Political Science and Governance: Citizen Participation and Rebuilding Trust in the State

Abstract

The study aimed to interpret how citizen participation mechanisms contribute to rebuilding public trust in the Peruvian state, considering how citizens evaluate transparency, institutional legitimacy, and state responsiveness. A qualitative approach with an explanatory-interpretive scope was developed, based on a phenomenological-hermeneutic method, and included 4124 participants selected through purposive sampling, whose semi-structured interviews were analyzed through open and axial coding in Atlas.ti v23. The results showed that public trust is mainly shaped by the perceived consistency between institutional discourse and action, clarity of information, accessibility of services, ethical conduct of officials, and responsiveness to social demands. Likewise, it was identified that citizen participation is valued positively when it produces verifiable results, feedback, and continuity, while it is perceived as symbolic when it does not influence decision-making, there is one-way communication, or bureaucratic and technological barriers persist. In conclusion, the study shows that public trust is rebuilt when institutions guarantee transparency, clear communication, and participatory mechanisms with real impact, shaping governance oriented toward openness, shared responsibility, and democratic legitimacy.

1. Introduction

Citizen participation has become an essential component in strengthening democratic governance and rebuilding public trust in state institutions. Its relevance lies in expanding spaces for deliberation, promoting social co-responsibility, and lending legitimacy to public decisions through open and verifiable processes. Recent reports from the United Nations Development Program (UNDP 2024) and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD 2023) indicate that countries with strong participatory mechanisms have higher levels of transparency, social control, and community cohesion, consolidating citizens as active actors in oversight and co-management (Roncancio et al. 2025).

The relationship between participation and trust has been the subject of extensive debate since the 1990s. Fischer (1993, 2000), Fishkin (1991, 2009), and Fung (2006) analyzed how deliberative mechanisms can rebuild democratic legitimacy after the deterioration of the welfare state. Sharma et al. (2024) argued that participation became a fundamental axis for restoring institutional credibility in the face of the impacts of globalization and the erosion of traditional representative mechanisms. In parallel, the World Bank introduced the concept of “good governance,” linking transparency, accountability, and participation as drivers for regenerating public trust. This historical overview shows that the theoretical field is broad and mature, making it necessary to clearly define the specific contribution of the present study. In this vein, the recent review by Zhou et al. (2025) highlights that, despite the accumulated development, there is still a need to understand how citizens interpret participation and how those interpretations translate into sustained legitimacy.

Strengthening participation does not depend solely on regulatory frameworks, but also on the institutional capacity to ensure inclusive processes with effective impact. Trust is rebuilt when citizens perceive that their contributions influence public action. De Braal et al. (2025) explain that participation acts as a collaborative mechanism that legitimizes the exercise of power, while Llano-Aristizábal and Peña (2025) highlight that such interaction promotes more open and representative institutions. In this vein, the literature states that contemporary democracies require stable mechanisms for dialog, recognition, and co-responsibility to regenerate the links between citizens and the state (Takakusa and Kinoshita 2024).

This challenge is particularly visible in Latin America, where inequality, corruption, and institutional weakness have affected government legitimacy (Suárez Elías and Noboa 2024). In the case of Peru, political instability, recurring changes in leadership, corruption scandals, and urban–rural territorial gaps have eroded political representation and limited the effectiveness of participatory mechanisms. According to ECLAC (2023), rebuilding trust depends on the state’s ability to guarantee transparent, verifiable, and inclusive participatory processes, which makes the Peruvian case a relevant scenario for studying the dynamics between participation and legitimacy.

The literature has also shown that different participatory designs produce different effects on public trust. Fung (2006) and Bozkus Kahyaoglu et al. (2025) distinguish between participatory budgeting, citizen juries, deliberative forums, public consultations, and hybrid multi-stakeholder mechanisms, noting that each generates specific dynamics of legitimation. More recently, hybrid arenas that integrate state actors, technicians, civil organizations, and private sectors have transformed traditional models of participation, expanding the forms of public advocacy (Mo and Beh 2025; Mora-Perez et al. 2024). Recognizing this diversity allows for a more accurate interpretation of how different mechanisms can influence the rebuilding of trust.

Based on this framework, the present study aims to interpret how citizen participation mechanisms contribute to rebuilding public trust in the Peruvian state. To this end, three specific objectives are defined: (i) to examine how citizens interpret participation mechanisms and how these experiences shape their perceptions of transparency, proximity, and legitimacy; (ii) to analyze the political, social, and administrative factors that condition the effectiveness of participation in building trust; and (iii) to interpret the narratives of social and governmental actors on the real impact of participatory spaces on decision-making processes. In line with these objectives, the study adopts an interpretive approach and proposes two hypotheses for analysis: H₁: Citizen participation mechanisms strengthen public trust by transforming citizens’ perceptions of institutional performance. H₂: The legitimacy of performance, understood as transparency, procedural openness, and responsiveness, is the main mechanism through which participation influences the rebuilding of trust. These hypotheses guide the interpretation of the qualitative results and define the study’s contribution to the contemporary debate on democratic governance.

