Social protection data governance and public trust: the mediating role of targeting fairness among generation z

Abstract

Digital social protection increasingly depends on integrated administrative data, making data governance, targeting fairness, and public trust closely connected. This sequential explanatory mixed-methods study examined whether perceived targeting fairness mediates the association between social protection data governance and public trust and used Generation Z interviews to explain the quantitative pattern. The quantitative dataset comprised 180 complete responses analyzed with PLS-SEM and 5,000 bootstrap subsamples. Because the available dataset does not retain recruitment metadata, the quantitative sample is not treated as probability-representative; a sensitivity power check nevertheless shows that n = 180 provides >0.99 power to detect a medium effect (f² = 0.15) with two predictors at α = 0.05. Measurement quality was satisfactory (Cronbach's α = 0.887-0.906; rho_C = 0.917-0.927; AVE = 0.680-0.714; HTMT = 0.648-0.681). Data governance was strongly associated with targeting fairness (β = 0.603; f² = 0.572), while targeting fairness had a moderate association with public trust (β = 0.411; f² = 0.196) and the direct governance-trust association was smaller (β = 0.339; f² = 0.133). The indirect effect was significant (β = 0.248), indicating partial mediation. The qualitative corpus comprised 20 Generation Z informants aged 19-29 with personal or family experience of social protection services. Six themes data updating, explainable targeting, correction and appeals, privacy and security, hybrid assistance, and visible follow-up clarified why fairness is a key pathway between governance and trust. The findings suggest that integrated data systems are more likely to be trusted when citizens can understand, challenge, and correct data-driven decisions.

Keywords
  • Data governance,
  • Public trust,
  • Targeting fairness,
  • Social protection,
  • Generation z
How to Cite
Arwanto, B. (2026). Social protection data governance and public trust: the mediating role of targeting fairness among generation z. Lentera Negeri, 7(1), 1987–2001. https://doi.org/10.29210/994150
References
  1. Abdulkareem, A. K., & Ramli, R. M. (2021). Does trust in e-government influence the performance of e-government? An integration of information system success model and public value theory. Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy, 16(1), 1-17. https://doi.org/10.1108/TG-01-2021-0001
  2. Aiken, E., Bellue, S., Karlan, D., Udry, C., & Blumenstock, J. E. (2022). Machine learning and phone data can improve targeting of humanitarian aid. Nature, 603, 864-870. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-022-04484-9
  3. Almuqrin, A., Mutambik, I., Alomran, A., Gauthier, J., & Abusharhah, M. (2022). Factors influencing public trust in open government data. Sustainability, 14(15), 9765. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14159765
  4. Alon-Barkat, S. (2020). Can government public communications elicit undue trust? Exploring the interaction between symbols and substantive information in communications. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 30(1), 77-95. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muz013
  5. Aoki, N. (2020). An experimental study of public trust in AI chatbots in the public sector. Government Information Quarterly, 37(4), 101490. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2020.101490
  6. Aoki, N., Tatsumi, T., Naruse, G., & Maeda, K. (2024). Explainable AI for government: Does the type of explanation matter to the accuracy, fairness, and trustworthiness of an algorithmic decision as perceived by those who are affected? Government Information Quarterly, 41(4), 101965. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2024.101965
  7. Ariansyah, K., Muttaqin, M., Pusvita, V., Takariani, C. S. D., Darmanto, D., Budhirianto, S., & Nuryana, M. (2026). Revisiting e-government and public trust relationship: Does higher maturity of e-government promote greater trust in public officials? Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy, 20(2), 374-394. https://doi.org/10.1108/TG-07-2025-0219
  8. Arshad, S., & Khurram, S. (2020). Can government's presence on social media stimulate citizens' online political participation? Investigating the influence of transparency, trust, and responsiveness. Government Information Quarterly, 37(3), 101486. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2020.101486
  9. Badan Pusat Statistik. (2025). Peraturan Badan Pusat Statistik Nomor 6 Tahun 2025 tentang Penyusunan dan Pengelolaan Data Tunggal Sosial dan Ekonomi Nasional.
  10. Indonesia. (2019). Peraturan Presiden Republik Indonesia Nomor 39 Tahun 2019 tentang Satu Data Indonesia.
  11. Indonesia. (2022). Undang-Undang Republik Indonesia Nomor 27 Tahun 2022 tentang Pelindungan Data Pribadi.
  12. Indonesia. (2025). Instruksi Presiden Republik Indonesia Nomor 4 Tahun 2025 tentang Data Tunggal Sosial dan Ekonomi Nasional.
