Examining trust (or mistrust) in jamaica

14,453 views
14,299 views

Published on

Published in: Education, Technology
1 Comment
2 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • The CB Passive Income - Real Expert Review!
    Website:
    www.TopReviewNetwork.com/the-CB-passive-income-review.html
       Reply 
    Are you sure you want to  Yes  No
    Your message goes here
No Downloads
Views
Total views
14,453
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
40
Comments
1
Likes
2
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Examining trust (or mistrust) in jamaica

  1. 1. EXAMINING TRUST (or MISTRUST) IN JAMAICA Paul Andrew Bourne
  2. 2. EXAMINING TRUST (or MISTRUST) IN JAMAICA By Paul Andrew Bourne Health Research Scientist, the University of the West Indies,   Mona Campus    
  3. 3. ii  Copyright© 2009 by Department of Community Health and Psychiatry, Faculty of MedicalSciences, the University of the West Indies, Mona Campus, Kingston, Jamaica.National Library of Jamaica Cataloguing Card Number:ISBN: 978-976-41-0235-9Examining trust (or mistrust) in JamaicaBourne, Paul AndrewWhile the copyright of this text is vested in Paul Andrew Bourne, the publisher is theDepartment of Community Health and Psychiatry, UWI, Mona Campus, and no parts of thechapters may be reproduced wholly or in part without the expressed written permission of bothauthor and publisher.All rights reserved. Published April, 2009Covers were designed by Paul Andrew BournePrinted and bound in Jamaica 
  4. 4. iii   Acknowledgement Trust is what holds a society together. And although legislations are critical to thefunctioning of a stable democracy, it is held together by the strength of trust in all relationship.Some people may believe that within the context of highly developed legislative frameworks inthe world, we are still have many fundamental problems and that these are substantially relatedto challenges due to interpersonal distrust. Despite the complex legislative structure of Americaand its economy, there are issues relating to cooperation. Many of the challenges that we faceincluding crime, cynicism, suspicion of other character, dishonesty and integrity are producingpeople who are not distrust but people who are highly responsive to other intent and motives asgeneral perception is that one should protect him/herself from another person’s ‘bad’ intent ormotive. Within the context of the exponential increases in crime and victimization and theundeniable correlation between trust and corruption (i.e. crime), it is difficult to comprehend whyCaribbean intelligentsia have not launched a thorough investigation of trust in seeking tounderstand the regions crime problems, and other issues. Thus, this study seeks to provide explanations for many of the issues in the Caribbeanregion from the perspective of trust. As trust is what explains cooperation, confidence in othersand institutions, the willingness to communicate with others without fear as people believe thatothers are ‘good’ and can be trust. Ergo, I would like to thank the Centre for Leadership of Governance, Department ofGovernment, the University of the West Indies at Mona, Jamaica, for the opportunity to utilizeits dataset, from which this book is made possible. In addition to the aforementioned congratulatory message offered to Centre forLeadership and Governance, I would wholeheartedly like to thank – Mr. Orville WayneBeckford, lecturer in the Department of Sociology, Psychology and Social Work – who gave methe impetus to complete this project 
  5. 5. iv   PrologueCronyism, extortion, misappropriation of funds, personal graft and greed, lows level ofaccountability, political patronage, low risk of detection, low risk of punishment, murders, andcost overruns are just a few of a plethora of things that have arisen and continue to baffle publicofficials as well as governments in Jamaica, as their effective solutions seem to be far removedfrom our grasp, competence and capacity. Some people believe that Jamaica is the mostmurderous nation of the world and be this reality (or not), Jamaicans are predominantly polite,hospitable, understanding, kind, compassionate, friendly, and anti-murderous class of people.We continue to look and analyze many of the tenets of crimes and victimization, corruption inparticular cronyism, extortion, political patronage and low risk of detection of crimes from thevantage point of actual statistics of these issues. This discourse lacks a critical component, thatof trust. As trust is that crux of democracy, cooperation, civic engagement, understand betweenand among different cultures and people, and it that driving force that allows people tocommunicate with cynicism or suspicion. Trust is more than ‘cooperation between people, groups, institutions or a coalescing of anypair of those events to social capital, credibility, accountability, transparency, lower transactionalcosts, development, loyalty, communication, positive expectations and energy, integrity, honesty,morale, intent, character, to results. Thus, trust is the crucible component that explains the coreof the functioning of a people, a society, a nation, a wider geopolitical space. Unlike statisticsthat may provide some realism to what is fact, one perception of someone character, intent,credibility, goodwill or his/her honesty all affect interpersonal, organizational and other forms oftrust. People on seeing someone for the first time make an assessment (value judgement) of theother individual’s intent, character, and credibility without information. It is this expectation(negative or positive) that drives the people’s behaviour to others (people, institutions, things orotherwise). Thus, a number of the cronyism, extortion, and misappropriation of funds,dishonesty, political patronage and low accountability are due to the other’s perspective thathe/she needs to do this in order to competitive because the other person’s intentions are not‘good’. With this cosmology, distrust is such that people are usually suspicious of the nextperson’s motives as each party operates under the premise that there is ‘negative’ expectation ofthe other party’s motives, intent or integrity. This explains why someone will physically harm another person who steps on his/hershoe, toe, or material possession because the feeling is that the next person’s intent, motives andintegrity is questionable in particular it is ‘bad’ against the vulnerable party. There is acosmology in Jamaica that there is always an agenda behind a motive, intent or behaviour. Thishas tarnished the psyche of the average person so much that people evaluate another’s attitude,intent, motives and honest based on this general self-distrust (or trust), which expands into a basefor the understanding of others. In seeking to explain a number of the fundamental social problems that have beenunnerving the society of Jamaica, I believe that what lies at the core of these issues is trust. Thisbook puts together a number of research on different typologies of trust, models that weredevelop to explain correlates of trust, political participation, wellbeing, religiosity as studies have
  6. 6. v  shown that these issue are interrelated, and will foster a more in-depth understanding of some ofthe issues in our society. One of the challenges that some people use to predetermine the intent, motive or integrityof another is past performance (or results). For some people there trust is adjudged on past ‘trackrecord’ of the other person. It is not limited to interpersonal relations as this expands tobusinesses. Basically, our confidence (or trust) for someone’s or entity’s grows based on testedand proven past results. People measure their current expectations based on past performance ofthe other party. And if information is not had on the party, we usually speculate on expectationbased on initial classification of the person or entity. Hence, future trust is based on past, present happenings. The past happening (orsituations) are had through socialization, experiences and performance. It follows that ‘trackrecord’ or reputation is substantially used to interpret credibility, intent or motive of anindividual. And this guide people future expectation of people – as how people experience,interface with events and think will fundamentally guide their future behaviour. Thus, trust isbuilt on a multi-sociocultural premise. Within this context, people will not cooperate withsomeone if past experiences were ‘negative’ or disbeneficial for the receiving party. The embodiment of aforementioned issues explains distrust, uncooperation, lowexpectation, reprisal, cynicism, suspicion, guided communication, low confidence, anarchy, anddisconnect between the paying of taxes and cooperating with all forms of government becausedistrust the intent, motive, character, integrity and honest of others in particular governments. Slavery was not kind to developing countries, in particular those in the Caribbean, andsuccessive governments and related institutions have not sought to reconstruct the society thattrust be a core function. Many of these organizations are not cognizant of the importance of trustto democracy, cooperation, confidence and interpersonal relations that they do not watch theirinactions (and actions). Crime, corruption and victimization as well as that venom that currentexits in the society are due to