Loading...
Loading...
Trust in government, media, business, and other institutions has fallen steadily for decades. The usual explanations—corruption, polarization, social media—capture something. But there's a deeper structural story: institutions have lost the capacity to judge.
Gallup has tracked institutional trust for decades. The pattern is consistent across institution types.
| Institution | 2000 | 2024 | Change |
|---|---|---|---|
| Federal Government | 42% | 22% | -20% |
| Congress | 24% | 8% | -16% |
| News Media | 47% | 32% | -15% |
| Big Business | 29% | 14% | -15% |
| Banks | 53% | 26% | -27% |
Source: Gallup Confidence in Institutions surveys. Percentage saying "great deal" or "quite a lot" of confidence.
Each conventional explanation captures something real—but none fully explains the pattern.
Institutions betrayed public trust through misconduct
But: But trust declines even in institutions with no major scandals
Political division undermines cross-partisan trust
But: But trust in non-political institutions (science, medicine) has also declined
Negative coverage erodes institutional reputation
But: But trust in media itself has declined—criticism reflects rather than causes distrust
Misinformation and filter bubbles undermine shared reality
But: But trust decline began before social media dominance
IRSA's research suggests trust decline is a symptom of something more fundamental: institutions losing the capacity to judge.
Decision demand has grown faster than institutional processing capacity. More cases, more complexity, more stakeholders than judgment bandwidth can handle.
When institutions substitute rules for judgment, outcomes become predictably suboptimal. People notice decisions aren't really being made—they're being processed.
The institution maintains formal authority but loses substantive authority. It can still issue decisions, but decisions no longer reflect judgment.
People don't trust institutions that can't judge. They may not articulate it as 'capacity collapse,' but they sense decisions are hollow.
Key insight: Trust follows competence. When institutions can no longer exercise judgment—when decisions become mechanical rule-application or delegation—people sense it and withdraw trust. This isn't cynicism; it's accurate perception.
Institutions have lost decision capacity—the ability to process complex situations and exercise judgment. When they substitute rules for judgment, outcomes become predictably suboptimal. People notice and lose trust—not because institutions are corrupt, but because they can no longer judge well.
Corruption exists, but the deeper issue is structural. Overwhelmed institutions substitute external constraints for internal judgment—appearing captured even when they're not. The capacity collapse often precedes and enables actual capture.
Yes, but not through PR or transparency alone. Rebuilding trust requires restoring decision capacity—reducing overload, increasing insulation from demand spikes, and protecting the conditions for judgment. Trust follows competence, not communication.
Young people have only known institutions operating under capacity constraints. They've seen institutions fail to address climate change, housing affordability, and job security—not from corruption but from structural inability to make difficult decisions.
IRSA's research on Authority Capacity and Legitimacy Cycles provides frameworks for understanding—and potentially reversing—institutional trust decline.