Purpose
Trust in political leaders has been of interest to scholars for centuries. Numerous studies have pushed the boundaries of our understanding of trust in political leaders and its antecedents. Recently, the question of trust in political leaders, especially in Africa, has regained the attention of scholars. The primary objective of this study is to contribute to this intellectual discourse by investigating the predictors of trust in political leaders in Ghana. More particular, we examine why Ghanaians trust their political leaders, that is, the President, Members of Parliament, Local Government Council and Metropolitan, Municipal and District Chief Executives.
Design/methodology/approach
The dichotomous nature of trust in political leaders (outcome variable) determined the analytical approach we utilized. Specifically, the binary logistic regression technique was used to analyzed individual-level responses of 2,369 Ghanaians from all 16 administrative regions collected between 2019 and 2021.
Findings
The descriptive results suggest that the majority of Ghanaians (75%) trust their political leaders. Our regression estimates suggest that political leaders performance ( p < 0.001), political leaders listen to citizens ( p < 0.001), respondents aged 36–55 and 56+ years, both ( p < 0.05), respondents affiliated to the New Patriotic Party ( p < 0.001), residing in the Ashanti ( p < 0.05), Northern ( p < 0.05), Oti ( p < 0.05) and Savannah ( p < 0.01) regions, satisfaction with democracy ( p < 0.001), general level of corruption ( p < 0.001), institutional ( p < 0.001) and social ( p < 0.01) trust increase the likelihood of Ghanaians trusting their political leaders. However, the country moving in the wrong ( p < 0.05) decreases the likelihood of trusting political leaders in Ghana.
Research limitations/implications
This study acknowledges several limitations. First, it relies on secondary survey data, which, although easy to access, is subject to desirability bias, as respondents may alter their true responses during surveys. Researchers have limited tools to address this issue when analyzing survey data. Second, the study uses a single-item variable to measure trust, which may not fully capture the concept, as a multiple-item variable would. Third, certain measures do not cover all political leaders in the analysis, particularly performance, contact with political leaders and political leaders who listen. Fourth, the study does not distinguish between national and local political leaders, potentially overlooking differences in trust predictors. Fifth, some important variables, such as income, which are known to influence trust, are omitted. Finally, the analysis focuses on individual-level data and does not account for country-level variables that might affect trust in political leaders. Despite these limitations, the study makes important contributions to understanding trust in political leaders in Ghana and the sub-region. Future researchers are encouraged to: (1) explore qualitative techniques that explain the “why” behind the results, (2) consider using a multiple-item measure of trust to capture its complexities, (3) include a full measure for political leaders' performance and contact, (4) examine differences in trust and its predictors between national and local leaders and (5) include omitted variables such as income and macro-level factors for a more detailed and comprehensive understanding of trust in political leaders.
Originality/value
Although this study’s research question is not new, it is unique because it first aims to investigate trust in all major political leaders in Ghana, except for a few cabinet ministers, among others. Second, this study utilizes recent data that captures the views of Ghanaians. In terms of the value, we posit that this study augments existing studies and paves new paths for future studies, and its findings have policy implications in Ghana and beyond.