Explicating Social Capital: Trust and Participation in the Civil Space

Explicating Social Capital: Trust and Participation in the Civil SpaceAuthor(s): Gerry VeenstraSource: The Canadian Journal of Sociology / Cahiers canadiens de sociologie, Vol. 27, No. 4(Autumn, 2002), pp. 547-572Published by: Canadian Journal of SociologyStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3341590 .

Accessed: 14/06/2014 07:50

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Canadian Journal of Sociology is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to TheCanadian Journal of Sociology / Cahiers canadiens de sociologie.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 188.72.127.68 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 07:50:41 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cjs

http://www.jstor.org/stable/3341590?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


Explicating Social Capital: Trust and

Participation in the Civil Space*

Gerry Veenstra

Abstract: According to some commentators, social capital, i.e., the nature of trust and participation in the civil space, may influence population health, political performance and/or economic growth. In the social capital literature, however, the relationship between trust and participation in social networks in the civil space is underdeveloped theoretically and empirically. Respondents to a survey in Saskatchewan, Canada trusted people from nearby communities the most, experts and professionals less strongly and governments least of all, suggesting a multifaceted notion of trust, although those who trusted one referent tended to express trust for another, suggesting continuity to its character in the self. Religious affiliation proved one of the most salient predictors of trust, suggesting an intriguing link between faith and trust. Respondents who participated in many secondary associations in the civil space were relatively more trusting, as were those who participated in co-

operative associations and in groups with an interest in furthering some common good.

Resume: Selon certains commentateurs, le capital social, c.-a-d. la mesure de la confiance et de la

participation a la vie civique, pourrait influencer la sante des populations, la performance politique et/ou la croissance economique. Dans la litterature du capital social, toutefois, la relation entre la confiance et la participation aux reseaux sociaux du milieu civique est sous-developpee, tant du

point de vue theorique qu'empirique. Les sujets interrog6s lors d'un sondage mene en Saskatchewan (Canada) accordaient leur plus grande confiance aux gens des collectivit6s avoisinantes, mais avaient moins confiance aux experts et aux professionnels, et moins encore aux gouverements, ce

qui suggere une notion polyvalente de la confiance. Par ailleurs, les personnes qui disaient avoir

* Data collection was facilitated by the HEALNet-Regional Health Planning Theme, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan. The Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC) provided the author with a doctoral fellowship for 1996-98, and SSHRC and the Centre for Health Services and Policy Research at UBC provided the author with postdoctoral fellowships for 1998-2000. Brian Wilson and the reviewers made helpful suggestions regarding an earlier draft of this article.

Canadian Journal of Sociology/Cahiers canadiens de sociologie 27(4) 2(X)2 547



548 Canadian Journal of Sociology

confiance a l'une des categories mentionn6es tendaient a exprimer leur confiance envers une autre, ce qui suggere une continuit6 de son caractere au sein du moi. L'appartenance religieuse s'est avere etre l'une des meilleures variables pr6dictives de la confiance, ce qui suggere un lien fascinant entre foi et confiance. Les sujets interrog6s qui participaient a de nombreuses associations secondaires au sein du milieu civique 6taient relativement plus disposes a faire confiance, tout comme l'etaient ceux

qui participaient a des associations cooperatives et a des groupes vou6s a la poursuite d'un bien commun.

Introduction

The notion of social capital has attained some prominence in rather disparate arenas of discourse. Researchers argue that certain characteristics of the civil

space, i.e., trust and participation in social networks, may constitute a valuable resource for social groups, communities or societies. In the world of public health research, for example, social capital, or social cohesion, a closely related concept, is thought to constitute an important determinant of the health of populations (e.g. Wilkinson, 1996; Kawachi etal., 1997; Lynch and Kaplan, 1997; Coburn, 2000; Hawe and Shiell, 2000; Kawachi and Berkman, 2000; Lynch et al., 2000; Putnam, 2000; Veenstra, 2000, 2001, 2002). Kawachi and Berkman (2000) speculate that interpersonal trust and participation in networks

may influence the health of individuals directly, e.g., by providing social

support for people, but also indirectly, e.g., interpersonal trust may accompany egalitarian patterns of participation that influence health-relevant state policies pertaining to education, transportation or the distribution of wealth.

In like manner, social capital is thought to promote the performance and character of political institutions (e.g. Putnam et al., 1993; Rice and Sumberg, 1997; Veenstra and Lomas, 1999; Coburn, 2000) and economic growth and de-

velopment (e.g. Helliwell and Putnam, 1995; Knack and Keefer, 1997; Temple, 1998; Woolcock, 1998, 2001). Usually stimulated by the portraits of social capital presented by Coleman (1988) and Putnam et al. (1993), empirical measures of said capital generally seek to measure quantities of social trust and/or participation in secondary associations within societies or communities

(e.g. Putnam et al., 1993; Kawachi et al., 1997; Putnam, 2000; Veenstra, 2002). Although the implications of participation and trust for the shape of social structure and thence outcomes such as population health, the performance of political institutions or the nature of economic activity have been empirically explored at some length, relationships between trust and participation in the civil space have not received the detailed exploration they deserve. The gap between theoretically sophisticated conceptualizations of trust and

participation in the civil space on the one hand, and their empirical application to the applied research that utilizes these concepts on the other, is quite broad. Forms of voluntary or secondary organizations, in particular, "provide a throwaway line within discussions of trust or community as desirable models



Trust and Participation in the Civil Space 549

of association, while remaining fairly unexamined on their own terms" (Tonkiss and Passey, 1999:258). Measures of the 'weak ties' described by Granovetter (1973) that are supposedly inherent in such organizations and essential for communicating information and facilitating co-operation, for instance, have rarely been assessed directly (Berkman et al., 2000), let alone studied in relation to a complex notion such as trust.

Using data drawn from a survey of adults in Saskatchewan, Canada, this article tests hypotheses concerning the inter-relatedness of some characteristics or types of trust and empirical relationships between these forms of trust and one form of participation in the civil space, i.e., relationships among social, political and expert trusts and participation in secondary or voluntary associations. It seeks to elucidate the complexity of trust as well as the degree to which it/they is/are fostered by participation in some kinds of secondary associations more than in others. Are there dimensions to or types of trust? Does the nature of an individual's participation (e.g. breadth or depth of participation) matter for the development and expression of trust? Do characteristics of associations themselves influence the expression of trust by respondents? If the answer to any one of these questions is 'yes' then we have good reason to argue that empirical studies utilizing the notion of social capital should conceptualize and measure multidimensional conceptions of trust and participation in secondary associations; that certain forms of trust and certain kinds of associations may be more relevant for the development of 'social capital' than others. The results presented here will aid future studies seeking to determine the precise characteristics of lived public life that influence health, the polity and the economy.

The Nature of Trust

The debate regarding trust has in part displaced the long-standing debate on the nature of civil society itself (Tonkiss and Passey, 1999). Social theorists such as Luhmann (1980), Giddens (1984; 1987; 1990), Fukuyama (1995) and Miszthal (1996) have crafted intricate theoretical portraits of trust in modernity, enabling us to distinguish trust expressed by individuals from trust within social relationships and trust within social systems, trust from risk and contingency, and danger fromfortuna, for example. Does trust have variants and hues that ought to be explored and accounted for? Should we investigate the nature of the complex social contexts in which trust is supposedly fostered? It does and we should, starting with the seemingly self-evident notion of 'trust.'

