Public trust in institutions grows when people believe that the state acts fairly—for example, that support is given to those who really need it. Although a number of studies have examined this relationship between perceived fairness and trust, most of them focus on general attitudes rather than people's actual experiences with the system. At the same time, we know little about the role played by the complexity of the processes within institutions themselves. Social assistance systems are sometimes composed of contradictory rules and inconsistent procedures, which can cause confusion and uncertainty among users. The authors of a new study, which included INPSY members Lenka Štěpánková and Honza Šerek, focused on how people perceive fairness and trust in such a confusing and inconsistent system, which they call an "institutional enigma".
A research team led by Maria Theiss decided to investigate how social assistance recipients in Poland and the Czech Republic perceive fairness in the allocation of support and how these experiences translate into trust in state institutions. According to the authors, when applying for social care, applicants may encounter the phenomenon of institutional mystery – where they perceive the social assistance system as illogical, difficult to understand, and internally contradictory, and which, moreover, appears unpredictable and opaque due to perceived hidden administrative tensions and bureaucratic obstacles. The team of authors conducted an in-depth analysis of 33 interviews collected as part of the EnTrust project with parents who received social assistance benefits or services. The participants came from large cities and their life situations included, for example, poverty, single parenthood, domestic violence, or caring for children with disabilities. In the interviews, they described their specific experiences with government officials and the system as a whole.
“If you know the rules, the system is fair"
Some respondents rated the system as fair and predictable – if you provide the necessary documents and follow the rules, you will receive assistance. These people described knowing the rules, finding the system logical, and trusting it as a result. Being informed played an important role here – those who understood the rules of the system and followed them often perceived it as rational, fair, and functional.
An insensitive system leads to mistrust
On the contrary, other respondents described experiences where they were denied assistance due to formal details, even though they were objectively in a very difficult situation – for example, social services refused to grant a mother of a disabled son a car for his transportation because, in their words, her son was not “sufficiently disabled.” Respondents thus perceived that the system ignored their needs, that the rules were applied insensitively, and that they were treated insensitively and without empathy. Some also experienced humiliating comments from staff or received assistance in the form of low-quality food or goods. These experiences, in turn, led to deep mistrust.
“The system favors groups that don't deserve it”
Some of the respondents expressed frustration that, in their opinion, some people abuse the system – for example, by concealing some of their income in order to receive social benefits, not taking care of their children, or spending social benefits on unnecessary things such as alcohol. In the Czech Republic, Roma families were often mentioned, while in Poland it was people with addictions, especially to alcohol. Recipients felt that the system was unable to address these “injustices,” which undermined their trust. This view was often accompanied by emotions such as injustice, anger, or a feeling that “decent people” were being disadvantaged.
(Dis)trust based on surprise
For some people, personal experience played a role, either because they unexpectedly received help (which strengthened their trust) or, conversely, because they were left without support despite promises (which damaged their trust). For example, one respondent who was homeless quickly received an apartment thanks to his social worker, which he did not expect and was pleasantly surprised by – this significantly strengthened his trust in the system. Conversely, others spoke of deep disappointment when they expected help and were denied it without explanation.
The study thus shows that in a confusing and contradictory system where the rules often do not make sense, it is very difficult to maintain trust in institutions. The perception of fairness is influenced not only by the outcome (who received help), but also by how the procedures were conducted – whether they were fair, understandable, and humane. The authors point out that fairness is assessed not only from the perspective of “me vs. the system,” but also through comparison with others – who is eligible, who “deserves” help, and how individual groups are perceived. This study thus provides valuable insight into the lives of people for whom the state is often the only hope for a dignified survival – and at the same time an inscrutable labyrinth.
Recommended citation:
Theiss, M., Štěpánková, L., & Šerek, J. (2025). Welfare Users’ Perceptions of Distributive Justice and Trust When Facing Institutional Enigma. Social Policy and Society, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1474746425100791
