Exploring Citizens’ Perceptions-based Intangible Resources in the Public Sector: An Analysis of the Relation Between Wealth and Engagement and Trust in 17 Countries





Public Sector Communication, Intangible Capital, Intangible Asset, Engagement, Trust


Across the globe, public administrations are employing communication to develop programs to respond to the challenges of bringing society to the core of policy making and of searching for innovative ways to generate growth. But how much do these programs achieve, and to what extent are their consequences positive? Building on theorizing about intangible assets in the public sector and based on economic indicators as well as on survey data from 17 countries, this paper explores whether specific intangible assets that are citizens’ perceptions-based can operate as sources of growth. More specifically, the article looks at citizen engagement and trust, intangible resources that are built upon organizational behaviors as well as activated through communication. Results allow us to compare the relation of these resources with growth with the relation of tangible capital with growth in 17 countries. Based on findings, the article discusses implications for public sector communication.

Author Biographies

Paloma Piqueiras, Complutense University of Madrid

Paloma Piqueiras, PhD in Public Relations at Complutense University of Madrid, Spain. She is member of the Research Group “Intangibles in the Public Sector” at UCM and part of the Academic Committee of the Political Communication Association (ACOP); she currently serves as public affairs consultant.

María José Canel, Complutense University of Madrid

María José Canel is Professor in Political and Public Sector Communication, Complutense University of Madrid, Spain. Victory Award 2016 (Washington DC, 2018). Leading scholar in the field, she has published more than 100 writings (journals: Pol Communication, European Journal of Comm, IJPP, Public Relations Review). Nine books, titles include Public Sector Communication (Wiley Blackwell), Government Communication (Bloomsbury), Political Scandals in Britain and in Spain in the 90s (Hampton Press).


Barrett, M., & Brunton-Smith, I. (2014). Political and civic engagement and participation: Towards an integrative perspective. Journal of Civil Society, 10(1): 5–28.

Bouckaert, G., & Van de Walle, S. (2001). Government performance and trust in government. In Paper for the Permanent Study Group of Productivity and Quality in the Public Sector at the EGPA Annual Conference. Vaasa, Finland, September 2001.

Bouckaert, G. (2012). Trust and public administration. Administration, 60(1): 91–115.

Brady, H. (1999). Political Participation. In: J. P. Robinson, P.R. Shaver & L. S. Wrightsman (eds.), Measures of Political Attitudes. San Diego: Academic Press.

Bryson, J. M., Crosby, B. C., & Stone, M. M. (2015). Designing and implementing cross‐sector collaborations: Needed and challenging. Public Administration Review, 75(5): 647–663.

Bovaird, T., & Loeffler, E. (2012). From engagement to co-production: The contribution of users and communities to outcomes and public value. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 23(4): 1119–1138.

Canel, M.J., Luoma-aho, V., & Barandiarán, X. (2020). Public sector communication and public valuable intangible assets. In V. Luoma-aho & M. J. Canel (eds.), Handbook of Public Sector Communication. Wiley-Blackwell.

Canel, M. J., & Luoma-Aho, V. (2015). Crisis en la Administración Pública, oportunidad para la intangibilidad [Crisis in Public Administration, opportunity for intangibility]. In J. Villafañe (ed.), La comunicación empresarial y la gestión de los intangibles en España y Latinoamérica [Business communication and the management of intangibles in Spain and Latin America]. Madrid: Pearson.

Canel, M.J., & Luoma-aho, V. (2019). Public Sector Communication. Closing Gaps between Citizens and Public Organizations. New Jersey: John Wiley and Sons.

Canel, M. J., Oliveira, E. S., & Luoma-aho, V. (2017). Exploring citizens’ judgments about the legitimacy of public policies on refugees: In search of clues for governments’ communication and public diplomacy strategies. Journal of Communication Management, 21(4): 355–369.

Carmeli, A., & Tishler, A. (2005). Perceived organizational reputation and organizational performance: An empirical investigation of industrial enterprises. Corporate Reputation Review, 8(1): 13–30.

Coursey, D., Yang, K., & Pandey, S. K. (2012). Public service motivation (PSM) and support for citizen participation: A test of Perry and Vandenabeele’s reformulation of PSM theory. Public Administration Review, 72(4): 572–582.

Dahlgren, P. (2009). Media and political engagement: Citizens, communication, and democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Denhardt, J. V., & Denhardt, R. B. (2015). The new public service revisited. Public Administration Review, 75(5): 664–672.

Easton, D. (1975). A re-assessment of the concept of political support. British Journal of Political Science, 5(4): 435–457.

