The level of trust in governments around the world varies from country to country. Interestingly, the more ************* countries have the highest levels of trust, which is most likely explained by an economic development in recent years and a lack of a critical press. On the bottom of the scale, Spain and Japan show ** and ** percent confidence, respectively. On average, the level of trust was just above ** percent in the 28 countries surveyed.

The Edelman trust index of 2025 shows a varied level of trust in the government, media, business, and non-governmental organizations (NGOs). China showed the highest average trust level at ** percent, followed by Indonesia at **. On the other hand, Japan had scores under ** percent.

According to a survey from 2021, ** percent of Australians were very or somewhat confident regarding their national government handling the coronavirus (COVID-19) effectively. That was an increase of ***** percentage points compared to the previous year. On the other hand, the other surveyed countries showed decreased trust in their national governments. Only ** percent of the Japanese respondents were confident that the government would deal with the virus effectively, compared to ** percent in *************.

Brazil Confidence in Government: Trust data was reported at 51.000 % in Mar 2019. This records an increase from the previous number of 7.000 % for Dec 2018. Brazil Confidence in Government: Trust data is updated quarterly, averaging 43.000 % from Dec 2010 (Median) to Mar 2019, with 34 observations. The data reached an all-time high of 75.000 % in Dec 2012 and a record low of 5.000 % in Sep 2018. Brazil Confidence in Government: Trust data remains active status in CEIC and is reported by National Confederation of Industry. The data is categorized under Brazil Premium Database’s Business and Economic Survey – Table BR.SM003: Confidence in Government.

According to a global survey on the trust level on various aspects, about 83 percent of the Chinese respondents trusted the government to do what is right in 2024, listed in the second place among 28 surveyed countries. The trust level has declined gradually since 2021, most probably due to the difficult economic situation in the country. On a global average level, about 52 percent of respondents showed trust in their government in 2024.

The data comes from the Harvard Dataverse and covers information regarding political trust & regime support in China and self-monitoring, which determines the participants' desire for social desirability. Authors Nicholson and Huang obtained the data via a standard survey experiment that contains an embedded list experiment. The list experiment aspect is significant because list experiments are an "indirect way to gauge overreporting" (Nicholson and Haung). The data have possibilities for helping understand Chinese politics, such as how support varies at different government levels and how overreporting is affected by a person's social desirability. This data can be used in government classes and coding classes. The data should be used when learning about ordered logit and simple bar graphs. A regression should not be used. It could be used to compare the levels of trust in different regime types. It would be interesting to compare the results of other authoritarian countries, such as Turkey and Vietnam, to the results of these datasets from China. Additionally, data from these countries could be compared to democracies. People underreport in authoritarian governments and might not always tell the truth, so there is a chance that authoritarian countries could have similar levels of reported trust to the democratic countries. This experiment is also a list experiment, which reduces some of the underreporting. The data can be used to see whether certain demographic characteristics have more or less support for their government. Examples of demographic characteristics that could be looked at are gender, age, and education level.

Since the end of World War II, the United States government has spent nearly $4 trillion on humanitarian, economic, and military assistance to other countries. Despite the benefits that foreign aid programs can yield to both donor and recipient countries, mass support for foreign aid spending has long been lacking. Here, I argue that trust in the national government, which is similarly lacking among the U.S. public, plays an important, and heretofore, underappreciated role in shaping public opinion toward foreign aid. Despite having little connection to domestic national politics and the mixed evidence, at best, from extant research regarding the potential for political trust to shape mass opinion on this issue, I find, using cross-sectional and panel survey data from the United States, a robust, positive, and substantively significant relationship between political trust and support for government spending on foreign aid. Overall, these findings help use to better understand the drivers of mass support for U.S. foreign aid spending and, more broadly touches on a debate regarding whether the United States should continue its long-standing role of global leadership or turn inwards. These findings also underscore the political consequences of citizen trust in government.

The level of trust regarding the Federal Government in Belgium was rather negative in the summer of 2022. During that time, almost 60 percent of the respondents in Belgium declared having the tendency not to trust the Belgian government. However, just over 40 percent of respondents stated to be trustful towards it, therefore giving a more nuanced picture of public trust in Belgium.

Belgium has known multiple periods with no official government

Belgium typically takes long to form a new government following an election. This is not surprising for the Belgian population as the country had no government for 194 days between 2007 and 2008 and also not for 541 days between 2010 and 2011. The country did not have a government in full function, although it had an executive who deals with current affairs. The country’s main divide has a regional background, Wallonia’s population being mostly socialists whereas Flanders tends towards nationalism. Since the 1st of October 2020, Alexander De Croo is the prime minister of Belgium.

