The Relationship Between Trust and Political Participation: A Comparison of Four Nations

Öz

Previous literature has observed that trust has a strong relationship with political participation. However, research rarely takes into account the multi-dimensional nature of trust or participation and is often limited to Western nations. By using the European Social Survey Round 2 (2004), this paper examines the relationship between different dimensions of trust (vertical and horizontal) and political participation (traditional and non-traditional) in four nations that depart from each other in terms of political stability and economic security: the Czech Republic, Germany, Norway and Turkey. Results show that while different dimensions of trust (horizontal and vertical trust) have distinct impact on political participation depending on the type of participation, the strength of the relationship between trust and participation is similar across countries with different levels of political stability and economic security with a few exceptions.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Trust, Political Participation, Social Capital, Crossnational Comparison.

The Relationship Between Trust and Political Participation: A Comparison of Four Nations

Öz

Geçmiş çalışmalar güven ve politik katılım arasında güçlü bir ilişki olduğunu gözlemlemiştir. Ancak, bu araştırmalar güven ve politik katılımın çok boyutlu esasını nadiren göz önünde bulundurur ve genelde Batı toplumları ile kısıtlıdır. Bu makale European Social Survey 2. Tur'unu (2004) kullanarak, farklı unsurlar içeren güven (dikey ve yatay) ve politik katılım (geleneksel ve gelenek-dışı) arasındaki bağlantıyı, birbirinden politik istikrar ve ekonomik gü- venlik açısından ayrılan dört topluma (Çek Cumhuriyeti, Almanya, Norveç ve Türkiye) odaklanarak incelemektedir. Sonuçlar farklı güven unsur boyutlarının (dikey ve yatay) politik katılım biçimine bağlı olarak değişik etkilerinin olduğunu ve bir kaç istisna dışında güven ve politik katılım arasındaki ilişkinin politik istikrar ve ekonomik güven arasında değişen ülkelerde birbirine benzer olduğunu açığa çıkarmıştır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Güven, Politik Katılım, Sosyal Sermaye, Ülkelerarası Karşılaştırma.

Kaynakça

1. Alderson, A. S., and Doran, K. (2010). How has income inequality grown? The resha- ping of the income distribution in LIS countries. Paper prepared for presentation at the confe- rence on Inequality and The Status of The Middle Class: Lessons from the Luxembourg Income Study, Luxembourg, July: 28–30. Available at: http://www.lisproject.org/conference/papers/ alderson-doran.pdf (accessed August 2011).
2. Almond, G. A., and Verba, S. (1963). The Civic Culture: Political Attitudes and Democ- racy in Five Nations. Boston: Little, Brown, and Co.
3. Almond, G. A., and Verba, S. (1989). The Civic Culture Revisited. California: Sage.
4. Appel, H. (2001). Corruption and the collapse of the Czech transition miracle. East Eu- ropean Politics and Societies, 15, 528-553.
5. Arter, D. (2008). Scandinavian Politics Today. Manchester/New York: Manchester Uni- versity Press.
6. Barber, B. (1983). The Logic and Limits of Trust. New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers Uni- versity Press.
7. Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and Power in Social Life. New York: Wiley.
8. Bockmeyer, J. L. (2000). A culture of distrust: The impact of local political culture on participation in the Detroit EZ. Urban Studies, 37(13), 2417– 2440.

