Generalised Trust, Institutional Trust and Political Participation

Abstract

The main objective of this study is to examine the role of trust as it relates to individual political behaviour. Previous research suggests that social (generalised) trust and political (institutional) trust are associated with the likelihood of getting involved in both informal and formal political activities. Despite the large volume of studies, however, the extant scholarship is not clear on the exact nature of the relationship between trust and civic engagement. Moreover, the existing evidence is largely based on data that consist of Western-developed democracies. This study seeks to contribute to the literature by examining the associations between the two forms of trust and informal (signing a petition, boycotting, protesting) and formal (voting) political activities in the context of Central and Southeast Asia. The data come from AsiaBarometer Survey (2005), which contains cross-national data on probability samples from this region. Hierarchical linear models are estimated to examine the political impact of trust in strangers and confidence in political institutions. Findings show that only institutional trust is significantly related to voting, i.e., formal political participation. On the other hand, both forms of trust are found to be associated with informal political activities. There is also cross-level interaction between institutional trust and level of democracy. In a less democratic country, where individual democratic rights are limited, institutional trust plays a greater role in facilitating political participation.

Discretion and the erosion of community trust in planning: reflections on the post‐political

“…They are more inclined to mobilise their communities, write petitions, and organise rallies because they are more confident that others will be supportive, will not defect, and will not sabotage their efforts. Higher trust results in more participation regardless of discretion and flexibility in the planning system (Kim, ; Letki, ; Rothstein & Uslaner, ; Zmerli & Newton, ). Trust and participation are complementary qualities for facilitating effective dialogue in the context of discretionary planning. There is no causal relationship between these two concepts.…”

“…The success of effective dialogue in consultation activities requires planners' trust in the citizenry and public trust in participatory processes (Bradbury et al ., ; Wang & Wart, ; Yang, ). Planning discretion and flexibility can lower trust, leading to greater public participation. However, this can be due to frustration, pessimism, or outrage rather than a belief that decision‐makers will be receptive and supportive (Anex & Focht, ; Bedford et al , ; Brown, ; Dear, ; Focht & Trachtenberg, ; Healey, ; Kim, ; Tsang et al ., ).…”

“…Planning discretion and flexibility can lower trust, leading to greater public participation. However, this can be due to frustration, pessimism, or outrage rather than a belief that decision-makers will be receptive and supportive (Anex & Focht, 2002;Bedford et al, 2002;Brown, 2013;Dear, 1992;Focht & Trachtenberg, 2005;Healey, 2006;Kim, 2014;Tsang et al, 2009).…”

“…They are more inclined to mobilise their communities, write petitions, and organise rallies because they are more confident that others will be supportive, will not defect, and will not sabotage their efforts. Higher trust results in more participation regardless of discretion and flexibility in the planning system (Kim, 2014;Letki, 2004;Rothstein & Uslaner, 2005;Zmerli & Newton, 2008).…”

Socio-cultural Cleavages in Europe

“…It refers to our expectations about the behaviour of any member of a community or society. How an individual can have trust in another, what people think about others, are they fair in any interactions, or do they care about more their own interests (see for example : Bjørnskov 2006, Hooghe et al 2009, Kim 2014, Kuovo 2011, Reeskens-Hooghe 2008.…”