Abstract
Interpersonal trust is among the highest in the world in Scandinavia. Since everything in a society functions better if high trust reduces all transaction costs, Scandinavian trustfulness is truly a Nordic gold. Findings from Swedish studies, from the 1980s up to the present day, suggest however a small recent dip—and some social and political groups betray distinctly lower, and in some cases diminishing, trust. These groups tend to be more vulnerable and socially dependent, as well as politically distant from established society: the unemployed, those with poor health, early retirees and individuals otherwise supported by welfare benefits. Politically, sympathisers with the populist, nationalist Sweden Democrats, as well as citizens without any party.preference, tend also to manifest markedly lower interpersonal trust. Explaining the results, we propose a corruption-trust theory focusing on how people perceive how social institutions function and public officials behave. People draw personal conclusions from the actions they observe—or think they observe—in others.
Introduction
In 2017 the Nordic Council of Ministers, the official body for intergovernmental co-operation in the Nordic region, published a report entitled Trust—the Nordic Gold. An unusual name for an official report, it concluded that one of the main reasons for the success of Nordic countries—when it comes to quality of life, health care, low corruption, economic growth and good governance—was the exceptionally high social trust prevailing there. Most studies of interpersonal trust around the world are topped by one or all of the Scandinavian countries. The report concluded that ‘trust can be regarded as a type of gold for the Nordic countries’ (Andreasson, 2017).
Social-science research is not known for self-evident axioms. But the thesis—or rather the truism—that social trust builds good societies is a close candidate to be one. If people in a society do not trust each other, most things work less well. High interpersonal trust—sometimes called ‘social capital’—works as a lubricant, making everything less unwieldy and less expensive (Putnam et al, 1993; Fukuyama, 1995). Most decisions become more efficient, flexible and faster. In the terms economists use, trust lowers transaction costs while mistrust increases them. If most people in a society think that most other people can be trusted, more beneficial transactions will be done—for the good of the concerned individuals and of the society as a whole (Uslaner, 2018; Putnam, 2000).
It is not obvious what people mean when they say that they in general trust or do not trust other people. One possible interpretation is that this is a perception of the moral standard of the society in which they live (Uslaner, 2002). If one regards morals to be deficient, most people will be very cautious in dealing with strangers and reveal low social trust in a survey. On the other hand, if one perceives the moral standard to be high—strangers are most often honest and reliable—then co-operating with unknown individuals is made much easier and respondents will score high on trust questions in surveys (Holmberg and Rothstein, 2017).
Given this approach, high social trust will be one of the determining factors for successfully delivering collective utilities such as a welfare system, environmental protection and compulsory military service. Utilities of this sort are usually financed through taxes. If citizens do not trust that other citizens pay their share, willingness to participate goes down. Low trust can instigate a vicious circle, destroying solidarity as well as compliance in a society (Charron and Rothstein, 2018; Povitkina, 2018; Levi, 1998). In short, people should believe in each other: if most others are seen as dishonest cheats, things look less promising for the good society. The blessing of high average social trust however diminishes if there are groups within the society exhibiting markedly lower trust. This can create problems not only for them but for the society as a whole. Low trust is like gravel in an engine. Welfare services involving low-trusting groups risk becoming less efficient and more time-consuming, further eroding trust and possibly engendering a downward spiral (Rothstein and Uslaner, 2005).
Ideally then, social trust should be high overall and with small differences across social and political groups. Women and men, old and young, immigrants and native-born, employed and unemployed, individuals with good health and bad health, voters supporting different political parties and citizens with divergent ideological leanings—all of them should, in the best of all worlds, enjoy high social trust, with minimal differentials. Furthermore, across time, trust should remain high and group differences should gradually diminish.
Thus, what we want in the best of circumstances is even, stable and high social trust. Yet, internationally, this is a very demanding goal. On average, the proportion of people in the world who claim that in general they trust other people is a meagre 30 per cent—and the trend is downward in many countries (Sønderskov and Dinesen, 2014; Holmberg and Rothstein, 2017). The question is: are these demanding goals being met in today ́s Sweden?
Comparative studies performed by the World Values Survey (WVS) and the Quality of Government Institute (QoG) reveal drastic differences in social trust between countries around the world. In Scandinavia around 70 per cent of citizens say that in general they trust other people. The comparative share is about 40 per cent in countries such as Germany, Canada and the United States, less than 30 per cent in Mediterranean countries, and even lower in many countries in eastern Europe and the Balkans. In emerging democracies and authoritarian regimes, trust levels are sometimes as low as around 10 per cent, for example in Malaysia, Zimbabwe, Philippines, Brazil, Peru, Colombia, Ghana and Iran (Uslaner, 2018; Holmberg and Rothstein, 2017).1
The QoG has done extensive research on social trust among citizens in some 200 regions in Europe. Differences turn out to be huge. The highest proportion of people reporting that they generally trust other people is found in the Copenhagen region (80 per cent). In contrast, the lowest proportion of social trusters live in a region in Slovakia (7 per cent). Thus, a staggering tenfold difference in social trust can be found between different regions within Europe (Charron and Rothstein, 2018).
Focusing on high-trusting Sweden, our task in this article is systematically to test the hypothesis that social trust is not only high among Swedes but also evenly spread across social and political groups, and stable over time. Previous research has shown some cracks in the shiny, crystal-glass image. There are segments of citizens in Sweden with clearly lower social trust and there are groups where trust is on its way down (Holmberg and Rothstein, 2015). Based on trust data from annual surveys going back to the mid-1990s, the extent and seriousness of these cracks will be analysed in the following pages.
Read more at https://www.socialeurope.eu/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/socialtrust.pdf
