Trustgap is the national scoring dataset at the heart of the Civix21 framework. It measures the distance between how well institutions function and how much citizens trust them — across 90 countries and ten global groups.
Every country scored by Trustgap receives two outputs: a Structural Score measuring how well its institutions actually function, and a Relational Score measuring how much its citizens trust those institutions. The Trust Gap is the distance between the two.
Most national indices measure one thing at a time — a governance ranking, a democracy index, a corruption score. Trustgap cross-references institutional capacity with public legitimacy, and the gap between them is consistently more revealing than either number alone.
A country with strong institutions and deeply mistrustful citizens is fragile in a specific, predictable way. That pattern — which we call Efficient But Distant — is now confirmed as the dominant classification across liberal democracies worldwide. Of the 90 countries scored, 29 sit in this quadrant. Only eight qualify as Stable Democracies, where both institutional capacity and citizen trust are genuinely high.
The dataset now spans ten global groups, from the G8 to ASEAN, Latin America, and Africa. The patterns that emerged from the founding cohort have held — and sharpened.
The most common classification. Strong institutions, insufficient trust. The defining condition of modern liberal democracy.
Countries where both institutional capacity and citizen trust score genuinely high. Out of 90 countries, only 8 reach this classification.
Countries with a Trust Gap exceeding 20 points — flagged as at risk of moving to a more precarious quadrant classification, regardless of current position.
Countries where the Authoritarian Context Protocol applies — adjusting Relational scores downward to correct for state suppression of trust signals.
"The average Trust Gap across all 90 countries exceeds 17 points. Only two countries in the combined 43-country G20/EU dataset — Denmark and Finland — hold Stable Democracy classification. The pattern is not regional. It is structural."Trustgap V2.1 · May 2026
Illustrative scores from across the ten groups. Full data for all 90 countries is published on trustgap.org.
| Country | Group | Structural | Relational | Trust Gap | Quadrant |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 🇩🇰 Denmark | EU · CoE | 86.4 | 68.2 | +18.2 | Stable Democracy |
| 🇫🇮 Finland | EU · CoE | 86.2 | 68.2 | +18.0 | Stable Democracy |
| 🇯🇵 Japan | G8 · G20 | 80.0 | 50.4 | +29.6 ⚠ | Efficient But Distant |
| 🇬🇧 United Kingdom | G8 · G20 · CoE | 73.0 | 51.1 | +21.9 ⚠ | Efficient But Distant |
| 🇨🇿 Czechia | EU · CoE | 78.0 | 48.2 | +29.8 ⚠ | Efficient But Distant |
| 🇦🇪 UAE | GCC | 76.0 | 31.4 | +44.6 ⚠ | Efficient But Distant · ACP |
| 🇺🇸 United States | G8 · G20 | 61.7 | 46.3 | +15.4 | Polarised Democracy |
| 🇫🇷 France | G8 · G20 · EU | 62.7 | 46.7 | +16.0 | Polarised Democracy |
| 🇷🇺 Russia | G8 · G20 | 28.9 | 25.6 | +3.3 | Fragile State · ACP Totalitarian |
| 🇮🇷 Iran | BRICS+ | 32.5 | 11.5 | +21.0 ⚠ | Fragile State · ACP Totalitarian |
⚠ Migration risk flag active — Trust Gap exceeds 20 points. ACP = Authoritarian Context Protocol triggered. Score labels: Exceptional (80–100) · Strong (70–79) · Moderate (60–69) · Weak (50–59) · Critical (40–49) · Fragile (<40)
Countries are scored within named groups — each a defined cohort, assessed using identical methodology and primary sources. All V2.1 scores are dated May 2026.
8 countries. The founding cohort and reference point for all other groups. Includes Russia.
G2019 countries spanning Asia-Pacific, Latin America, the Middle East, and Africa.
EUAll 27 EU member states. From Nordic Stable Democracies to Balkan Fragile States.
CoE43 countries including the Western Balkans, South Caucasus, and Ukraine.
GCC6 countries. High structural scores, very low relational scores, widespread ACP designation.
BRICS+7 countries — Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa, Egypt, and Ethiopia.
ASEANAll 10 ASEAN members, from Singapore's Stable Democracy to Myanmar's fragile designation.
LatAm9 countries including Argentina, Brazil, Mexico, Chile, Colombia, and Venezuela.
Africa9 countries including South Africa, Nigeria, Kenya, Ghana, Morocco, and Zimbabwe.
Asia-Pac4 countries — New Zealand, Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Kazakhstan.
The Trustgap methodology extended to English local government. 318 councils scored on financial governance, service delivery, and LGO ombudsman signals. May 2026 baseline — including 56 changed administrations and 11 Reform UK gains.
localcouncilmonitor.trustgap.org → or learn more about the Council MonitorEvery score is traceable to a named primary source, an explicit formula, and a documented calculation. No black boxes.
Structural (what institutions do) and Relational (what citizens experience) each contribute 50% to the overall score. Each pillar contains four sub-indicators drawn from three primary metrics apiece.
World Bank WGI, Transparency International CPI, World Justice Project, V-Dem, Edelman Trust Barometer, Reuters Digital News Report, RSF Press Freedom, WEF Social Mobility, IDEA Voter Turnout, and more.
Where V-Dem falls below 0.30 and RSF rank is 130/180 or worse, the Authoritarian Context Protocol applies downward adjustments of −10 to −20 to Relational indicators. Triggered for 20 countries in V2.1.
Scores use a fixed 0–100 benchmark — not relative rankings. A 2026 score is directly comparable to a 2025 score. Framework changes are tracked by version; historical scores remain valid under the version that produced them.
The full dataset is published openly at trustgap.org. Country reports and cross-group analysis are available on request.
Every country's Structural Score, Relational Score, Trust Gap, sub-indicator breakdown, and quadrant classification. Filterable by group, quadrant, and migration risk status.
Deep-dives for specific countries — sub-indicator narratives, key signals (biggest strength, biggest weakness, most urgent), peer group comparisons, and scored recommendations.
Comparative briefings cutting across G20, EU, ASEAN, GCC, BRICS+, and other groups. Thematic analysis by region, quadrant, or indicator cluster.