Development Administration and Its Difference from Development Management

1. Meaning of Development Administration

Development administration is that part of public administration which is concerned with carrying out planned change and achieving socio-economic development goals in a country. It refers to the machinery, processes, and programmes through which a government deliberately directs its administrative system toward nation-building, economic growth, and social transformation.

The term came into wide use after the Second World War, when newly independent and developing countries needed to rapidly change their economies and societies. It was popularized by scholars such as Edward Weidner, Fred Riggs, and George Gant.

Weidner defined development administration as "the process of guiding an organization toward the achievement of progressive political, economic and social objectives that are authoritatively determined in one manner or another."

Key Features

1. Change-oriented — it aims at planned, deliberate change, not routine maintenance of the status quo.
2. Goal-oriented — it pursues specific development goals such as growth, employment, poverty reduction, and social justice.
3. Action-oriented — it emphasizes implementation and results rather than mere policy formulation.
4. Time-bound — development plans are set within fixed plan periods (e.g., five-year plans).
5. Innovative and flexible — it encourages new methods, technology, and adaptive structures.
6. People-centred — it seeks to involve citizens and benefit the disadvantaged sections of society.
7. Interdisciplinary — it draws on economics, sociology, political science, and management.

In the Nepali context, development administration is seen in the work of the National Planning Commission, ministries, provincial and local governments, and projects such as rural roads, irrigation, health, and education programmes under periodic plans.

2. Difference between Development Administration and Development Management

Although the two terms are often used interchangeably, they differ in scope, focus, and orientation. Development administration is the broader, macro-level concept dealing with the whole administrative system and its role in national development. Development management is the narrower, micro-level concept dealing with the management of specific development programmes, projects, and organizations to produce results.

3. Discussion

The relationship between the two is complementary rather than conflicting. Development administration provides the policy framework, institutional structure, and legal authority within which development work takes place. Development management supplies the managerial skill, planning techniques, and operational efficiency needed to convert that framework into actual results.

In practice, a developing country like Nepal needs both. Good plans and policies (development administration) fail without capable managers to implement them (development management). Similarly, efficient project managers cannot succeed for long within a weak, corrupt, or poorly structured administrative system.

Thus, development administration is the umbrella concept — the study of how the state organizes itself for development — while development management is the applied, operational concept — the study of how development interventions are actually managed to achieve their objectives. The former is about what and why to develop; the latter is about how to develop effectively.

Development approaches differ mainly in where the initiative, resources and knowledge come from. For a developing country like Nepal, the endogenous approach, supported by selective external inputs, is the more suitable one.

Meaning of the two approaches

Why the endogenous approach suits Nepal

1. Aid dependence and sustainability. Many donor-led projects in Nepal have stalled after the project period ended because local institutions did not own them. Endogenous development builds that ownership.
2. Diverse geography and society. Mountain, hill and Tarai regions, and many castes, ethnic groups and languages, need locally designed solutions. A single imported blueprint fits poorly.
3. Under-used domestic resources. Nepal has hydropower, water, forests, herbs, tourism, agriculture and a young labour force. Using these builds self-reliance. Remittance and labour migration show that human resources are currently being exported.
4. Participation and federalism. The Constitution of Nepal 2015 gives local governments real powers. Bottom-up planning, community forest user groups, cooperatives and local-level planning have shown good results.
5. Fit with national goals. Self-reliant, inclusive growth is consistent with the periodic plans and with reducing the trade deficit and foreign dependence.

Role of the exogenous approach. Nepal has a low saving rate, a shortage of capital for large projects, and limited modern technology. Foreign grants, loans, technology transfer and FDI therefore remain necessary, for example in hydropower and airports. They should supplement the domestic effort, not replace it, and should follow national priorities.

Conclusion. The endogenous, participatory approach is more suitable for Nepal because it gives ownership, sustainability and cultural fit, and it makes use of local resources. External help should be used selectively to fill gaps in capital and technology, within a nationally led strategy.

Institution-Building as a Precondition for Development

Development is not merely the growth of output; it is sustained improvement in the well-being of people. Such improvement becomes possible only when there are stable, predictable and capable institutions to organise collective action. This is why institution-building is regarded as a precondition — not a supplement — to development. The argument can be explained with reference to the concept of institution-building itself.

