Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Public service encounters are among the most visible ways in which citizens assess the competence, fairness, and responsiveness of the state. This article examines how experiences of public service delivery relate to institutional trust and the social legitimacy of public authority in Southeast Asia and Africa. It develops a comparative evidence synthesis around service accessibility and satisfaction, respectful treatment, procedural fairness, and institutional trust. The Asian evidence is anchored in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development’s Government at a Glance: Southeast Asia 2025, which reports Gallup World Poll indicators on satisfaction with healthcare and education and confidence in the judicial system. The African evidence draws on Afrobarometer Round 9 (2021–2023), covering 39 countries, and published analyses of service access, dignity, and political trust. The sources are not harmonised: they differ in survey design, fieldwork, indicators, and populations. Accordingly, the article does not pool observations or rank the regions. Instead, it identifies convergent mechanisms and important measurement differences. The evidence indicates that service performance is relevant to trust, but that the legitimacy implications of service encounters depend on accessibility, respectful treatment, procedural fairness, and the institution to which citizens attribute responsibility. The article contributes a conditional social-legitimacy framework and specifies propositions for future harmonised, country-sensitive research.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Masuwd et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 8 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: