustrates the same cause from different angles. For example, certain social and cultural causes given in chapter 5, such as divergent opinions on abortion and homosexuality overlaps with the same cause from polarization angle in chapter 6. Nevertheless, readers can find a comprehensive list of causes to the mistrust of the US government, including post-materialist value and lack of trust in authority in general, higher and unrealistic expectation for government (which leads to government overload), partisan polarization, mediocre economic performance and rising inequality, the image problem of government officials due to over exposure in media and certain historical events such as Watergate, and etc... A good summary can be found in chapter three.
Among all the causes cited, I found two of them particularly interesting. The first one is the economic causes, chapter 4 is dedicated to the exploration of connection between economic performance and the low trust in government. The author of the chapter cautioned not to extrapolate too much from seemingly correlation between slow economic growth, as well as rising inequality and mistrust in government. His point was vindicated as rapid economic growth in 90s didn't mitigate the decline in the trust of government.
Second one is the concept of post-materialist value and how it contributes to the mistrust in government. One related concept is authoritarian reflex. Basically, it argues that when citizens face existential threat, such as in the war or deep economic crisis, they tend to defer to authoritarian political leaders for guidance, thus have high loyalty or trust to the authority. However, as the peace became norm post-WWII, such reflex is replaced by post-materialist value. Therefore, we witness the decline in the trust of governments globally, as well as other authorities, such as media, university.
Other causes, especially polarization, are probably stronger in their explanatory power. They are also more relevant to today's political environment. Plenty of other books and studies have explored those causes, so I won't elaborate in this review.
Overall, the book remains valuable source to understand political background of today's America.
The book was published in 1997. However, it is still worthy of your time today. The issue dissected in the book -- the declining trust in US government, is very much alive today in 2016. The rise of Trump in US political arena is partly accredited to, or even enhances the sentiment of an incompetent and corrupted Washington establishment. According to a recent poll from PEW research center, the trust in government remains low in 21st century despite a temporary spike after 9/11.
The focus of the book is the causes of the declining trust. As a collection of multiple essays from different authors, the book often illustrates the same cause from different angles. For example, certain social and cultural causes given in chapter 5, such as divergent opinions on abortion and homosexuality overlaps with the same cause from polarization angle in chapter 6. Nevertheless, readers can find a comprehensive list of causes to the mistrust of the US government, including post-materialist value and lack of trust in authority in general, higher and unrealistic expectation for government (which leads to government overload), partisan polarization, mediocre economic performance and rising inequality, the image problem of government officials due to over exposure in media and certain historical events such as Watergate, and etc... A good summary can be found in chapter three.
Among all the causes cited, I found two of them particularly interesting. The first one is the economic causes, chapter 4 is dedicated to the exploration of connection between economic performance and the low trust in government. The author of the chapter cautioned not to extrapolate too much from seemingly correlation between slow economic growth, as well as rising inequality and mistrust in government. His point was vindicated as rapid economic growth in 90s didn't mitigate the decline in the trust of government.
Second one is the concept of post-materialist value and how it contributes to the mistrust in government. One related concept is authoritarian reflex. Basically, it argues that when citizens face existential threat, such as in the war or deep economic crisis, they tend to defer to authoritarian political leaders for guidance, thus have high loyalty or trust to the authority. However, as the peace became norm post-WWII, such reflex is replaced by post-materialist value. Therefore, we witness the decline in the trust of governments globally, as well as other authorities, such as media, university.
Other causes, especially polarization, are probably stronger in their explanatory power. They are also more relevant to today's political environment. Plenty of other books and studies have explored those causes, so I won't elaborate in this review.
Overall, the book remains valuable source to understand political background of today's America.
February 18, 2026
There is a growing distrust in government and politics in the West, since the 1960s. Why People… was published in 1997, an anthology reuniting luminaries of social studies like Ernst May, Joseph S. Nye, or Ronald Inglehart. The authors also showed that the decrease of confidence is a general trend, affecting not only the public institutions, and is not limited to the United States affecting all modern democracies. The trend is well alive today so this book is recommended to anyone interested in contemporary politics.
The anthology is based on work at the Kennedy School of Government from Harvard. The main conclusion is that there is more disagreement than common ground in the study of political distrust and its effects, even when researchers accept the basic facts. The latter is by no means at all guaranteed, since there are debates about data collections and trend`s duration or intensity. In this review, I will focus on two types of explanations, from Why People….
The first class is about the government. A common perspective evoked in Why People… is that state`s institutions performance disappointed the society and this led to distrust. Another is that, besides the questions of efficiency and effectiveness, the public domain has grown which increased the skepticism of the citizens. Derek Bok argued that the performance of the government has improved, though less than in other advanced democracies.
The second type is about expectations. Here, there are also two sides: either the society hopes for much more than it was possible, or that the social representations have changed and the people want different things. In Why People… the chapter of Ronald Inglehart shows that performance is not a sufficient explanation, and that the values, and aspirations have changed from welfare to postmaterialistic goals like environment or self-realization. Paradoxically, products of economic security, these aims are difficult to achieve by any government.
Why People… illustrates several faces of distrust, from perceptions to large socio-economic trends, such as the changing role and conditions of the family. The contrast between elite and the public is also emphasized, as it is the media and we are left wondering whether the ideal of public trust isn`t obsolete in our times. The lack of a clear framework is this book main`s fault. This problem seems to result from the complexity of the issue, not from the worth of the authors.
The anthology is based on work at the Kennedy School of Government from Harvard. The main conclusion is that there is more disagreement than common ground in the study of political distrust and its effects, even when researchers accept the basic facts. The latter is by no means at all guaranteed, since there are debates about data collections and trend`s duration or intensity. In this review, I will focus on two types of explanations, from Why People….
The first class is about the government. A common perspective evoked in Why People… is that state`s institutions performance disappointed the society and this led to distrust. Another is that, besides the questions of efficiency and effectiveness, the public domain has grown which increased the skepticism of the citizens. Derek Bok argued that the performance of the government has improved, though less than in other advanced democracies.
The second type is about expectations. Here, there are also two sides: either the society hopes for much more than it was possible, or that the social representations have changed and the people want different things. In Why People… the chapter of Ronald Inglehart shows that performance is not a sufficient explanation, and that the values, and aspirations have changed from welfare to postmaterialistic goals like environment or self-realization. Paradoxically, products of economic security, these aims are difficult to achieve by any government.
Why People… illustrates several faces of distrust, from perceptions to large socio-economic trends, such as the changing role and conditions of the family. The contrast between elite and the public is also emphasized, as it is the media and we are left wondering whether the ideal of public trust isn`t obsolete in our times. The lack of a clear framework is this book main`s fault. This problem seems to result from the complexity of the issue, not from the worth of the authors.
June 7, 2025
this about says it all
"Mistrust, the contributors find, is largely unrelated to national economic conditions, to challenges of a global economy, to the Cold War, or to bumbling bureaucrats and venal politicians. Rather, they show that the most likely culprits are all around us, an interacting blend of cultural and political conflicts stirred by an increasingly corrosive news media."
Damn you Walter Cronkite, you messed up the future of the Tet Offensive!
Mind you, Samuel Huntington over Joseph Nye, any day of the week....
"Mistrust, the contributors find, is largely unrelated to national economic conditions, to challenges of a global economy, to the Cold War, or to bumbling bureaucrats and venal politicians. Rather, they show that the most likely culprits are all around us, an interacting blend of cultural and political conflicts stirred by an increasingly corrosive news media."
Damn you Walter Cronkite, you messed up the future of the Tet Offensive!
Mind you, Samuel Huntington over Joseph Nye, any day of the week....
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews