Why We Need a History of Trust | Reviews in HistoryIn order to set up a list of libraries that you have access to, you must first login or sign up. Then set up a personal list of libraries from your profile page by clicking on your user name at the top right of any screen. You also may like to try some of these bookshops , which may or may not sell this item. Separate different tags with a comma. To include a comma in your tag, surround the tag with double quotes. Please enable cookies in your browser to get the full Trove experience. Skip to content Skip to search.
Niklas Luhmann: Social Systems Theory and the Translation of Public Health Research
Goodreads helps you keep track of books you want to read. Want to Read saving…. Want to Read Currently Reading Read. Other editions. Enlarge cover.
Author: Rengin B. Year , Volume 15 , Issue 2, Pages 44 - 76 Zotero Mendeley EndNote. Abstract en tr 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 , 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.
Download Product Flyer
You are currently using the site but have requested a page in the site. Would you like to change to the site? Undetected location. NO YES. Trust and Power.
Confucius once remarked that rulers need three resources: weapons, food and trust. The ruler who cannot have all three should give up weapons first, then food, but should hold on to trust at all costs: 'without trust we cannot stand'. A prince should if possible, he asserted, be both loved and feared, but if both were not possible, then he should choose to be feared rather than loved. I suspect most of us, historians certainly, would agree with Machiavelli. On the whole we are more interested in the operation of power within society than in the distribution of trust, in social solidarity brought about from above rather than generated from below.