9. Brehm, J., and Wendy, R. (1997). Individual-level evidence for the causes and consequ- ences of social capital. American Journal of Political Science, 41, 99-1023.
10. Casanova, T. (2006), “Turkey: Growth in inequality?” In Sustainable development and adjustment in the Mediterranean countries following the EU enlargement, Praussello, F, (Ed.), op. cit. p. 505-536.
11. Catterberg, G., and Alejandro, M. (2005). The individual bases of political trust: Trends in new and established democracies. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 18(1), 31-48.
12. Conradt, D. (2005). The German Polity. New York: Pearson/Longman.
13. Einhorn, E. S., and Louge, J. (2003). Modern Welfare States: Scandinavian Politics and Policy in the Global Age. Connecticut/London: Praeger Publishers.
14. Elveren, A. Y. and Galbraith, J. K. (2008). Pay inequality in Turkey in the neo-liberal era: 1980-2001. University of Texas Inequality Project Working Paper No. 49.
15. Eriksson, T., Pytliková, M., and Warzynski, F. (2008). Increased Sorting and Wage Inequality in the Czech Republic: New Evidence Using Linked Employer-Employee Dataset. Working Paper. Available at: www.hha.dk/nat/wper/09-5_tormarpfwa.pdf (accessed August 2011)
16. Esping-Andersen, G. (1990). The three worlds of welfare capitalism. Cambridge: Polity Press.
17. European Social Survey Documentation. Opinions about Political Issues. Core Questi- onnaire Development, Chapter 5.
18. Fukuyama, F. (1999). The Great Disruption: Human Nature and the Reconstitution of Social Order. New York: Free Press.
19. Gambetta, D. (1988). Can We Trust Trust? Pp. 213–37 in Trust: Making and Breaking Cooperative Relations, edited by D. Gambetta. New York: Basil Blackwell.
20. Gamson, W. A. (1968). Power and Discontent. Homewood, IL: The Dorsey Press.
21. Gedik, A. (2003). Differential Urbanization in Turkey: 1955-2000. 43rd Congress of the European Regional Science Association. Finland.
22. Gezici, F., and Hewings, G. J. D. (2004). Regional convergence and the economic per- formance of peripheral areas in Turkey. Review of Urban and Regional Development Studies, 16(2), 113-132.
23. Glanville, J., and Paxton, P. (2007). How do we learn to trust? A confirmatory tetrad analysis of the sources of generalized trust. Social Psychology Quarterly, 70, 230-242.
24. Hansen, H., Jürgens, O., Strand, A. H. H., and Voges, W. (2006). Poverty among hou- seholds with children: a comparative study of Norway and Germany. International Journal of Social Welfare, 15, 269-279.
25. Hardin, R. (2001). Distrust. Boston University Law Review, 81(3), 495-522.
26. Heidar, K. (2001). Norway: Elites on Trial. Colorado: Westview Press.
27. Holy, L. (1996). The Little Czech and the Great Czech Nation. UK: Cambridge Uni- versity Press.
28. Inglehart, R. (1990). Culture Shift in Advanced Industrial Society. New Jersey: Prince- ton University Press.
29. Inglehart, R. (1997). Modernization and Postmodernization: Cultural, Economic, and Political Change in 43 Societies. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
30. Inglehart, R. and Welzel, C. (2005) Modernization, Cultural Change, and Democracy. New York: Cambridge University Press.
31. Kaasa, A., and Parts, E. (2008). Individual-level determinants of social capital in Euro- pe: differences between country groups. Acta Sociologica, 51, 145-168.
32. Lenard, P. T. (2008). Trust your compatriots, but count your change: The roles of trust, mistrust and distrust in democracy. Political Studies, 56, 312-332.
33. Levi, M., and Stoker, L, (2000). Political trust and trustworthiness. Annual Review of Political Science, 3, 475-507.
34. Lewis, D. (2001), Contemporary Germany. London: Arnold Publishers.
35. Listhaug, O., and Grİnflaten, L. (2007). Civic decline? Trends in political involvement and participation in Norway, 1965–2001. Scandinavian Political Studies, 30(2), 272-299.
36. Luhmann, N. (1979). Trust and Power. Chichester: Wiley.
37. Miller, A. (1974). Political issues and trust in government: 1964-1970. The American Political Science Review, 68(3), 951-972.
38. Mishler, W., and Rose, R, (1997). Trust, distrust, and skepticism: Popular evaluations of civil and political institutions in post-communist societies. Journal of Politics, 59, 418–451.
39. Mishler, W., and Rose, R. (2001). What are the origins of political trust? : Testing ins- titutional and cultural theories in post-communist societies. Comparative Political Studies, 34, 30.
40. Molm, L. D., Schaefer, D. R., and Collett, J. L. (2009). Fragile and resilient trust: Risk and uncertainty in negotiated and reciprocal exchange. Sociological Theory, 27(1), 1-31.
41. Molm, L. D., Takahashi, N., and Peterson, G. (2000). Risk and Trust in Social Exchan- ge: An Experimental Test of Classical Proposition. American Journal of Sociology, 105(5), 1396-1427.
42. Mysíková, M. (2011). Personal earnings inequality in the Czech Republic. IES Working Paper. IES FSV. Charles University.
43. Neuman, M. (2011). The Czech Republic’s political scene in 2010: A political earthqu- ake and its aftershocks. Papiers d’actualité/ Current Affairs in Perspective. Fondation Pierre du Bois, No 3.
44. Özbudun, E. (1976). Social Change and Political Participation in Turkey. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
45. Paxton, P. (1999). Is social capital declining in the United States? A multiple indicator assessment. The American Journal of Sociology, 105(1), 88-127.
46. Paxton ,P. (2002). Social capital and democracy: An interdependent relationship. Ame- rican Sociological Review, 67(2), 254-277.
47. Pharr, S., and Putnam, R. (2000). Disaffected Democracies: What’s Troubling the Trila- teral Countries? Princeton: Princeton University Press.
48. Putnam, R. D. (1993). Making Democracy Work: Civic Traditions in Modern Italy. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
49. Putnam RD (1995) Bowling alone: America’s declining social capital. Journal of De- mocracy, 6, 65-78.
50. Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Commu- nity. New York: Simon & Schuster.
51. Quintelier, E. (2007). Differences in political participation between young and old pe- ople. Contemporary Politics, 13(2), 165-180.
52. Rosenbaum, W. A. (1975). Political Culture. New York: Praeger Publishers.
53. Rustow, D. A. (1991). Political parties in Turkey: An overview.” Pg. 1-10 in Political Parties and Democracy in Turkey, eds. MetinHeper and Jacob M. Landau. London/ New York: I. B. Tauris & Co Ltd Publishers.
54. Stokes, D. E. (1962). Popular evaluations of government: An empirical assessment.” In Ethics and Bigness: Scientific, Academic, Religious, Political and Military, ed. Harlan Cleve- land and Harold D. Lasswell, New York: Harper & Brothers, pp. 61-72.
55. Transparency International (2004a) The transparency international 2004 global cor- ruption barometer. Berlin: Author.
56. Transparency International (2004b) The transparency international 1998 corruption perceptions index. Berlin: Author.
57. Uslaner, E. (1999). Trust but verify: social capital and moral behavior. Social Science Information Sur Les Sciences Sociales, 38(1), 29-55.
58. Uslaner, E., and Brown, M. (2005). Inequality, trust, and civic engagement. American Politics Research, 33(6), 868-894.
59. Večerník, J. (2009). Czech Society in the 2000s: A Report on Socio-Economic Policies and Structures. Prague: Academia.
60. Viklund, M. J. (2003). Trust and risk perception in Western Europe: A cross-national study. Risk Analysis, 23(4), 727-738.
61. Warren, M. E. (1996). Deliberative democracy and authority. The American Political Science Review, 90(1), 46-60.
62. Yamagishi, T., Cook, K. S., and Watabe, M. (1998). Uncertainty, trust, and commitment formation in the United States and Japan. American Journal of Sociology, 104(1), 165-194.