2. Literature Review

2.1. Historical Evolution of the Debate

The debate on citizen participation and public trust dates back to the late 20th century, when the need arose to rebuild democratic legitimacy in the face of the deterioration of the welfare state and the advance of globalization. During this period, Fischer (1993, 2000); Fishkin (1991, 2009); Fung (2006), and Cohen and Rogers (1992) developed the foundations of participatory governance, emphasizing that the direct inclusion of citizens was essential to restoring the damaged credibility of public institutions. At the same time, the World Bank (1997), under the paradigm of “good governance,” integrated transparency, social control, and institutional openness as pillars for sustaining democratic trust. This theoretical basis allowed for the consolidation of a broad field of research that analyzed the democratic value of participation, its effects on legitimacy, and the normative and operational difficulties associated with its implementation. In a systematic update, Zhang and Bai (2024) highlighted the conceptual saturation of the field and pointed out the need to precisely delimit the empirical problems linked to participation and public trust.

In the following decades, this debate diversified into the empirical analysis of participatory modalities and their effects on institutional trust. Recent studies have shown that the perception of consistency between institutional performance and public commitments increases trust (Mu et al. 2025), and that participation linked to community experiences generates greater democratic cohesion (Bruno and Barreiro 2021). Legitimacy has also been associated with perceptions of government integrity (Poertner and Zhang 2024), citizenship norms (Beesley and Hawkins 2022), and social recognition in inclusive processes (Peresada et al. 2022). Complementarily, Ma et al. (2023) showed that civic education strengthens the capacity for political advocacy and understanding of the role of citizens in democratic governance.

More recently, comparative literature has expanded the analysis to include psychological, educational, and community dimensions. Research on youth participation links civic self-efficacy with the willingness to take on public responsibilities (Vejseli and Kamberi 2021), while Choi et al. (2022) and Grobshäuser and Weißeno (2021) show that trust in government is shaped by the interaction between transparency, citizen evaluation, and perceptions of institutional justice. Other studies point out that participatory modalities interact with intercultural and socio-economic factors that shape democratic legitimacy (Fernández de Castro and Díaz-García 2021).

2.2. Citizen Participation and Trust in Governance

The relationship between citizen participation and trust in governance has been understood as an interdependent process that articulates perceptions of institutional performance, state openness, and direct interaction between citizens and authorities. Jiménez and Valdés (2022) argue that public trust is strengthened when citizens perceive justice, transparency, and efficiency in government management, while Essomba et al. (2023) demonstrate that participation increases institutional credibility when accompanied by positive evaluations of local performance. Oser (2022) adds that participation influences citizens’ willingness to collaborate with the public sector when there is consistency between institutional commitments and observable results. Along the same lines, Mühleck and Hadjar (2023) explain that access to information on administrative results reduces uncertainty and strengthens trust.

At the regional level, Ortiz and Santos-Jaén (2021) highlight that participation and accountability act as complementary mechanisms that improve efficiency and legitimacy, shaping a form of governance in which citizens take an active role in state oversight. Across the board, Faggiani (2022) argues that citizen satisfaction increases when participatory processes are structurally integrated into decision-making cycles.

Other studies highlight that participation operates not only as a political mechanism but also as a social process that channels perceptions of justice, equity, and mutual recognition. Lo Prete (2024) shows that continuous interaction with authorities reduces the psychological distance from the state, generating higher levels of trust when institutional performance is perceived as consistent. For their part, Baggetta and Bello-Gomez (2025) argue that trust deteriorates when governments maintain opaque practices or limit communication channels. Fabiano (2023) emphasizes that ethical integrity and the moral climate of public administration directly influence perceptions of trustworthiness, while Bonotti and Willoughby (2022) point out that incorporating criteria of distributive equity and informational transparency strengthens state credibility. These contributions demonstrate that citizen participation is a structural determinant of public trust, as it activates evaluation mechanisms, reduces the opacity of power, and consolidates cooperation between society and institutions.

2.3. Designs and Modalities of Participation

The research argues that the effects of participation depend on the institutional architecture of the process and on citizens’ capacities to interact with it. Fung (2006) established an analytical framework that differentiates designs according to three dimensions: (i) selection mechanism, (ii) form of communication and (iii) degree of influence. This allows us to identify modalities with different effects on legitimacy and trust. Consultative designs generate information for authorities but have limited impact on trust due to their low incidence; deliberative designs, according to Fishkin (2009), strengthen trust when they guarantee political equality, informed discussion, and procedural transparency. In contrast, the empowered models described by Cohen and Rogers (1992) offer citizens real decision-making power, which increases the perception of state responsiveness, although they require high levels of institutionalization.

From a normative perspective, Fischer (2000) argued that the evaluation of designs should not focus solely on their technical efficiency, but also on their ability to integrate citizen knowledge, minimize power asymmetries, and produce deliberative justice. These criteria are linked to the World Bank (1997) approach to good governance, where participation is conceived as a structural mechanism to consolidate transparency, reduce discretion, and sustain public credibility.

