Aplicación del modelo de Sharpe

As for the concept of trust mentioned previously, the question of trust tends to centre on relations among individuals, which can be understood easily and clearly. However, perhaps it is not always as obvious as it can possibly be on how these particular interactions could be related to the general statements in the contexts of social trust. In theory, the concept of social trust refers to Barbalet’s assumptions and argument that ‘the strength of the theoretical formulation concerning the emotional basis of trust is demonstrated by applying it to consideration of the relationship between trust and social capital’ (Barbalet, 2006). In order to have a better understanding of the term social trust, the concept of social capital cannot be neglected without further discussion and debates.

sources

of trust

social relations:

family, friends, relatives, etc.

social obligations: rules, laws, common sense, etc.

Organisations: rules, roles, incentives, etc. shared norms:

Further contributing to this preoccupation with trust is the attractiveness of the idea of social capital. When compared the concept of social capital with other concepts within the political and social theories, scholars and the general public rarely notice the notion of social capital until Robert Putnam’s significant research is published, which puts the concept of social capital forward and allows it to be back to the area of research. In general, the concept of social capital has been a subject of studies for decades primarily from the perspectives of sociology and political science. Since it has been regarded as an important and constructive element so as to maintain the economic prosperity, regional development, and national governance. It has achieved considerable recognition, even worldwide prominence. However, different standpoints still exist among related scholars, such as Pierre Bourdieu (Bourdieu, 1986), Coleman (Coleman, 1988, p.25), Francis Fukuyama (Fukuyama, 1995, p.3), Robert Putnam (Putnam, 1995) and Nan Lin (Lin, 1999), the conceptualisation of social capital has already evolved rapidly into a sophisticated account of various relationships among people and their values. Despite these differences, most scholars hold the argument that social capital is inherent in personal connections and interpersonal interactions, together with the shared set of values that are associated with these contacts and relationships. They also consider social capital to be ‘a feature of the internal linkages that characterise the structures of collective actors and give them cohesiveness and its associated benefits (Adler and Kwon, 2002, p.18).

Many scholars are of the opinion that networks can be regarded as an important source of social capital. As Eric Lesser argues that ‘an individual’s social capital is characterised by her direct relationships with others and by the other people and relationships that she can reach through those to whom she is directly tied’ (Lesser, 2000, p.30). Bourdieu and Coleman argue that a network tends to reproduce an inherited pattern of relationships via individual's efforts to preserve social capital. Coleman, in particular, argues that a closed social network--the existence of strongly interconnected and mutually reinforcing relations between different actors and institutions—maintains the existence of effective norms and the trustworthiness of others, hence strengthening social capital (Coleman, 1988, p.30). These arguments demonstrate that social capital is

created by a network to a certain extent in which people can bring connections between otherwise disconnected segments (Burt, 1992, p.78). That structure is permanent but might be mediated by human activities.

Another source of social capital is social trust, which is quite significant for the generation of state trust. Fukuyama comes up with a conclusion that social trust plays a critical but variable role. Fukuyama argues that ‘trust is both the condition for, and the effect of, the norms of social capital-collective values, social networks and cultural mores-that underpin social cohesion and shape economic growth’ (Fukuyama, 1995, p.26). Among current trends in the study of social capital with associated circular arguments, which have been further divided into two main schools, one follows that ‘social capital is a capability that arises from the prevalence of trust in a society or in a certain part of it’, and whether social trust is an integral category of social capital as represented by scholars like Fukuyama (Fukuyama, 1995) Coleman (Coleman, 1988) and Putnam (Putnam, 2001). Another school is trying to prove that, alternatively, social trust is one of social capital’s products and consequences as represented by scholars like Woolcock (Woolcock, 1998) and Field (Field, 2003).

In the earlier research stage, Putnam regards social trust as an element of the norms that arise from social networks. For him, social capital has two primary sources: networks and norms; rather than three sources: networks, norms, and trust. However, after studying American civil society, he modifies his definition of social capital to ‘features of social life—networks, norms, and trust—that enable participants to act together more effectively to pursue shared objectives’ (Putnam, 2001, p.31). He also confirmed the non-negligible importance of trust to social capital. Coleman contends that a system of mutual trust is an important form of social capital on which future obligations and expectations may be based. Putnam regards trust as a source of social capital that sustains economic dynamism and governmental performance. According to the research of Fu, she finds that Nahapiet and Ghoshal also treat the concept of social trust as a focal facet in the relational dimension of social capital (Fu, 2004).