Giddens defines trust as "confidence in the reliability of a person or system, regarding a given set of outcomes or events, where that confidence expresses a faith in the probity or love of another, or in the correctness of abstract




principles" (1990:34). It involves confidence and faith in certain attributes of another person, system or principle. Trust has been linked to values of honesty and fairness (Tonkiss and Passey, 1999), and can rest on the degree of

predictability, faith or co-operation that prevails in a given situation, on ex-

pectations that the other will act in ways that are competent and caring, and on

perceptions of commitment to a goal and the fulfilment of obligations (Kas- person et al., 1992). To Simmel, trust is belief in someone, a belief that they possess some consistency upon which one can rely, based on reasons but not

explained by them. Thus, according to Luhmann (1980), trust recognises alternatives - the other need not follow predictable paths of action - but, to Giddens (1990), smoothes away the constant anxiety or dread that can grow should extreme focus upon such alternatives (dangers) become the norm. As such trust does involve a measure of rational assessment, but it is more than

simply the recognition of contingencies because it has a rather continuous character, more so than might be predicted by exclusive focus on the assessment of risks (Giddens, 1990). It's continuity in the self has psychological consequences, as a 'moral hostage to fortune' (Giddens, 1990) is given. Govier notes that "most of us maintain considerable trust most of the time" (1997:3).

Trust invokes concepts such as 'perception,' 'confidence,' 'faith' and 'belief.' These are located in the individual mind, wherein each trusting relation can be thought to have a (trusting) subject and a (trusted) referent. Miszthal (1996) distinguishes i) trust as a psychological attribute from ii) trust as a property of social relationships and iii) trust as a property of social

systems, however, thereby additionally locating dimensions of trust beyond or outside individual mind and perception. Some individuals might be more likely than others to bring a trusting attitude to all social interactions and toward all institutions, possessing a degree of 'personal trust.' On the other hand, some social relationships might be deemed trusting relationships, regardless of whether or not the participants in the interaction tend to bring trust to other interactions. To assess this 'interpersonal trust' we could ask individuals about trust pertaining to the relationship, but would do better to question both members of the relation and additionally assess whether the relation exhibits

trusting actions. Thus trust can have an inter-subjective reality, an emergent quality beyond perception located in the individual mind, although it is not clear the degree to which an innate propensity to bring trust to a relation influences the development of interpersonal trust within relations, and vice versa. Expanding further into social structure, some social systems might be

predicated upon trusting relationships spanning time and space, patterned relations located in space, with a history and a future, what might be referred to as 'system trust.' These patterns of thought trust and trusting actions likely have a more lasting ontological reality than does a sometimes ephemeral and contextually-specific interpersonal trust.




Miszthal (1996) suggests that high interpersonal trust may be positively related to high societal (i.e. system) trust. It seems sensible to suppose that the constituent parts of a social system (actors and social relationships) influence and reflect characteristics of the system. It also makes sense to wonder, however, whether certain forms of personal or interpersonal trust influence and reflect system trust when others do not. It may be that strong personal trust - trust in people in general, from the standpoint of the individual - forms a basis of system trust, but that trust directed toward or confined to sub-communities (i.e. interpersonal trust) does not. Forms of interpersonal trusts, expressed personally via their respective referents, might dispose themselves

differently among geographically defined communities (e.g. neighbourhoods, cities or societies) and among communities not necessarily located in space (e.g. class, religious or ethnic groups), forming vicious (i.e. highly mistrustful) or virtuous (i.e. highly trustful) cycles of trust, (mis-) trust breeding more (mis-) trust in a form of self-fulfilling prophesy. This in-community trust might then affect trust relations elsewhere in positive or negative ways. Yamagishi et al. (1998) propose that intense group ties prevent trust from developing be-

yond group confines. Stolle (1998) questions whether trust directed toward or confined within sub-communities necessarily translates into trust in people in

general, as the 'continuous nature of trust' thesis would predict, or whether the

opposite relationship is in fact the norm, such that strong in-group trust neces- sitates mistrust directed toward larger communities.

Communities of trust can come in many forms. Giddens (1984) describes

ever-widening zones, extending from the nuclear family and moving outwards

through the workplace, neighbourhood, city, nation-state and world-wide

system, within which individuals are positioned. Day-to-day physical interaction with others may produce patterns of interpersonal trust that differ from those expressions of trust in others more spatially removed from the subject. Trust in neighbours may differ substantially from trust in people from one's

community, with many of whom the individual has not interacted personally. Trust in people in general may differ from trust in people from one's

community, those with whom one might interact on a given day. Giddens (1990) suggests that the pre-modern environments of trust are being gradually replaced by newer versions. According to him, the pre-modern environments were kinship relations, the local community (rooted in place), religious cosmologies, and tradition (the routines within which beliefs are organized). Supposedly, these are losing ground in the face of the newer communities of trust, those of relations of friendship and sexual intimacy and trust in abstract

systems. The primacy of place is (being) slowly destroyed, and as place becomes less central to social relationships, trust increasingly becomes related to absence in time and space and the incomplete information that accompanies such absence (Giddens, 1990). Increasingly in modernity, then, interpersonal




social trust (very much local) is potentially becoming replaced by a trust in abstract and expert systems (very much global) that may now form the primary basis of social organization.

As such trust need not necessarily have an exclusively social referent.

Expert systems are "systems of technical accomplishment or professional expertise that organise large areas of the material and social environments in which we live today" (Giddens, 1990:27). Political institutions might be considered to be one such entity, and trust in politicians and government (i.e. political trust) might reflect the trustworthiness of their established expertise. Is interpersonal social trust being replaced by trust in such systems, and, if so, is it necessarily true, as this interpretation of Giddens' argument suggests, that these forms of trust be negatively correlated with one another'? Contrarily, Miszthal (1996) and Tyler (1998) suggest that social trust can be positively affected by the credibility of government. Kasperson et al. (1992) also suggest that political trust depends heavily on the performance of social institutions. If trust is more or other than a rational calculation of risks and dangers, instead possessing a continuous state in individuals and social relationships, then

perhaps its continuity extends from social to political trust, and vice versa. If trust is fostered in social relationships, then perhaps all kinds of trust are fostered in the same set of social relationships.

Trust and Participation in Secondary Associations

Psychologists such as Erik Erikson (1950) have explored the development of

personal trust during childhood, locating the formation and maintenance of a

lasting personal trust in the dynamics of family relationships. More recently, however, researchers have begun to explore the development and expression of trust among people within the civil space, within relationships outside

family and kinship groups and distinct from those networks located in work and economy. These civil relations include so-called 'bonding' relationships with friends and neighbours, 'bridging' relations with distant friends, col- leagues and associates, and participation in secondary or voluntary associations not directly financed or maintained by the state. Thus far, several studies have demonstrated significant relationships between rudimentary measures of participation in secondary associations and trust (e.g. Putnam, 1996; Brehm and Rahn, 1997; Uslaner, 1998; Shah, 1998; Stolle, 1998).