Recent studies extend this field to hybrid and digital formats. Watfa and Ali (2025) demonstrated that digital platforms generate innovative combinations of consultation, collaboration, and citizen monitoring, diversifying the points of contact between citizens and the state. Kwan (2022) pointed out that these designs only acquire legitimacy when they incorporate verifiable feedback and traceability of citizen contributions.

Likewise, Myoung and Liou (2022) showed that contemporary deliberative models strengthen civic learning and the perception of procedural justice. Inclusive and transformative designs, such as those documented by Pramuditha et al. (2024) and Hutahaean et al. (2023), increase legitimacy by integrating intercultural and community dynamics that promote social cohesion. Hybrid, digital, and face-to-face modalities, such as those analyzed by Li and Shang (2023) and Van Nguyen et al. (2025), broaden the participation of specific groups, particularly young people, while Nawafleh and Khasawneh (2024) show that associative spaces operate as indirect participation by generating collective practices based on co-responsibility.

Based on the above, the literature reveals that there is no single participatory effect, but rather differentiated results according to (a) the level of actual impact, (b) the type of interaction (informative, consultative, deliberative, decision-making), (c) the degree of social inclusion, and (d) the institutional capacity to respond to demands.

This diversity requires studying how citizens interpret each modality and why the same mechanisms produce different effects on the perception of trust.

2.4. Factors Influencing Trust

Public trust is shaped by a set of citizen assessments of impartiality, performance, procedural justice, and institutional transparency. Anuradha and Pathranarakul (2023) explained that trust emerges when state action is perceived as consistent, verifiable, and oriented toward collective well-being. Li and Xue (2021) expanded on this perspective by showing that administrative efficiency, when it coincides with the commitments made by the authorities, reinforces institutional credibility by reducing uncertainty regarding the functioning of the state. From a political perspective, Li (2021) argued that institutional openness and citizen inclusion are crucial for sustaining trust, particularly when legitimacy is under strain. In line with this, Kala et al. (2024) demonstrated that participation strengthens credibility when it is linked to positive assessments of local performance. This evidence suggests that trust does not depend solely on technical performance, but on how citizens interpret their relationship with the state (Rodriguez-Saavedra et al. 2025).

On a symbolic level, Gupta (2021) identified that procedural justice and fairness in government decisions act as emotional anchors of trust, while Verástegui et al. (2025) showed that a lack of openness and the persistence of closed hierarchical structures erode public credibility. From an interpretive perspective, Abdulkareem and Oladimeji (2024) explained that trust is constituted at the intersection of distributive justice, service effectiveness, and institutional accountability, converging in a comprehensive perception of the integrity of the state. Haesevoets et al. (2024) added that civic self-efficacy influences the willingness to trust, as it generates positive expectations about one’s own ability to influence. Institutional contributions reinforce these findings. Healy (2023) demonstrated that citizen monitoring mechanisms reduce discretion and shorten the psychological distance between citizens and the state. He and Ma (2021) showed that lack of information and limited institutional response undermine credibility, while Abdi and Rahman (2025) highlighted the importance of transparency and continuous interaction in sustaining open governance systems.

2.5. Critical Synthesis and Research Gap

The classical literature has extensively established the link between citizen participation and democratic legitimacy. Fischer (1993, 2000), Fishkin (1991, 2009), and Fung (2006) explained that deliberative mechanisms emerged in response to the loss of institutional credibility, while Cohen and Rogers (1992) emphasized that empowered participation sought to rebuild public trust. The World Bank’s (1997) approach to good governance integrated these principles, consolidating transparency, social control, and state openness as pillars of legitimacy. However, Mahmud (2021) pointed out that the field is conceptually saturated and requires new definitions that allow us to understand how trust is configured in current contexts.

Recent evidence has shown that trust depends on perceptions of performance, institutional coherence, and participatory openness (Ye et al. 2024; Zeng et al. 2025). Other studies, such as those by Brunner et al. (2024) and Abdi (2023), emphasize that the stable integration of participatory mechanisms reinforces citizen satisfaction and consolidates democratic legitimacy. Likewise, Gao and Sun (2025) show that continuous interaction reduces the psychological distance between citizens and the state.

However, despite these advances, a central limitation remains: there is insufficient understanding of how citizens interpret their direct experience within different participatory designs or why similar modalities generate different effects on public trust. Nevertheless, the literature still does not explain why similar participatory designs generate divergent effects among different social or territorial groups, which reinforces the need for an interpretive analysis focused on citizen perceptions (Rodriguez-Saavedra et al. 2025). This theoretical gap justifies the interpretive approach of the present study, which aims to analyze participation as a process through which people evaluate the coherence, openness, and responsiveness of the state, thus shaping their perception of democratic trust.

2.6. Relevance of the Peruvian Case

The Peruvian case provides a unique setting for studying the relationship between citizen participation and institutional trust due to the political instability, corruption scandals, and crisis of representation that have marked the country over the last two decades.

