CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 234Public Administration and Political AnalysisCommunication and COVID-19 ImpactRisk Perception and Management

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 50 of the 51 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

COVID-19: effective policymaking depends on trust in experts, politicians, and the public

Open access
Cairney, Paul, Wellstead, Adam·2020·Policy Design and Practice
DOI 10.1080/25741292.2020.1837466
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

In a crisis, almost-instant choices about who to trust or distrust could make a difference between life and death. Trust is necessary for cooperation, coordination, social order, and to reduce the need for coercive state imposition. During a pandemic, people need to trust experts to help them understand and respond to the problem, governments to coordinate policy instruments and make choices about levels of coercion, and citizens as they cooperate to minimize infection. We compare these general requirements with specific developments in the UK and US, identifying: the variable reliance by elected politicians on scientific experts, worrying levels of distrust in elected leaders, and a shift from a trust-based to more impositional forms of government action (with more variation in responses in the US). While trust is difficult to define and measure, these examples show that people miss it when it is gone.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/25741292.2020.1837466

Cites

50 of 50 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 51 references

Research works printed but not linked: 8

  1. Cairney P., 2020, Paul Cairney: Politics & Public Policy
  2. Cairney P., 2020, British Politics.
  3. Cairney P., 2019, The Role of Trust in Policymaking.” Paper to International Conference on Public Policy, Montreal, May
  4. 10.2139/ssrn.3562796 · DOI
  5. 10.1057/9781137485861.0006 · DOI
  6. Kahneman D., 2012, Thinking Fast and Slow.
  7. Kettl D. F., 2017, Can Governments Earn Our Trust?
  8. 10.2307/448385 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 201–234 of 234

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Cairney, P., & Wellstead, A.
Affiliations
  • University of Stirling (GB)
  • Michigan Technological University (US)
Corresponding author
Cairney, Paul
ORCID
Venue
Policy Design and Practice
Publisher
Informa UK Limited
Published
2020-10-26
Pages
1-14
ISSN
2574-1292 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1080/25741292.2020.1837466
OpenAlex
W3094281406
Cited by
216
References
51
Citations by year
2026: 11 · 2025: 31 · 2024: 39 · 2023: 29 · 2022: 54 · 2021: 46 · 2020: 6
FWCI
116.51
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Policy Design and Practice (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Digital Commons - Michigan Tech (Michigan Technological University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Public Administration and Political Analysis
  • Social Sciences › Communication › Communication and COVID-19 Impact
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Risk Perception and Management
Keywords
COVID-19 pandemic, public trust, trust in experts, trust in politicians, science-policy relations, government pandemic response, public cooperation, United Kingdom, United States

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review