Most such studies have been conducted in the United States, at the level of the individual. Utilizing a pooled sample from the General Social Survey, from 1972-94, with annual response rates ranging from 72% to 79% and an overall sample size greater than 9,000, Brehm and Rahn (1997) posit a reciprocal relationship between interpersonal trust and civic engagement (measured by the number of memberships in voluntary associations) and, via structural




equation modelling that included a multitude of exogenous and endogenous factors, found a strong empirical effect from such engagement to interpersonal trust. Probit analysis by Uslaner (1998) among responses on the same GSS (N=1520), but for one time period only, also found an effect for such membership on trust. Shah (1998) used the DDB Needham life cycle survey, with a response rate of 72% and a sample size greater than 3,000, to find that a similar measure of civic engagement was strongly related to a similar measure of interpersonal trust in two-stage least square regressions, also with the inclusion of multiple factors. These are compelling results drawn from nationally representative samples: in the United States at least, participation in secondary associations seems to be rather strongly related to expressed trust. Perhaps less compelling statistically, but as provocative theoretically, Stolle (1998) also determined an effect for associational membership on trust in a pooled sample of Germans and Swedes, drawing upon a sample (N=484, 95% response rate) of members of 30 associational groups, noting a 'trust boost,' an increase in social trust, upon joining a new association.

Which comes first, participation in secondary associations within the civil

space (action) or interpersonal trust (perception, feeling)? Trust can be viewed as the basis for voluntary association: "agents do not come together in voluntary associations on the back of a contractual relationship, but instead do so on the basis of trust" (Tonkiss and Passey, 1999:261). Reciprocally, "the more that citizens participate in their communities, the more that they learn to trust others" (Brehm and Rahn, 1997:1001). That is, "membership in voluntary associations should increase face-to-face interactions between people and create a setting for the development of trust" (Stolle, 1998:500). The issue of causal priority is not easily answered: complex research designs aside, a researcher's take on the issue will rest upon her/his theoretical orientation to the agency-structure and mind-action dichotomies. This article adopts the perspective taken by Woolcock (2001) and Putnam (2001), wherein trust is seen to be a product of social interaction and social networks, resultingfrom social capital (a by-product of relationships) rather than forming a constituent part of social capital (a cause of certain kinds of relationships), an approach that privileges (participation in) social networks over trust, the latter serving as the dependent variable in the multivariate analysis showcased in this article. There is some empirical support for contending that interpersonal trust flows from social interaction more readily than it provides a necessary stimulantfor social interaction. The structural equations described by Brehm and Rahn (1997) showed a stronger effect for civic engagement on trust than the reverse, as did the structural model provided by Shah (1998). On the other hand, Uslaner's (1998) three-stage least squares estimation led him to deduce that trust influences membership in associations rather than the reverse. In his

sample of Germans and Swedes, Stolle (1998) showed a self-selection bias:




even given a 'trust boost' upon joining a new association, trusting people are more likely to join associations, and more trusting people are more likely to join more diverse associations. The most sensible conclusion to adopt is that trust and participation are indeed reciprocally linked, at least at the level of the individual, and that a focus on one direction of causality alone can only tell part of the story.

It would be unwise to assert that interpersonal trust of all kinds is related to all aspects of participation in all kinds of secondary associations located in the civil space. We should explore trust in its varied manifestations, the various types of participation and types of secondary associations, and then relationships among these manifestations. Beyond the diverse ways of conceptualizing dimensions of trust, discussed above, "[w]e do not know whether trust and cooperative attitudes [..] are a function of a particular type of involvement or a special type of group" (Stolle, 1998:499). It may be that the way in which

people participate matters for trust, or that participation in some kinds of networks of association within the civil space matters most for the development of interpersonal and personal trust. Thus participation in a wide breadth of groups might foster generalized trust but intense participation in only one

group might decrease it: e.g. we trust one another to the death but mistrust all others. Group-specific trust may be fostered in demographically homogeneous groups while generalized or personal trust is not: e.g. we distrust anyone who is not like us. Political mistrust might be particularly fostered in politically oriented networks: e.g. we work to achieve the goals that government clearly cannot attain on its own.

Research Questions

This article empirically tests hypotheses concerning various 'hues' of trust and their relationships with participation of a certain kind in the civil space via

analysis conducted at the level of the individual. This exercise will point to some of the types of secondary associations in the civil space that may constitute the social resource that is described in the social capital discourse.

First, the article assesses the degree of geographically-specific social trust

professed by respondents for their neighbours, people from their own community and people from their part of the province (i.e. region). These are compared with social trust expressed toward members of two (possibly) non-

spatial communities, members of respondents' religious and ethnic communities, and with trust in people in general (an avowal of personal trust by the individual). Two forms of trust in abstract or expert systems are also compared with these: trust in experts and professionals (i.e. trust in representatives of scientific knowledge) and trust in governments (i.e. political trust). Hypothesis one: following Giddens (1990), the social forms of trust are weaker than trust




in political and expert systems, suggesting that the 'primacy of place' has indeed been supplanted by 'placeless' forms of trust.

Second, the article assesses the degree to which these dimensions or ex-

pressions of trust are mutually inclusive (i.e. positively correlated) or exclusive (i.e. negatively correlated), leading to hypothesis two: trust is not especially fostered within certain communities, necessitating mistrust toward those

belonging to other communities, but instead has a continuous nature in the self. Third, the article assesses whether these forms of trust are concentrated

within specific geographic communities and demographic categories. In

particular, given that the survey was administered in eight health districts of Saskatchewan, Canada, it determines whether some health districts have more

trusting residents than do others. It also assesses whether these measures of trust accrue differently within social classes and demographic categories. Hypothesis three: higher status people are more trusting, following other work in the United States (e.g. Putnam, 1996; Brehm and Rahn, 1997; Uslaner, 1998; Shah, 1998), as are older people (e.g. Putnam, 1996; Uslaner, 1998; Shah, 1998) and those who live in rural settings (e.g. Putnam, 1996).

Fourth, the article determines whether the forms of trust are fostered by strong or weak ties among people participating in one kind of network, the 'social club' or secondary association. "[S]ocial capital is built on the effect of various contacts and regular interactions of groups of people who stand in rather loose contact to each other [..] Prior research implies that stronger group bonds are usually developed in interactions with more like-minded and socially similar people, whereas weaker bonds are indicated by group diversity or greater social distance between group members" (Stolle, 1998:501-504). Hy- pothesis four: a preponderance of weak ties corresponds with higher levels of trust expressed by respondents.

Fifth, it determines whether the structure of secondary associations re. lines of power (as assessed by respondents) is related to the expression of trust.

"[R]elationships within vertical networks, because of their asymmetry, are not able to create similar experiences of mutuality and reciprocity to the same extent as relationships in horizontal networks could" (Stolle, 1998:502), leading to hypothesis five: participation in informal (versus formal) secondary associations is positively related to the expression of trust.