1. Meaning of institution-building. Institutions are the formal and informal rules, organisations and norms that structure human interaction — constitutions, laws, property rights, courts, bureaucracies, banks, local bodies and even conventions of trust. Institution-building is the deliberate process of creating, strengthening and adapting these rules and organisations so that they can perform their functions effectively over time. It includes legal reform, capacity development of public agencies, establishment of accountability mechanisms and the cultivation of norms of honesty and public service.

2. Institutions reduce uncertainty and transaction costs. Development requires investment, exchange and long-term commitment. Investors — domestic and foreign — will commit resources only if property rights are secure, contracts are enforceable and the rules of the game do not change arbitrarily. Where institutions are weak, transaction costs rise, markets thin out and capital flees. Institution-building therefore creates the predictability on which all economic activity depends. Douglass North's central insight is precisely this: institutions are the underlying determinant of the long-run performance of economies.

3. Institutions enable collective action and public goods. Roads, schools, health posts, irrigation, law and order and macroeconomic stability are public goods that markets alone under-provide. Their provision requires capable state and local institutions that can mobilise revenue, plan, implement and monitor. Without such capacity, development plans remain on paper. Nepal's chronic gap between plan allocation and capital expenditure is a direct illustration of weak institutional capacity.

4. Institutions determine the quality of governance and the use of resources. Development depends on how efficiently and honestly resources are converted into outcomes. Strong institutions of audit, procurement, judicial review and legislative oversight curb corruption and leakage. Where these are absent, public money is diverted, cost overruns become normal and the poor are deprived of services. Institution-building thus protects the development dividend.

5. Institutions enable inclusive and equitable growth. Growth that excludes large sections of society is neither sustainable nor genuinely developmental. Institutions such as land reform laws, affirmative-action provisions, labour standards, social security and accessible justice give the poor and marginalised groups a stake in the process. Nepal's federal restructuring — constitution, three tiers of government, constitutional commissions — is itself an exercise in institution-building aimed at bringing the state closer to citizens and correcting historical exclusion.

6. Institutions build trust and social capital. Development is a cooperative venture. Where institutions are seen as fair and impartial, citizens are willing to pay taxes, obey rules and participate in public programmes. Trust lowers the cost of governing and raises compliance. Conversely, where institutions are captured by elites, the social contract erodes and even well-funded projects fail.

7. Institutions are the vehicle of structural transformation. Moving from an agrarian to an industrial and service economy requires finance, infrastructure, skills and regulation — all institutional products. A functioning central bank, a credible securities board, a competition authority, a bankruptcy law and a social security system are not luxuries of rich countries; they are the scaffolding on which structural change is built. Nepal's difficulty in attracting productive investment, despite liberal policy, is largely an institutional, not a policy, deficit.

8. Institutions make development sustainable and self-reliant. Externally funded projects can deliver short-term results, but they end when the funding ends. Only domestic institutions — capable ministries, local governments, universities, cooperatives and firms — can sustain and reproduce development gains. Institution-building is thus what converts aid dependence into self-reliant growth.

9. The counter-argument and its answer. It is sometimes argued that growth comes first and institutions follow. Historical experience shows the opposite in most cases: countries that grew durably — from Western Europe to East Asia — did so on the foundation of secure property rights, capable bureaucracies and rule-bound states. Where growth preceded institutions without building them, as in some resource-rich economies, it produced rent-seeking and stagnation rather than development. This is the "resource curse," which is at bottom an institutional failure.

Conclusion. Development is a process of continuous institutional adaptation. Institutions define incentives, allocate resources, deliver services, resolve conflicts and legitimise the political order. Without institution-building, growth may occur but development will not; and even growth will be fragile, unequal and short-lived. Institution-building is therefore not one ingredient among many — it is the precondition that makes all other ingredients work. For Nepal, this means prioritising the strengthening of federal, provincial and local institutions, the civil service, the judiciary and accountability bodies as the core of the development agenda.

Weberian Bureaucratic Model as an Ideal Type — 5 marks

Max Weber (1864–1920) developed the bureaucratic model as an "ideal type" — a logically constructed, pure standard against which real organisations can be measured. It is regarded as ideal not because it is morally the best, but because it represents the most rational-legal and technically efficient form of organisation. Its main features and the reasons for its ideal status are:

1. Rational-legal authority: Authority rests on rules and law, not on the person of the ruler. Obedience is owed to the impersonal order, which makes administration predictable and free from favouritism.

