The Legitimacy Gap: Operationalising Legitimacy Drift on Australian Panel Data

Roshan Ghadamian
Additional contact information
Roshan Ghadamian: Institute for Regenerative Systems Architecture

IRSA Working Papers from Institute for Regenerative Systems Architecture

Abstract: Australian institutions recovered from the COVID shock on every headline measure and did not recover legitimacy. Employment and job-loss indicators returned to trend; psychological distress did not. Distress among Australians aged 15–24 stood at 42.3% in 2021 and 37.6% in 2023 against roughly a quarter of the adult population, having been 18.4% in 2011. Housing stress on the 30–40 measure fell to 7.4% in 2021 and climbed to 10.6% in 2023. Trust in federal government and perceived social cohesion continued to decline. This paper reads that pattern through a trajectory-based diagnostic rather than a severity one. The question is not whether trust is low but how grievance and legitimacy signals move in relation to recovery, and on that basis Australia is classified as a frozen legitimacy regime: erosion persists without tipping into crisis, and recovery does not translate into felt security. â­ The finding that generalises is not the classification but the asymmetry underneath it. Grievance is not evenly distributed. Australians aged 15–24 report psychological distress at roughly 1.5× the adult population rate; Australians born overseas in non-English-speaking countries report discrimination at 2.6–2.8× the Australian-born rate. A frozen regime with evenly distributed grievance is fragile; a frozen regime with concentrated burden is volatile — stable in aggregate and highly sensitive to shocks falling on the already-burdened. â–¶ The practical consequence is a rule about which repair works: interventions aimed at indicators (trust campaigns, consultation) cannot move a system whose grievance is sustained by active erosion mechanisms, and repeated engagement that does not alter lived conditions produces cynicism rather than confidence. âš ï¸ This is a diagnostic synthesis over published aggregate statistics, not a re-analysis of microdata and not a causal estimate. states exactly what that supports and what it does not.

Keywords: legitimacy drift; frozen regime; burden concentration; legitimacy inheritance; grievance concentration; HILDA; Scanlon; erosion mechanisms; institutional trust (search for similar items in EconPapers)
JEL-codes: D63 H11 I31 J15 Z13 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations:

There are no downloads for this item, see the EconPapers FAQ for hints about obtaining it.

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:evk:wpaper:lgit-hilda

Access Statistics for this paper

More papers in IRSA Working Papers from Institute for Regenerative Systems Architecture
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Roshan Ghadamian ().