Sixth, is some attention to a common good, versus exclusive attention the needs of the secondary association itself, related to the expression of trust? According to Stolle (1998: 501), the social capital discourse tends to devalue "memberships in newly developed self-help groups, where a strong 'I' orientation (as opposed to a 'we' orientation) might prevent the experience of successful cooperation," leading to hypothesis six: participation in a group that strives to meet the needs of some larger community mitigates an 'I' orientation and thusly fosters social trust.




Seventh and finally, the article determines whether the forms of trust are stronger for people who claim to belong to secondary associations that are co- operatively oriented. The relationship between collective action and trust is integral to the social capital discourse, leading to hypothesis seven: participation in groups that are deemed to be co-operative by participants foster the expression of trust.

Methods

Eight of 33 health districts in Saskatchewan were selected for administration of a survey of randomly selected citizens. The nature of the larger project, which explored relationships among social capital, the political effectiveness of regional health authorities, community wealth, income inequality and mortality rates (Veenstra and Lomas, 1999; Veenstra, 2000, 2002), led to inclusion of the two urban districts, two of the four mid-sized districts and two of the 27 rural districts. A CDROM from the company Pro-CD, containing the

phone numbers, names, addresses and postal codes of the households in Saskatchewan with a listed telephone, provided eight sampling frames. From each a random sample of households, 220 from each of the larger districts and 180 from each of the smaller ones, was chosen. A four-part strategy was

pursued, mailing the questionnaire twice and reminder postcards twice in the summer of 1997. The recipient was asked to give the questionnaire to a member of the household, selected randomly by listing the members of the household, 18 years of age or older, in order of birthday within the year, and

choosing the person whose birthday falls earliest in the year. 534 question- naires were returned for an overall response rate of 40.3%, which, because of the nature of bulk mailing (where non-delivered mail is not necessarily returned to the sender) is probably an underestimate. To gauge non-representa- tiveness, aggregated age, gender and income characteristics of the samples were compared to known characteristics of the districts. Most of the district

samples were slightly biased toward higher income, female and older

respondents. To measure personal trust, respondents were asked to agree or disagree with

the statement: 'Most people can be trusted.' The referents for items assessing forms of interpersonal social trust were respondents' neighbours, members of their communities and regions of the province and members of their ethnic and

religious communities. Other items assessing particular aspects of trustworthiness explored honour (i.e. others uphold their obligations, they are honest and committed to fairness), safety (i.e. the risk of being hurt by others is low, community members are generally trustworthy) and willingness to help others (i.e. others are caring, their intentions are honourable). To measure political trust, respondents were presented items assessing respondents' trust in four




levels of government in Saskatchewan, namely, the local municipal, District Health Board, provincial, and federal governments. They were asked to rate the performance of these governments at problem solving (i.e. confidence or faith, perception of competence) and asked to assess the degree to which they trust governmental decisions and whether government has the public's best interests at heart (i.e. perception of honourable motives, commitment to a goal). Finally, to measure expert trust, respondents were asked whether experts and professionals can aid in solving community problems.

To measure breadth of participation in secondary associations, respondents listed the clubs or secondary associations they currently participate in, to a maximum of ten, producing a positively skewed variable with a mean of 2.4 and standard deviation of 2.1. Three hundred and seventy respondents additionally answered specific questions about the characteristics of at least one and up to three secondary association(s) with which they are 'most involved with.' With respect to these groups, questions were asked pertaining to the depth, breadth and nature of participation in the group by the respondent, followed by questions assessing organizational formality, strength of ties, density of relations, socio-demographic heterogeneity, altruistic tendencies and degree of co-operation. The survey items are delineated in the appendix.

In bivariate analysis, when the two variables were categorical, SPSS 10.0.7 was used to calculate the chi-square for the test of significance and Cramer's V for the measure of association. When one variable was categorical and the other quantitative, the ONEWAY ANOVA provided the test of significance and eta the measure of association. When both variables were continuous and the relationship was linear, Pearson's r provided the measure of association, but when a variable was ordinal rather than interval or ratio in nature, or the assumption of linearity was violated, Kendall's tau_b, a non-parametric measure, was used instead. When constructing indices, Principal Components Analysis was used to identify clusters of variables and then scale reliability analysis was used to demonstrate the reliability and coherence of resultant indices. In multivariate analysis, multiple linear regression was the technique of choice.

Results

The Nature of Trust

Table 1 describes aggregated responses to selected items pertaining to trust, where rather stark differences in strength of trust were found. Trust in people from spatially-defined communities and personal trust were distinctly stronger than trust in experts and professionals, which in turn was stronger than trust in governments. Of the spatially defined communities, the spatially-near




Table 1. Aggregate scores for indicators of trust

Mean response

(n, sd)

Questionnaire item (95% CI)

My community is a pretty safe place.

Most people in my community are

willing to help if you require assistance.

Most people in my neighbourhood can

be trusted.

Most people in my religious/spiritual

community can be trusted.

Most people in this community can be

trusted.

Most of the people who live in my part of Saskatchewan are honourable.

Most people can be trusted.

Most people in my ethnic group can

be trusted.

When it comes down to it, you can

always trust the people in my part of Saskatchewan.

Experts and other professionals can help solve problems in my community.

Although I may have some complaints about some decisions the District Health

Board makes, I trust it to make good decisions.

The local government will tell the public what they need to know about relevant

issues in my community. The provincial government has the

public's best interests at heart.

Although I may have some complaints about some decisions the federal

government makes, I trust it to make

good decisions.

2.07 (530, 1.33)

(1.96 .. 2.19) 2.12 (529, 1.21)

(2.02 .. 2.22)

2.14(532, 1.21)

(2.03 .. 2.24) 2.34 (519, 1.33)

(2.23 .. 2.46) 2.44 (531, 1.34)

(2.32 .. 2.55) 2.45 (530, 1.14)

(2.35 .. 2.55) 2.60 (528, 1.39)

(2.48 .. 2.72) 2.61 (513, 1.36)

(2.50 .. 2.73)

2.67 (529, 1.27)

(2.56 .. 2.78)

3.05 (516, 1.40)

(2.93 .. 3.17)

3.68 (520, 1.60)

(3.54 .. 3.82)

3.80 (517, 1.53)

(3.67 .. 3.93) 3.86 (520, 1.76)

(3.70 .. 4.01)

3.87 (521, 1.71)

(3.72 .. 4.01)

89.4 38.9

88.8

88.5

77.3

34.0

33.1

31.0

81.7 23.7

83.8

80.9

16.8

19.1

70.8 22.2

80.9

72.5

52.1

11.7

10.7

4.2

50.3 3.9

52.5 5.4

53.4 3.8

Each item was a 7-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (agree strongly) to 7 (disagree strongly)

% agree

at least

a little

% agree

strongly




communities of neighbourhood and community garnered the strongest ex-

pressions of trust overall. Of the variants of political trust, there was little to choose among trust in different levels and types of governments.1 Thus, on the

positive side, approximately 89% of respondents expressed at least some trust for people from their neighbourhoods and communities, while on the negative side, only 53% of respondents expressed at least some trust for the federal government. Given the magnitude of this difference it is by no means clear that trust takes on a single form for a given respondent, that 'trust' is a single some-

thing, thereby implying that various forms of trust may create differently textured social spaces with subsequent implications for health, politics and economic activity. It could still be the case, however, that those who trust members of the community are still more likely than others to trust the federal

government, even if the absolute magnitude of trust of the one is less than the other in the aggregate: that is, these expressions of interpersonal trust may still manifest or reflect either or both a personal trust or a province-wide system trust.