the dishonesty, injustices, and the level of distrust that the societyis built on. Many people are cognizant of the challenges – which include dishonesty, injustices,inequalities, low tract record, low transparency and accountability, low credibility,responsibilities and ‘bad’ intent that distrust is so intense that silence is a prefer tool incommunication that wrong intent or motives. The low informant cosmology in the nation isprimarily as a result of the distrust, and this cannot be lowered by merely speaking it into being.The distrust (low trust) is not only affecting interpersonal as well as organization involvement, itis also affecting development, production, efficiency, productivity as if people cannotcooperative, and be confident around each other, and they will not be able offer their best, asdivision does not create increased production nor improves productivity. Trust is that adhesive that holds a society (company, nation, or community) together.Although each individual is a separate entity, people existence is dependent on others more sosince mass production, industrialization and globalization. In this global milieu, each person is amicroorganism that collective comes together for the effective functioning of the whole. It istrust that allows for the cooperation and operations of the whole, and not the dominance of anyparticular entity. Thus, the survival of the group is dependent on the collective consensus, and so
  7. 7. vi  the group depends on the unit, and the unit functions because of the collective whole. Hence, wecannot deny the fact that civic engagement is based on a generalized belief of cooperativenessand confidence in the particular entity. This text looks at a number of those aforementioned issues as they are crucible to stabledemocracy, cooperation, confidence and institutional responsibility. Trust, ergo, is the buildingblock for many of the challenges currently facing the nation. Hence, this book examines thoseissues as they will provide explanations from an empirical standpoint for social woes affectingthe society. What Jamaica needs at this time is someone who can inspire that trust, resort hope,accept the disparities seek to honestly address them; and not hesitate in establishing competence,credibility, trustworthiness, and extend trust to the distrusting among us. Because by distrustingsomeone (or entity) we miss all the opportunities of harmonious living between humans. Paul Andrew Bourne Health Research Scientist and Social Demographer Department of Community Health and Psychiatry Faculty of Medical Sciences The University of the West Indies, Mona Campus Kingston, Jamaica
  8. 8. vii   Contents PageList of Tables List of Figures Acknowledgement Prologue 1 – Introduction  2‐ Understanding Interpersonal Trust (distrust) and identifying its Correlates   3‐ Public Confidence in Organizations:  Using Sample Survey Research for July‐August, 2006   4 ‐ An examination of Generalized Trust in Jamaica:  Using empirical data to model trust    and   5 ‐ Modeling Political Trust in Jamaica   6 ‐ Examining Wellbeing of the Working Aged Population in Jamaica.    7 ‐ Does Trust Change Well‐Being?    8 ‐ Trust (or distrust) and Morale in the Jamaica Constabulary Force (JCF)    9 ‐ Religiosity and its association with Subjective Psychological Wellbeing of Jamaicans: Years of  schooling, race, social class, and gender differences    10 ‐ Religiosity and Trust   11 ‐ Dispelling Some of the Myths on Unconventional Political Participation in Jamaica:  Gender  and Age Disparity among Other Factors    12 ‐ Political Participation, and Trust, and its Correlates    13 ‐ Public Opinion and Voting Behaviour of Jamaicans:  Pre‐2007 General Elections 14‐  Subjective  Psychosocial  Wellbeing  (SWB)  of  Jamaican  Voters:  The  difference      between SWB of pro‐PNP and pro‐JLP voters, and other predisposed factors.    
  9. 9. viii   15 ‐ Crime, Tourism and Trust in Jamaica    16  ‐  Curbing  Deviant  Behaviours  in  Secondary  Schools:    An  Assessment  of  the  Corrective  Measures Used     17 ‐ The positives:  A content (or Textual) Analysis of an address to nation by [Former] Prime  Minister of Jamaica, The Most Hon. P. J. Patterson on Sunday March 21, 2004      18 – Epilogue 
  10. 10. Chapter 1 Introduction The Jamaican society is undersieged by criminality and this has been forthcoming forsome time now. It is well documented in voluminous texts and different scholarly materials thatthe period of 1970s and 1980s accounted for the nation’s current crime rates, corruption andsilence. According to Anthony Harriott, “The problem of crime in the Caribbean – it causes, itsconsequences, and its control – emerged as a major concern during the 1990s” (2004, p. 1). Thelevels of murders, and corruption – extortion, misappropriation of funds, dishonesty, lowaccountability and transparency, bureaucracy, and fraud have created a milieu of frustration,confusion, suspicion, cynicism - have created a general cosmology of intense silence anddistrust that is embedded in the sub-consciousness of the people of the society. Every kind of peaceful cooperation among men is primarily based on mutual trust and only secondarily on institutions such as courts of justice and police (Albert Einstein, in Covey, & Merrill, 2006, p. 273) There are two main perspectives on many issues that appear to be unfolding in Caribbeansocieties, in particular Jamaica – Is corruption a perception? And secondly, corruption’sinfluence on the society is minimal. But, what is the fact on corruption? Does corruption exists?And, are there indicator through the actions (or inactions) of political leaders that implies oraccept the realities of corruption? The public has been claiming that corruption exists, and this was concretized byTransparency International, TI (1999-2007). TI has reported that corruption has been increasing 1  
  11. 11. for some time now in Jamaica, and whenever these reports are published there is a generaldecrying of this as a fabrication of the nation’s realities. The discourse has taken on a new tonewhen the former prime minister of Jamaica – Mrs. Portia L. Simpson-Miller – admitted in herinaugural speech that she will be tackling the issue of corruption. Mrs. Simpson-Miller says: I want to pledge to the Jamaican people to work tirelessly to eradicate corruption and extortion. I am committed to their eradication (Jamaica Information Service, 2003, p.1) Embodied in the former Prime Minister’s inaugural presentation is the acceptable thatcorruption is realty as is the perception and the reports from Transparency International. Theelement that this has failed to highlight is the correlation between corruption and othersocioeconomic issues. There is an irrefutable fact that corruption is associated with developmentand democracy (Transparency International, 1999-2007; Waller, Bourne, Minto, & Rapley,2007; Fukuyama 1995), and that another condition is equally important in his discourse, trust. Trust is the crux of a stable democracy (Francis Fukuyama, 1995) and corruption(Uslaner 2005). And there is no denial that development is negative correlated to trust or viceversa. Modernization, post-modernization, mass production, and capitalism rest on specializationand division of labour. People’s input in the production process is a sector thereof, and no one iscompletely responsibility for the creation of any product or service. The production process issub-divided into sectors, and this requires many human resources in the production of finalproducts. Each sector relies on the other, all is cooperation of each. It is through thisunderstanding and processes that trust is the core of modern industrial society, and this is equallythe case in traditional (or prehistoric) societies. 2  
  12. 12. There is no doubt the distrust explains many of the uncooperation, mis-confidence andnegative expectation of others, which is used to interpret others intent and motives (Fukuyama1995; Uslaner 2005; Transparency International 2005; Covey, & Merrill, 2006). Thus, peopleinterpret dishonesty, past performance, and corruption as indicators of low integrity andcharacter, and so they are their mutual action is to act as being deceived, which will commencethe growth of more conflicts, crimes, victimization, corruption, dishonesty and negativeexpectation as people reciprocate the perceived distrust from other’s actions (or inactions). Insuch a society social consensus is difficult, peace is an elusive construct, and crimes will be high.Embedded in low trusting societies is the negative expectation of others. This makes it difficultfor each person to communicate effective and openly with other as there is low confidence in theintent and motives of another. This text is a collection of study on different typologies of trust in Jamaica and therevarious correlates, as well as political participation and wellbeing as these are all integrated intrusting (or low trusting) societies. Chapter 1 provides an insightful description of the entire textin order to provide its readers with a comprehensive understanding of the fundamentals of trustand its related explanations for many of today’s ills. Chapter 2 begins this text because we believe that trust, in particular interpersonal trust, isthe most crucible component of a stable democracy, development, productivity, production,economic growth, cooperation between and among people including institutions,communication, the provide for the basis upon which one interprets intent, motive, credibility,results and human existence. It is so primary that its inclusion was automatic and providesanswers to issues of crime problem, the silence that emerge due to distrust and how low trustsocieties are likely to disintegrate into anarchy, low civic engagement, bureaucracy, high cost 3  
