FILSAFAT KORUPSI - Direktori File UPI

Many claim that societies cannot function without high levels of trust.
6
Sometimes this claim
is coupled with a lament about the decline of trust in the modern world and nostalgia for the days
when trust was high and personal involvement in civic life was pervasive.
7
Sometimes the discussion
proceeds as if ―trust‖ in and of itself is valuable as evidence of close interpersonal links. Trust and a
strong ―civil society‖ are taken to be synonymous. But disembodied trust is not a very meaningful
normative concept. It is parasitic on other underlying substantive values and cannot be evaluated
and studied except in context.
8
The values I emphasize are increases in individual well-being and the
creation of states viewed as legitimate by their citizens. Trust is an input in the process of economic
growth and state-building that may have negative as well as positive consequences (Putnam 2000:
350-363, Hardin, 2000, Rose-Ackerman, 1999: 96-99).
Although I begin with generalized trust, my main concern is relational trust -- that is, trust in
particular contexts, whether one-sided or reciprocal. Although it may be true, as Eric Uslaner
(2000-2001) argues, that generalized trust in others has deep roots in individual psychology and
upbringing, structural conditions are, nevertheless, important in influencing trust and behavior in
particular cases. The tension between trust based on interpersonal empathy and trust based on
neutral fairness is my central analytic and empirical concern.
One uninteresting class of cases can be eliminated from consideration right away - simple
probabilistic calculations based on natural, physical phenomena, as when someone says: ―I trust the
sun will rise tomorrow‖, or ―I trust that the seeds I have planted will germinate if the weather is
favorable.‖ There is no reliance on human agency here. In fact, although such usage is common, it
is misleading to refer to ―trust‖ in this context. One is simply making a prediction based only on
one‘s knowledge of the natural world, and it would be clearer to speak in those terms.
9
Let us turn
then to situations that depend on human decisions whether or not to act in a trustworthy manner.
1. Generalized Trust and “Social Capital”
Generalized trust in others has recently been measured extensively and used as an indicator
of the health of society. This type of trust expresses a background psychological attitude rather than
trust in identifiable others to do particular things (Hardin, 2001). Such measures of trust are very
difficult to interpret and to translate into concrete proposals. The causal links between measures of
generalized trust and the performance of government and market institutions are not always well-
specified and the empirical tests are inconclusive. It seems especially problematic to make much use
of this information in the countries in transition where inter-personal trust often diverges widely
from trust in a range of institutions.
Generalized trust is not the same thing as ―social capital.‖ The issues of trust and social
6
―In almost trivial ways, without trust the most basic activities of everyday life would become impossible‖
(Warren 1999:2). See also the sources cited in Sztompka (1999: ix).
7
See Robert Putnam (2000).
8
As Gambetta (1988b: 214) states: ―A priori, we cannot always say whether greater trust and cooperation are
in
fact desirable.‖ He evokes the example of a group of robbers and murderers who operate on the basis of
interpersonal
trust. Gambetta‘s (1993) own study of the Italian mafia is full of relevant examples. See also Sztompka
(1999: 114-115).
9
Gambetta (1988b: 218); Luhmann (1988); Sztompka (1999:19-21).
86