Politic interest in Belgium

The political interest of Belgians was relatively moderate in 2022. According to a survey, the level of trust in political parties was also mostly low during that time. To emphasize this statement, Belgium had the highest share of untrusting respondents in the Benelux. The Belgian political landscape faced many obstacles and has yet to face some challenges to gain the trust of the Belgian population.

The Afrobarometer project assesses attitudes and public opinion toward democracy, markets, and civil society in several sub-Saharan African nations. This dataset was compiled from the studies in Round II of the Afrobarometer conducted from 2002-2004 in 16 countries including Botswana, Cape Verde, Kenya, Lesotho, Malawi, Mali, Mozambique, Namibia, Nigeria, Senegal, Tanzania, Uganda, Zambia, Zimbabwe, Ghana, and South Africa. Certain questions addressed country-specific issues, but many of the same questions were asked across surveys. Citizens of the 16 countries were asked their opinions about recent political and economic changes within their country. Respondents were asked about their current satisfaction with economic conditions in their country, how they currently obtained food to eat, what resources they relied on for safety, and how they obtained health care. They were also asked how often in the last 12 months they or their family had gone without food, felt unsafe in terms of crime, had gone without medicine, or had gone without shelter. Their opinions were elicited about who they felt was responsible for providing schools, creating jobs, building houses, and reducing crime. They were asked what came to mind with the word "democracy," as well as their support for democracy, whether they were satisfied with democracy, and whether they had to be careful about what they said. Respondents were also asked how often they got news from such sources as radio, television, or newspapers, and how closely they followed what was going on in government and public affairs. Other questions sought respondents' judgments on overall government performance and social service delivery. Respondents also were asked to evaluate of the trustworthiness of various institutions, who they trusted and to what extent they relied on informal networks and associations. Other questions sought each respondent's view of himself in relation to ethnic and class identities. Demographic information was elicited from respondents including age, language spoken, education, and employment status.

Brazil Confidence in Government: Don't Trust data was reported at 45.000 % in Mar 2019. This records a decrease from the previous number of 90.000 % for Dec 2018. Brazil Confidence in Government: Don't Trust data is updated quarterly, averaging 51.000 % from Dec 2010 (Median) to Mar 2019, with 34 observations. The data reached an all-time high of 92.000 % in Sep 2018 and a record low of 16.000 % in Dec 2010. Brazil Confidence in Government: Don't Trust data remains active status in CEIC and is reported by National Confederation of Industry. The data is categorized under Brazil Premium Database’s Business and Economic Survey – Table BR.SM003: Confidence in Government.

Across the EU, the least-trusted key institution in 2019 were political parties, with an only ** percent of respondents tending to trust the political parties in their country. There was significant variance by country in the level of trust though, with ** percent of Swedish respondents trusting their political parties, compared to only ***** percent of respondents from France and the United Kingdom.

The Afrobarometer project was designed to assess attitudes toward democracy, governance, economic reform, quality of life, and civil society in several Sub-Saharan African nations, and to track the evolution of such attitudes in those nations over time. This particular survey was concerned with the attitudes and opinions of the citizens of 20 countries: Benin, Botswana, Burkina Faso, Cape Verde, Ghana, Kenya, Lesotho, Liberia, Madagascar, Malawi, Mali, Mozambique, Namibia, Nigeria, Senegal, South Africa, Tanzania, Uganda, Zambia, and Zimbabwe. Respondents in a face-to-face interview were asked to rate their presidents and the presidents' administration's overall performance, to state the most important issues facing their nation, and to evaluate the effectiveness of certain continental and international institutions. Opinions were gathered on the role of the government in improving the economy, whether corruption existed in local and national government, whether government officials were responsive to problems of the general population, and whether local government officials, the police, the courts, the overall criminal justice system, the media, the National Electoral Commission, and the government broadcasting service could be trusted. Respondents were polled on their knowledge of the government, including the identification of government officials, their level of personal involvement in political, governmental, and community affairs, their participation in national elections, the inclusiveness of the government, and the identification of causes of conflict and resources which may aid in the resolution of conflict. Economic questions addressed the past, present, and future of the country's and the respondent's economic condition, and whether great income disparities were fair. Societal questions were asked of respondents concerning the meaning of being "poor" and "rich", monetary support systems, personal responsibility for success or failure, characteristics used in self-identification, methods for securing food, water, schooling, medical services, news and information, the ease of obtaining assistance for certain services, and whether problems existed with school and the local public clinic or hospital. Background variables include age, gender, ethnicity, education, religious affiliation and participation, political party affiliation, language spoken most at home, whether the respondent was the head of household, current and past employment status, whether a close friend or relative had died from AIDS, language used in interview, and type of physical disability, if any. In addition, demographic information pertaining to the interviewer is provided, as well as their response to the interview and their observations of the respondent's attitude during the interview and of the interview environment.