  13. 13. production and low development and growth. Within the context of aforementioned issue,chapter 2 provide an insightful understanding of what determines interpersonal trust (or distrust)in order that we become knowledge of justifications of many of the problems that continue tograpple us that appear unsolvable despite our attempt to address many of these issue. Like Albert Einstein, we believe that while interpersonal trust is fundamental tocooperation, stability of a democracy, development of all facet of a society, the building of socialcapital, civic engagement in various entities is substantially due to people’s trusting of theseinstitutions. And people cooperation with many of these institutions is crucible to socio-politicaland economic development. It should be understood, that a justice system will be ineffective in asociety that there is low trust (or distrust) as such a system cannot legislate trust in it or its relatedinstitutions. This becomes even more complex for police officer who must serve, protect andreassure. In an atmosphere where there is distrust, silence dominance, low communication onissues is a byproduct as it person is fearful and distrusting of the next person. The duty of thepolice is becomes exponentially more difficulty when distrust for that institution is high becauseof past performance (or the lack of). Chapter 3 looks at trust in organizations as this is primatestable democracy, civic cooperation, productivity, production and development of social capital. Chapter 4 was aptly fitting as it examined ‘generalized trust’ in the nation. The chapterinvestigates the correlates of ‘generalized’ trust as well as modeled generalized trust in Jamaicausing observational research data. Often times trust is viewed through the lens of interpersonal,organizational, or political trust, but infrequently they are coalesced as a single variable tomeasure generalized trust. And when the termed generalized trust is mentioned, it usuallycaptures self-reported interpersonal trust. In this chapter the term ‘generalized trust’ is used in a 4  
  14. 14. broader context that self-reported interpersonal trust to a single variable that embodiesinterpersonal and organizational trust. Trust is not specialized to interpersonal and organizational trust, but of equal importanceis political trust. The aforementioned chapters have excluded this pivotal area and so chapter 5 isfittingly about political trust. Chapter 5 builds a model on what constitutes political trust. Thischapter will make for interesting and insightful understanding of what not only comprisespolitical trust but those factors that influence the people’s interest in political matters. Politicaltrust in this chapter is measured as self-reported trust in government, and undoubtedly fosters abetter understanding of people’s suspicion and cynicism about successive governments in thenation. Distrust does not only influence tax evasion and avoidance, and interpersonal relationsbut also people’s wellbeing. Thus, we believe that it is appropriate that a few chapters bededicated to quality of life (i.e. wellbeing) of people and the role trust plays in affecting thishuman state. In chapter 6 and 7, the authors examine the role of trust in changes in quality of lifeas well to investigate the wellbeing of many Jamaicans who are of working age (15 to 60 years).These two chapters will not only provide direct answer to question of ‘does trust affect quality oflife (or wellbeing) but also the different correlates of wellbeing and impact of trust amongdifferent typologies of variable. Having established interpersonal, organizational, political and generalized trust in thenation and what are the correlates in each mentioned trust within the context that Jamaica issuffering from a crime phenomenon – that recently has claimed the life of the Chairman of theJamaica Urban Transit Corporation (i.e. JUTC), June 28, 2008, to date the discussion has 5  
  15. 15. excluded the quality of life of police officers, their morale status at this time and the trust in theforce and degree of trust of police officers for different sectors within the JCF. Chapter 8addresses this gap, while arguing that job performance due to job dissatisfaction as well as theproblems of low morale and distrust are accountable for how office approach ‘serve, protect andreassure’ in the execution of their daily functions. This chapter – chapter 8 – is the longest of this19-chapter book. The primary and essential rationale for this comprehensive and in-depthchapter is the delicacy of the role of the police in crime reduction in the society. It follows thatwith the degree and typologies of crimes that are committed and the low rate of detection ofthese matters, a thorough investigation of police officer’s state of mind as well as quality of lifemust be pivotal to crime reduction. This chapter explores, examines and identified differentcorrelates of morale, and special typologies of trust. It makes for a greater reading as it providesvital information to an understanding of the state of police officers, and how these realities arehelping to withhold the policies of crime reduction in the nation. The nation – Jamaica – has been looking for a saviour to the crime phenomenon for sometime now, and this has been to no avail. Crime, fear of crime and victimization affect us all andso any examination for a solution of crime must understand the people of the society. Thus,chapter 9 comes in this wake as we seek to understand the people, the reason and the crime in anattempt to formulate solution this ‘bloody’ phenomenon. Chapter 9 is about the subjectivewellbeing of the people of Jamaica. The people with whom we refer are the religious and non-religious- using religiosity as the yardstick to evaluate this social reality. This chapter isfollowed by none other than chapter 10 that looked at religiosity and trust. In this chapter theauthors examine the distinction between lowly and highly religiosity and who trust more. Giventhat trust is crucible to social solidarity and democracy as well as cooperation, we believe that a 6  
  16. 16. distinction between the trust level of those groups (religiosity) were important in helping us todifferent aspect to the socialization process and how this helps to fashion a better understandingof many of the social ills within the society. Publications from the statistical institute of Jamaica (STATIN) has shown that in excessof 70% of Jamaicans are religious, and this begs the question – ‘What is the crime statistics sohigh?’ And what explains the high levels of unconventional participations? The answers to thosequestions are complex. However, we believe that some answers need to be forthcoming and weprovide chapter 11 that examine unconventional (or unorthodox) political participation inJamaica followed by chapter 12 (general political participation and trust), chapter 13 (votingbehaviour), and chapter 14 that examines subjective wellbeing of voters. Having established the different areas (chapter 2 through 12), within the context of thehigh crime statistics and the level of fear of crime and victimization (read Anthony Harriott’sfear of crime and victimization article and text), no material has made a linkage between distrustand crime and so this chapter (chapter 13) seek to bridge this gap, but the emphasis is on tourism.This chapter was from a general perspective, but within the context that crimes are substantiallycommitted by youth (ages less than 25 years), we believe that a chapter must on measures usedby schools to address social deviance and their effectiveness from students’ perspectives, andwhat students believe is the most effective approach that should be taken to alleviate the socialdeviance in schools. The rationale for the inclusion of this chapter is simple as among the socialdeviances in schools is crime, and we believe that our youth folks can provide some answers tosolution of their problem and extension that of crime in the society. 7  
