Civix21 measures how well societies actually function — not through political opinion, but through independent, evidence-based frameworks. In a post-truth world, that distinction matters more than ever.
"Across almost every liberal democracy we have scored, institutions perform significantly better than citizens believe they do. That gap — between structural capacity and public trust — is not a communications problem. It is a legitimacy crisis."Civix21 — Trustgap Framework, 2024
We call this the Trust Gap. It is the headline finding of our national scoring model — and it appears in country after country, regardless of political system, geography, or government performance.
Denmark scores 88 on institutional capacity. Its citizens trust those institutions at a level equivalent to 62. Japan scores 81 structurally — citizen trust sits at 51. The UK: 72 structural, 49 relational. These are not outliers. They are the pattern.
Understanding the Trust GapHow well are our societies and institutions actually serving the people they exist for?
A three-tier model for assessing national civic health — from institutional capacity and citizen trust, through strategic positioning, to overall societal resilience.
Live Data90 countries scored on Tier 1 trust and institutional health. Structural scores, relational scores, and the Trust Gap for each. Updated annually.
EnglandPerformance tracking for English local authorities across all council levels. Designed to measure change over time — not just a single-point snapshot.
Public debate about the health of democracy, the performance of governments, and the trustworthiness of institutions is dominated by assertion. Civix21 exists to change that — providing independently sourced, methodologically transparent measurements that anyone can interrogate.
We draw on 15 authoritative global datasets — from the World Bank and World Justice Project to the Edelman Trust Barometer and V-Dem Institute — to produce scores that are comparable across countries and trackable over time.
How We ScoreScores run 0–100 on a fixed benchmark — not ranked against each other. A country's score in 2024 is directly comparable to its score in 2020.
Every indicator links to its primary data source. We publish our methodology openly so others can check, challenge, and build on the work.
Our model includes a protocol for regimes that suppress measurement. Official data alone cannot score Russia or Iran — the methodology accounts for that.
What the data reveals about democratic health, institutional legitimacy, and the future of civic life.
The Trust Gap data reveals a striking pattern — and it has serious implications for democratic stability.
ExplainerA plain-language guide to the framework's headline concept — and what a 20+ point gap actually means in practice.
CommentaryOn why grounding civic debate in data is not neutral — and why that matters.