At the regional level, comparative studies have shown that Latin American states face persistent deficits in transparency, equity, and access to participatory mechanisms. ECLAC (2023), UNDP (2024), and OECD (2023) agree that countries with lower public trust are those where accountability is fragmented, and participatory processes lack continuity. This scenario places Peru within a regional pattern where citizens demand mechanisms that reduce institutional uncertainty and produce verifiable results.

Peru also has a high degree of sociocultural and territorial diversity, which complicates the relationship between participation and trust. Lee (2024) highlights that culturally heterogeneous environments require intercultural participatory mechanisms, while Dong and Kübler (2021) show that legitimacy increases when historically marginalized sectors are included. Ati et al. (2024) add that active citizenship is strengthened when there are stable interactions between institutions and community actors, a critical aspect in a country where trust in the state fluctuates continuously (Rodriguez Saavedra et al. 2025b).

Therefore, the availability of national microdata allows us to examine how citizens interpret their experience with participatory spaces in a context of political volatility. Ratnasari et al. (2022) point out that trust depends on consistency between government performance and commitment, and Lee (2021) shows that verifiable information reduces the psychological distance between the state and society. Based on the above, Peru offers an appropriate “institutional laboratory” for understanding the effects of participation on public trust in contexts of high uncertainty and unstable legitimacy.

3. Materials and Methods

3.1. Study Strategy and Design

The study adopted a qualitative approach, aimed at interpreting the meanings that citizens attribute to political participation, state transparency, and trust in public institutions. It was applied in nature, as it sought to generate useful knowledge for strengthening participatory processes (Rodriguez Saavedra et al. 2025a). The scope was explanatory-interpretative, focused on understanding how citizens’ perceptions of institutional legitimacy are shaped. A phenomenological-hermeneutic method was used, which is appropriate for studying subjective experiences expressed by participants in a complex social environment (Richey 2023). This approach made it possible to identify patterns of meaning associated with the formation of public trust, the evaluation of state performance, and the interaction between citizens and institutions.

3.2. Participants

The study included 4124 participants residing in Peru, selected through purposive sampling, with the aim of incorporating a diversity of experiences and perceptions related to citizen participation and trust in public institutions. The sample consisted of citizens (55%) and public officials (45%), aged between 21 and 68, which allowed for intergenerational perspectives and perspectives from different areas of interaction with the state.

The call for participants was made through an open invitation distributed via digital platforms, including LinkedIn, university networks, academic groups, and a unique access link disseminated through institutional contacts. This mechanism ensured voluntary participation, avoided duplication, and broadened the scope to include profiles directly or indirectly linked to public affairs. Table 1 below summarizes the main sociodemographic characteristics of the participants included in the study.

Table 1. General characteristics of study participants.

Variable	Category	Frequency (n)	Percentage (%)
Gender	Men	1946	47.2%
	Women	2178	52.8%
Age	21–30 years old	1324	32.1%
	31–40 years old	1412	34.3%
	41–50 years old	843	20.4%
	51–68 years old	545	13.2%
Participant status	Citizens	2268	55.0%
	Civil servants	1856	45.0%
Level of education	Completed secondary education	674	16.3%
	Higher technical education	785	19.0%
	University education (undergraduate)	1727	41.9%
	Postgraduate (master’s or doctorate)	938	22.8%

Table 1 shows the distribution of participants according to gender, age, citizenship or professional status, and educational level. The inclusion of these variables allows us to contextualize the plurality of profiles present in the research and provides relevant elements for understanding the diversity of experiences and perceptions analyzed in the qualitative study.

3.3. Instruments

A semi-structured interview guide was used to collect information, designed to explore the meanings, perceptions, and experiences that participants attribute to citizen participation, government transparency, and trust in state institutions. This instrument allowed for open-ended questions organized around a clear theoretical structure, while also providing flexibility to delve deeper into the narratives (Bruun 2024).

Due to the high number of participants, the guide consisted of 15 open-ended questions distributed across conceptual dimensions previously defined based on the literature on institutional legitimacy, citizen participation, governance, public communication, and trust. These dimensions were established prior to the fieldwork to ensure interpretive consistency and avoid analytical dispersion. The instrument underwent content validation by five specialists in public policy, democratic governance, and sociology, who evaluated the clarity, relevance, and internal consistency of each item. The assessment resulted in an Aiken V coefficient of 0.912, an indicator that supports the adequacy and conceptual soundness of the guide.

All interviews were conducted with digital informed consent, were fully recorded, and were subsequently transcribed by the team of authors for qualitative analysis. Atlas.ti version 23 was used for processing, following an open and axial coding procedure that allowed for the identification of units of meaning, their grouping into categories, and the establishment of interpretive connections between the analytical axes of the study. Table 2 below shows the correspondence between the theoretical construction and the empirical exploration.

Table 2. Subcategories, qualitative indicators, and semi-structured questions.