Principal Components Analysis was conducted on twenty items pertaining to trust in most people, neighbours, members of the community, region, ethnic and religious communities, experts and professionals and four levels of government, utilizing the Varimax rotation method to identify three factors

accounting for 58% of the total variability (Table 2). The first factor represents the nine items pertaining to social trust, the second factor represents trust in the District Health Board and local municipal government, and the third factor

represents trust in the federal and provincial governments. Trust in experts and

professionals did not load highly on any of the factors. This analysis demon- strates a clear demarcation among social trust, trust in larger governments, trust in smaller governments, and trust in experts and professionals.

The PCA results serve to guide the creation of appropriate indices, in this case by illuminating the coherent nature of items pertaining to a trust in other

people (i.e. social trust), the coherence of items pertaining to trust in governments and the unique nature of trust in experts and professionals. Social and

political trust indices were created to provide measures of reliability and to

simplify subsequent investigation into the concentration of trust within various

geographic and non-spatial communities and relationships with participation in secondary associations within the civil space. As delineated in the appendix, those items pertaining to trust in community members and others from the

region were collected together to weight equally the geographic referents. The

1. This finding supports Jennings' (1998) work in the 1990s, where local and state governments in the United States garnered levels of trust similar to that awarded the federal government. He

argues that the decline in federal trust from the 1960s and onward precipitated a movement toward the devolution of decision-making in that country.




Table 2. Rotated component matrix resulting from analysis of 20 trust items

Factor 1. 2.

Social Trust trust small gov't

1. Most people can be trusted. 2. Most people in my neighbourhood can be trusted. 3. Most people in this community can be trusted. 4. Most of the people who live in my part of

Saskatchewan are honourable. 5. Most people in my ethnic group can be trusted. 6. Most people in my community are willing to help if

you need assistance. 7. When it comes down to it, you can always trust the

people in my part of Saskatchewan. 8. Most people in my religious/spiritual group can

be trusted. 9. My community is a pretty safe place.

10. How would you rate the performance of the current federal government in solving problems in Canada?

11. Although I have may have some complaints about some decisions the federal government makes, I trust it to make good decisions.

12. How would you rate the performance of the current

provincial government in solving problems in Saskatchewan?

13. The provincial government has the public's best interests at heart.

14. How would you rate the performance of your District Health Board in solving problems in your district?

15. Although I may have some complaints about some decisions the District Health Board makes, I trust it to make good decisions.

16. When the District Health Board decides what policies to adopt, how much attention do you think they pay to what the general public think?

17. How would you rate the performance of your local

government in solving problems in your community? 18. The local government will tell the public what they

need to know about relevant issues in my community. 19. In general, how much of the taxpayers' money, if

any, is wasted by your local government? 20. Experts and other professionals can help solve

problems in my community.

Eigenvalue Percent of explained variance Cumulative percent of explained variance

.838

.815

.808

.782

.755

.741

.740

.718

.624

.782

.754

.405 .680

.462 .678

.805

.746 .328

.727

.671

.642

.504

7.199 3.180 36.0 15.9 36.0 51.9

1.217 6.1

58.0

Rotation method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization

Only loadings exceeding 0.30 in magnitude are shown, N = 397

3. Trust

large gov't




social trust index formed an internally coherent and reliable index with Cron- bach's alpha = 0.906 (Appendix), wherein all items assessing forms of personal and interpersonal social trust were positively, strongly and significantly related to one another (results not shown). Given the clear distinction in the literature between social and political trust, all items pertaining to political trust were collected into one index, with an alpha of 0.871 (Appendix).2 The two indices were positively and significantly related to one another (r=0.347, p<0.001), corroborating findings in the United States (e.g. Brehm and Rahn, 1997; Shah, 1998), and both social and political trust were positively related to trust in

experts and professionals (r=0.231, p<0.001; r=0.330, p<0.001, respectively). Results from this exploration into the nature of expressed personal and

interpersonal social trust, where most inter-relationships were strong and positive, may mean that individuals either participate in (non) trusting rela-

tionships in general, or that they have instead, or additionally, developed strong personal orientations regarding the (perhaps indiscriminate) expression of trust. Respondents who trusted one referent tended to trust another, supporting the notion of the continuous nature of trust. They additionally give reason to suspect that social and political trust, if they do indeed congregate within communities, congregate within precisely the same communities. As it turns out, in this case they did not.

The two trust indices dispersed themselves differently among various geographic and socio-demographic categories3. Social trust was stronger in smaller, rural communities than it was in larger, more urban ones (eta=0.302, p=0.001). Protestants were more trusting than Roman Catholics, who in turn were more trusting than those with no religious affiliation (eta=0.237, p<0.001). Older respondents were more trusting along both social (tau_b=0. 214, p<0.001) andpolitical lines (tau_b=0. 147, p<0.001), andrespondents who were unemployed professed less political trust, on average (eta=0.127, p=0.004). Widowed, married and common-law respondents professed more social trust than did divorced, separated and single respondents (eta=0.177, p=0.005). Home owners were more trusting, on average (with social trust,

2. In this instance, social trust encompasses perceived willingness to help and perceptions of safety and honour, but is best captured by the simple personal trust item. The two items assessing trust in the provincial government were strongly related, suggesting that perception of honourable motives and perceived competence of government are related dimensions of political trust. The inter-relationships among the three items assessing trust in the District Health Board suggestthat perceived accountability forms another related dimension of political trust. Perception that the local government wastes taxpayers' money was most weakly related to the other forms of political trust, suggesting that perception of fiscal ineptitude may form a distinct dimension of political trust distinguishable from the dimensions pertaining to honour, competence and accountability.

3. Trust in experts and professionals was related to marital status only, p=0.018 and eta=0.163, such that divorced and separated respondents were less trusting on average than others.




eta=0.147, p=0.001), as were those respondents with more children (with social trust, tau_b=0. 143, p<0.001). Length of time in the neighbourhood was

significantly related to both social (tau_b=0.230, p<0.001) and political trust (tau_b=O. 115, p<0.001). Gender, income and educational attainment were not significantly related to the expression of trust. A multivariate model was created from the socio-demographic variables using stepwise regression to

predict the (transformed for normality) social trust index, eventually including age, number of years lived in the neighbourhood and religious affiliation as the

representative independent variables (Table 3). A similar process resulted in a regression model with age and unemployment status as predictors of the (al- ready normally distributed) political trust index (Table 4). These models serve as controls when investigating relationships between trust and participation in the public space, removing socio-demographic candidates for spuriousness from relationships among trust and participation variables.

Table 3. Multiple regression on transformed social trust index

beta

Constant

Age Number of years in neighbourhood

Religious affiliation Roman Catholic

Protestant

Orthodox

Other

(versus none)

-0.120

-0.027

5.949

-2.280

-5.155

-0.133

-0.225

-0.009

0.030

- 1 970

-3.232

-0.197

0.651

sig.