  17. 17. Some intelligentsia may critique the logistic of this text in that there appear to no fluiditybetween the chapters – because we have included a qualitative study on a speech by the one offormer Prime Minister, Right Honourable Percival James Patterson (chapter 17). But this iscrucible to the discourse of trust as one of the reasons for Jamaica’s low civic engagement istrust (see Chapters 11 and 12). Jamaicans have low trust in the government. In a nationallyrepresentative study conducted by a group of Caribbean scholars, they find that Jamaicans hadthe least confidence (proxy for trust or distrust) local government council and before thispolitical parties, police, parliament, judiciary, large companies and governments, with the PrimeMinister – at the time of the study Mrs. Simpson-Miller was inaugurated as nation’s first femalePrime Minister – having the sixth most confidence from the Jamaicans respondents (Powell,Bourne, & Waller, 2007, pp. 22-23). Despite the high degree of public confidence in the Mrs. Simpson-Miller prior to thegeneral election of November 13, 2007, she lost the elections because the Jamaican electorschange their confidence in her party and in her. The issue of trust in government, politicalparties and political leadership is fragile because of (1) people do not trust the integrity ofpoliticians, and this is adjudged based on (2) their past performance (or lack of) and (3) theinconsistencies between their speeches and their implications on the lives of the citizenry.Hence, the final chapter is in keeping with the aforementioned issues. Its relevance is primary inunderstanding distrust (or low confidence) in governments, politicians and political parties aspeoples in the different geopolitical spaces evaluate their leaders based on motives, intent andresults – further readings on this can be found in Francis Fukuyama, 1995; United Nations 2007;Barack Obama 2006; Covey, & Merrill, 2006). 8  
  18. 18. Another rationale for the inclusion of the analysis of one of the speeches of former PrimeMinister, Rt. Hon. P.J. Patterson is not only its contribution that leads to an interpretation ofintent, motive, character, integrity and results, but how Jamaican view governments and theinterrelationship between this a trust (or low confidence). We are not for miniature secondindicating that the Rt. Hon. P.J. Patterson was or is corrupt, but what we are doing here isexplaining Jamaicans low confidence in government and their political leaders. In a cross-sectional probability survey research of some 1,100 Jamaicans, a group of researchers found thatJamaicans believe that the 5-most corrupt institutions in descending order are police, parishcouncil, customs, central government and public work (Waller, Bourne, Minto, & Rapley, 2007,p. 14). In this text we will not venture into the discourse as whether perception is reality orstatistical relation between the two issues, but we are cognizant that just a debate exists. And thatit is well established that there is a strong statistical association between self-reportedmeasurement and objective measurement of events. Hence, we have found that there is anegative association between corruption and political participation, and trust. And this is theprimate reason for the inclusion of the qualitative assessment of speech by one of nation’s formerPrime Minister. Consequently this text is a plenary research on trust in Jamaica as the tutelage of thissociety is not only the responsibility of governments, but the collective efforts of all peopleswithin the society. This current work is more than a guardianship of social solidarity in a nationthat cannot seem to understand how to solve crime. Thus, the material will provide an empiricalbasis upon which policies must be fashioned as it [text] is an intrepid step in examiningcorrelates of the social ills that are causing the breakdown of the social fabric of this county. 9  
  19. 19. Within the difficulties of current social decay of countless developing nations inparticular Jamaica, we believe that a comprehensive study on trust will provide our people withanswers the some of the questions that were asked to which no answers have been forthcoming.This text we hope will not only be germane to a paradigm shift in the study of socials ills inThird World nations; but that it will provide the platform upon which a real solution of some ofsymptoms that have overtaken many discourse. Trust is more than a commodity; it is premiseupon which all social system functions. It is within general framework that a research on trustbecomes pivotal to addressing some of the social ills that are provided in a society that is lowtrusting. The Jamaican society like Haiti, Guyana, Trinidad and Tobago, Zimbabwe, Nigeria,Cambodia, Columbia, to name a few nations are experiencing an obnoxious time at this juncturein their annals as it relates to crime, corruption, bloodshed, distrust and more distrust. From thisperspective these societies are looking for saviours, but the problem has not been identified as itrelates to trust. 10  
  20. 20. ReferenceCovey, S. M.R., & Merrill, R.R. (2006). The speed of trust. The one thing that changes everything. New York: Free Press.Harriott, A., Brathwaite, F., & Wortley, S, (Eds). (2004). Crime and criminal justice in the Caribbean. Kingston: Arawak.Inglehart, R. (1997). Modernization and post modernization: Cultural, economic and political Change in 43 societies. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Jamaica Information Service, JIS. (2006). Inaugural address by the Hon. Portia Lucretia Simpson-Miller, MP, Prime Minister of Jamaica. Retrieved October 1, 2006 from http://www.jis.gov.jm/PMspeeches/html/20060331T120000- 0500_8456_JIS_INAUGURAL_ADDRESS_BY_THE_HON_PORTIA_LUCRETIA_SI MPSON_MILLER_MP_PRIME_MINISTER_OF_JAMAICA.ASP.Lewicki, R.J., & Stevenson, M.A. (1998). Trust development in negotiation: Proposed actions and a research agenda. Journal of Business and professional Ethics, 16(1-3):99-132.Miller, A. H. (1974). “Political Issues and Trust in Government, 1964-1970,” American Political Science Review 68, 3: 951-972.Morgan, B. (2005). Trust, education and development in Jamaica, 1950 – 2000. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Case Western Reserve University.Obama, B. (2006). The audacity of hope. Thoughts on reclaiming the American dream. New York: Three Rivers Press.Powell, L., Bourne, P., & Waller, L. (2007). Probing Jamaica’s Political Culture, vol. 1. Main Trends in the July-August 2006 Leadership and Governance Survey. Kingston: Centre of Leadership and Governance, the University of the West Indies at Mona.Putnam, R. D. (1993). Making democracy work: Civic traditions in modern Italy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Transparency International. (1999 – 2007). Transparency International Annual Report. Berlin: Transparency International.Uslaner, Eric M. 2005. Trust and corruption. In global corruption report, 2005 Transparency International. London: Transparency International.Waller, Lloyd, Bourne, Paul, Minto, Indianna, & Rapley, John. (2007). A landscape assessment of political corruption in Jamaica. Kingston: CaPRI Taking Responsibility. 11  
  21. 21. Chapter 2 Understanding Interpersonal Trust and identifying itsCorrelates Introduction All contemporary plantation societies or slavery colonies owe their current socio-economic status to metropolis’ nations such as England, Spain, Portugal, and France. Thosecountries during their trajectory to identify and expand their economic bases in the process haveplunged many developing societies into highly divisive societies. It is well established inscholarships that developing nations such as those in Africa and the Caribbean have not recoveryfrom the legacies of slavery. Plantation economies, in particular Haiti, Jamaica, Nigeria,Zimbabwe, to name a few are currently faced with high levels of corruption, some degree ofanarchy, low productivity, survivability of its citizenry, and high distrust. And that those issuesare legacies of the plantation establishments. Thus in studied any of those societies’ currentsocial ills, we must examine their history and evaluate the role of institutional distrust and its roleon present human relationships. Trust is essentially the foundation upon which all humanrelationships rely (also see, Hardy, 1990). Therefore, among the legacies of slavery andplantation societies is distrust, which accounts for many of the social decays that currently are 12  
  22. 22. manifesting in crime, uncooperation, tax evasion and avoidance, corruption, low transparencyand accountability, bureaucracy and divisiveness between peoples of different cultures andsocialization. George Beckford (1999) in one of his books titled ‘Persistent Poverty:Underdevelopment in Plantation Economies of the Third World’ provide an account of the‘plundering’ past of metropolis of many nations that current are facing instable democracies,high degree of distrust and low development, when he opines that: Latin America and the Caribbean, Africa, and Asia comprise what is now popularly described as the Third World. Although vast in area and rich in resources, the Third World does not provide adequate levels of living for its people. Very low levels of income, malnutrition, disease, poor housing, sanitation and medical services, and little or no education are the lot of the majority of people. The task of improving the welfare of Third World peoples is the most important and formidable one confronting mankind today. (Beckford, 1999, p. xxi) The countries of the North Atlantic – stretching from the United States and Canada on the one side to the former Soviet Union on the other – have managed, on the whole, to achieve high level of material advancement. It is becoming increasingly clear that the fortunes of North Atlantic peoples are closely related to the misfortunes of Third World peoples, in many fundamental ways. For a long time the Third World has relied heavily on trade ties with the more advanced countries but, for various reasons, trade expansion has not proved to be a sufficiently effective stimulus to economic development in the Third World (Beckford 1999, xxxi). In George Beckford’s discussion, although he examined the issue of underdevelopmentof Third World economies with extensive brevity and understanding of the annals on whatobtains today, he failed to provide an account of the metropolis’ influence on distrust in thosesocieties. Whereas he identify many of the problematic of Third World economies, heexploitation of the metropolis of those nations was such that the precept that were fashioned andleft in those economies are still present, and explain the difficulty that they face today. Hence, itis difficult for those states to improve the welfare of its citizenry by merely building of the 13  
