FILSAFAT KORUPSI - Direktori File UPI

treat social capital as an undifferentiated mass that is ―produced‖ by participation in voluntary
groups. Instead, one needs to understand the different kinds of interpersonal links that develop
between people as a result of their personal and organizational ties. Then one could study the way
specific types of private organizations and groups influence people‘s interactions with the state and
the market. Such research could lead to proposals for policies that might facilitate the growth of
civil society and social capital, but not necessarily generalized trust.
There seems no reason to assume that a legitimate state will bubble up spontaneously as
people become more trusting of those they meet. I argue below that nongovernmental organizations
may have important benefits for those concerned with state-building. This connection, however,
does not depend on the claim that such institutions increase generalized trust. First of all, they may
not do so, and second, even those that do, may not generate large benefits in terms of civic
engagement.
10
2. One-Sided Reliability
Moving from generalized trust in others to specific human and organizational interactions,
requires more specific models. I emphasize the basic distinction between one-sided reliability or
confidence and two-sided or reciprocal trust. Under some conditions, these alternative types of trust
can operate at cross-purposes, and thus they raise a number of important problems for the post-
socialist countries.
Under ―one-sided reliability‖ person A decides whether or not to trust another person or
institution, B, on the basis of information about incentives, motives, and competence. The situation
is one-sided in that the trusted person is uninterested in whether A is trustworthy.
11
B may,
however, be influenced by A‘s expected reactions to B‘s actions. The situation may involve
strategic interactions, but only one of the actors must decide whether to be trustworthy, and only
one has to decide whether or not to trust. I distinguish three types of one-sided reliability.
10
However, experimental work by Toshio Yamagishi‘s (2001) using Japanese subjects suggests how
decisions
to trust particular people can be influenced by one‘s general disposition to trust others. This research has
nothing to say
about how generalized trust in produced; it only deals with the behavior of people who express varying
degrees of such
trust. People who express high levels of general trust in others are not gullible in the face of contrary
evidence. Rather,
because they have experience in taking chances on others, they are more skilled at judging the reliability of
others than the
distrustful who simply avoid encounters where trust is required. Because the distrustful are less skilled at
evaluating others,
when they do take a chance, they are more likely to be disappointed thus discouraging future transactions.
Thus, the
trusting may be cheated more often than the distrusting but may gain overall because they engage in so
many more
transactions, some of which are successful. Those who trust others will take more chances that can produce
economic and
political benefits. Yamagishi‘s work suggests that generalized trust represents, not gullibility, but realistic
calculations, at
least in Japan. There may, however, be a different underlying pattern in the post-socialist countries. The
savvy trusters in
Japan are simply making an informed judgment about their countrymen. In Ukraine, these same people
might express
generalized distrust.
11
This category is similar to Sztompka‘s (1999:27) concept of ―anticipatory trust.‖
88