2. Hierarchy of authority: A clearly graded chain of command from top to bottom ensures unity of command, clear lines of responsibility and orderly supervision.

3. Division of labour: Work is divided into specialised tasks assigned to trained officials. Specialisation raises skill, speed and efficiency.

4. Impersonal rules and regulations: Written rules govern all decisions and actions. This brings uniformity, continuity and equality of treatment to all clients.

5. Impersonality and rationality in relations: Officials deal with cases according to rules, without personal likes, dislikes or emotional bias. This eliminates nepotism and arbitrariness.

6. Merit-based recruitment and career: Selection and promotion are based on qualification, examination and seniority, not on ascription or kinship. This ensures competence and neutrality.

7. Written records and official files: All transactions are recorded in writing. This provides continuity, accountability and institutional memory even when officials change.

8. Full-time salaried officials: Officials are paid fixed salaries, enjoy security of tenure and are accountable for their official acts. This makes the office a career and reduces corruption.

Conclusion: Because of these features, the Weberian model is the most stable, predictable, impartial and efficient instrument of large-scale administration, and it therefore serves as the ideal standard for modern public administration. Its limitations — rigidity, red tape, goal displacement and neglect of human relations — are pointed out by later critics, but even today it remains the benchmark of bureaucratic organisation.

Comparative Public Administration (CPA) and the Development of Administrative Reform Strategies

1. Meaning of CPA. Comparative Public Administration is the branch of Public Administration that studies and compares the administrative systems, structures and practices of two or more countries (or of the same country over time) in order to discover similarities, differences and general patterns. Its main tools are cross-national comparison, the ecological approach (riggs), the structural-functional approach and the bureaucratic/ideal-type models.

2. How CPA helps in developing reform strategies.

• Provides a comparative diagnosis. By comparing its own administrative system with those of other countries, a nation can identify its weaknesses, gaps and deviations (e.g. over-centralisation, red tape, corruption) and thereby define the exact problem that reform must address.
• Supplies a repertoire of alternative models. CPA presents tested reform experiences of other countries — New Public Management (UK, New Zealand), e-governance (Estonia, South Korea), citizen charters (India), performance budgeting, decentralisation (Indonesia, Philippines). The reformer can select, adapt or combine these options instead of inventing everything afresh.
• Explains the ecology of reform. Riggs' ecological approach shows that administrative practices are shaped by a country's social, economic, political and cultural environment. CPA therefore warns against blind copying and helps design strategies that fit local conditions (prismatic society, "formalism", "sala" model).
• Identifies success and failure factors. Through comparison, CPA isolates the conditions under which reforms succeed — political commitment, leadership, resources, bureaucratic capacity, stakeholder support — and the reasons why reforms fail elsewhere. This reduces the risk of repeating others' mistakes.
• Supports policy learning and lesson-drawing. CPA institutionalises lesson-drawing: countries learn from "best practices", benchmarks and peer reviews (e.g. OECD, Commonwealth Association for Public Administration and Management), which directly feed into reform blueprints.
• Aids in setting standards and indicators. Comparative data on civil service size, pay, training, service delivery time and corruption indices (Transparency International, World Bank Governance Indicators) give measurable benchmarks against which reform targets and monitoring indicators can be set.
• Builds administrative capacity and theory. By developing middle-range theories and typologies (e.g. Riggs' fused–prismatic–diffracted), CPA supplies the conceptual tools for training reformers and for anticipating the consequences of a proposed reform.

3. Limitations to note. Cultural specificity, differing levels of development, unreliable data and the risk of ethnocentric bias mean CPA findings must be used critically, not mechanically.

Conclusion. CPA does not itself implement reform, but it is an indispensable diagnostic and design instrument. It tells a reformer where the system stands, what options exist, which conditions make them work and how to measure results — thus converting administrative reform from guesswork into an informed, evidence-based strategy.

Prismatic-Sala Model and the Nature of Nepalese Bureaucracy

Yes, the Prismatic-Sala Model developed by Fred W. Riggs does largely explain the nature of Nepalese bureaucracy. Riggs used the metaphor of a "prism" to describe transitional societies that are neither fully traditional (fused) nor fully modern (diffracted), but lie in between — in a "prismatic" stage. Nepal, as a developing country passing through this transition, exhibits most of the features Riggs identified. The model explains the nature of Nepalese bureaucracy in the following ways:

1. Heterogeneity (Mix of Old and New) Nepalese bureaucracy shows a coexistence of traditional and modern elements. On one hand there are modern structures — ministries, constitutional bodies, e-governance, digital service delivery; on the other hand, traditional practices such as favouritism, nepotism, caste and kinship ties, and personal loyalty to political masters still prevail. A citizen may file an application online yet still need a "source" (connection) to get the work done.