  23. 23. structure of any modified system of the plantation economies. Using the Jamaican Constitutionsince the independency from Britain in 1962, there is no fundamental change in the precept thatbegan the nation. This discourse is so crucible that it may extend to the entire text and this is notthe purpose therein, this means that one could do further readings on the topic in GeorgeBeckford’s text (1999). Thus, the issue here is now does our current low distrust fashioned fromour past? In an attempt to manage the difficulties of the plantation economies or slavery, slaveowners not only instituted ‘unfair’ precepts but a part of the strategy was to have a divisive slavepopulation. The plantation owners would have slave report on each other as a way of beingcognizant of the slaves’ intent, motive and plans. Although was able to accomplish it primaryobjective, slave began distrust each other as they were sure of the integrity and credibility oftheir fellow slaves. As many slaves would have witnessed betrayed slaves being physicalpunished, put to death or imprisoned because of the report of other slaves as to those slaves ‘bad’intent or motive. For the plantation classes the important issue was to rule and protect their investment(Simmonds, 2004 in Harriott, Brathwaite, & Wortley, 2004), and so they could not affordanarchy, slave rule or runaway slave as slaves were the primary component in the productionprocess. This meant that slaves who saw the system as oppressive and a betrayal of theirhumanity were cautious of their actions in relation to who they made aware of their plans, butthis deepens the divide between slaves and slaves, and some slaves and plantation owners. Thisreality permeates the atmosphere (i.e. distrust), and slaves socialize their children to bedistrusting of the system, and of other slaves. 14  
  24. 24. Thus, it was not surprising that the uprising that emerged in the future was not onlybetween slaves and plantation owners but these were also between slaves and slaves as eachparty could not trust the other. Such an explanation goes to the core of many of the crimes thatwere committed them. One intelligentsia provides us with some work as to rationale for therevolt. According to Simmonds, The Jamaican slave laws were elitist, ethnocentric and expedient, locally designed with the clear intention of establishing planter class ascendancy through a coordinated system of coercion and repression, paying little attention to securing consent. Whatever benefits accrued to any other social group was incidental benefited from legal protection primarily because of their status as property. With a rigorously elitist legal superstructure, the judicial system, by logic, was inequitable in its application, policing mechanisms were crude and inefficient, with social cohesion dependent on military repression (2004, p. 14) Within the context of Simmonds’ perspective, we must ask the question as whether therehave been any fundamental changes in to the precepts in Jamaica since those elitist andethnocentric establishments. Jamaicans continue to believe that the governance of the country isin favour of the rich, and that the administration of justice still addresses the concerns of theaffluent while the poor are always disadvantaged in the process. Powell, Bourne, & Waller(2007) asked Jamaican “would you say that [the] administration of justice in Jamaica mainlyfavours the rich, or that [the] administration of justice in Jamaica benefits most citizens equally?”and 69.4% reported that it favours the rich; and when the respondents were asked “would yousay that the country is governed for the benefit of a few powerful interests, or is it governed forthe good of everyone?” found that 68.8% indicated that it benefits ‘a few powerful interest’groups. Hence, within this social reality, crimes in Jamaica and country with similarcharacteristics like this nation should be expected to be high as with low confidence in thesystem, people should be expected to protect themselves, and to seek their own solution forproblem that face them. And so, the core of many of socio-political problem in Caribbean 15  
  25. 25. societies, in particular Jamaica, is expressed through crimes (Harriott, Brathwaite, & Worley,2004; Planning Institute of Jamaica, 2005, 1990-2005; Statistical Institute of Jamaica, 1994-2006). Like the reality of slavery distrust breaths uncooperation, low confidence in socio-political institutions, crime, and bureaucracy. It follows that with the high levels of crimes andvictimization in many developing nations, in particular Caribbean societies, that trust would havebeing well examined to provide an understanding of the crime problem, in order to provide somesolutions to the issue of crime. Contextualizing Interpersonal Trust What is trust? And, what are interpersonal trusts as well as its correlates? This study willprovide answers to the aforementioned questions. There is no doubt that interpersonal distrust inJamaica is very high – Powell, Bourne, & Waller (2007, p. 25) provide some empirical answersto this issue when they found that approximately 4 out of 10 people trust each other, withconfidence in two institutions being over 50% (i.e. the family and the schools as well asuniversities; with others indicating less than 25% except the church, which was approximately48%) – and that crime is as a result of this distrust (or low confidence). Interpersonal trust is notonly low in Jamaica as in Europe a study found that the average interpersonal trust was 40% (i.e.4 out of 10 people trust each other), and this was about the same in America and Belarus (4 outof every 10 persons – i.e. 41.9%) but generally trust in Europe is lower than that in Jamaica(average trust in Europe is 3 out of every 10 people or 30.7%). However, there are particularnations in Europe in which trust is even lower than that in Jamaica – such as Ukraine (3 out ofevery 10 persons or 27.2%); Lithuania (3 out of every 10 persons or 29.9%); Russia 2 out every10 persons (i.e. 23.7%); and 2 out of every 10 people in Poland (i.e. 18.9%) (see UNDP 1 , ud).                                                            1  UNDP’s article can be found at http://undp.by/pdf/1321_eng_Chapter_5.pdf. The title of the text is ‘Building Stronger Social Capital for Belarus.   16  
  26. 26. Covey & Merrill (2006) opine that the simplest way to conceptualize trust is to speak ofconfidence (also see Berman, 1996, 1997; La Porte & Met lay, 1996), but other scholars haveadded vulnerability, and willingness and expectation (Lewicki, Tomlinson, & Gillespie 2006;Uslaner 2002, 2005; Morgan, 2005; Markόczy, 2003; Lewicki, & Stevenson, 1998; Fukuyama,1999). But, how is trust defined? Trust is "the willingness of a party to be vulnerable to theactions of another party based on the expectation that the other will perform a particular actionimportant to the trustor" (Mayer, Davis, & Schoorman, 1995, p. 712). Such a conceptualperspective on trust highlights a critical tenet of the phenomenon, which is psychological state ofthe trustee (receiver) based on a particular forward by a truster (giver) (Morgan, 2005; Hardin,2002; Morris & Moberg, 1994; also see Deutsch, 1962; Rotter, 1967). Thus, trust is a subjectiveassessment of people state of mind. Some scholars measure trust from the aforementioned psychological state of people byway of ‘generalized trust’ perspective. In Generalized trust, the researcher would asked a singlequestion that states – “Generally speaking, would you say that most people are essentially goodand can be trusted, or that most people are not essentially good and cannot be trusted?”, withresponses being either ‘most people essentially good, [and] can [be] trust[ed]” or most people[are] not essentially good, [and] cannot [be] trust[ed]’ (Powell, Bourne, & Waller, 2007, p. 109).But this raises the question of subjective versus objective assessment of trust? And whether weshould use a subjective measure of trust to analysis such a vital social construction, given that itaffects all areas of human existence? Uslaner helps us to understand that validity of a subjective assessment of trust is equallyreliable and valid as if it were an objective valuation of this construct. Uslaner states:  Overall, subjective measures matter a lot more than objectives ones. Collectively, the most optimistic person – who wants a fulfilling job, thinks about the future, and believes 17  
