Session purpose
This session explored how think tanks can help rebuild trust in public institutions at a time of polarisation, misinformation, institutional underperformance and declining confidence in traditional sources of authority. It moved beyond the idea of a general “trust deficit” and asked what practical forms of trust infrastructure think tanks can help create: reliable data, accessible transparency, inclusive dialogue, locally grounded implementation, better communication and spaces for sense-making across divides.
The session focused on the role think tanks can play as intermediaries between governments, citizens, civil society, media and policy communities. It highlighted that trust is not rebuilt through evidence alone. It also requires delivery, accountability, emotional recognition, cultural awareness and communication that reaches people where they are.
Main conveners and contributors
This session was convened by:
- Corinna Reichenberg, Veranika Shykhutsina at the Think Tank Lab / DGAP / MERICS,
- Lobna Jeribi, SOLIDAR Tunisia
The programme framed the session around how think tanks and research organisations can help create the conditions for trust through shared understanding, credible data, transparent processes and spaces for collaboration.
Participants offered examples from Tunisia, Turkey, Jamaica, Germany, India, Switzerland, China, Hungary, the OECD and other contexts, with particular attention to public policy observatories, misinformation, institutional accountability, populism, grassroots engagement and the emotional dimensions of trust.
Main presentation and framing
The session began from the recognition that trust in public institutions is eroding for several reasons: poor delivery, lack of accountability, fragmented information systems, misinformation, political polarisation and weak communication between governments and citizens.
Participants emphasised that distrust is often grounded in experience. When governments announce reforms but fail to implement them, or when institutions are not transparent about decisions and trade-offs, public confidence weakens. Examples from Turkey, Jamaica and Germany showed how political conflict, COVID-19, institutional failures and shifting media ecosystems have affected trust in different ways.
The session also introduced practical examples of rebuilding trust, especially through data transparency and locally grounded implementation. Tunisia’s Observatory of Public Policy was presented as a model for making fragmented data more accessible, supporting parliamentary oversight and helping decision-makers navigate complex evidence through dashboards and structured recommendations.
Main debates
1. Trust declines when institutions fail to deliver
A central theme was that distrust is not irrational. People lose trust when institutions make promises but do not deliver, when reforms are announced but not implemented, and when accountability is weak.
The discussion challenged think tanks to take delivery seriously. Trust cannot be rebuilt only by improving messaging. Institutions need to show that they can solve problems, respond to citizens and explain what they are doing.
2. Misinformation is only part of the problem
Participants discussed the role of social media and misinformation in weakening trust. Fragmented information environments have reduced the influence of traditional media and official communication, while unqualified or manipulative actors can now shape public opinion at scale.
But the session also warned against treating misinformation as the only problem. In some contexts, people suffer from a lack of reliable information altogether. Information vacuums allow unreliable sources to fill the gap. Think tanks therefore need to think not only about correcting falsehoods, but about making reliable knowledge more visible, usable and accessible.
3. Trust is shaped by culture and political history
The session emphasised that trust-building strategies must be contextual. Different countries rely on different trust models. In some contexts, people place trust in charismatic leaders; in others, trust rests more on low-profile institutions, procedures or collective norms.
Examples from India, Switzerland and China illustrated that trust cannot be understood through one universal model. National narratives, histories of betrayal, leadership styles, institutional traditions and political systems all shape how trust is built or lost.
4. Think tanks must recognise public emotions
One of the strongest points in the discussion was that think tanks should not dismiss public feelings as irrational, manipulated or uninformed. People’s distrust may be based on lived experience, fear, disappointment or a sense of exclusion.
Participants argued that think tanks need to practise acknowledgment and sense-making. This means respecting people’s emotions, understanding why they feel as they do, and connecting facts to experience. Evidence has to meet people where they are, not where experts wish they were.
5. Data transparency must be understandable
The Tunisia example showed how data transparency can strengthen trust, but only if it is accessible. Dashboards, structured data and evidence-based recommendations can support accountability, reduce cognitive overload and help parliaments or public institutions act more effectively.
However, participants noted that transparency can fail if it is too technical, bureaucratic or inaccessible. Publishing data is not enough. Think tanks need to help people understand what the data means, what decisions are being made and what limits or trade-offs exist.
6. Local implementation can rebuild trust incrementally
The session discussed problem-driven, iterative approaches to policy implementation, including Tunisia’s waste management reform. Rather than importing generic solutions, this approach starts from local problems, builds shared diagnosis, works with multiple stakeholders and prioritises areas where trust and authorisation already exist.
This stepwise approach can create visible progress, build confidence and open space for deeper reforms over time. It treats trust as something earned through practical delivery, not only through communication.
7. Think tanks need to leave their echo chambers
Participants reflected on the failure of some policy communication efforts that speak only to already sympathetic audiences. The OECD Brexit example was used to show how communication can miss its target when it excludes affected or sceptical communities.
The session highlighted the importance of going to rural, marginalised, conservative or sceptical communities and engaging face-to-face. Examples from Hungary showed that physical presence and direct conversation can reveal concerns that are invisible from capital cities or expert circles.
8. Dialogue must include disagreement
Another major theme was the need to engage adversaries and difficult audiences. Rebuilding trust in polarised contexts requires more than convening like-minded people. Think tanks can help create spaces where disagreement is structured, respectful and productive.
The session discussed tools such as AI role-play bots to help spokespeople prepare for difficult conversations. But the deeper point was that trust-building requires emotional intelligence, preparation and willingness to engage across divides.
9. Regulation of platforms matters
Participants discussed the role of tech platforms in spreading misinformation and weakening trust in institutions. Some argued that think tanks should be more active in supporting smart regulation that balances freedom of expression with accountability, transparency and limits on manipulation.
This connects trust infrastructure to information infrastructure. The rules governing digital platforms affect whether citizens encounter reliable information or are pulled further into fragmentation and distrust.
Main takeaways
- Trust in institutions erodes when governments and public bodies fail to deliver, fail to explain decisions and fail to hold themselves accountable.
- Misinformation matters, but so does the absence of reliable, accessible and trusted information.
- Trust-building strategies must be contextual. Culture, history, political systems and national narratives shape where trust resides and how it can be rebuilt.
- Think tanks need to recognise emotions as part of public reasoning. Facts alone are not enough if people feel ignored, betrayed or disrespected.
- Data transparency can support trust, but only when information is clear, usable and connected to accountability.
- Local, iterative implementation can build confidence through visible progress and shared problem-solving.
- Think tanks should engage beyond their usual audiences. Rural communities, sceptical groups, political opponents and marginalised voices must be included.
- Depolarisation requires structured dialogue, decentralised listening and the courage to engage disagreement.
- Think tanks can contribute to trust infrastructure by providing credible data, supporting accountability, facilitating dialogue, testing communication strategies and helping institutions make sense of public concerns.
- The strongest message of the session was that rebuilding institutional confidence is not a communications exercise alone. It requires delivery, transparency, inclusion, emotional intelligence and sustained work to connect evidence with lived experience.
Relevant resources
- Think Tank Lab toolbox and resources
- Tunisia Observatory of Public Policy model
- Examples of public policy dashboards and transparency platforms:
- Guidance on communicating with sceptical or polarised audiences:
- Think Tanks and Trust: Rebuilding Credibility in the Policy Ecosystem (OTT)