2. Formalism (Gap between Form and Reality) Riggs held that in prismatic societies there is a wide gap between what is formally prescribed and what actually happens. In Nepal, laws, rules, and procedures are elaborate and modern on paper, but their implementation is weak. For example, the Civil Service Act prescribes merit-based recruitment, yet political interference, irregularities in Public Service Commission examinations, and transfers based on political affiliation are common. Rules exist more in form than in practice.

3. Overlapping (Fused and Diffused Structures) In Nepal, the roles of bureaucracy, politics, and other social institutions overlap. Bureaucrats are expected to be politically neutral, but in practice they are drawn into party politics. Likewise, the same official may perform administrative, political, and even judicial functions at the local level. The distinction between "office" and "person" is blurred — the person's identity (party, caste, region) often matters more than the office held.

4. The "Sala" Feature (Office as Arena of Personal and Clientelistic Dealing) In Riggs' model, the sala (from the Spanish word for an office or hall) is the administrative office of a prismatic society. Unlike the impersonal office of a diffracted society, the sala works under the pressure of the surrounding "bazaar-canteen" market, where prices are bargained and favours are exchanged. Official work is therefore mixed with personal bargaining. In Nepal, recruitment, promotion, transfer and even routine service delivery are frequently influenced by family ties, party links, "source-force" and payments, rather than by merit and rules.

5. Poly-communalism and Nepotism Riggs noted that prismatic societies contain many communal groups (caste, ethnic, regional, kin) with their own loyalties. Nepalese officials often favour their own group, relatives or political patrons (afno manchhe, chakari), which affects impartiality and equal treatment of citizens.

6. Weak Institutional Capacity Though Nepal has adopted modern bureaucratic institutions, they suffer from low accountability, corruption, red tape, and weak enforcement. The bureaucracy is often described as inefficient, rent-seeking, and resistant to reform — features consistent with the prismatic stage.

Conclusion The Prismatic-Sala Model thus provides a useful framework to explain the nature of Nepalese bureaucracy — its mixed character, formalism, overlapping roles, and kinship-based influences. However, the model is not a perfect fit: Nepal has made notable progress in recent decades through constitutional reforms, federalism, and digital governance, which the model does not fully capture. Still, as an analytical tool to understand the transitional and hybrid nature of Nepalese bureaucracy, the model remains relevant.

New Public Management (NPM) and its significant contribution to public administration — 5 marks

Meaning: New Public Management is a reform approach that emerged in the 1980s–1990s (associated with Osborne and Gaebler, Hood, and the OECD countries) which sought to apply private-sector management techniques and market principles to the public sector. It shifted the focus of public administration from "process and procedure" to "results and performance."

Significant contributions:

1. Shift from input to output/outcome orientation: NPM replaced the traditional emphasis on rules, budgets and procedures with measurable results, performance targets and accountability for outcomes. This made government more result-driven.

2. Managerial autonomy and professionalisation: It gave public managers greater freedom to manage (letting managers manage), while holding them responsible for results — separating policy-making from service delivery.

3. Marketisation and competition: Through contracting out, privatisation, public–private partnerships, competitive tendering and user charges, NPM introduced competition that improved efficiency, reduced cost and raised service quality.

4. Customer/citizen orientation: The citizen was redefined as a "customer," leading to citizen charters, one-stop service centres, service standards and grievance-handling mechanisms — making administration more responsive and citizen-friendly.

5. Decentralisation and disaggregation: Large bureaucracies were broken into smaller, autonomous agencies (executive agencies, authorities, boards) with clear mandates, improving flexibility and speed of decision-making.

6. Performance measurement and accountability: Tools such as performance budgeting, key performance indicators, audits and benchmarking brought transparency and made public organisations accountable for results rather than merely for spending.

7. Efficiency and cost reduction: By adopting private-sector practices — total quality management, re-engineering, e-governance and lean structures — NPM reduced waste, duplication and red tape, and improved value for money.

8. Reinventing government: NPM popularised the idea of the "entrepreneurial government" — steering rather than rowing, empowering communities, and treating public money as an investment to be leveraged.