Ekman, J., & Amnå, E. (2012). Political participation and civic engagement: Towards a new typology. Human affairs, 22(3): 283–300.

Fledderus, J., Brandsen, T., & Honingh, M. E. (2015). User co-production of public service delivery: An uncertainty approach. Public Policy and Administration, 30(2): 145–164.

Font, J., & Navarro, C. (2013). Personal experience and the evaluation of participatory instruments in Spanish cities. Public Administration, 91(3): 616–631.

Fung, A. (2015). Putting the public back into governance: The challenges of citizen participation and its future. Public Administration Review, 75(4): 513–522.

James, O. (2009). Evaluating the expectations disconfirmation and expectations anchoring approaches to citizen satisfaction with local public services. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 19(1): 107–123.

James, O. (2010). Performance measures and democracy: Information effects on citizens in field and laboratory experiments. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 21(3): 399–418.

James, O. (2011). Managing citizens’ expectations of public service performance: evidence from observation and experimentation in local government. Public Administration, 89(4): 1419–1435.

James, O., & Moseley, A. (2014). Does performance information about public services affect citizens’ perceptions, satisfaction, and voice behaviour? Field experiments with absolute and relative performance information. Public Administration, 92(2): 493–511.

Heikkila, T., & Isett, K. R. (2007). Citizen involvement and performance management in special purpose governments. Public Administration Review, 67(2): 238–248.

Houston, D. J., Aitalieva, N. R., Morelock, A. L., & Shults, C. A. (2016). Citizen trust in civil servants: a cross-national examination. International Journal of Public Administration, 39(14): 1203–1214.

Luoma-aho, V. (2008). Sector reputation and public organisations. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 21(5): 446–467.

Oomsels, P., & Bouckaert, G. (2014). Studying Interorganizational Trust in Public Administration: A Conceptual and Analytical Framework for Administrational Trust. Public Performance & Ma­nagement Review, 37(4): 577–604.

Oomsels, P., Callens, M., Vanschoenwinkel, J., & Bouckaert, G. (2019). Functions and dysfunctions of interorganizational trust and distrust in the public sector. Administration & Society, 51(4): 516–544.

Putnam, R. (1995). Bowling Alone: America’s Declining Social Capital. Journal of Democracy, 6 (1): 65–78.

Rudolph, T. J., & Evans, J. (2005). Political trust, ideology, and public support for government spending. American Journal of Political Science, 49(3): 660–671.

Sanders, K., & Canel, M. J. (2015). Mind the gap: Local government communication strategies and Spanish citizens’ perceptions of their cities. Public Relations Review, 41(5): 777–784.

Scott, RW, & J.W. Meyer. (1991). The Organization of Societal Sectors: Propositions and Early Evidence. In: W.W. Powell & P.J. Di Maggio (eds.), The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis. Chicago, Il: University of Chicago Press.

Teorell, J., Torcal, M., & Montero, J. R. (2007). Political participation: Mapping the terrain. Citizenship and involvement in European democracies: A comparative perspective, 17: 334–357.

Van de Walle, S., & Bouckaert, G. (2003). Public service performance and trust in government: the problem of causality. International Journal of Public Administration, 26(8–9): 891–913.

Yang, K., & Pandey, S. K. (2011). Further dissecting the black box of citizen participation: When does citizen involvement lead to good outcomes? Public Administration Review, 71(6): 880–892.

Van de Walle, S. (2007). Determinants of Confidence in the Civil Service: An International Comparison. Research in Public Policy Analysis and Management 16. Emerald Group Publishing Limited.

Wang, X., & Wan Wart, M. (2007). When public participation in administration leads to trust: An empirical assessment of managers’ perceptions. Public Administration Review, 67(2): 265–278.

World Bank (2006). Where is the wealth of nations? Measuring capital for the 21st. Washington, DC: World Bank.

World Bank (2011). The changing wealth of nations: Measuring sustainable development in the new millennium. Washington, DC: World Bank.

World Bank. (2013). “Data Catalog”. Retrieved January 7, 2016 from https://datacatalog.worldbank.org/rule-law-estimate.




How to Cite

Piqueiras, P., & Canel Crespo, M. J. (2021). Exploring Citizens’ Perceptions-based Intangible Resources in the Public Sector: An Analysis of the Relation Between Wealth and Engagement and Trust in 17 Countries. Central European Journal of Communication, 14(1(28), 119-139. https://doi.org/10.51480/1899-5101.14.1(28).7



Scientific Papers