OECD Survey on Drivers of Trust in Public Institutions 2026 Results

Legislatures are a cornerstone of democratic governance. First, as legislative bodies, they shape public policy: representing the views of the people, they enact laws and act as deliberative and representative assemblies. Second, as a key piece of checks and balances, they oversee and control the actions of the executive government, ensuring public examination of governmental activities and seeking to prevent abuses of power. Third, the work of legislatures may also foster a clearer engagement of people and better understanding of politics and decision-making processes, for example by providing the public with channels for communicating with representatives.1

According to OECD Trust Survey data, trust in national legislatures has remained stable but relatively low over the past six years. Yet research on factors driving trust in legislatures remains limited. While some studies emphasise cultural or sociodemographic factors, analysis based on OECD Trust Survey data shows that these characteristics play a relatively minor role compared to individuals’ sense of political voice and their partisanship. Although the gap in trust between those with higher and lower educational attainment has widened more for legislatures than national governments over the past six years, education and other socio-economic trust gaps remain smaller for legislatures than national governments.

This chapter identifies clear and actionable public governance factors influencing trust in parliaments and congresses. As with trust in national government, the main drivers of trust in national legislatures relate to how people perceive institutions’ handling of long‑term, complex policy challenges, and, though to a lesser extent, how legislative actions affect their everyday lives. Today, the most important drivers of trust in the legislature are closely tied to perceptions of its core functions. These include how well legislatures are seen to balance the interests of different groups and regions, legislatures’ effectiveness in holding governments accountable for their policies and behaviour, and the perceived responsiveness of elected representatives to public contacts or concerns. Perceptions of responsiveness of the system – i.e., the sense of whether people like them can influence what government does – are equally important for trust in national legislatures and national governments.

Fewer than four in ten people (37%) across OECD countries report high or moderately high trust in the national legislature. A larger share of 47% reports low or no trust, while 16% express a neutral level of trust (Figure ‎7.1). Variations across countries are considerable, and even larger than those observed for trust in the national government: while the gap between the highest and lowest population shares with high or moderately high trust in the national legislature reaches 45 percentage points, the equivalent gap for trust in government is 40 percentage points. The share of people with high or moderately high trust exceeds 50% in only five countries: Iceland, Finland, Luxembourg, Norway, and Switzerland. In a few other countries - Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, France, Latvia, and the Slovak Republic - trust falls below 25%. Levels of trust in national legislatures in accession countries remain below the OECD average, with Brazil recording the highest level of high or moderately high trust in the legislature at 32%.

On average across the OECD, national legislatures (37%) elicit slightly lower levels of trust than national governments (40%), but higher levels than political parties (26%) (Figure ‎7.2).

The pattern of slightly higher trust in the national government holds not only on average across the OECD, but also in many OECD countries as well as all five of the OECD accession candidate countries that participated in the 2025 Trust Survey data collection. In a few countries, however, trust in the national government exceeds trust in the legislature by 10 percentage points or more: Chile, Costa Rica, Japan, Korea and Mexico. Conversely, in another small group of countries —Austria, Denmark, Finland, France, Greece, Ireland, Norway and Sweden— national legislatures are more trusted than national governments. Among accession candidate countries, the largest gap between the share of people reporting high trust in the national government and those reporting high trust in the legislature is observed in Brazil (a 6-percentage‑point difference), while the smallest is found in Croatia (2 percentage points).

In turn, across all surveyed countries, political parties consistently emerge as the least trusted political institution. The Netherlands is the only country where the difference between trust in the legislature and trust in political parties is fewer than 5 percentage points.

Compared to the results of previous waves of the OECD Trust Survey, average levels of trust in the national legislature have remained relatively stable. Among the 19 OECD countries for which data are available across the 2021, 2023, and 2025 waves, the share reporting high or moderately high trust fell by 2 percentage points between 2021 and 2023, from 41% to 39%, and then rose very marginally to 40% in 2025 (Figure ‎7.3). For the 29-OECD countries included in both the 2023 and 2025 waves, this share remained steady at 37%. These small shifts in average trust levels over the past six years are broadly in line with the limited variation observed in trust in national governments (see Chapter 1).

