May 2026

The space between
capacity and trust

A nation can have strong institutions and deeply mistrustful citizens. The gap between those two things is where fragility lives. We measure it.

9
Countries in the dataset
8
Sub-indicators per country
24
Metrics per assessment
14+
Primary international sources
The Core Idea

What is the Trust Gap?

Example — United Kingdom
Structural Score 72.4
Relational Score 48.6
Trust Gap: +23.8 points. Institutions are functioning well ahead of the trust citizens place in them. A persistent gap at this level is a warning signal.
Two scores, one gap
Every country gets a Structural Score — how well institutions function — and a Relational Score — how much citizens trust them. The Trust Gap is the distance between those two numbers.
Why the gap matters more than either score
A country with strong institutions and low public trust is unstable in a specific, predictable way. The institutions may be capable — but they lack legitimacy. That combination has historically preceded democratic backsliding and political volatility.
A migration risk, not just a score
Any country with a Trust Gap exceeding 20 points is flagged as at risk of quadrant migration — moving toward a more precarious classification — regardless of where its absolute scores sit today.

Selected scores

🇩🇰
Denmark
Efficient But Distant
88.0
Structural
61.9
Relational
🇯🇵
Japan
Efficient But Distant ⚠
81.2
Structural
51.0
Relational
🇬🇧
United Kingdom
Efficient But Distant
72.4
Structural
48.6
Relational
🇮🇹
Italy
Polarised Democracy
64.3
Structural
50.6
Relational
🇷🇺
Russia
Fragile State
36.5
Structural
37.3
Relational
Classification

Four quadrants

Every country is assigned to one of four quadrants based on where its scores fall.

Stable Democracy
Functioning and trusted
Structural ≥65 · Relational ≥65
Institutions work and citizens trust them. The most durable classification — internal legitimacy is high on both dimensions.
Efficient But Distant
Capacity without consent
Structural ≥65 · Relational <65
Institutions outperform the trust placed in them. The most common classification among developed democracies — and the most deceptive. The gap is the risk.
Polarised Democracy
Pressure on both axes
Structural <65 · Relational <65
Both institutional performance and public trust are under strain. Political volatility is elevated and reform requires addressing both dimensions simultaneously.
Fragile State
Critical failure across both pillars
Structural <50 · Relational <50
Institutions are failing and citizens know it. Stability, where it exists, depends on coercion rather than consent.
Dataset

Country scores

Trust Health — Tier 1. All 9 countries in the current dataset, scored against the same methodology using primary international sources.

CountryStructuralLabelRelationalLabelTrust GapQuadrantVer.
🇩🇰Denmark
88.0
Exceptional
61.9
Moderate+26.1 ⚠Efficient But DistantV2.0
🇨🇦Canada
83.6
Exceptional
57.6
Weak+26.0 ⚠Efficient But DistantV1.0
🇯🇵Japan
81.2
Exceptional
51.0
Weak+30.2 ⚠Efficient But Distant ⚠V1.0
🇩🇪Germany
80.3
Exceptional
53.3
Weak+27.0 ⚠Efficient But Distant ⚠V1.0
🇬🇧United Kingdom
72.4
Strong
48.6
Critical+23.8 ⚠Efficient But DistantV2.0
🇫🇷France
69.4
Moderate
49.6
Critical+19.8Efficient But DistantV1.0
🇺🇸United States
66.9
Moderate
49.2
Critical+17.7Efficient But DistantV1.0
🇮🇹Italy
64.3
Moderate
50.6
Weak+13.7Polarised DemocracyV1.0
🇷🇺Russia
36.5
Fragile
37.3
Fragile−0.8Fragile StateV1.0
Growing dataset: New countries are added regularly. If you need a country not yet listed, you can request an assessment —
Score labels: Exceptional (80–100) · Strong (70–79) · Moderate (60–69) · Weak (50–59) · Critical (40–49) · Fragile (below 40)  ·  Trust Gap exceeds 20 points — migration risk flag active  ·  UK scores are a fresh run superseding V1.0 reference scores.