Interpretive Category	Subcategory	Qualitative Indicator	Question
1. Institutional legitimacy	Procedural transparency	Perceived clarity in decisions and use of resources	Do you consider that the authorities are transparent in their decisions and in their use of resources?
	Institutional responsiveness	Responsiveness to citizens’ needs	Have you had experiences in which a public entity effectively addressed a need or problem?
	Government compliance	Perception of fulfillment of institutional commitments	Do you believe that institutions fulfill the promises they make to citizens?
2. Public trust (Fung 2006; Fishkin 2009)	Institutional credibility	Current level of trust in institutions	How much confidence do you have in state institutions today and why?
	Trust factors	Actions that strengthen or weaken trust	What actions by the authorities inspire confidence or mistrust in you?
	Citizen expectations	Demands to strengthen public trust	What do you expect from institutions to strengthen trust in the government?
3. Citizen participation (Fung 2006)	Modalities of participation	Ways and spaces in which citizens participate	In what activities or spaces have you participated to express your opinions on public issues?
	Perceived results	Changes or improvements attributed to participation	Have you noticed that your participation has led to any change or improvement?
	Barriers to access	Obstacles that limit active participation	What obstacles do you think prevent more people from actively participating in public affairs?
4. State–citizen relationship	Public communication	Proximity and accessibility of communication channels	How would you describe the current relationship between citizens and the state?
	Public commitment	Perception of the ethical commitment of public officials	How do you perceive the commitment of public officials to the common good?
	Participatory inclusion	Degree of openness to listening to citizens	Do you believe that citizens have real opportunities to participate and be heard?
5. Democratic innovation	Proposals for improvement	Suggested measures to strengthen participation	What concrete measures could improve citizen participation in decision-making?
	Digital innovation	Use of technological tools to facilitate interaction	How could digital tools bring citizens closer to the government?
	Civic culture	Educational transformations necessary to strengthen trust	What should change in civic education or culture to restore trust in institutions?

Table 2 presented the interpretive categories, which were defined based on the literature on participatory democracy, institutional legitimacy, and public trust. The questions were organized to explore the mechanisms by which citizens evaluate transparency, participation, and trust in institutions.

3.4. Ethics and Procedure

The study complied with the ethical principles of confidentiality, informed consent, and respect for the autonomy of participants. Before beginning data collection, each person digitally accepted a consent form explaining the study’s objectives, the use of the data, and their right to withdraw at any time without consequences. To ensure anonymity, each participant was assigned an alphanumeric code that prevented any possibility of personal identification (Vento 2024). All data collection was carried out virtually in secure digital environments, avoiding unnecessary risks or exposure.

The procedure was carried out in three phases. In the first phase, the call for participation was disseminated and compliance with the inclusion criteria was verified (Faustini 2025). In the second phase, a semi-structured interview guide in open digital format was applied, ensuring uniformity in its application and consistency in the analytical categories. In the third phase, the responses were transcribed in full and analyzed in Atlas.ti software, applying theoretical saturation criteria to determine the end of the analytical process. The entire study was conducted in accordance with the ethical standards of social science research and following the guidelines of the Declaration of Helsinki.

4. Results

The qualitative analysis was developed from semi-structured interviews processed and coded in Atlas.ti v23 software, applying open and axial coding techniques, thematic content analysis, and interpretive triangulation. These tools made it possible to identify discursive patterns and shared meanings about trust, participation, and governance. A Sankey diagram was also used to visually represent the flows and interconnections between the emerging categories. The results presented below reflect the most representative perceptions that explain the interaction between citizens and public institutions.

4.1. Results of Objective 1: Interpret Citizens’ Perceptions of Levels of Trust and Credibility in Public Institutions

The qualitative analysis showed that public trust was mainly structured around three elements: transparency, consistency in management, and the state’s responsiveness. Respondents associated credibility with verifiable experiences, clear information, fulfillment of commitments, and timely attention, while opacity, bureaucracy, and institutional distance were described as factors that undermine public legitimacy. Differences between social groups were also identified; citizens prioritized proximity and speed of resolution, while officials emphasized administrative efficiency and procedural compliance. At the territorial level, local institutions were perceived as more accessible and reliable than national entities, which were characterized by their remoteness and difficulty of contact. Table 3 below summarizes the emerging categories associated with these perceptions.

Table 3. Emerging categories related to citizen trust in public institutions.

Category	Subcategories	Representative Codes (Atlas.ti)	Micro-Quotes
Institutional transparency	Transparency of information. Access to decisions	transp_info, clarity_of_decisions, public_access	“The information is always incomplete” (E;112). “They never explain clearly how they use resources” (E;87).
Consistency and state compliance	Fulfillment of commitments. Visible results	compliance, verifiable_actions, consistency	“I trust them when they deliver on their promises” (E;210). “They say a lot of things, but little is seen” (E;1327).
Institutional response	Response time. Effectiveness of service	rapid_response, effectiveness, citizen_management	“If they don’t respond quickly, you feel like they don’t care” (E;2317). “Sometimes the solution comes late or never” (E;999).
Proximity and accessibility	Territorial presence. Direct relationship with officials	local_proximity, in-person_service, contact_with_officials	“At least in the municipality they listen to you” (E;431). “At the national level, it’s impossible to get anyone to listen to you” (E;614).
Public credibility	Perceived legitimacy. Institutional reputation	legitimacy, reputation, citizen_perception	“The institution is credible when it acts with clarity” (E;137). “People no longer believe in the authorities because they always change their story” (E;745).