There is considerably more variation in levels of trust within individual countries. The sharpest changes between 2021 and 2025 occurred in Australia, Colombia, and Japan, where levels of trust in the legislature increased by 12, 11 and 16 percentage points, respectively, over this period. A significant change was also observed for the only accession candidate country with data available for multiple years, Brazil: levels of trust in the legislature doubled between 2022 and 2025, rising from 16% to 32%. In Estonia, Iceland, Korea, and Norway, trust levels fell in between 2021 and 2023 but rose again in 2025. Overall, the direction of changes in trust in the legislature tends to mirror shifts in trust in national governments. Nonetheless, some exceptions stand out: in Denmark, trust in the government remained stable between 2023 and 2025, while trust in the legislature declined slightly; and in Costa Rica, Finland and Slovenia, trust in government increased modestly while trust in the legislature fell. Conversely, in Estonia, trust in government declined steadily from 2021 to 2025, while trust in the legislature dropped in 2023 and then rose modestly in 2025.

Legislatures are the foundational representative institutions in democracies. They provide a forum where a wide range of public interests can be expressed, debated and incorporated into decisions affecting everyone, and attempt to incorporate the perspectives of different groups effectively into legislative processes. As such, analysing different population groups’ trust in the legislature provides valuable indications of how effectively they are seen to incorporate and consider varied interests and demands in the policymaking process.

Among individual characteristics, people’s sense of political agency and their partisanship are the most relevant factors explaining variations in trust in national legislatures across OECD and accession candidate countries. By contrast, socioeconomic and demographic characteristics tend to have a more limited influence (Figure ‎7.4). This pattern also holds for trust in government (see Chapter 2) and over time (Box ‎7.1). However, the differences in the shares of people with high or moderately high trust across population groups, defined here as the “trust gaps”, are slightly smaller for trust in the legislature than for trust in government. The only exception is the gap associated with people’s confidence in their ability to participate in politics, which is similar for trust in the legislature and trust in government.

People who feel they have a say in what the government does and who feel able to participate in politics report significantly higher levels of trust than those who feel they lack political voice. Among individuals who believe they can influence what governments do, 65% reported high or moderately high trust in the national legislature, compared to only 19% among those who feel they have no influence (Figure ‎7.5). These figures are similar, on average, across accession candidate countries (53% and 11%). While the gap is substantially larger in Australia, Canada, and New Zealand (60, 58, and 56 p.p., respectively), it is nearly half as large in Colombia and Costa Rica as well as Bulgaria, where the share of people reporting high trust is lower overall, regardless of respondents’ sense of political voice.

Likewise, trust in the legislature is also associated with people’s confidence in their ability to participate in politics. On average for the OECD, there is a 28‑percentage‑point trust gap between those who feel able to participate and those who do not (Figure ‎7.5). Country differences range from relatively small gaps of around 10 p.p. in Greece and Slovenia (as well as in Croatia and Peru) to more than 40 p.p. in Canada, Korea, Poland, and Switzerland.

Partisanship also plays a key role in shaping trust in national legislatures. Less than half (47%) of those who reported voting for the governing party express high or moderately high trust in the legislature, which however compares favourably to the 28% among those who did not vote for the government (Figure ‎7.6). This partisanship gap (19 p.p.) exceeds 30 p.p. in only two countries: Australia and Canada. These results are consistent with academic research showing that individuals tend to report higher levels of trust when the party they voted for is in government or holds a larger share of seats in the legislature.2 On average, the partisanship gap is substantially smaller for trust in legislatures than for trust in government. This is to be expected given most parties are represented in legislatures, whereas this is not the usual case in national governments.