Conclusion: NPM's most significant contribution is that it transformed public administration from a rule-bound, procedure-oriented, monopolistic system into a result-oriented, competitive, citizen-centred and accountable system. Although criticised for fragmenting public service, weakening equity and over-emphasising market values, NPM remains the foundation of modern administrative reforms, including in Nepal's New Public Management-oriented civil service and local governance reforms.

Social change refers to the significant alteration over time in the structure, institutions, norms, values, and patterns of behaviour of a society. It is a continuous, universal, and inevitable process through which the social system transforms — either gradually (evolution) or rapidly (revolution). In simple terms, it is the modification of the way people live, think, and relate to one another within a society.

Determinants (causes) of social change:

1. Biological factors — Changes in population size, birth and death rates, migration, and genetic inheritance bring about changes in social structure. For example, high population growth creates pressure on resources and alters family and employment patterns.

2. Physical/geographical factors — Natural environment such as climate, floods, earthquakes, droughts, and geographical isolation influence settlement patterns, occupation, and lifestyle. Natural disasters often force rapid social reorganization.

3. Technological factors — New tools, machines, and information technology transform production, communication, and social relations. The invention of the internet, mobile phones, and agricultural machinery has drastically changed work, education, and social interaction.

4. Economic factors — Changes in the mode of production, income levels, employment, trade, and market systems reshape class structure and social relationships. Industrialization and globalization are major economic drivers of social change.

5. Cultural factors — New ideas, values, beliefs, education, religion, and exposure to other cultures (through diffusion and acculturation) modify social norms and practices. For example, Western education and media have changed traditional customs in Nepal.

6. Political and legal factors — Government policies, laws, constitutions, political movements, and revolutions bring structural change. The 1990 and 2006 political changes in Nepal transformed its political and social order.

7. Ideological and value factors — Social movements, awareness campaigns, and changing values (such as gender equality, human rights, and democracy) push society toward reform. The abolition of caste discrimination and untouchability is an example.

8. Demographic factors — Urbanization, migration, and changes in age structure affect family systems, labour markets, and cultural practices.

Conclusion: Social change results from the combined and interrelated action of these determinants rather than any single factor. In the modern context, technological and economic forces, supported by political and cultural factors, act as the most powerful drivers of social change.

Why Planning is Needed for Development

Development planning refers to the deliberate and systematic effort of the state to allocate scarce resources, set priorities, and direct economic activity towards desired socio-economic goals. For a developing country like Nepal, planning is essential for the following reasons:

1. Optimal utilisation of scarce resources: Developing economies suffer from a shortage of capital, skilled labour, technology and foreign exchange. Unplanned, market-driven allocation may waste these resources on non-priority areas. Planning directs them to the most productive and socially useful sectors.

2. Breaking the vicious circle of poverty: Low income leads to low saving, low investment, low productivity and again low income. A coordinated plan can raise the saving and investment rate above the critical minimum level required to escape this trap.

3. Balanced regional and sectoral development: Market forces concentrate investment in already developed regions and profitable sectors, widening inequality. Planning ensures balanced growth between agriculture and industry, and between hills, mountains and Terai, reducing regional disparity.

4. Rapid capital formation and industrialisation: Through planned public investment, mobilisation of domestic savings, and channelising foreign aid into productive sectors, planning accelerates capital formation and structural transformation of the economy.

5. Correcting market failure and coordinating the public sector: Markets fail to provide public goods such as infrastructure, education, health and defence. Planning ensures their provision and coordinates large, lumpy investments (roads, irrigation, power) that the private sector cannot undertake alone.

6. Attaining national objectives and stability: Planning translates broad goals — full employment, price stability, poverty reduction, self-reliance — into concrete targets, programmes and budgets, and provides a mechanism to monitor and correct deviations.

7. Effective use of foreign aid and investment: Aid and borrowing carry conditions and repayment obligations. A plan ensures that external resources are used in priority projects with adequate capacity to service debt.

8. Reducing poverty, unemployment and inequality: By targeting employment-generating and pro-poor programmes, planning ensures that the benefits of growth reach disadvantaged groups, women and marginalised communities.

Conclusion: Planning is thus indispensable for a developing country to achieve rapid, inclusive and sustainable development. However, planning must be realistic, flexible, decentralised and supported by strong implementation, monitoring and political commitment to be effective.

a) What is critical citizens? Describe.