  27. 27. that she can make it regardless of luck, connections, or current economic circumstances – is 36 percent more likely to trust others than the most convinced pessimist. The mode prosperous person – with a relatively high family income, who owns his own home, has a savings and a pension plan but does not have to make debt payments, whose parents were well-off, and has neither been laid off nor worried about losing his job – is 2 percent less likely to trust others than people who do not fare so well economically. Clearly your worldview, not your resources, determines whether you will trust other people. … Only one objective measure of well-being achieves significance, compared to five subjective indicators – collectively there is no net impact of objective measures on trust (2002, p. 109) Having provided some premise upon which we are able to generalized trust, we will notprolong this discourse as it is well documented in literature that there is a strong statisticalrelationship between subjective and objective assessment of variables (also see, Easterlin, 2003,2001; Diener, 1984; Gaspart, 1998). As such, an assessment of trust from a self-reportedperspective is equally potent, and does provide some insight for us to understand thisphenomenon and its correlates. Fukuyama is among those who have started the discourse oftrust from a generalized perspective. And he has argued that role of trust is multidimensional,and that it affects democracy, social capital, unit cost of production, cooperation among peopleand institution, without which there is anarchy. He writes: It is perhaps easier to appreciate the economic value of trust if we consider what a world devoid of trust would look like. If we had to approach every contract with the assumption that our partners would try to cheat us if they could, then we would have to spend a considerable amount of time bulletproofing the document to make sure that there were no legal loopholes by which we could be taken advantage of. Contracts would be endlessly long and detailed, spelling out every possible contingency and defining every conceivable obligation (1995, pp. 152-153) Again ‘what is a world devoid of trust would look like’? Third World societies are replicaof this world – corruption, bureaucracy, low accountability and transparency, high crime,victimization, low civic engagement, high production unit cost, cynicism, suspicion, integrityand credibility issues, and system void a core ‘good’ exception from others or entities – and onescholar has shown that there is a negative association between corruption and trust (Uslaner, 18  
  28. 28. 2005). Trust affects ‘good’ governance (Blind, 2007); and according to Blind, the association isvice versa (2007, p. 20) such as political-legitimacy, economic-efficiency, civic engagement,Peri K. Blind, Eric Uslaner and Transparency International has shown that corruption influencestrust. Blind argues that perceived corruption also damages trust, and this is vice versa; and thatscandal erodes legitimacy in institutions. Alesina, & La Ferrara (2000), Putnam (2001) andNewton (2001, 2004) have identified among them cooperation, scalability and collective action,social intelligence, networking, and social cohesion as factors of trust. Using generalized trust – “Generally speaking, would you say that most people can betrusted, or that you can’t be too careful?”  (Morgan,  2005,  p.  54)‐  Morgan did an online surveyresearch of some 104 respondents during the months of April and May 2005 and she finds thatsex; education (i.e. secondary education); influence of ones father; and optimism, number ofyears of education influence generalized trust. Generalized trust, on the other hand, influencessociability, agency, and civic engagement (Morgan, 2005, p. 16). Beverley Morgan’s work usedsingle hypothesis testing; and her model constitutes of gender, educational type, and number ofyears of schooling. Other non-Caribbean scholars have established the correlation betweenreligiosity and church attendance and generalized interpersonal trust (Tan & Vogel, 2005; Sosis,2005; Johansson-Stenman, Mahmud, & Martinsson, 2004). Hence, this study will examine anumber of predisposed variables and their influence on generalized interpersonal trust inJamaica. Secondly, the study seeks to ascertain whether those predisposed variables arepredictor or just factors of trust. Method Sample In July-August 2006, the Centre of Leadership and Governance (CLG), Department ofGovernment, University of the West Indies at Mona, Kingston, examines ‘Jamaica’s Political 19  
  29. 29. Culture’, through a sample survey. The survey uses a questionnaire of some 166 items, whichprobes issues relating to the orientation of democracy, leadership and governance in Jamaica.The survey was a stratified random sample of the fourteen parishes of Jamaica, using thedescriptive research design. The sample frame is representative of the population based ongender and ethnicity. A total of 1,338 respondents aged 16 years and older were interviewed forthis study, with a sampling error of approximately ± 3%, at the 95% confidence level (i.e. CI).The average age for the sample is 34 years and 11 months ± 13 yrs and 7 months. The resultsthat are presented here are based solely on Jamaicans’ opinion of their political orientation. Descriptive statistics were used to analyze the data. Data were collected and stored usingthe Statistical Packages for the Social Sciences (SPSS). Dummy variables were created fromsome demographic and some other variables – sex, race, religiosity, area of residence,generalized trust, unemployed person, perceived social class and justice. Wellbeing and politicalparticipation were computed from a number of scale questions. Descriptive statistics were doneto provide background information on the sample; tests were done for Cronbach alpha toexamine the reliability of the construct – i.e. wellbeing and political participation. Then, logisticregression was used to build a model. A goodness of fit statistics was done for on the modelMeasureAge, ‘A’. Age is a continuous variable, which is recorded in years.Religiosity, ‘R’. The frequency with which people attend religious services, which does notinclude attending functions such as (1) graduations, (2) weddings, (3) christenings, (4) funerals.This variable begins with 0 being none at all to 7, being at least once per week.Sex, ‘X’. This variable is being male or female. It is a binary measure, where 1=male and0=female.Interpersonal Trust, ‘T’. This is people’s perception of their ‘trust’ in other people, and forgovernment. It will be a dummy variable, where 1=Yes, and 0=Otherwise. The question fromwhich this is measured reads - Generally speaking, would you say that most people areessentially good and can be trusted, or that most people are not essentially good and cannot betrusted?”, with responses being either ‘most people essentially good, [and] can [be] trust[ed]” ormost people [are] not essentially good, [and] cannot [be] trust[ed]’ (Powell, Bourne, & Waller,2007, p. 109). 20  
  30. 30. Subjective Psychosocial Wellbeing Index, ‘SPWB’. SPWB = ΣQi / Σf; where Qi is the selectedvalue from each ladder of Maslow’s Hierarchy of Need, and ‘f’ being the frequency of the event.The Cronbach α=0.762 for the 5-item variables, which are used to constitute this Index. Thus,subjective psychosocial index is interpreted as from 0 to 1.9 represents very low SPWB; 2.0 to3.9 is low; 4.0 to 6.9 is moderate, 7.0 to 8.9 is high, and 9.0 to 10 is very high SPWB.Confidence in sociopolitical institutions, CFI. This is the summation of 22 likert scale questions,with each question on a scale of (4) a lot of confidence, (3) some confidence, (2) a littleconfidence, to (1) no confidence. The heading that precedes the question reads: I am going toread to you a list of major groups and institutions in our society. For each, tell me how muchCONFIDENCE you have in that group or institution. (See Appendix). Confidence index =summation of 22 items, with each question being weighted equally; and 0≤confidence index≤88,with a Cronbach α for the 22-item scale being 0.896. The higher the scores, the more peoplehave confidence in sociopolitical institutions within the society. Thus, the confidence index isinterpreted as from 0 to 34 represents very little confidence; 35 to 61 is low confidence; 62 to 78is moderate confidence and 79 to 88 is most confidence. Results Of a sampled population of 1,338 respondents, approximately 63% (62.7%, n=795)report that they do not trust other people compared to 37% (n=472). The sample had marginallymore females (55.7%, n=723) than males (44.3%, n=574). Continuing, most of the respondentsare Blacks include those who classified themselves as Brown (90.0%, n=1,201), with 8.0%(n=106) Caucasians, and 20% (n=26) of other ethnicities. Furthermore, 59% of the respondentsreport that they are within the lower class, approximately 37% (36.6%, n=476) middle classcompared to 4.4% (n=57) who say upper class. Another demographic characteristic was theeducational level of the respondents, 1.5% (n=20) report ‘no formal’ education, 3.1% (n=40) sayprimary/preparatory education, 69% (n=892) remark secondary/high, and 26.2% (n339) indicatepost-secondary level education. (See Table 1.1) (Insert Table 1.1, here) 21  