Beyond people’s political attitudes and preferences, other personal characteristics—including their socioeconomic background and demographic traits—are also associated with their levels of trust. In particular, perceived economic insecurity is linked to lower levels of public trust (see Chapter 2).

OECD Trust Survey data confirms that people’s evaluation of their financial well-being matters for trust in the legislature. Among respondents who report financial concerns, on average, 32% express high or moderately high trust in the legislature, compared with 48% among people who feel more financially stable (a 16 percentage-point-gap) (Figure ‎7.7). The largest differences are in Ireland and Japan, where gaps stand at 28 and 27 percentage points, respectively, followed by gaps of 25 p.p in Chile, Norway, and Portugal. The smallest gaps appear in Spain and France, where they only amount to 6 and 5 percentage-points. Colombia is the only country in which those who express financial concerns report very marginally higher levels of trust (22%) than those who do not feel concerned (21%).

Another key indicator is levels of education. On average across OECD countries, people with a post-secondary degree are 13 percentage points more likely to trust the legislature than people without upper secondary education. This difference varies widely across countries, ranging from 30 to 1 percentage point. Exceptions are Japan, Korea, Mexico and the Slovak Republic, where people with lower levels of educational attainment report higher trust in the legislature than people with higher levels of education do. Box ‎7.1 presents over-time variation since 2021 (for countries participating in all three waves) which suggests that education-related gaps in trust in the legislature are slowly widening.

As with trust in government, women and younger respondents tend to trust legislatures less than men and the eldest cohort do. However, these gaps remain relatively small. In 2025, on average across OECD countries, 34% of women report high or moderately high trust in legislatures, compared with 39% of men. This gap is substantially larger in New Zealand, as well as in Ireland and Sweden. By contrast, in Iceland, Korea, and Norway (and Brazil among accession candidate countries), women report higher levels of trust in legislatures than men do (Figure ‎7.8).

Finally, in 2025, 36% of the youngest respondents to the OECD Trust Survey report high or moderately high trust in the national legislature, a share close to the 39% observed among the oldest cohort. However, differences across countries are significant. In Denmark, Finland, and Poland, the gap in how much trust of older people in the legislature outpaces trust of younger people in the institution is substantially larger than the 3-percentage point OECD average. In many other countries — including Australia, Chile, France, Japan, Iceland, and the United Kingdom — young people in contrast report higher levels of trust in legislatures than their older counterparts (Figure ‎7.8).

People’s trust in national legislatures stems from a complex set of mutually reinforcing factors, many of which overlap with those that shape trust in national government, in particular, as well as in other public institutions. According to the 2025 OECD Trust Survey, the most significant drivers of trust in legislatures today relate to how complex governance challenges are addressed. While certain aspects linked to people’s day‑to‑day interactions with public institutions also matter, they are far less strongly associated with trust in legislatures.

These results are valuable in themselves, but they are also highly relevant from a comparative perspective. They provide insights into how countries’ efforts may influence trust across different public institutions simultaneously, and where more targeted actions are needed. When comparing the main drivers of trust in the legislature with those of trust in national government, several important commonalities and distinct patterns emerge:

• Important correlates of trust in the legislature relate directly to people’s perceptions of its core functions. These include how well legislatures are seen to balance the interests of different groups and regions, their success in holding governments accountable, and perceptions of elected representatives providing meaningful responses to public contacts.

• People’s perceptions of the responsiveness of the system, that is, their sense of whether they can influence what government does, are equally important for trust in the national legislature and the national government

• At the same time, several other factors, including perceptions of evidence-informed decision making, intergenerational fairness, co-operation with stakeholders, or support during economic crises, are important for trust in both institutions, but their marginal effects tend to be lower for legislatures than for the national government.

Across OECD countries, the public governance variable most strongly associated with trust in national legislatures today is, by far, the perception that they adequately balance the needs of different regions and groups in society when discussing new policies. Positive perceptions on this dimension are associated with a 4.9 percentage point increase in the probability of reporting high or moderately high trust in the national legislature, holding other variables constant. Positive perceptions of political voice are also linked to trust in the legislature, increasing the likelihood of expressing high trust by 3.4 percentage points.