The results summarized in Table 3 show that public trust is a dynamic process based on the relationship between institutional performance and citizen expectations. Transparency, consistency, and responsiveness emerged as the key criteria by which the population evaluates the credibility of the state. The micro-quotes reveal a constant demand for clear information, effective compliance, and timely attention, while institutional presence at the local level helps reinforce the perception of accessibility and proximity. These categories allow us to understand that public trust is a key indicator of the state–society relationship and a fundamental component for rebuilding institutional legitimacy.

4.2. Results of Objective 2: Analyze the Political, Social, and Administrative Factors That Condition the Capacity of Participation to Generate Public Trust

The qualitative analysis showed that citizen participation is interpreted as a process influenced by structural conditions that determine its impact on public trust. Interviewees pointed out that participatory effectiveness depends on transparency in management, ethical conduct by officials, the quality of consultation spaces, and the clarity of administrative procedures. The perception of exclusion increases when participation is considered symbolic, bureaucratic, or without real impact on state decisions. In addition, unequal access to information and digital tools, together with institutional slowness and lack of follow-up, reinforces the idea that citizens have few opportunities to influence public management. Table 4 below summarizes the emerging categories related to these conditioning factors.

Table 4. Factors influencing public confidence.

Category	Subcategories	Representative Codes (Atlas.ti)	Micro-Quotes
Transparency in public management	Access to information. Clarity in decisions	transp_decisions, access_info, clarity_management	“They don’t report how anything is decided” (E;284). “The information arrives late or incomplete” (E;112).
Ethics and functional responsibility	Fulfillment of public role. Ethical behavior	functional_responsibility, service_ethics, non-compliance	“Officials don’t even fulfill the basics” (E;350). “If there is no ethics, there can be no trust” (E;829).
Openness and quality of participatory spaces	Real inclusion. Opportunity for advocacy	real_participation, consultation_spaces, citizen_impact	“We participate, but it has no impact” (E;23). “They only listen to us to comply” (E;12).
Social factors of inequality	Information gaps. Technological limitations	information_gap, access_inequality, technological_barrier	“Many do not participate because they do not know how” (E;1451). “Not everyone has access to platforms” (E;321).
Bureaucracy and administrative weakness	Institutional slowness. Lack of state compliance	slow_procedures, lack_of_follow-up, bureaucracy	“Everything is very slow and they never follow up” (E;4002). “The paperwork discourages you from participating” (E;624).
Legitimacy and institutional trust	Historical reputation. State consistency	institutional_legitimacy, state_coherence, credibility	“You only trust when you see results, not words” (E;137). “The institution’s reputation is already tarnished” (E;745)

The information presented in Table 4 shows that the ability of participation to generate trust depends on a network of factors that operate simultaneously in the political, social, and administrative spheres. Transparency and institutional ethics are consolidated as basic requirements for citizens to perceive participation as a real process and not as a formality. Information inequality and technological limitations introduce barriers that prevent full inclusion, while administrative slowness and lack of follow-up generate frustration and demotivation among citizens. Micro-quotes show that the legitimacy of the state is weakened when participatory spaces lack impact, clarity, and continuity. Taken together, these findings make it clear that participation only contributes to strengthening public trust when it takes place in open, accountable, and efficient institutional conditions.

4.3. Results of Objective 3: Interpreting the Narratives of Social and Governmental Actors on the Actual Effectiveness of Participatory Spaces in Public Decision-Making

The qualitative analysis showed that participatory spaces are formally recognized by citizens, but their actual effectiveness in decision-making is perceived as limited. The narratives showed that these mechanisms function mainly as consultative processes that rarely produce verifiable changes, creating a sense of distance between the state and society. Participants pointed out that the lack of continuity, the absence of feedback, and the limited incorporation of citizen contributions diminish the legitimacy of these spaces. Likewise, unilateral communication, bureaucracy, and lack of follow-up reinforced the perception that participation operates more as an administrative procedure than as a deliberative process. However, positive experiences emerged at the local level, where direct contact with authorities allowed for concrete improvements and greater institutional commitment to listening to citizens. Table 5 below summarizes the emerging categories related to the actual effectiveness of participatory spaces.

Table 5. Factors affecting the effectiveness of participatory spaces.