  13. Berg, M., & Johansson, T. (2020). Building institutional trust through service experiences: Private versus public provision matter. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 30(2), 290-306. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muz029
  14. Bodó, B., & Janssen, H. (2022). Maintaining trust in a technologized public sector. Policy and Society, 41(3), 414-429. https://doi.org/10.1093/polsoc/puac019
  15. Busuioc, M. (2021). Accountable artificial intelligence: Holding algorithms to account. Public Administration Review, 81(5), 825-836. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13293
  16. Chatterjee, S., Khorana, S., & Kizgin, H. (2022). Harnessing the potential of artificial intelligence to foster citizens' satisfaction: An empirical study on India. Government Information Quarterly, 39(4), 101621. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2021.101621
  17. Clarke, A. (2020). Digital government units: What are they, and what do they mean for digital era public management renewal? International Public Management Journal, 23(3), 358-379. https://doi.org/10.1080/10967494.2019.1686447
  18. Coles-Kemp, L., Ashenden, D., Morris, A., & Yuille, J. (2020). Digital welfare: Designing for more nuanced forms of access. Policy Design and Practice, 3(2), 177-188. https://doi.org/10.1080/25741292.2020.1760414
  19. Dadap-Cantal, E. L., Fischer, A. M., & Ramos, C. G. (2021). Targeting versus social protection in cash transfers in the Philippines: Reassessing a celebrated case of social protection. Critical Social Policy, 41(3), 364-384. https://doi.org/10.1177/02610183211009891
  20. de Bruijn, H., Warnier, M., & Janssen, M. (2022). The perils and pitfalls of explainable AI: Strategies for explaining algorithmic decision-making. Government Information Quarterly, 39(2), 101666. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2021.101666
  21. Dietrich, S., Malerba, D., & Gassmann, F. (2024). Predicting social assistance beneficiaries: On the social welfare damage of data biases. Data & Policy, 6, e3. https://doi.org/10.1017/dap.2023.38
  22. Distel, B., Koelmann, H., Plattfaut, R., & Becker, J. (2022). Watch who you trust! A structured literature review to build a typology of e-government risks. Information Systems and e-Business Management, 20, 789-818. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10257-022-00573-4
  23. Gesk, T. S., & Leyer, M. (2022). Artificial intelligence in public services: When and why citizens accept its usage. Government Information Quarterly, 39(3), 101704. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2022.101704
  24. Gil-Garcia, J. R., & Flores-Zúñiga, M. Á. (2020). Towards a comprehensive understanding of digital government success: Integrating implementation and adoption factors. Government Information Quarterly, 37(4), 101518. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2020.101518
  25. Gong, Y., Yang, J., & Shi, X. (2020). Towards a comprehensive understanding of digital transformation in government: Analysis of flexibility and enterprise architecture. Government Information Quarterly, 37(3), 101487. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2020.101487
  26. Gonzálvez-Gallego, N., & Nieto-Torrejón, L. (2021). Can open data increase younger generations' trust in democratic institutions? A study in the European Union. PLOS ONE, 16(1), e0244994. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0244994
  27. Grimmelikhuijsen, S. (2023). Explaining why the computer says no: Algorithmic transparency affects the perceived trustworthiness of automated decision-making. Public Administration Review, 83(2), 241-262. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13483
  28. Hair, J. F., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2022). A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) (3rd ed.). Sage.
  29. Halling, A., & Bækgaard, M. (2024). Administrative burden in citizen-state interactions: A systematic literature review. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 34(2), 180-195. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muad023
  30. Harrison, T. M., & Luna-Reyes, L. F. (2022). Cultivating trustworthy artificial intelligence in digital government. Social Science Computer Review, 40(2), 494-511. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894439320980122
  31. Hooda, A., Gupta, P., Jeyaraj, A., Giannakis, M., & Dwivedi, Y. K. (2022). The effects of trust on behavioral intention and use behavior within e-government contexts. International Journal of Information Management, 67, 102553. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2022.102553
  32. Hyytinen, A., Tuimala, J., & Hammar, M. (2022). Enhancing the adoption of digital public services: Evidence from a large-scale field experiment. Government Information Quarterly, 39(3), 101687. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2022.101687
  33. Kleizen, B., Van Dooren, W., Verhoest, K., & Tan, E. (2023). Do citizens trust trustworthy artificial intelligence? Experimental evidence on the limits of ethical AI measures in government. Government Information Quarterly, 40(4), 101834. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2023.101834
  34. Kaiser, Z. R. M. Abdullah, & Boadu, Derrick Boakye. (2026). Local Government Transparency and Citizen Satisfaction : Examining the Role of Public Trust and Transformational Leadership Local Government Transparency and Citizen Satisfaction : Examining the Role of Public Trust and Transformational Leadership ABSTRACT. International Journal of Public Administration, 00(00), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/01900692.2026.2667210
  35. Lee, T. D., Lee, B.-K., & Lee-Geiller, S. (2020). The effects of information literacy on trust in government websites: Evidence from an online experiment. International Journal of Information Management, 52, 102098. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2020.102098
  36. Li, Y., & Shang, H. (2023). How does e-government use affect citizens' trust in government? Empirical evidence from China. Information & Management, 60(7), 103844. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2023.103844
  37. Lind, E. A., & Tyler, T. R. (1988). The social psychology of procedural justice. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4899-2115-4
  38. MacLean, D., & Titah, R. (2022). A systematic literature review of empirical research on the impacts of e-government: A public value perspective. Public Administration Review, 82(1), 23-38. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13413
  39. Masood, A., & Nisar, M. A. (2021). Administrative capital and citizens' responses to administrative burden. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 31(1), 56-72. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muaa031
  40. Matheus, R., Janssen, M., & Janowski, T. (2021). Design principles for creating digital transparency in government. Government Information Quarterly, 38(1), 101550. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2020.101550
  41. Maulana, A. O., Herfanda, G. C., & Hasan, F. (2022). Perceived trustworthiness of artificial intelligence implementation in Indonesia public sector services: Gen Z and Millennial perspectives. Jurnal Akuntansi dan Auditing Indonesia, 26(1), 65-75. https://doi.org/10.20885/jaai.vol26.iss1.art7
  42. Mesa, D. (2023). Digital divide, e-government and trust in public service: The key role of education. Frontiers in Sociology, 8, 1140416. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsoc.2023.1140416
  43. Mikkelsen, K. S., Madsen, J. K., & Bækgaard, M. (2025). Does administrative burden affect welfare recipients' institutional trust and political participation? Evidence from a recall experiment. The American Review of Public Administration, 55(6). https://doi.org/10.1177/02750740251340068
  44. Ministry of Finance of the Republic of Indonesia. (2024, October 2-3). Profil dan alokasi anggaran penyaluran bantuan sosial [Presentation]. Indonesia Social Protection Technical Seminar (ISPTS). World Bank.