The thoughts of both schools concerning the relationship between trust and social capital essentially focus on the coherence of trust and social capital. Based upon these arguments, it does appear that in each definition of social trust that an academic or non-academic interest has become a part of the current engagement with the collective or cooperative problems, which has confused scholars in politics and sociology for a long time. Tonkiss considers that ‘the concept of social trust also offers somewhat answers to the question of how individuals manage to get their collective acts together for common or at least mutual ends’ (Tonkiss, 2014). However, the relationship of trust and social capital is still trapped in a situation like the chicken or the egg dilemma, which is a commonly asked question "which came first, the chicken or the egg?” Whether trust is a precondition of social capital or trust is a resultant product or a beneficiary of social capital? This chapter keeps the notion of the argument that social trust is both the cause and the result of social capital.

The third source of social capital is social norms, and its major manifestation of is generalised reciprocity. Tudor Rickards considers that ‘trust is studied as a social exchange process, social exchanges deal with individual willingness to reciprocate care and consideration expressed within a relationship’ (Rickards, 2012, p.123). Generalised reciprocity is, in line with the argument put forward by Fu, ‘based on the assumption that today’s good turns will be repaid sometime in the future and is directly contrary to rational-choice theory’ (Fu, 2004 , p.20). For example, Putnam argues that each individual act in a system of reciprocity is usually characterised by a combination of “short-term altruism (benefiting others at a cost to the altruist)” and “long-term self-interest (making every participant better off)” (Putnam, 1995, p.667). He believes that reciprocity can resolve problems of collective action and reconcile self-interest and solidarity. Portes also considers social capital as ‘primarily the accumulation of obligations from others according to the norms of reciprocity’ (Portes, 1998). He divides reciprocity into consummatory motivation that is bounded by the limits of specific community and instrumental motivations that emphasise reciprocal exchanges. Newton considers that reciprocity can bind the community via shared interests, create the environment that encourages voluntary collective behaviour

and generate the goodwill necessary for peaceful resolution of conflict (Newton, 1997). As it has been discussed above, the importance of reciprocity in both trust and social capital is without any doubts. In this thesis, reciprocity is a quite necessary category of state trust, and it will be analysed in detail in the following sections.

Finally, the fourth source of social capital is the institution. Adler and Kwon state that formal institutions and rules could be beneficial to shape the structure of network and influence norms and beliefs as well as having a strong effect on social capital. Transparent governments that are responsive to people’s needs are a key factor in establishing formal community rules and institutions in government (Paul S. Adler, 2000). Fu also mentions that governments provide more than the backdrop for facilitating trust among citizens; governments also influence civic behaviour to the extent they elicit trust or distrust towards themselves (Fu, 2004).

In summary, in the commonly recognised definition of social capital, which contains four main sources: social network, social trust, social norms, and institutions. Among these four categories, scholars are increasingly paying a lot more attention to one particular category—social trust. They prefer using the notion of trust to explain different levels of cooperation evidenced in various social situations and political environments. The inspiration of state trust in this thesis comes from this concept.

Table 2. Categories of social capital

Social Capital

social networks

social trust social norms

Briefly, if you have the will to cooperate with others to achieve some purposes or goals, just merely knowing or having been a friend or acquaintance with them is not enough, having a trusting attitude in your cooperative partner seems to be a much more important issue than any other condition to obtain the benefit. Therefore, trust is becoming a particularly important issue as a result. Newton considers that ‘social life without trust would be intolerable and, most likely, quite impossible’ (Newton, 2001, p.201). As a member of the human society, it is impossible to get rid of the trusting network and live without trusting others. That is why the concept of trust cannot be neglected in the context of interactions among states. Trust plays a significant role interlinked and connected with the life of human beings as well as the smooth operation and persistent stability of a state. As one of the pioneers in doing research towards trust in social science, Fukuyama argues that “trust” and “social capital” are not mutually exclusive (Fukuyama, 1995). Additionally, trust and social capital are in effect, the mutually reinforcing twin concepts acting in tune with each other—social capital generates trusting relationships that in turn produces more social capital. Meanwhile, trust provides a great lubricant for social interactions and associations; as a result, trust is a natural byproduct of these social interactions and associations in any event. This paper will focus on adopting the core concept of social trust so as to introduce a relatively new concept of state trust in the parts that followed.

When the comparison is made on the four aspects of trust with the main sources of social capital, it can be seen that these two concepts have some essential elements in common, and both concepts cannot be in existence alone without a certain type of social community. Besides that, another four findings are as followed: 1) these four primary sources of social capital also have influence on trust; 2) social networks and norms appear to be the determinants of both concepts; 3) calculative trust depends on shared common beliefs; 4) reciprocity is of great significance in both concepts.