The Afrobarometer project was designed to assess attitudes toward democracy, governance, economic reform, quality of life, and civil society in several Sub-Saharan African nations, and to track the evolution of such attitudes in those nations over time. This particular survey was concerned with the attitudes and opinions of the citizens of 18 countries: Benin, Botswana, Cape Verde, Ghana, Lesotho, Madagascar, Malawi, Mali, Mozambique, Namibia, Nigeria, Senegal, South Africa, Tanzania, Uganda, Zambia, and Zimbabwe. Respondents in a face-to-face interview were asked to rate their presidents' and the presidents' administration's overall performance, to state the most important issues facing the nation, and to evaluate the effectiveness of certain continental and international institutions. Opinions were gathered on the role of the government in improving the economy, whether corruption existed in local and national government, whether government officials were responsive to problems of the general population, and whether local government officials, the police, the courts, the overall criminal justice system, the media, the National Electoral Commission, and the government broadcasting service could be trusted. Respondents were polled on their knowledge of the government, including the identification of government officials, their level of personal involvement in political, governmental, and community affairs, their participation in national elections, the inclusiveness of the government, and the identification of causes of conflict and resources which may aid in the resolution of conflict. Economic questions addressed the past, present, and future of the country's and the respondent's economic condition, and whether great income disparities were fair. Societal questions were asked of respondents concerning the meaning of being "poor" and "rich", monetary support systems, personal responsibility for success or failure, characteristics used in self-identification, methods for securing food, water, schooling, medical services, news and information, the ease of obtaining assistance for certain services, and whether problems existed with school and the local public clinic or hospital. Background variables include age, gender, ethnicity, education, religious affiliation and participation, political party affiliation, language spoken most at home, whether the respondent was the head of household, current and past employment status, whether a close friend or relative had died from AIDS, language used in interview, and type of physical disability, if any. In addition, demographic information pertaining to the interviewer is provided, as well as their response to the interview and observations of the respondent's attitude during the interview and of the interview environment.

In 2018, 74 percent of people in South America reported trust in medical advice from medical workers (doctors and nurses) in their respective countries, versus 66 percent who reported trust in government sources for the same advice. The statistic illustrates the percentage of people who report trust in medical and health advice from the government or doctors and nurses worldwide in 2018, by region.

According to a survey in July 2020, ** percent of respondents in the United States said they trust their state government over the federal government in Washington, D.C. to do what's best for the country.

The Afrobarometer project assesses attitudes toward democracy, markets, and society in several sub-Saharan African countries. This dataset was compiled from the studies in Round 1 of the Afrobarometer, conducted from 1999-2001 in 12 African countries. Certain questions addressed country-specific issues, but many questions were asked in every survey. Respondents were queried on the politics, educational standards, and economics of their respective countries. Specific questions addressed their satisfaction with the current form of government, the extent of the government's power, the names of government officials, their trust in political and governmental officials and institutions, and comparisons between the current government and the former government. Other relevant questions focused on the meaning of democracy and its applications, the development of the country, political corruption, and the rating of and satisfaction with the respective country's economy. Respondents were polled on a range of social and quality of life issues. They were asked with which groups they identified, the source or sources of their current event information and news, and the frequency of occasions they had gone without necessities like food, money, and shelter. Demographic variables include age, country, district, education, languages spoken, occupation, party affiliation, political party, urban versus rural living environment, primary language, and whether the respondent voted in prior elections.

This dataset represents a selection of indicators as presented in the 2025 edition of the Government at a Glance publication. Government at a Glance provides a dashboard of indicators assembled to help decision makers and the public analyse and benchmark governments across OECD members and partner countries. With a growing emphasis on governance outcomes, this ninth edition presents the latest evidence on public governance tools and resources that can help public administrations address complex, long-term challenges, while allowing progress to be monitored over time. The Structure and indicators section of the Government at a Glance publication, describes its framework and the structure by chapters. The 2025 edition of Government at a Glance presents a structure around three broad categories: 1) Trust, security and dignity; prosperity and satisfaction with public services; 2) Achieving results with good governance practices 3) What resources public institutions use and how are they managed. Further information on Government at a Glance 2025 edition via a dedicated web platform, which includes a Government at a Glance Data dashboard (for a selection of indicators in an interactive format) as well as Country fact sheets (key data by country), can be found at: Government at a Glance website

China Trust: Trust Asset: Trust-Government Cooperation data was reported at 1,134,009.727 RMB mn in Mar 2020. This records an increase from the previous number of 1,080,266.756 RMB mn for Dec 2019. China Trust: Trust Asset: Trust-Government Cooperation data is updated quarterly, averaging 1,102,373.033 RMB mn from Sep 2010 (Median) to Mar 2020, with 39 observations. The data reached an all-time high of 1,444,179.693 RMB mn in Mar 2016 and a record low of 251,029.640 RMB mn in Mar 2012. China Trust: Trust Asset: Trust-Government Cooperation data remains active status in CEIC and is reported by China Trustee Association. The data is categorized under China Premium Database’s Financial Market – Table CN.ZT: Trust Industry: Trust Asset.