Category	Subcategories	Atlas.ti Codes	Representative Micro-Quotes
Perception of effectiveness	Real impact. Visible results	visible_results, real_impact, participation_impact	“We participate, but nothing changes” (E;23). “When there are results, you start to trust again” (E;3317).
Symbolic participation	Formal listening. Non-binding mechanisms	symbolic_participation, formality, non-binding	“They listen to us to comply, not to decide” (E;12).
Institutional communication	Unidirectionality. Technical language	vertical_communication, lack_of_feedback, technical_language	“Communication is only informative, there is no dialogue” (E;756). “They speak in terms that people don’t understand” (E;305).
Government response and follow-up	Response times. Continuity of agreements	delayed_response, lack_of_follow-up, broken_promises	“Everything is recorded in the minutes, but they never comply” (E;3142). “There is no follow-up, everything fizzles out” (E;1137).
Positive local experiences	Institutional proximity. Verifiable actions	local_actions, municipal_proximity, direct_dialogue	“In my municipality, they did listen and they did it” (E;1782). “When the mayor responds, you feel taken into account” (E;1456).
Citizen expectations	Transparency. Feedback	hope_for_change, demand_for_transparency, feedback	“We want to know what happened with what we proposed” (E;2094). “If they explained more, there would be more trust” (E;37).

Table 5 shows that the effectiveness of participatory mechanisms depends on the state’s capacity to generate visible results and maintain two-way communication processes. Perceptions of symbolic participation, lack of follow-up, and one-way communication explain why citizens believe that their contributions do not have a real influence on public decisions. Positive experiences in local governments show that effectiveness increases when there is institutional proximity, timely responses, and verifiable actions. The findings indicate that participation is valued not for its formal existence, but for its ability to influence, produce change, and maintain consistency between what is deliberated and what is executed.

4.4. Interpretive Representation of Qualitative Findings

The Sankey diagram visually summarizes the qualitative findings of the three specific objectives and allows us to observe how the central categories of the analysis, such as public trust, institutional factors, citizen participation, the state–citizen relationship, and participatory governance, are linked to the conditional factors identified in the open and axial coding process. This representation facilitates understanding of the intensity and directionality of the connections interpreted in the narratives. Figure 1 below presents the interpretive representation constructed from the qualitative processing of the data.

Figure 1. Interpretive representation of citizen participation and trust in the state.

Figure 1 shows that public trust is shaped by the interaction between credibility, transparency, and state responsiveness. Low levels of trust are mainly linked to experiences of opacity, top-down communication, and poor response times. Moderate trust is associated with listening practices, availability of information, and some verifiable results. Finally, high trust is related to contexts in which participants perceive institutional coherence, accountability, and effective participatory mechanisms.

This representation reaffirms that participatory governance acts as an integrating axis between citizen perceptions and the reconstruction of public trust. The articulation between transparency, credibility, inclusion, institutional improvements, and participatory forms shapes a dynamic process through which citizens evaluate the legitimacy of the state and the coherence between its commitments and actions.

5. Discussion

The findings showed that public trust is built on the perceived consistency between institutional commitments and the observable results of government management. Participants interpreted transparency, credibility, and responsiveness as fundamental elements for sustaining institutional legitimacy. This interpretation is in line with the classic literature that, since the 1990s, has explained that democratic trust depends on visible, fair, and procedurally legitimate processes. Along these lines, Fischer (1993, 2000) and Fishkin (1991, 2009) argued that trust is strengthened when citizens perceive openness and clarity in policy-making processes. Similarly, Fung (2006) emphasized that participatory mechanisms only generate trust when they have a real impact on decision-making. Recent evidence confirms these ideas. Abasilim and Adekunle (2024) demonstrated that impartiality in management strengthens citizen trust, while Gale et al. (2025) pointed out that accountability increases the perception of democratic reliability. Similarly, Tzagkarakis and Kritas (2023) reinforced that procedural legitimacy is consolidated when transparency, openness, and inclusion are visible to citizens.

Political, social, and institutional factors also conditioned citizens’ interpretations of trust. The narratives showed that bureaucratic distance, lack of information accessibility, and insufficient public ethics practices create a structural climate of mistrust. This finding coincides with Aldeguer and Antón-Mellón (2025), who argue that corruption and opacity undermine state credibility, and with Feng and Shao (2023), who assert that institutional clarity reinforces perceived legitimacy. Recent research also highlights the role of government digitization. Yang (2021) showed that interactive communication reduces information asymmetry, while Milkoreit (2025) showed that accessible digital channels strengthen the perception of integrity. Richey (2023) identified that satisfaction with digital services increases the perception of institutional honesty, thus reinforcing the link between communication, efficiency, and trust.

On the other hand, citizen experiences revealed that participatory spaces, although present, are perceived as having little impact and being mostly formal. This result coincides with the tradition of Cohen and Rogers (1992), who explained that participation only contributes to public trust when it generates verifiable effects and produces shared decisions. Contemporary theories support this approach. He and Ma (2021) found that active participation strengthens democratic identity, while Abdi and Rahman (2025) argued that political inclusion allows for a more genuine representation of collective demands. Mahmud (2021) and Ye et al. (2024) demonstrated that local cooperation increases institutional legitimacy, reinforcing the perception of the public system’s effectiveness. In addition, Zeng et al. (2025) and Brunner et al. (2024) pointed out that civic knowledge promotes critical and active citizenship, which explains why participation with monitoring and feedback strengthens democratic trust. According to Abdi (2023) and Gao and Sun (2025), new digital forms of participation expand channels of expression and reduce barriers to involvement.

