How Norway can succeed when a new crisis strikes

One of the most fundamental cornerstones of democracy is trust, which played a crucial role in the management of the COVID-19 pandemic by the Norwegian authorities. This is supported by research conducted by Øyvind Ihlen, a professor at the Department of Media and Communication at the University of Oslo.

"Trust in the authorities' handling of the pandemic was high during the crisis, around 80-90%. However, maintaining trust involves more than just providing information and instructions. People need to feel listened to, understood, and respected," says Ihlen, who has conducted extensive research in the fields of strategic and political communication.

In 2022, 77% of Norwegians reported that they had trust in public authorities. Only the Swiss were more trusting than us, according to an OECD report.

Since then, Norwegians' trust in the authorities has declined.

What worked during the pandemic, and what lessons can we carry into upcoming crises?

Five strategies for building trust

In the book "Navigating Pandemic Phases," Ihlen and his colleagues examined how the authorities responded during the pandemic and identified five trust-building strategies that were employed.

"The first thing authorities need to do is to demonstrate competence and reliability. They can achieve this by showing that they have plans and strategies in place and are part of an international network," says Ihlen.

At the very beginning of the pandemic, this was precisely where the authorities fell short. Despite the overwhelming coverage of high infection rates in Italy, flights carrying potential cases from the country were still permitted to land. At that time, public trust in the authorities reached a low point of under 50%, according to data from the Norwegian Directorate of Health.

The effect of rallying together

When measures were implemented and eventually a lockdown was enacted, the trust barometer surged to over 90%. Never before had trust in the authorities been as high as during what was described as "the most intrusive measures Norway has had in peacetime."

"When the situation is at its worst and the authorities send a clear signal that this is serious, we see what researchers call the 'rally around the flag' effect. People put aside their disagreements and come together to support a common cause," says Ihlen.

He explains that this ability to unite and refrain from criticism gradually diminishes. The event becomes politicized, leading to discussions such as: "Did we not exaggerate a bit? What is the right way forward now?"

Important to listen to the people

A strong emphasis on visibility in the media and the use of social media is the second strategy for building trust. This helped create a sense of community in facing the pandemic as an external threat.

"The authorities focused on what we call inviting rhetoric and expressed their desire for feedback from the public. Through this two-way communication, they demonstrated that they were listening to people's concerns," says Ihlen.

Much of his research is based on observation, primarily from the communications department at the Norwegian Institute of Public Health, where researchers involved in the project spent periods of time. He believes that allowing this is a good example of the third trust-building strategy: The authorities promoted transparency.

Open about uncertainty

When Ihlen and his fellow researchers compared how the authorities managed the pandemic in Norway, Sweden, and Denmark, they found that Norway distinguished itself through its transparency.

"The Norwegian authorities were candid about their uncertainties and indicated at one point that recommendations might change over time. They also acknowledged that experts could disagree among themselves, for instance, about whether a cabin ban was an effective measure. In both Sweden and Denmark, they were more cautious about being open regarding disagreement and uncertainty in public," Ihlen explains.

This rhetorical strategy being transparent about the complexities of the pandemic and acknowledging that much was uncertain, fostered a sense of honesty and integrity, signaling that people's safety was being taken seriously.

But would such a strategy work equally well in other countries to gain public trust in the authorities? This is something Ihlen is currently investigating further.

What you do matters

The authorities did not shy away from the seriousness of the pandemic while also appealing to a sense of collective responsibility. Ihlen and his research colleagues identify this as the fourth trust-building strategy.

"Henny (10) wants to continue meeting her friends at school. That's why it's especially important for you to keep your distance, wash your hands, and stay home when you're sick," stated a campaign from the Norwegian Directorate of Health in 2020, featuring a child's drawing of someone washing their hands.

The campaign about Henny is also an example that highlights the last of the five strategies employed during the pandemic: during crises, it is crucial for people to know exactly what to do.

"We needed a toolbox of actions we could take, such as the encouragement to wash hands. Surveys show that there was a high level of acceptance for these types of instructions," Ihlen notes.

According to measurements from the Norwegian Directorate of Health, over 90% responded "to a large extent" when asked whether they followed the recommendations from health authorities, except toward the end of the pandemic.

An important task for the authorities during crises is also to understand the challenges that make it difficult for the public to follow recommendations and rules. This requires dialogue and the ability to adapt communication in line with a constantly evolving situation, as seen during a pandemic.

Trust must be foundational

But could these five strategies for achieving trust be applied to other crises, such as the climate crisis or in a war situation?

"Being open, providing clear information about what people should do, and engaging in two-way communication are important rhetorical strategies that will work in most crises. However, the contexts are entirely different," says Ihlen, illustrating this with a few examples.

For instance, Norway has a high number of climate skeptics, which must be understood in relation to the significance of oil for the Norwegian economy. The climate crisis is also perceived as less urgent compared to the immediacy a war situation might present. In a war situation, dialogue and relationship-building may take a backseat to decisive action and instructions.

"But again, we need trust across all these situations," Ihlen emphasizes.

He highlights how crucial it is that people have faith in the authorities' competence, that they do not conceal important information, and that, at their core, they have the public's best interests at heart.

"The critical challenge now relates to political polarization and the politicization of research. We are seeing an increasing tendency for many to dismiss research they do not agree with, or that does not align with their worldview. This poses a challenge not only for trust in research and institutions but for society and democracy as a whole," Ihlen concludes.

Provided by University of Oslo