Trust, well-being and democracy
Abstract
This chapter will demonstrate three points: Interpersonal trust is a relatively enduring characteristic of given societies: it reflects the entire historical heritage of a given people, including economic, political, religious, and other factors. Interpersonal trust (with other cultural factors) is conducive to stable democracy, as the political culture literature has long claimed but could not demonstrate directly. Democratic institutions do not necessarily produce interpersonal trust. A society's political institutions are only one among many factors involved in the emergence of a culture of trust or distrust. Thus, although the United States has had democratic institutions throughout the twentieth century, interpersonal trust among the US public has declined significantly during the past four decades. Democratic institutions do not automatically produce trust. There is no institutional quick fix for the problem of creating trust and social capital. Let us examine each of these topics, starting with the historical rootedness of interpersonal trust. Our analysis utilizes empirical measures of culture from the 1990–1991 and 1995–1997 World Values Surveys, carried out in more than 60 societies around the world and representing more than 70 percent of the world's population. Trust and economic development The people of rich societies show higher levels of interpersonal trust than the publics of poorer ones. As we will see, the World Values Survey data demonstrate this point une…
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Empirical studies documented an erosion of trust in various national institutions, suggesting that trust producers at the national level may not be perceived as able to manage risk in a globalized world.
“In parallel to the growth of supranational institutional frameworks, empirical studies documented an erosion of trust in various national institutions, suggesting that trust producers at the national level may not be perceived as able to manage risk in a globalized world (Catterberg and Moreno, 2005; Crozier et al., 1975; Inglehart, 1999; Nye et al.,”
From Mediated trust: A theoretical framework to address the trustworthiness of technological trust mediators (2021) · cites this paper as Inglehart, 1999
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Sacred and Secular: Religion and Politics Worldwide
Norris, P., & Inglehart, R. (2004) · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511791017 · Cited by 1,795 · see citing works
Self-citationPredicting Cross-National Levels of Social Trust: Global Pattern or Nordic Exceptionalism?
Delhey, J., & Newton, K. (2005) · European Sociological Review · doi:10.1093/esr/jci022 · Cited by 1,267 · see citing works
How General Is Trust in “Most People”? Solving the Radius of Trust Problem
Delhey, J., Newton, K., & Welzel, C. (2011) · American Sociological Review · doi:10.1177/0003122411420817 · Cited by 817 · see citing works
Trust, Democracy and Governance: Can Government Policies Influence Generalized Trust?
Uslaner, E. M. (2003) · Generating Social Capital · doi:10.1057/9781403979544_9 · Cited by 168 · see citing works
Trust and reciprocity: a theoretical distinction of the sources of social capital.
Torche, F., & Valenzuela, E. (2011) · European Journal of Social Theory · doi:10.1177/1368431011403461 · Cited by 145 · see citing works
Bodó, B. (2021) · New Media & Society · doi:10.1177/1461444820939922 · Cited by 137 · see citing works
Water policy in South Africa: trust and knowledge as obstacles to reform
Goldin, J. A. (2010) · Review of Radical Political Economics · doi:10.1177/0486613410368496 · Cited by 65 · see citing works
- Authors
- Inglehart, R.
- Corresponding author
- Inglehart, Ronald
- ORCID
- Inglehart, Ronald
- Venue
- Democracy and Trust
- Publisher
- Cambridge University Press
- Published
- 1999-10-28
- Pages
- 88-120
- OpenAlex
- W201843091
- Cited by
- 702
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 3 · 2025: 16 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 40 · 2022: 52 · 2021: 24 · 2020: 25 · 2019: 41 · 2018: 34 · 2017: 19 · 2016: 32 · 2015: 32 · 2014: 21 · 2013: 27 · 2012: 32
- FWCI
- 58.20
- Type
- book chapter
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Cambridge University Press eBooks (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social Capital and Networks
- Social Sciences › Demography › Culture, Economy, and Development Studies
- Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Political Theory and Democracy
- Keywords
- interpersonal trust, democracy, political culture, social capital, well-being, economic development, trust erosion, democratic institutions, cultural values, United States, World Values Survey
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review