<0.001

0.023

<0.001

0.050

0.001

0.844

0.516

R-squared = 0.174, adjusted R-squared = 0.162

F = 14.580 (df = 6,414), p<0.001

Table 4. Multiple regression on political trust index

beta t sig.

Constant 26.648 <0.001

Age-0.208 -0.208 -4.793 <0.001

Unemployed 0.116 2.664 0.008 , ,, , ! ,, ,,,, ,,,,~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

R-squared = 0.060, adjusted R-squared = 0.057 F = 16.087 (df = 2,501), p<0.001





This section investigates the generation of social, political and expert trusts within the civil space through attention to attributes of participation itself in secondary associations from the standpoint of the respondent and to analysis of characteristics of the associations themselves. In both instances the analysis remains at the level of the individual: in the latter instance respondents are deemed to be qualified informants concerning the groups to which they belong. Specifically, it will seek to determine whether participation in those associations built upon weak versus strong ties (i.e. bridging versus bonding social

capital) corresponds more closely with individually-expressed trust; whether trust appears to manifest itself differently in formal organizations in compari- son with informal ones (i.e. vertical versus horizontal lines of power); the

degree to which groups with altruistic goals and activities may explain variability in trust; and whether trust appears to be specially fostered in co-

operative groups.

Strength of ties: The strength of ties was measured along several lines. First, it is assumed that participation in a breadth of secondary associations by a

respondent presumes weaker ties between that person and the members of each group. Second, it is assumed that depth of participation also reflects the

strength of ties: respondents who spend much time with a given group will have crafted stronger ties than will those who spend less time therein, as will those who have served in a position of leadership in the group and those who feel they have personal influence in the group. Third, the size of the group was measured, assuming that smaller groups will tend to have stronger ties than will larger ones. Fourth, the degree to which a group is thought to be open to newcomers was measured, this time assuming that exclusiveness corresponds with strong in-group ties. Fifth, it was determined whether the group is thought by the respondent to be organized along the lines of a common interest, in this instance assuming that associations formed around a single interest (i.e. to play soccer, to play chess) are more engaged in bridging practices than they are in bonding ones, as are those groups where members meet one another in that

setting alone. Finally, socio-demographic heterogeneity, along the lines of age, community of residence, ethnicity and religion, was measured, wherein more

heterogeneity is assumed to correspond with weaker ties. Only a few of these measures proved meaningful when it came to

explaining variability in trust. Social trust was positively and significantly related to the number of secondary associations within which respondents currently participate, both before and after controlling for the socio-demographic model (r=0.163, p<0.001; p=0.015 with controls); political trust was




only related to the number of groups before such controls were added (tau_b= 0.077, p=0.016). The empowerment implied by personal influence was also positively related to social trust after adding socio-demographic controls (eta=0.188, p<0.001; p=0.016 with controls), but not to political trust (eta=0.108, p=0.038). Of the measures of socio-demographic diversity only similarity around religion was related to social (eta=O. 198, p<0.001; p=0.005 with controls) or political trust (eta=O. 146, p=0.006; p=0.032 with controls) after controlling for socio-demographic characteristics, such that homogeneity along religious lines corresponded with higher levels of trust. In sum, little evidence was found in this data set suggesting that strong or weak ties between

respondents and others, and weak ties within the secondary associations themselves, plays a particularly potent role in the generation of trust.

Organizational formality: Having an executive and formal decision-making rules are indicators of organizational formality and serve to reflect a distinction between leader-directed (i.e. vertical) and member-directed (i.e. horizontal) forms of association. The level of organizational formality measured in this

way did not play a statistically significant role in explaining variability in trust

among these respondents, however.

Altruistic goals: In this instance, political trust (eta=O. 165, p=0.001; p=0.006 with controls) was stronger for respondents participating in groups that do

things for others outside the group. That is, groups that direct their attention

beyond their own needs had more (politically) trusting members than did the more 'egoistic' groups. This finding could be explained by religion. As noted earlier, respondents who claimed no religious affiliation were markedly less

trusting than that majority of respondents who claimed affiliation with Protestant or Roman Catholic churches. Respondents were also asked how often they attend religious services: this variable was positively and significantly related to both social (tau_b=0.198, p<0.001; p<0.001 with controls) and political trust (tau_b=0.083, p=0.016; p=0.080 with controls). The role

played by religious organizations for the generation of trust is not surprising, given that religious communities form one of Giddens' (1990) environments of trust, although social capital researchers have not yet given religious institutions the attention they deserve. Wisdom (1953) claims that a person of faith has a different attitude toward the world than does the unbeliever, that events are interpreted differently: these results suggest an intriguing similarity between religious faith and trust.

Co-operation: The supposed relationship between trust and co-operation or collective action forms the bedrock of social capital theory. In this instance, all of social (eta=0.174, p=0.001; p=0.015 with controls), expert (eta=0.155,




p=0.003; p=0.004 with controls) and political trust (eta=0.163, p=0.002; p=0.007 with controls) were stronger for respondents participating in groups that are perceived by respondents to co-operate well.

In summary, respondents trusted people from nearby spatially-defined communities the most and governments the least, although those who trusted one referent did tend to be more trusting toward another. There were distinct sub-dimensions to trust, a clear demarcation among social trust (i.e. trust in

people with whom one might interact in the course of daily life), political trust (i.e. trust in large and small governments) and trust in experts and professionals. Older people were more trusting than younger people, suggesting that the cohort effect argued for in the United States (Putnam, 1996, 2000) may apply to this context as well. Gender, education and income were not relevant for the

expression of trust. Among these respondents, religious affiliation proved one of the most salient predictors of (especially social) trust, suggesting a link between religious faith and trust. Above and beyond the socio-demographic characteristics of respondents, some aspects of participation in the civil space appeared to aid in understanding variability in expressed trust: those respondents who belonged to many secondary associations were more trusting, on

average, as were those who participated meaningfully in co-operative groups and in groups with an interest in furthering the common good. The weak-ties thesis, wherein weak ties are thought to especially foster trust, was only weakly supported by this data set, while the organizational formality thesis, wherein

informality is thought to foster trust, was not supported at all.

Discussion

The advantages of this data set are the breadth and scope of items pertaining to both trust and participation in secondary associations. The disadvantages are its cross-sectional nature, making claims about causality no more than

speculative in nature; the small sample size (N=534 overall; 370 respondents answered questions pertaining to a group within which they currently participate), making it difficult to discern weak but real relationships; and the low response rate (40%), raising important issues pertaining to generalizability. The latter is particularly relevant given the abstract nature of the analysis that

purports to address generalizeable 'laws' or 'tendencies.'

