ABSTRACT
Generalized trust refers to thin or abstract trust in the cooperativeness of others (Newton 1999b), which is theoretically best conceptualized as an evaluation of the unknown other (Sturgis and Smith 2010). Implications of low levels of generalized trust in a given society are more far-reaching than one could expect at face value. Generalized trust is argued to be a prerequisite of a qualitatively better functioning political and economic system (Putnam 1993; Knack and Keefer 1997; Fukuyama 2001). Based on experimental economics, Sønderskov (2011) argues that people who say that they trust others are cooperators in large-N collective action dilemmas, since they expect others to act similarly. He supports this argument with data in which he finds that people with higher levels of generalized trust are more likely to recycle or donate money to environmental organizations. A growing body of research emphasizes voluntary organizations as venues where
generalized trust is learned (cf. Nannestad 2008; Stolle and Howard 2008). Voluntary organizations are arguably ‘schools of democracy’ where people become active citizens and learn to adhere to norms of trust (Warren 1999, 2001). However, it has been argued that different types of organizations have varying effects on adherence to generalized trust of their members (Stolle and Rochon 2001; Coffé and Geys 2007; Maloney, van Deth, and Roßteutscher 2008). A corollary to this literature is the assumption that participation in ethno-national organizations induces particularized trust and attitudes, as opposed to generalized trust (Newton 1999b; Putnam 2000; Mutz 2002; Uslaner 2002; Uslaner and Conley 2003; Marschall and Stolle 2004; Theiss-Morse and Hibbing 2005; Paxton 2007). It is argued that ethno-national organizations bring people together from the same
background, and hence would impede the development of norms that transcend the in-group. Participating in organizations that bring together people from dissimilar backgrounds is seen to be conducive towards adhering to generalized trust. These two different set-ups have been labelled as ‘bonding’ and ‘bridging’. Bonding organizations are those that are ‘inward looking and tend to reinforce exclusive identities and homogenous groups’ (Putnam 2000, 22). Bridging organizations are, however, ‘outward looking and encompass people across diverse social cleavages’ (Putnam 2000, 22). These assumptions put forward by Putnam, seem to be inherited from the civic republican theories of democracy. Since these theories emphasize an egalitarian public sphere, they sit uneasily with a segmented form of civil society on the basis of identity (see Warren 2001). Contrary to the above, Putnam (2007) recently asserted that residents of
homogenous neighbourhoods have a greater propensity to trust the generalized others. Heterogeneity of environment, on the other hand, would inhibit the development of out-group and even in-group ties, consequently leading to isolation. This type of research assumes that contact with diverse others would explain differences in (generalized) trust, although it was not investigated as such. Instead it is assumed that in ethnically homogenous neighbourhoods people may gather together
often; whereas in ethnically heterogeneous neighbourhoods contact is ‘constricted’, which consequently leads to lower levels of (generalized) trust at that level (Putnam 2007, 144).