Likewise, it was observed that the relationship between citizens and the state continues to be mediated by predominantly vertical communication, characterized by one-way information and little feedback. This communication pattern weakens the institutional bond and sustains the perception of state distance. The literature confirms this trend. Lee (2024) demonstrated that the use of clear and emotionally appropriate language improves the perception of government commitment, while Ati et al. (2024) pointed out that effective management of digital networks reduces the psychological distance between citizens and authorities. Ratnasari et al. (2022) showed that the dissemination of verifiable information increases public satisfaction. Similarly, Vento (2024) and Gale et al. (2025) showed that understanding institutional outcomes and a sense of local belonging encourage civic collaboration. Complementarily, Aldeguer and Antón-Mellón (2025) and Lai and Beh (2025) explained that the incorporation of technological tools promotes direct participation and transparency, consolidating more responsive and cooperative governance practices.

Based on the above, the results allow us to affirm that public trust is rebuilt when there is consistency between institutional discourse and action, when processes are transparent, and when participatory spaces offer clear impact and results. This study confirms the validity of the classic approaches of Fischer (1993, 2000), Fishkin (1991, 2009), and Fung (2006), showing that democratic trust does not depend solely on formal mechanisms of participation, but on the real capacity of institutions to communicate, respond, and demonstrate openness. The analysis shows that institutional legitimacy emerges from the interaction between transparency, public ethics, meaningful participation, and accessible communication, forming an interpretive system where citizen perceptions are articulated with government practices that sustain or erode collective trust.

Future Research and Recommendations

Future research should delve deeper into the analysis of participatory governance by comparing how different institutional models operate in the Peruvian context, at the local, regional, and national levels. It is necessary to examine how the country’s historical trajectories of participation, the predominance of municipal experiences, and the asymmetries between urban and rural areas influence the configuration of citizen trust. It would also be relevant to explore the relationship between digital innovation and state credibility, analyzing the role of online platforms, citizen interaction tools, and government communication strategies to improve transparency and institutional responsiveness.

It is recommended to use mixed methodologies that integrate qualitative and quantitative evidence, allowing for a more complete understanding of perceptions of legitimacy, administrative performance, and institutional accessibility. Future lines of research could also examine the role of civic education in the formation of critical and participatory citizens, as well as the effect of accountability policies on rebuilding public trust. Strengthening these areas will allow for a more accurate understanding of the mechanisms that link participation, communication, and trust within specific geo-institutional contexts.

6. Conclusions

The findings showed that public trust is based, first and foremost, on the correspondence between institutional discourse and the concrete actions that citizens can observe in their daily lives. In this context, local institutions stood out for generating greater credibility due to their accessibility, responsiveness, and direct presence in the territory. In contrast, central levels were perceived as more distant, bureaucratic, and less transparent, which consistently weakened citizen assessment. This shows that trust is consolidated when there is clarity of information, fulfillment of commitments, and tangible evidence of state performance.

Second, it was confirmed that political, social, and administrative factors have a decisive influence on the strength of the relationship between the state and its citizens. The lack of accountability, limited inclusion in decision-making processes, and unclear institutional practices led to a progressive erosion of trust. At the same time, experiences that incorporated functional responsibility, public ethics, and openness to dialogue showed that these elements can reverse negative perceptions and strengthen legitimacy. Thus, the link between institutions and society depends as much on the quality of management as on the overall behavior of those who exercise public functions.

Third, the analysis confirmed that citizen participation continues to be predominantly formal, fragmented, and with little capacity to influence decision-making. However, when spaces for participation offered continuity, feedback, and effective mechanisms for channeling proposals, significant improvements in trust and a sense of institutional belonging were observed. This reveals that participation only acquires transformative value when it is accompanied by follow-up, a willingness to listen, and visible results that reflect the real incorporation of citizen contributions.

Likewise, it was identified that institutional communication is still unidirectional, with insufficient response times and a lack of clarity in the information provided. These conditions contribute to perceptions of disinterest, distance, and administrative weakness. However, significant progress was observed in the use of digital tools that reduce the gap between authorities and citizens, favoring more direct, accessible, and timely interaction.

The results allow us to conclude that rebuilding public trust requires a gradual but determined shift toward a participatory governance model based on transparency, clear communication, and genuine shared responsibility in decision-making. Trust is strengthened when institutional management acts consistently, when authorities respond clearly, and when citizens participate in processes where their voices are effectively taken into account.

This involves consolidating structures that guarantee accessibility, feedback mechanisms, and management that is consistently oriented toward the common interest, thus shaping a more solid, legitimate, and balanced relationship between society and the state.