The Nature of Trust

Accepting these limitations, the results presented here do contribute to

understanding the nature of trust and where it is fostered. The notion of 'trust' addresses the very nature of social order. Low societal trust recalls Hobbes' Leviathan, where the state is required to create and maintain order among




warring, self-interested actors. With high levels of trust in society, on the other hand, social order comes from the bottom up, at least in part, created anew in interaction after interaction. The discourse on trust seeks to explore the very basis of social life: why do people enter into interaction with one another when the risks are so great? People are rational, in part, and can calculate any number of adverse outcomes potentially arising from any number of relation-

ships, yet they often overlook such risks, place themselves in vulnerable posi- tions, and relate with one another, interpersonally and also with representatives of abstract and expert systems. Assuming that risks and dangers manifest themselves differentially across and among social scenarios, the cohesiveness of trust as presented here suggests that it over-rides homo economicus, the rational self-interested human - trust is more than the rational calculation of risk. Although only a few referents for trust were measured, no evidence was found suggesting that people direct their willingness to enter into interaction toward selected persons while necessarily mistrusting others. From the

perspective of the individual, no pockets of trust bracketed off from a

dangerous and risky social world were discerned herein. Giddens (1990) has hypothesized that trust in modern societies has changed.

It was formerly based mostly upon geographic community, wherein those

people and entities with which one could interact are rooted in place, and also within religious cosmologies and tradition which provided stability and

predictability to the universal order. The stranger is enemy. God has a plan. But in modern society, given the ephemeral nature of interaction, not often

geographically rooted, and also the collapse of kinship ties and religious meaning systems, people interact with different communities of people and

especially interact with representatives of abstract systems transcending time and place. These survey respondents professed greatest trust for their

neighbours, and more trust for people with whom they might physically interact than for those spatially removed. Trust in abstract entities was markedly weaker than was trust in people. According to these results, then, place is still essential when it comes to trust, as are people and communities. Modernity has not yet entirely replaced the local with the global or the abstract.


Many (if not most) social networks are still local. This article argued that trust is generated, at least in part, by social networks in the civil space, and that the

relationship between trust and such participation is not a simple one (noting that research utilizing the notion of social capital is often restricted by the data

generated by large-scale government surveys). Both trust and participation can take on many forms, as can the nature of the networks of association them-




selves, and certain kinds of trust will be more strongly related with participation in some groups than in others. Some of the infinite variety in patterns of

participation in the civil space was captured by this small survey, i.e. participation in secondary associations, and trust was indeed found to be differentially related to certain characteristics of such participation. This suggests that the 'social capital' that influences economic, political and population health 'outcomes' is not simply comprised of communities or societies with trusting people who belong to many clubs. Instead, when exploring and measuring social capital we should be especially sensitive to the nature of secondary associations and to the nature of trust itself. When it comes to the fostering of various kinds of trust, some networks of association may matter more than do others.

In particular, participation in a breadth of secondary associations was

significantly related to social and weakly related to political trust. Participation in many networks of association maximizes face-to-face contacts with varied interests, backgrounds and communication styles. People discover that so- called 'foreigners' are indeed interested in engaging in meaningful dialogue and so develop an appreciation for the trustworthiness of these people who are 'not really so different.' Even so, 'empowered' participation also seems to matter for social trust. Superficial participation in networks of association may not teach people lessons about trust: they must engage meaningfully in

dialogue with others for lessons regarding trustworthiness to take. Adding one's name to a membership list and paying yearly dues may not mean much when it comes to learning these kinds of lessons.

With respect to the structural nature of secondary associations themselves, trust may be especially fostered in religiously oriented groups. Religious groups remain one repository of certain values that facilitate trust: e.g. good will toward others and a sense of responsibility for the common good. Reli- gious communities emphasise the fundamental importance of 'faith,' a corre- late or component of trust. Thus a relationship between participation in

religious groups and trust may reflect a relationship between personal reli- giosity and trust. Perhaps a belief in the benevolent nature of the universe translates into a benevolent perspective of the intentions of others. Perhaps a belief that, in the end, everything will work out for the best translates into an attitude of forgiveness and trustfulness toward others. Finally, trust appears to be especially fostered in co-operatively-oriented secondary associations. Trust is a focus in social capital research because it is thought to lubricate interactions among people, facilitating collective and collaborative action leading to the achievement of common goals. The relationships between respondents' perceptions of the collaborative context of their groups and both social and political trust were quite strong in this instance.




References

Berkman, Lisa F., Thomas Glass, Ian Brissette, and Teresa E. Seeman 2000 "From social integration to health: Durkheim in the new millenium." Social Science and

Medicine 51:843-857.

Brehm, John and Wendy Rahn 1997 "Individual-level evidence for the causes and consequences of social capital." American

Journal of Political Science 41(3):999-1023.

Coburn, David 2000 "Income inequality, social cohesion and the health status of populations: The role of neo-

liberalism." Social Science and Medicine 51:135-146.

Coleman, James 1988 "Social capital in the creation of human capital." American Journal of Sociology

94:S95-S121.

Erikson, Erik 1950 Childhood and Society. New York: Norton.

Fukuyama, Francis 1995 Trust: The Social Virtues and the Creation of Prosperity. New York: Free Press.

Giddens, Anthony 1984 The Constitution of Society. Berkeley: University of California Press. 1987 Social Theory and Modern Sociology. Stanford: Stanford University Press. 1990 The Consequences of Modernity. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

Govier, Trudy. 1997 Social Trust and Human Communities. Montreal and Kingston: McGill-Queen's

University Press.

Granovetter, Mark 1973 "The strength of weak ties." American Journal of Sociology 78(6):1360-1380.

Hawe, Penelope and Alan Shiell 2000 "Social capital and health promotion: A review." Social Science and Medicine

51:871-885.

Helliwell, John F. and Robert D. Putnam 1995 "Economic growth and social capital in Italy." Eastern Economic Journal 21:295-307.

Jennings, M. Kent 1998 "Political trust and the roots of devolution." In Braithwaite, Valerie and Margaret Levi

(Eds.) Trust and Governance. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Kasperson, Roger E., Dominic Golding, and Seth Tuler 1992 "Social distrust as a factor in siting hazardous facilities and communicating risks."

Journal of Social Issues 48(4): 161-187.

Kawachi, Ichiro, Bruce Kennedy, Kimberly Lochner, and Deborah Prothrow-Stith 1997 "Social capital, income inequality, and mortality." American Journal of Public Health

87(9):1491-1498.

Kawachi, Ichiro and Lisa Berkman 2000 "Social cohesion, social capital and health." In L. Berkman and I. Kawachi (Eds.) Social

Epidemiology. New York: Oxford University Press.

Knack, Stephen and Philip Keefer 1997 "Does social capital have an economic payoff? A cross-country investigation." Quarterly

Journal of Economics 112(4):1251-1288.




Luhmann, Niklas 1980 Trust and Power. New York: Wiley.

Lynch, John, Pernille Due, Caries Muntaner, and George Davey Smith 2000 "Social Capital - Is it a good investment strategy for public health?" Journal of

Epidemiology & Community Health 54(6):404-408.

Lynch, John and George Kaplan 1997 "Understanding how inequality in the distribution of income affects health." Journal of

Health Psychology 2:297-314.

Misztal, Barbara A. 1996 Trust in Modern Societies. The Search for the Bases of Social Order. Cambridge, MA:

Polity Press.

Putnam, Robert D., Robert Leonardi, and Raffaella Nanetti 1993 Making Democracy Work: Civic Traditions in Modern Italy. New Jersey: Princeton

University Press.

