Australian public trust in UNICEF and WHO – A comparative case study

Abstract

This thesis will demonstrate that UNICEF and the WHO have a generalised trust with the Australian public, for whom UNICEF and WHO are an afterthought, with little impact on the public’s daily lives. For UNICEF and WHO, while states provide their legitimacy to exist, public trust enables them to deliver on their mandate, communicate key messages, and maintain funding. Traditionally, it has been the view that international organisations only need legitimacy from states to successfully operate. This paper challenges this notion, arguing that the public has a relationship with UNICEF and WHO that sits separate to, but aligned with, the relationship that UNICEF and WHO have with states. The research is rooted in constructivist theory, which provides a basis for the public and international organisations to have a relationship, distinct from states. The research takes a case study approach, collecting survey data from a sample of the Australian public and semi-structured interviews with UNICEF and WHO. This research question is timely and critical to ask as public trust in international organisations is understudied compared to other areas of international organisational literature, with states continuing to have primacy for international organisations, given their role in creating and governing them. Additionally, the pandemic has impacted the reputations of UNICEF and WHO, with surveys globally and in Australia identifying that the public has a lower trust in governments and experts, and a propensity for populism. Yet, in this globalised world that sees an increase in the politicisation of international organisations’ mandates, it is imperative that international organisations have a relationship with the public separate from, but aligned to, its relationship with states. Without it, international organisations can expect governments to dominate the discussion on the role and function of international organisations, sometimes with negative organisational impacts.