More countries added regularly

New country assessments are added to the dataset on a rolling basis. Don't see the country you need? You can request a specific country assessment — get in touch to discuss.

Methodology

How it works

A formula-driven framework. Every score is traceable to a named primary source, a specific metric, and an explicit calculation. No black boxes.

Overview
Structural Pillar
Relational Pillar
Classification
Data

Architecture

The index measures the internal legitimacy of a state across two equally weighted pillars: Structural (how institutions function) and Relational (how much citizens trust them). Each pillar is 50% of the overall score.

Each pillar contains four sub-indicators, weighted equally at 25% within the pillar. Each sub-indicator is built from three metrics, equally weighted and normalised to a 0–100 scale. The headline output is the Trust Gap — the difference between the two pillar scores — not a single composite number.

Score labels

Exceptional
80–100
Strong
70–79
Moderate
60–69
Weak
50–59
Critical
40–49
Fragile
Below 40

Structural Pillar

Four sub-indicators measuring how well institutions function, independent of how citizens feel about them.

Structural · Sub-1
Governance Effectiveness
World Bank WGI Government Effectiveness + Regulatory Quality percentile ranks, averaged.
Structural · Sub-2
Political Stability
World Bank WGI Political Stability and Absence of Violence. A recency adjustment of −5 to −10 applies where documented instability is not yet reflected in WGI data (maximum −10, must be cited).
Structural · Sub-3
Rule of Law / Corruption
WJP Rule of Law Index (×100) averaged with TI Corruption Perceptions Index. CPI used exactly as published — no rounding. Year-on-year CPI decline is flagged as a diagnostic signal.
Structural · Sub-4
Economic Mobility
WEF Social Mobility Index (with −7 outcome adjustment applied universally) + World Bank Gini coefficient (inverted) + OECD Education Access. All three averaged. The −7 adjustment corrects for the gap between structural access and lived outcome.

Relational Pillar

Four sub-indicators measuring how much citizens trust the state and one another, independent of how well institutions actually perform.

Relational · Sub-5
Trust in Government
Edelman Trust Barometer government trust score, exact figure — no rounding. Where Edelman is unavailable, a defined fallback hierarchy applies: independent diaspora surveys → independent national surveys → WVS Wave data → state-conducted surveys (which trigger maximum downward adjustment).
Relational · Sub-6
Social Cohesion & Belonging
Bertelsmann Social Cohesion Radar + WVS Interpersonal Trust + V-Dem Polarisation Index (inverted — higher polarisation produces a lower score). All three averaged.
Relational · Sub-7
Media Trust & Information Health
Reuters Institute Digital News Report (% trust most news) + RSF Press Freedom Index (converted: 100 − RSF note score) + Edelman Media Trust score. All three averaged.
Relational · Sub-8
Civic Participation & Democracy
International IDEA Voter Turnout + OECD/Gallup Democracy Satisfaction + V-Dem Civil Society score. All three averaged. Voter turnout is treated as observable behaviour rather than self-reported trust.
Authoritarian Context Protocol
Where a country's V-Dem Liberal Democracy Index score falls below 0.30 AND its RSF Press Freedom rank is 130/180 or worse, the Authoritarian Context Protocol is triggered. Both conditions must be confirmed. The protocol applies downward adjustments to the relational sub-indicators — ranging from −10 (Constrained) to −20 (Totalitarian) — to correct for state suppression of trust signals. Pre- and post-protocol scores are both recorded.

Quadrant classification

Every country is assigned to one of four quadrants based on its final Structural and Relational scores. The rules are fixed — no analyst override permitted.

Stable Democracy
Structural ≥65 AND Relational ≥65. Both dimensions functioning. The most durable classification.
Efficient But Distant
Structural ≥65 AND Relational <65. Institutional capacity exceeds public trust. The most common classification among developed democracies.
Polarised Democracy
Structural <65 AND Relational <65. Both dimensions under pressure. Reform requires addressing both simultaneously.
Fragile State
Structural <50 AND Relational <50. Critical failure across both pillars. Stability depends on coercion, not consent.