Putnam, Robert D. 1996 "The strange disappearance of civic America." The American Prospect 24:34-48. 2000 Bowling Alone. The collapse and revival of American community. New York: Simon and

Schuster. 2001 "Social capital: Measurement and consequences." isuma: Canadian Journal of Policy

Research 2(1):41-51.

Rice, Tom W. and Alexander F. Sumberg 1997 "Civic culture and government performance in the American states." Publius

27(1):99-114.

Shah, Dhavan V. 1998 "Civic engagement, interpersonal trust, and television use: An individual-level

assessment of social capital." Political Psychology 19:469-496.

Stolle, Dietlind 1998 "Bowling together, bowling alone: The development of generalized trust in voluntary

associations." Political Psychology 19:497-525.

Temple, Jonathan 1998 "Initial conditions, social capital and growth in Africa." Journal of African Economies

7(3):309-347.

Tonkiss, Fran and Andrew Passey 1999 "Trust, confidence and voluntary organizations: Between values and institutions."

Sociology 33(2):257-274.

Tyler, Tom R. 1998 "Trust and democratic governance." In Braithwaite, Valerie and Margaret Levi (Eds.)

Trust and Governance. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Uslaner, Eric M. 1998 "Social capital, television, and the "mean world": Trust, optimism, and civic participa-

tion." Political Psychology 19(3):441-467.

Veenstra, Gerry and Jonathan Lomas 1999 "Home is where the governing is: Social capital and regional health governance." Health

& Place 5:1-12.

Veenstra, Gerry 2000 "Social capital, SES and health: An individual-level analysis." Social Science and

Medicine 50(5):619-629.




2001 "Social capital and health." isuma: Canadian Journal of Policy Research 2(1):72-81. 2002 "Social capital and health (plus wealth, income inequality and regional health

governance)." Social Science and Medicine 54(6):849-868.

Wilkinson, Richard G. 1996 Unhealthy Societies: The Afflictions of lnequality. London: Routledge.

Wisdom, John. 1953 "Gods." In Philosophy and Psychoanalysis. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

Woolcock, Michael 1998 "Social capital and economic development: Toward a theoretical synthesis and policy

framework." Theory and Society 27:151-208. 2001 "The place of social capital in understanding social and economic outcomes." isuma:

Canadian Journal of Policy Research 2(1): 11-17.

Yamagishi, Toshio Cook Karen S. and Watabe Motoki 1998 "Uncertainty, trust and commitment formation in the United States andJapan."American

Journal of Sociology 104(1):165-194.

Appendix

In the questionnaire 'your region' was defined to be 'the part of the province in which you live,' your community' was defined to be 'your city, town or rural area' and 'your neighbours' were

defined to be 'those people who live near you.' The Pearson's correlation behind each item in an index represents its correlation with the remainder of the index minus that item.

Item: Personal trust Most people can be trusted. <7 response categories, agree strongly ... disagree strongly>

Item: Trust in neighbours Most people in my neighbourhood can be trusted. <agree strongly ... disagree strongly>

Index: Trust in people from respondents' communities 1. Most people from my community are willing to help if you require assistance. <agree strongly

... disagree strongly> (r=.683) 2. Most people in this community can be trusted. <agree strongly ... disagree strongly> (r=.649) 3. My community is a pretty safe place. <agree strongly ... disagree strongly> (r=.589)

The mean of the inter-item correlations was r=.568 and Cronbach's alpha = .795.

Index: Trust in people from respondents' parts of Saskatchewan 1. When it comes down to it, you can always trust the people in my part of Saskatchewan. <agree

strongly ... disagree strongly> 2. Most of the people who live in my part of Saskatchewan are honourable. <agree strongly ...

disagree strongly> The inter-item correlation was r=.695 and Cronbach's alpha = .817.

Index: Social trust 1. Most people can be trusted (r=.805). <agree strongly ... disagree strongly> 2. Most people in my neighbourhood can be trusted (r=.756). <agree strongly ... disagree strongly> 3. Index: Trust in people from respondents' parts of Saskatchewan. (r=.750) 4. Most people in my ethnic group can be trusted. <agree strongly ... disagree strongly> (r=.740)




5. Most people in my religious/spiritual community can be trusted. <agree strongly ... disagree strongly> (r=.715)

6. Index: Trust in people from respondents' communities. (r=.696) The mean of the inter-item correlations was r=.620 and Cronbach's alpha = .906.

Index: Political trust 1. The provincial government has the public's best interests at heart. <agree strongly ... disagree

strongly> (r=.712) 2. Although I may have some complaints about some decisions the District Health Board makes,

I trust it to make good decisions. <agree strongly ... disagree strongly> (r=.709) 3. How would you rate the performance of the provincial government in solving problems in

Saskatchewan? <6 response categories, excellent ... very poor> (r=.645) 4. How would you rate the performance of your District Health Board in solving problems in your

district? <excellent ... very poor> (r=.641) 5. When the District Health Board decides what policies to adopt, how much attention do you think

they pay to what the general public think? <6 response categories, very much ... none> (r=.61 1) 6. The local government will tell the public what they need to know about relevant issues in my

community. <agree strongly ... disagree strongly> (r=.581) 7. Although I may have complaints about some decisions the federal government makes, I trust

it to make good decisions. <agree strongly ... disagree strongly> (r=.571) 8. How would you rate the performance of your local government in solving problems in your

community? <excellent ... very poor> (r=.550) 9. How would you rate the performance of the federal government in solving problems in Canada?

<excellent ... very poor> (r=.520) 10. In general, how much of the taxpayers' money, if any, is wasted by your local government?

<very much ... none> (r=.364) The mean of the inter-item correlations was r=.402 and Cronbach's alpha = .871.

Item: Trust in experts and professionals Experts and other professionals can help solve problems in my community. <agree strongly ...

disagree strongly>

Item: Participation in secondary associations Please list the groups, clubs or associations that you currently participate in (if any): For example, some types of groups are: church-related, school-service, sports, veterans,' card- playing, recreational, youth, multicultural, hobby, political or civic, farm groups, etc., as well as professional societies, literary societies, labour unions, services clubs, volunteer organisations and seniors clubs.

Items: Characteristics of secondary associations For the three groups listed on the previous page that you are most involved in right now, please answer the following:

Approximately how many people are in the group? Approximately how many hours per month do you spend with this group? Does the group have an executive? <yes, no> Are you or have you been an executive member in this group? <yes, no> Are there formal rules for making decisions? (ex. a constitution, by-laws, voting) <yes, no> Do you feel that you personally influence decisions? <yes, no>




Can anyone become a member? <yes, no> Does the group do things for people outside its own membership? <yes, no> Do the members of the group get together for other reasons in other settings? <yes, no> Do group members co-operate and work well with one another? <yes, no> Describe the people who belong to the group:

most are from the same church <yes, no> most are from the same ethnic group <yes, no> most share a common interest <yes, no> we have a wide variety of ages represented <yes, no> most live in the same community <yes, no>



Documents

Explicating Social Capital: Trust and Participation in the Civil Space