  45. Mutimukwe, C., Kolkowska, E., & Grönlund, Å. (2020). Information privacy in e-service: Effect of organizational privacy assurances on individual privacy concerns, perceptions, trust and self-disclosure behavior. Government Information Quarterly, 37(1), 101413. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2019.101413
  46. Pérez-Morote, R., Pontones-Rosa, C., & Núñez-Chicharro, M. (2020). The effects of e-government evaluation, trust and the digital divide in the levels of e-government use in European countries. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 154, 119973. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2020.119973
  47. Pribadi, U. (2024). Nexus of public organization, transparency, and accountability in Indonesia's digital governance. Journal of Public Affairs, 24(3), e2940. https://doi.org/10.1002/pa.2940
  48. Ringle, C. M., Wende, S., & Becker, J.-M. (2024). SmartPLS 4. SmartPLS. https://www.smartpls.com
  49. Saura, J. R., Ribeiro-Soriano, D., & Palacios-Marqués, D. (2022). Assessing behavioral data science privacy issues in government artificial intelligence deployment. Government Information Quarterly, 39(4), 101679. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2022.101679
  50. Schmager, S., Grøder, C. H., Parmiggiani, E., Pappas, I., & Vassilakopoulou, P. (2024). Exploring citizens' stances on AI in public services: A social contract perspective. Data & Policy, 6, e19. https://doi.org/10.1017/dap.2024.13
  51. Selten, F., & Klievink, B. (2024). Organizing public sector AI adoption: Navigating between separation and integration. Government Information Quarterly, 41(1), 101885. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2023.101885
  52. Shen, Y., Wei, W., An, C., & Chen, Z. (2026). Fairness perception, administrative burden, and social welfare participation. Public Administration. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.70067
  53. Simonofski, A., Clarinval, A., Vanderose, B., Dumas, B., & Snoeck, M. (2021). What influences citizens' expectations towards digital government? An exploratory survey. Digital Policy, Regulation and Governance, 23(2), 154-172. https://doi.org/10.1108/DPRG-12-2020-0173
  54. Smythe, I. S., & Blumenstock, J. E. (2022). Geographic microtargeting of social assistance with high-resolution poverty maps. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 119(32), e2120025119. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2120025119
  55. Sutanto, W., Sakaguchi, M., Amrullah, E. R., Rusyiana, A., & Ishida, A. (2020). Accurate targeting in the Indonesian RASKIN program. International Journal of Social Economics, 47(11), 1363-1379. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJSE-03-2020-0124
  56. Townley, C., & Koop, C. (2024). Exploring the potential and limits of digital tools for inclusive regulatory engagement with citizens. Government Information Quarterly, 41, 101901. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2023.101901
  57. Tyler, T. R. (2006). Why people obey the law (2nd ed.). Princeton University Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv1j66769
  58. van Noordt, C., & Tangi, L. (2024). The dynamics of AI capability and its influence on public value creation of AI within public administration. Government Information Quarterly, 41, 101860. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2023.101860
  59. van Zoonen, L. (2020). Data governance and citizen participation in the digital welfare state. Data & Policy, 2, e10. https://doi.org/10.1017/dap.2020.10
  60. Vetrò, A., Torchiano, M., & Mecati, M. (2021). A data quality approach to the identification of discrimination risk in automated decision making systems. Government Information Quarterly, 38(4), 101619. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2021.101619
  61. Virnandes, S. R., Shen, J., & Vlahu-Gjorgievska, E. (2024). Building public trust through digital government transformation: A qualitative study of Indonesian civil service agency. Procedia Computer Science, 234, 1183-1191. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2024.03.114
  62. Wang, Y.-F., Chen, Y.-C., Chien, S.-Y., & Wang, P.-J. (2024). Citizens' trust in AI-enabled government systems. Information Polity, 29(3), 293-312. https://doi.org/10.3233/IP-230065