Migration risk flag: Any country with a Trust Gap exceeding 20 points is flagged as at risk of quadrant migration regardless of current quadrant. This indicates that relational legitimacy is deteriorating relative to structural capacity at a rate that has historically preceded quadrant change.

Primary data sources

All metrics are drawn from the most recently available edition of each source at the time of scoring. Data year is recorded alongside every metric in the full audit trail.

SourceUsed forPillar
World Bank — Worldwide Governance IndicatorsGovernment Effectiveness, Regulatory Quality, Political StabilityStructural
Transparency International — CPIRule of Law / Corruption sub-indicatorStructural
World Justice Project — Rule of Law IndexRule of Law / Corruption sub-indicatorStructural
WEF Global Social Mobility IndexEconomic Mobility (−7 outcome adjustment applied)Structural
World Bank — World Development IndicatorsGini coefficient (inverted)Structural
OECD Education at a GlanceEducation access in Economic MobilityStructural
Edelman Trust BarometerGovernment trust and Media trust (exact figures)Relational
Bertelsmann Stiftung — Social Cohesion RadarSocial Cohesion sub-indicatorRelational
World Values SurveyInterpersonal trust in Social CohesionRelational
V-Dem — Varieties of DemocracyPolarisation index, Liberal Democracy Index, Civil Society scoreRelational
Reuters Institute Digital News ReportNews trust (% trust most news)Relational
RSF — Press Freedom IndexPress freedom (converted: 100 − note score)Relational
International IDEA — Voter Turnout DatabaseVoter turnout in Civic ParticipationRelational
OECD / Gallup — Democracy SatisfactionDemocracy satisfaction in Civic ParticipationRelational
About

Why the Trust Gap?

Most national indices measure either institutions or sentiment. We measure both — and the distance between them. That distance is the signal.

The problem we're solving

Nations can have highly functional institutions and deeply mistrustful citizens. Standard indices capture one dimension at a time — governance scores, democracy rankings, press freedom indices. None cross-reference institutional capacity with public legitimacy to produce a single diagnostic picture.

The Trust Gap was designed to fill that space. The headline finding is never just a score — it is the distance between what a state can do and what its citizens believe it will do. That distance is where fragility lives, and where the most important policy questions sit.

The framework is built on primary international data, explicit formulas, and full audit trails. Every number is traceable. Every adjustment is documented.

Version history

V2.1
March 2026 — current. Output format and terminology update. Scoring methodology unchanged.
V2.0
March 2026. Trust Gap established as the headline output. Authoritarian Context Protocol codified. Tier 2 and Tier 3 methodology introduced.
V1.0
2025. Framework launch. Trust Health scoring for G8 countries. Eight sub-indicators, 24 metrics per country.

Design principles

📐
Formula-first
Every score derives from an explicit, published formula. No black boxes, no analyst discretion outside defined parameters.
🔍
Source-pinned
Every metric is tied to a named primary source, a specific indicator, and a data year. Reproducible by design.
⚖️
Transparent adjustments
Where adjustments are applied, every one is documented with its rationale, magnitude, and source citation.
🔄
Version-controlled
Framework changes are tracked by version. Historical scores remain valid under the version that produced them.

Who it's for

The Trust Health index speaks to domestic policymakers, civil society organisations, reform advocates, researchers, and anyone who needs to understand the internal legitimacy of a state over time.

The full framework additionally covers Strategic Position and Resilience Band scoring for foreign policy analysts, strategic investors, and long-term planning institutions. Tier 2 and Tier 3 scoring is in development.

Contact

Get in touch

Interested in the full dataset, a country briefing, a methodology discussion, or a custom assessment? We'd like to hear from you.

Full country reports

Every assessment produces a structured report with complete narrative, sub-indicator breakdowns, key signals, recommendations, and a full data provenance table. Excel audit trail included on request.

Request a country

Don't see the country you need? We add new countries regularly and also run assessments on request. Tell us which country you're interested in and we'll be in touch about timing and availability.

Framework methodology

The full specification — methodology, formulas, source requirements, and adjustment protocols — is available for research and institutional partners.