  31. 31. A finding of utmost importance is the ‘subjective psychological wellbeing’ (i.e. SPWB)of the respondents. The mean SPWB for the sampled respondents was 6.9 (± 1.7), range: 0 to 10- out of 10 - with the mode being 7.8. Thus, this finding reveals that on an average the self-reported psychologic wellbeing of Jamaicans is high. However, confidence in institutions inJamaica, based on the sampled responses, is low (i.e. 56.7±11.23, Range: 3- 87). Concurrently,interpersonal trust in Jamaica is very low as 37.3% of Jamaicans say that they trust other persons.(See Table 1.1). This is translated to be approximately 4 out of every 100 Jamaicans trust eachother. On an average the subjective psychosocial wellbeing of the sampled population (6.9 ±1.7) is more than that for people who classify themselves as being within the working class (i.e.6.6 ± 1.7). On the other hand, the subjective psychosocial wellbeing for the middle class and theupper class is more than the national average – that is, (i.e. 7.3 ± 1.6) and (i.e. 7.2 ± 2.0)respectively. Concurrently, the subjective psychosocial wellbeing is the greatest for middleclass. Although the difference between middle and upper class is 0.1, there is a statisticaldifference between the two groups [i.e. ρ value = 0.001]. (See Table 1.2). (Insert Table 1.2, here) Main FindingsIn this section of the paper, we describe the results of the multivariate analysis in attempting totest the hypothesis stated in Eqn. (1). The logistic regression was conducted on full sample,which consisted of all the respondents who answered the questions (i.e. completed data). Hypothesis to be tested: T=ƒ (A, R, X, SPWB, CFI)..……………………………………….……………….. (1) 22  
  32. 32. The analysis of this research was to test the hypothesis in Eqn (1), which state thatinterpersonal trust is a function of age, religiosity, sex and self-reported psychological wellbeingof the respondents, and this was carried out by logistic regression. Where T represents the dependent variable, which refers to Jamaicans interpersonaltrust, A stands for the age of the respondents in years, R means religiosity, X being the sexes andSPWB denotes the subjective psychological wellbeing index, and CFI means ones confidence insociopolitical institutions. Analysis of Multi Regression Model From Table 2, of the five preselected variables that we test from the data, only threefactors are predictors of interpersonal trust. Firstly, subjective psychologic wellbeing is directlyrelated to interpersonal trust (b=0.129, ρ < 0.05, 0.001). This factor is the second mostsignificant predictor of interpersonal trust (Wald statistic, 12.346), with confidence in institutionsbeing the most significant (Wald statistic, 12.403) followed by religiosity (Wald statistic, 6.095).We found a positive relationship between interpersonal trust and confidence in institutions(b=0.469, ρ < 0.05, 0.001). An inverse relationship was found between interpersonal trust andreligiosity (b=-0.074). It means that less people attend church, the less they will high degree ofinterpersonal trust. Thus, the final model that we proposed as follows:T=ƒ (R, SPWB, CFI)..………………………………………………..…………………….. (4) (Insert Table 2, here) However, the following variables were not found to be statistically significant – age(b=0.001, ρ > 0.05, 0.893), sex (b=0.088, ρ >0.05, 0.494). This implies that there is nodifference between the sexes and their interpersonal trust or age for that matter. We have placedthe goodness of fit of the model in Appendix I. In addition, we have found that the 0.043 or 4.3percentage (Nagelkerke R square, 0.043) of the variation in interpersonal trust can be explained 23  
  33. 33. by three factors. Continuing, the goodness of fit of the model is discussed in Appendix I. Asprimarily, the model is a good fit for the data. Having established the factors for the interpersonal trust model [i.e. Eqn. (4)], we willnow examine these conditions further. We found that an individual who is more confident insociopolitical institution is 1.6 times more likely to trust another person than some who is lessconfident in those institutions. Concurrently, a person who has a higher subjective psychosocialwellbeing is 1.1 times more likely to trust other people compared to an individual with a lowersubjective psychosocial wellbeing. Conversely, we found that an individual who attends churchmore (excluding special occasions such as funerals, weddings, christening, graduation, etc)frequently is 0.9 times less likely to trust another person compared to his/her counterparts whoattend less frequently. (See Table 2). We further examined of the predisposed variables, which are in the tested hypothesis, revealmore than final factors that are in the predictive model in equation [4]. Based on the correlationmatrix in Table 3, there are associations between subjective psychosocial wellbeing andreligiosity, confidence in sociopolitical institutions, and sex. We found that weak positiveassociation between subjective psychosocial wellbeing and religiosity (10.8%), and weaknegative relationship between subjective wellbeing and confidence in sociopolitical institutions(3.2%). Concurrently, there is a negative relationship between subjective psychosocial wellbeingand sex of residents (5.9%). This means that females’ subjective psychosocial wellbeing isgreater than that of their male counterparts. With respect to religiosity, we found that negativerelationship between religiosity and sex (21.9%) and a positive one between religiosity and age(12.2%). Interpreting these results mean that females have a higher religiosity compared to theirmale counterparts, and that the older people get the more they attend church outside of specialoccasions, with there being a minimal association between religiosity and confidence (i.e. 0.2%).Furthermore, we found that weak association between confidence in sociopolitical institution andage of respondents (9.5%), and 1.2% negative relationship between confidence and sex. Thelatter means that females are less confident in sociopolitical institutions compared to females.(See Table 3) (Insert Table 3, here) 24  
  34. 34. Having established the determinants of generalized interpersonal trust, the next purposeof the study was to examine whether those factors extend as far as to predictors of trust. Hence,we setout to use a probability function –Ln (pi/1-pi) =Z ..…………………………………………………………………………...… (2) where z is the linear combination , and pi is the probability of trust occurring in modelequation [1]; βi parameters estimates of confidence in social and political institutions, religiosity,psychosocial wellbeing, and confidence in sociopolitical institutions in Jamaica.Z= a + b1A + b2R + b3X + b4SPWB + b5CFI……………………………………………..… (3)Ln (pi/1-pi) = β0 + β1Psychosocial wellbeing + β2Religiosity +β3Confidence ………………[2.0] Ln {pi/1-pi} = -2.462 + 0.129SPWB – 0.074R + 0.469CFI .……..…………………..[2.1]Case 1: We will examine whether or not the model identified in equation [2.1] is a predictive onefor people with low religiosity, psychosocial wellbeing and very little confidence insociopolitical institutions. Let us assume that a minimal value for wellbeing (i.e. SPWB = 1) andconfidence (CFI=34) and using 1 to denote base religiosity.Ln {pi/1-pi} = -2.462 + 0.129 – 0.074 + 0.469*(34)………………………………………[2.2] Ln {pi/1-pi} = 0.999 Therefore, pi = 0.999 which means that we can predict the interpersonal trust of someonewith very little confidence in sociopolitical institution, minimal psychosocial wellbeing or anindividual who attends church at most once per year outside of special occasions. 25  
  35. 35. Case 2: We will examine whether or not the model identified in equation [2.1] is apredictive one for someone who indicated moderate – religiosity, confidence and psychosocialwellbeing. Let us assume that a minimal value for wellbeing (i.e. SPWB = 5) and confidence(CFI=62) and using 3 to denote base religiosity.Ln {pi/1-pi} = -2.462 + 0.129* (5) – 0.074 * (4) + 0.469 * (62) …………………………[2.3] Ln {pi/1-pi} = 1 Therefore, pi = 1 which means that we can predict the interpersonal trust of someonewith moderate confidence in sociopolitical institution and psychosocial wellbeing or anindividual who attends church at least once per month. Conclusion The literature shows that generalized interpersonal trust in Jamaica is very low – 4 out of10 people trust each other, but this is equally so in Europe, America and other developed nations.The importance of this paper is not merely embedded in the determinants of trust – religiosity,wellbeing and confidence in sociopolitical institutions but the fact that interpersonal trust affectssociability, civic engagement, cooperation and stability of a democracy. The findings of thissurvey research has concurred with the literature that religiosity influences generalizedinterpersonal trust. We further established that people who attend church more often are lesstrusting of other persons. Of the 3-determinant of generalized interpersonal trust, religiositycontributes the least – Wald statistics = 6.095 compared to confidence in sociopoliticalinstitutions (Wald statistics = 12.403) and wellbeing (i.e. Wald statistics = 12.346). This may besurprising to some of the readers but this should not come as startling as crucible aspect to 26  