This poll is part of a continuing series of monthly surveys that solicit public opinion on the presidency and on a range of other political and social issues. Respondents were asked to give their opinions of President George W. Bush and his handling of the presidency, foreign policy, the economy, and the campaign against terrorism. Views were elicited on the trustworthiness of the government and why respondents felt that way, whether the Bush administration had a clear plan for handling terrorism, whether the United States should attack another country (including Iraq) before it was attacked, whether the United States should attack another country (including Iraq) if the United States believed that it posed a nuclear threat, level of confidence in the United States government to protect its citizens from terrorist attacks, the likelihood of another terrorist attack in the next few months, and personal concern about local acts of terrorism. Respondents were also asked about their level of confidence in the ability of the United States to capture or kill Osama bin Laden, whether the United States could claim victory over terrorism if bin Laden was not captured or killed, and whether they believed bin Laden was still alive. Additional questions sought respondents' views on how well the war on terrorism was going, and how much progress the Bush administration had made in closing terrorist training camps in Afghanistan, in eliminating threats from terrorists from other countries, placing a stable government in Afghanistan, improving the image of the United States in the Arab world, developing a comprehensive plan for protecting the United States from terrorism, and improving air travel safety. Respondents were asked how concerned they were with losing civil liberties and if they agreed or disagreed that Americans would always have to live with terrorism. Regarding the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, respondents were asked how much they blamed the CIA, the FBI, United States policies in the Middle East, and security at United States airports. Respondents were asked how safe Americans felt from terrorist attacks, how safe they felt personally, how often they thought about and talked about September 11, whether the United States has done all it could to make the country safe, and whether the United States was prepared for biological and chemical attacks. With regard to Iraq, respondents were asked whether the Bush administration had clearly explained the possible attack on Iraq, whether they approved or disapproved of the United States taking military action, whether the United States should attack soon or give the United Nations more time, whether President Bush should receive Congressional approval before taking military action, whether they thought military action would take place, whether the removal of Saddam Hussein from power was worth the potential loss of American lives, whether military action should take place if it meant substantial military casualties or Iraqi civilian casualties, and whether respondents would favor military action if the war lasted for several months or years. Respondents were queried as to whether they believed that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction, and that Iraq was planning to use these weapons against the United States. In regard to the September 11 terrorist attacks, respondents were asked how afraid they were of flying, whether they had flown on a commercial airline since the attacks, how likely it was that Arab Americans, Muslims, and Middle Eastern immigrants would be singled out unfairly, whether Arab Americans were more sympathetic to terrorists than other Americans, whether respondents had a good or bad image of New York City, whether they had ever visited the World Trade Center, whether they attended religious services after the attacks and whetherthey continued to do so, how likely they were to watch the news since the attacks, how much time they spent with family, and how their lives and the country had changed as a result of the terrorist attacks. In addition, respondents were asked whether they had trouble sleeping, whether they felt nervous or edgy after the attacks, whether their children expressed concern over their safety and their family's safety, how often the respondents talked to their children about September 11, whether they knew s

This dataset represents a selection of indicators as presented in the 2023 edition of the Government at a Glance publication related to expenditures, investment and procurement spending disaggregated according to the Classification of the Functions of Government (COFOG) under the System of National Accounts (SNA). Government at a Glance provides a dashboard of indicators assembled to help decision makers and the public analyse and benchmark governments across OECD members and partner countries. This eighth edition provides internationally comparative data on a range of public governance, tools and practices to help identify both strengths and weaknesses in democratic governance. The Structure and indicators section of the Government at a Glance publication, describes its framework and the structure by chapters, as well as the changes compared to the previous 2021 edition.The 2023 edition presents a new structure around these three broad categories: 1) Trust and satisfaction with public services (trust in public institutions, satisfaction with public services); 2) Achieving results with good governance practices (governance of the policy cycle, regulatory governance, budgeting practices, managing public procurement, infrastructure planning and delivery, digital government and open government data); and 3) What resources public institutions use and how are they managed (public finance, public employment, managing human resources). Further information on Government at a Glance 2023 edition via a dedicated web platform, which includes a Government at a Glance Data dashboard (for a selection of indicators in an interactive format) as well as Country fact sheets (key data by country), can be found at: Government at a Glance website