However, people remain quite sceptical about both the fairness of legislatures and the extent to which they consider different interests and needs, as well as about their own political voice (see Chapter 6). On average, only 36% of respondents across OECD countries consider it likely that the national legislature would appropriately balance the needs of different groups and regions when debating a new policy (Figure ‎7.11). This share varies widely: Switzerland is the only country where more than half of the population holds this positive perception, followed by Australia, Canada, and Mexico. At the lower end, Estonia, Latvia, the Slovak Republic, and three accession candidate countries— Bulgaria, Croatia and Peru— record fewer than one in four respondents with this view. For the 29 OECD countries with available data,3 the average share remained stable between 2023 and 2025, decreasing by only 1 percentage point. However, some countries experienced notable changes: perceptions increased by 15 percentage points in the United Kingdom, while they declined by 9 percentage points in Colombia.

Results from the OECD Trust Survey illustrate that a sense of political voice – i.e., people’s perception that they have a say in what government does – is one of the strongest drivers of trust in national legislatures (indicated by marker 6 in Figure ‎7.10). People who find it likely that the political system allows people like them to have a say in what government does are 3.4 percentages points more likely to trust the legislature, holding all else constant. Among individuals who believe they have a say in what governments do, 65% reported high or moderately high trust in the national legislature (Figure ‎7.5), on average across the OECD.

Trust in the legislature is also influenced, albeit to a lesser degree, by perceptions of how well elected representatives respond to individuals who contact them. These findings come from a new survey question added to the OECD Trust Survey in 2025. Positive perceptions that elected representatives respond meaningfully to people’s demands and feedback are associated with a 2.4‑percentage‑point increase in the probability of expressing high or moderately high trust in the legislature, holding other variables constant.

Although not the primary means of communicating with government, more than one in ten respondents (11%) report having contacted a politician or government official during the past year (see Chapter 6), on average across OECD countries. Yet across OECD countries, fewer than one-third of respondents consider it likely that if they were to contact a member of the national parliament or congress, the representative would reply in a meaningful way (Figure ‎7.12).

While receiving a meaningful reply from elected representatives is only one of many elements that can contribute to shaping people’s perceptions of their representatives and legislatures, it is nonetheless important. In representative democracies, the very idea that representatives ‘make people present where they are absent’ is foundational. A meaningful response —even something as simple as directing someone to relevant information— is therefore likely a necessary, although not sufficient, condition for people to feel heard.

A closer look at both perceptions and how these may be influenced by political behaviour reveals several noteworthy country-specific results (Figure ‎7.12). In Switzerland, for example, the share of people who report having contacted a politician (8%) is below the OECD average, yet the country displays the most positive expectations of representatives providing meaningful responses to contacts from the public, and is the only OECD country where this share exceeds 50% (54%). A similar pattern is observed in New Zealand. By contrast, in Ireland and Slovenia, a much larger share of respondents report contacting politicians (49% and 31%, respectively), well above the cross‑national average. However, perceptions that representatives would respond in a meaningful way are below the OECD average (30% in Ireland and 25% in Slovenia).

Going beyond the simple act of elected representatives responding to individual contacts, legislatures around the world have increasingly implemented reforms aimed at strengthening public engagement and promoting openness and transparency (Leston-Bandeira, 2012[1]), contributing to (arguably) greater access to information on legislative issues and activities (Scheidig and Obergassel, 2024[2]).

Legislatures not only represent people and produce legislation. They also perform a fundamental democratic function by overseeing other public institutions and safeguarding the integrity of their actions. Positive perceptions that the legislature holds governments accountable are associated with a 3.0‑percentage‑point increase in the probability of reporting high or moderately high trust in the national legislature, holding other variables constant. This underscores both the importance of the multiple roles played by legislatures in democratic systems and how these roles have evolved over time.

