3 ms·

What is the origin of the high/low trust society theory? It seems to be quoted as fact when talking about places with low crime like Finland and Japan, but I’m

What is the origin of the high/low trust society theory? It seems to be quoted as fact when talking about places with low crime like Finland and Japan, but I’m not sure what its empirical basis is. Even the Wikipedia entry is low on quality citations.

valianteffort 3y ago
Some balance of homegeneity and wealth seem to produce high trust societies. You can see many wealthy nations with low trust (US) and likewise very homogenous nations with similar issues (SEA, India, African). You could argue that tribal/ethnic/caste differences cause the issues but regardless, homogeneity appears to be a contributing factor. At the same time you could chalk it up to cultural differences. Japan is unique, and Finland is sparsely populated. Smaller communities tend to be higher trust, even in the US.
- narcindin 3y ago
  India is not homogeneous. Neither are most (all?) countries in Southeast Asia or Sub-Saharan Africa.
  - valianteffort 3y ago
    Homogenous is a pretty loaded term imo. You could have two genetically identical groups claiming they belong to different ethnicities or tribes and are thus, not homogenous. Or in the case of Japan you have two major ethnic groups, evenly disperses and so intertwined no one thinks about it, making them homogenous. Homogenous thus in my opinion is more like a mix of homogeneity of appearance/culture. Indian people largely share the same appearance and culture, so in that regard, they are homogenous. Africans likewise. Whether some sub-groups have their own distinct appearance, or cultural practice, they are largely similar.
    - femiagbabiaka 3y ago
      Unfortunately this (overfocus on genotype) is the mistake the west made when it came to determining homogeneity (and creating nationstates out of whole cloth) and it (plus other phenomena, not meaning to shift blame) has resulted in much of the ethnic cleansing of the 20th century. As an example, the formation of African states, cutting across traditional tribal lines which resulted in the ethnic cleansing of the Igbo in former Yorubaland/Nigeria. India has so many complex cases of this that covering it is an essay of its own. Even Japan, with its claims of being an ethnostate, became one by force of ideology -- force so strong that it seems like common sense even though it was not true then or now.
- hiAndrewQuinn 3y ago
  Interestingly, Japan and Finland are also legendarily friendly with one another. Many small towns in Finland are sister cities with small towns in Japan, and it forms a kind of clandestine EU-Asia corridor for skilled workers looking for a change of pace. All high trust societies alike, all low trust in their own special way, perhaps?
ethanbond 3y ago
You can form your own empirical basis by just traveling to a bunch of different places. The differences will pretty much smack you in the face (or the wallet).

valianteffort 3y ago

Some balance of homegeneity and wealth seem to produce high trust societies. You can see many wealthy nations with low trust (US) and likewise very homogenous nations with similar issues (SEA, India, African). You could argue that tribal/ethnic/caste differences cause the issues but regardless, homogeneity appears to be a contributing factor. At the same time you could chalk it up to cultural differences. Japan is unique, and Finland is sparsely populated. Smaller communities tend to be higher trust, even in the US.

narcindin 3y ago
India is not homogeneous. Neither are most (all?) countries in Southeast Asia or Sub-Saharan Africa.
- valianteffort 3y ago
  Homogenous is a pretty loaded term imo. You could have two genetically identical groups claiming they belong to different ethnicities or tribes and are thus, not homogenous. Or in the case of Japan you have two major ethnic groups, evenly disperses and so intertwined no one thinks about it, making them homogenous. Homogenous thus in my opinion is more like a mix of homogeneity of appearance/culture. Indian people largely share the same appearance and culture, so in that regard, they are homogenous. Africans likewise. Whether some sub-groups have their own distinct appearance, or cultural practice, they are largely similar.
  - femiagbabiaka 3y ago
    Unfortunately this (overfocus on genotype) is the mistake the west made when it came to determining homogeneity (and creating nationstates out of whole cloth) and it (plus other phenomena, not meaning to shift blame) has resulted in much of the ethnic cleansing of the 20th century. As an example, the formation of African states, cutting across traditional tribal lines which resulted in the ethnic cleansing of the Igbo in former Yorubaland/Nigeria. India has so many complex cases of this that covering it is an essay of its own. Even Japan, with its claims of being an ethnostate, became one by force of ideology -- force so strong that it seems like common sense even though it was not true then or now.
hiAndrewQuinn 3y ago
Interestingly, Japan and Finland are also legendarily friendly with one another. Many small towns in Finland are sister cities with small towns in Japan, and it forms a kind of clandestine EU-Asia corridor for skilled workers looking for a change of pace. All high trust societies alike, all low trust in their own special way, perhaps?

ethanbond 3y ago

You can form your own empirical basis by just traveling to a bunch of different places. The differences will pretty much smack you in the face (or the wallet).