Critical citizens are those citizens who do not accept the decisions and functioning of government passively or blindly. They are informed, assertive and evaluative in their orientation towards democracy. Instead of judging democracy only by its ideals, they judge it by its actual performance — whether democratic processes are being run properly, whether policies deliver results, and whether institutions behave credibly.

The text describes them through their behaviour: they "evaluate policy performance in a critical manner," assess how far wicked problems such as corruption and crime are addressed and reduced, and judge whether civil servants have dealt with them truthfully. They also apply standards of impartiality and neutrality to public institutions, asking how far these institutions are non-discriminatory and fair in their dealings. Thus a critical citizen is not an anti-democratic or alienated citizen; he or she is a demanding citizen who supports democracy but holds its institutions to high standards of performance, legality and fairness. (The concept is associated with Pippa Norris's Critical Citizens.)

b) What are the factors to empowered citizens in representative democracy? Narrate.

According to the text, the main factors that empower citizens in a representative democracy are:

1. Freedom of speech and expression — this allows citizens to raise their voices, criticise the way democratic processes are taking place, and put forward their views without fear.
2. Right to information — this gives citizens access to facts about government decisions, policies and their outcomes, which is necessary for informed judgement.
3. Exposure to information through mass media — the media supply citizens with information about public affairs, enabling them to become informed and to monitor the conduct of government and civil servants.

These three factors together make citizens informed and confident enough to speak out. The text notes that because of them "citizens more empowered to raise their voices about the way democratic processes are taking place." Empowerment, therefore, is a product of legal rights (speech, information) plus the practical flow of information (media), which together convert passive subjects into active, evaluating citizens.

c) Why is critical citizens important to generate trust in representative democracy? Explain.

Critical citizens are important for generating trust because trust in a democracy is not built by silence or blind loyalty; it is built by credible performance that can be verified. Their importance can be explained as follows:

• They evaluate policy performance. By critically assessing policies, they create pressure on institutions to deliver results. Institutions that respond by performing well earn the trust of citizens.
• They focus attention on wicked problems. By examining how far corruption and crime are addressed and reduced, they force institutions to tackle these problems seriously; success in reducing them raises public confidence.
• They test the truthfulness of civil servants. Their evaluations depend on how truthfully civil servants deal with citizens. This encourages honest, transparent administration, which is the foundation of trust.
• They apply standards of impartiality and neutrality. Since these are the standards of a credible institution, critical citizens judge institutions on fairness and non-discrimination. Institutions that meet these standards are positively evaluated and trusted, while poorly performing ones are negatively evaluated.
• They link institutional quality to outcomes. Because the quality of institutions determines social and economic development, critical scrutiny ensures that good institutions survive and poor ones are corrected — which sustains general trust in the system.

In short, critical citizens act as watchdogs and quality controllers. Their criticism is directed at performance, not at democracy itself, so it improves institutions and thereby generates genuine, performance-based trust.

d) How does trust level increase in public institutions? Explore.

The text suggests that the level of trust in public institutions rises mainly through demonstrated performance and credible conduct. The process works as follows:

1. Performance according to mandate. Trust "should ideally denote the extent to which these institutions perform according to their mandates." When institutions do what they are legally supposed to do, citizens' trust increases.
2. Observance of the rule of law. Institutions that follow the rule of law in their decisions and procedures are seen as reliable and predictable, which builds confidence.
3. Truthful dealing by civil servants. Since citizens' evaluations depend on how truthfully civil servants deal with them, honest and responsive behaviour at the service-delivery level directly raises trust.
4. Impartiality and neutrality. These are "important standards for credible institution to uphold." When institutions are non-discriminatory and impartial in their dealings, citizens evaluate them positively.
5. Effective handling of wicked problems. Success in addressing and reducing corruption and crime signals institutional competence and improves public trust.
6. Positive evaluation leading to generalised trust. Citizens first evaluate specific institutions; if these perform well, citizens "may either trust or distrust public institutions." The text assumes that "those citizens who trust public institution in general will also trust other public agencies" — that is, trust spills over from one institution to others and becomes generalised.

Therefore, trust is not created by propaganda or by citizens' ignorance; it is created when institutions are accountable, lawful, impartial, honest and result-oriented. Poorly performing institutions are negatively evaluated, whereas well-performing ones generate trust that spreads across the whole public sector.