On average, 39% of respondents across OECD countries find it likely that legislatures hold governments accountable for their policies and behaviour, for instance, by questioning ministers or reviewing the budget. This share has remained stable between 2023 and 2025 among the 29 OECD countries with available data (Figure ‎7.13).4 The highest levels of positive perceptions of accountability between branches of governments are found in Switzerland, Denmark, and Mexico. Overall, people tend to have more confidence in institutional checks and balances than in elected representatives providing meaningful responses to their contacts (Figure ‎7.12). This pattern holds in most countries. The only exceptions are Finland and Lithuania, where the share who find either outcome likely are basically identical.

Beyond investing in broader processes related to how decisions are made, and how these processes inform policies that anticipate societal needs, public institutions must also continuously improve their day‑to‑day interactions with people by delivering high‑quality public services.

Consequently, people’s positive experiences with public services, as well as their confidence that institutions use personal data only for legitimate purposes, are significant not only for explaining trust in the civil service or governments, but also for trust in legislatures, albeit at a much lower level. Both satisfaction with administrative services and perceptions that government bodies will use personal data for legitimate purposes only are associated with higher levels of trust in legislatures, increasing the likelihood of reporting high or moderately high trust by 2.1 and 1.9 percentage points, respectively.

• Enhancing the capacity of the legislature to reach policy decisions while representing a wide set of interests and listening to citizens is the key factor that will enhance trust in the long term.

• Enhancing people’s ability to participate in politics and their belief that they can influence policymaking is critical (see Chapter 6). Political efficacy, including that fostered early through civic education (as is the case in Norway) plays an important role, and is increasingly relevant in the context of age gaps for trust in the legislature. Overall, providing the legislature with meaningful and institutionalised ways of engaging meaningfully with citizens will be very important for trust. As part of this, improving the ability of representatives to provide meaningful responses to public contacts will also be important.

• Ensuring people’s perception of fairness and the legislature’s ability to balancing different interests in decision making, including regional interests, will also be key. Legislatures can find ways to better connect with all groups of society and parts of the national territory through mechanisms that engage people, address their concerns, integrate different regional perspectives, and communicate on the results in decision making.

• Strengthening the capacity of the legislature to enhance the checks and balances in the overall national decision-making system remains a cornerstone of democratic governance and a key factor supporting trust in representative institutions.

[3] Anderson, C. and C. Guillory (1997), “Political Institutions and Satisfaction with Democracy: A Cross-National Analysis of Consensus and Majoritarian Systems”, American Political Science Review, Vol. 91/1, pp. 66-81, https://doi.org/10.2307/2952259.

[4] Holmberg, S., S. Lindberg and R. Svensson (2017), “Trust in parliament”, Journal of Public Affairs, Vol. 17/1-2, https://doi.org/10.1002/pa.1647.

[1] Leston-Bandeira, C. (2012), “Studying the Relationship between Parliament and Citizens”, The Journal of Legislative Studies, Vol. 18/3-4, pp. 265-274, https://doi.org/10.1080/13572334.2012.706044.

[5] Pasquino, G. and R. Pelizo (2006), Parlamenti Democratici, Il Mulino, Bologna.

[7] Saiegh, S. (2005), The Role of Legislatures in the Policymaking Process.

[2] Scheidig, F. and N. Obergassel (2024), “Does a visit to parliament change the political trust of adults?”, The Journal of Legislative Studies, Vol. 31/4, pp. 1144-1160, https://doi.org/10.1080/13572334.2024.2398940.

[6] Teixeira, C. and A. Freire (2010), “Decline, Transformation and Trust in Parliaments: the Portuguese Case in a Longitudinal and Comparative Perspective”, RIEL- Revista Iberoamericana de Estudos Legislativos Belo Horizonte, n.1, 2010, Vol. 1/1.