  36. 36. Christendom is distrust, except in God. This will be further examined from an empiricalperspective in Chapter 9. In addition to aforementioned justification for generalizedinterpersonal distrust in Jamaica, another rationale is embedded in slavery and/or plantationestablishment. Not only is confidence in socio-political institutions statistical related to trust – and thisconcurs with the literature – but that it is the most influential factor in predicting interpersonaltrust. Hence, people sociability which is an expression of the trust is affected by the people’sperception of confidence in those institutions. We have found that interpersonal trust is likely toincrease by approximately 2 times if people’s confidence in organizations increases. It followsthat with the high degree interpersonal distrust in Jamaica (Powell, Bourne, & Waller, 2007) andcontribution of the nation’s plantation past coupled with the high levels of corruption, theJamaican public will be increasingly less likely to participate in civic engagements – theseinclude voluntarism, paying of taxes, cooperation with state institutions, and politicalparticipation (see Chapters 10 and 13 for more empirical evidence on this issue). Francis Fukuyama, Eric Uslaner, United Nations and Transparency International haveprovided extensive scholarship on the influence of trust on economic growth. This studyconcludes that wellbeing positively affect interpersonal trust, and an increase in wellbeing meansthat trust will increased by at least one unit. Embodied in this finding is the implicit connectionbetween intrinsic motivation and trust; and the opposite is equally trust for confidence ininstitutions – extrinsic motivation. The study reveals that the poor have the least wellbeing in thesociety, with the middle class having the most, followed by the affluent class. This speaks to theissue of education being a positive influence on trust (Morgan, 2005); and therefore, explains apart of the crime problem. The poor still believes that the system is designed to favour the rich 27  
  37. 37. (see Powell, Bourne, & Waller, 2007; Simmonds, 2004), and so their low confidence in thesociopolitical institutions coupled with their low standard of living (proxy by wellbeing) explaintheir ‘vulgarity’, and cruelty to live and property of other people. They believe that the structureis not designed to provide equity, fairness or justice and an improvement in wellbeing; and so,their action can be likened to slavery, revolt and physical confrontations. Chapter 3 highlightsand examines predisposed factors that influence confidence in socio-political institutions, andthis is done from a research empirical perspective as this plays an important role in distrust (ortrust). People are continuously evaluating the results of sociopolitical institutions and this iswhat they use to assess intent, motive, credibility and integrity. Thus, Chapter 14 is includedhere as it can be used to analyze motives and intent. Furthermore, we now know – in Jamaica –that confidence in sociopolitical organizations affect generalized interpersonal trust and so doeswellbeing, but ‘does trust affect wellbeing’, this is examined in Chapter 6. 28  
  38. 38. Appendix I:Testing for Goodness of fit and the adequacy of the modelInterpersonal Trust ModelClassification Table for Interpersonal Trust Predicted Dummy Trust (1=Trust) Percentage Observed No Yes Correct Trust No 606 46 93.6 (1=Trust) Yes 379 44 10.4 Overall Percentage 62.7In order to evaluate whether or not the model fits the data, “The Classification of Table” wasused to compare the predicted to the observed outcomes. The Table reveals that four hundredand twenty-five respondents were incorrectly classified: 379 of these who have interpersonaltrust and 46 who do not. Overall, 62.7% of the 1,075 respondents were correctly classified:10.4% of those with ‘trust’ and 93.6% of those who had no interpersonal trust. 29  
  39. 39. Appendix IIAppendix IIConfidence in sociopolitical institutionsI am going to read to you a list of major groups and institutions in our society. For each, tell mehow much CONFIDENCE you have in that group or institution. For each, do you have …..? (1) NO CONFIDENCE (2) A LITTLE CONFIDENCE (3) SOME CONFIDENCE (4) A LOT OF CONFIDENCE Q121. “Police” …………… Q12 2 .Would you say you have a lot, some a little or no confidence in “trade union” Q123.in “political in parties”… Q124.in “churches” Q125.”Large companies corporation” Q126.”Government” Q127.school” Q128.”Families” Q129.”Universities” Q130.”Private sector” Q131.”Bank” Q132.”Prime minister” Q133.”Judiciary Courts” Q134.”Armed forces” Q135.”Parliament” Q136.”Governor General Q137.”Local government council” Q138.”News paper” Q139”television’ Q140.radio” Q141.the people national party - PNP” Q142.”The Jamaica labour party - JLP Source: Taken from questionnaire of Powell, Bourne, & Waller (2007, pp. 122-124). 30  
  40. 40. Table 1.1: Results: Demographic characteristics Variables Percentage (Count)Interpersonal Trust Yes 37.3 (n=472) No 62.7 (n=795)Gender Male 44.3 (574) Female 55.7 (723)Ethnicity:White 8.0 (106)Black and Brown 90.0 (1,201)Other 2.0 (26)Subjective Social ClassLower 59.0 (766)Middle 36.6 (476)Upper 4.4 (57)Respondents’ Educational LevelNo Formal 1.5 (20)Primary/Preparatory 3.1 (40)Secondary 69.0 (892)Tertiary 26.2 (339)Subjective Psychological Wellbeing Index 6.9 ± 1.7 Mode = 7.8, max = 10Confidence Index 56.5 ± 11.23 Mode = 57, max = 88 31  
  41. 41. Table 1.2: Descriptive Statistics for Subjective Psychosocial wellbeing and subjective social classDetails Mean standard deviation 95 % CI Lower UpperWorking class 6.6 1.7 6.4 6.7Middle class 7.3 1.6 7.1 7.4Upper class 7.2 2.0 6.7 7.7Total 6.9 1.7 6.8 6.9ρ value = 0.001 32  
  42. 42. Table 2: Logistic Regression - Determinants of Interpersonal Trust, n=1075 B S.E. Wald df Sig. Exp(B) Step 1(a) SPWBI .129 .037 12.346 1 .000 1.138 Religiosity -.074 .030 6.095 1 .014 .929 Confidence .469 .133 12.403 1 .000 1.598 Sex .088 .129 .468 1 .494 1.092 Age .001 .005 .018 1 .893 1.001 Constant -2.462 .473 27.087 1 .000 .085Note: The Wald statistic is used to determine the predictors that contributed significantly to themodel and how well the model fits the data ‘The Classification Table’ (See Appendix ).Table 3: Correlation Matrix of five items of interpersonal trust Religiosi Confidence Constant SWB ty Index Sex Age Step 1 Constant 1.000 SWB -.534 1.000 Religiosity -.295 .108 1.000 Confidenc e -.701 -.032 .002 1.000 Index Sex -.007 -.059 -.219 -.012 1.000 Age -.293 .004 .122 -.095 -.078 1.000 33  
  43. 43. ReferenceAlesina, A., & La Ferrara, E. (2000). The determinants of trust. NBER Working Paper, 7621.Arrow, K. (1972). Gifts and Exchanges. Philosophy and Public Affairs 1: 343-362.Beckford, G. (1999). Persistent Poverty: Underdevelopment in Plantation Economies of the Third World, 2nd ed. Kingston: The University of the West Indies Press.Berman, E. M. (1996, June). Does trust matter? A survey of local government. Paper presented at the American Society for Public Administration, Atlanta, GA.Berman, E. M. (1997). Dealing with cynical citizens. Public Administration Review, 57, 105-112.Bhattacharya, R., Devinney, T. M. & Pillutla, M. (1998). A Formal Model of Trust Based on Outcomes Academy of Management Review, Volume 23, No. 3, pp 459 – 472.Blind, P. K. (2007, June). Building trust in government in the twenty-first century: Review of literature and emerging issues. Symposium conducted at the meeting of the Seventh Global Forum on Reinventing government Building trust in government, Vienna, Austria.Cook, K, (Editor). (2001). Trust in Society. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Coleman, J.C. (1990) Foundations of Social Theory. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.Coleman, J. C. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of Sociology 94: S95-S120.Deutsch, M. (1962). Cooperation and trust: Some theoretical notes. In M. R. Jones (Ed.), Nebraska Symposium on Motivation (pp. 275-319). Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.Diener, E. (2000). Subjective Well-Being: The Science of Happiness and a Proposal for a National Index. American Psychological Association, 55:34-43. http://www.wcfia.harvard.edu/conferences/socialcapital/Happiness%20Readings/Diener_200 0.pdf (accessed April 6, 2006).Diener, Edward. 1984. Subjective wellbeing. Psychological Bulletin, 95, 3:542-575.Easterlin, R, A. 2003. Building a better theory of well-being. Prepared for presentation at the Conference “Paradoxes of Happiness in Economics”, University of Milano-Bicocca, March 21-23, 2003. http://www-rcf.usc.edu/~easterl/papers/BetterTheory.pdf (accessed August 26, 2006).Fukuyama, F. Trust: The Social Virtues and the Creation of Prosperity. New York, NY: Free Press, 1995.Gaspart, F. (1998). Objective measures of well-being and the cooperation production problem. Social Choice and Welfare, 15, no.1:95-112. Academic Search Premier, EbscoHost 34  
  44. 44. (accessed 8 February 2006).Handy,Hardin, R. (2004). Distrust. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Hardin, R. (2002). Trust and Trustworthiness. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Harriott, A., Brathwaite, F., & Wortley, S. (2004). Crime and Criminal Justice in the Caribbean. Kingston: Arawak Publishers. Jacobs, J. (1961). The Death and Life of Great American Cities. New York: Vintage.Johansson-Stenman, O., Mahmud, M., & Martinsson, P. (2004). Trust and Religion: Experimental evidence from Bangladesh. Department of Economics, Göteborg University, working paper no. 167.Knack, S. and P. Keefer (1997) "Does Social Capital Have an Economy Payoff? A Cross- Country Investigation," Quarterly Journal of Economics 112: 1251-1288.La Porte, T. R., & Metlay, D. S. (1996). Hazard and institutional trustworthiness: Facing a deficit of trust. Public Administration Review, 56, 341- 347. Lewicki, R.J., & Stevenson, M.A. (1998). Trust development in negotiation: Proposed actions and a research agenda. Journal of Business and professional Ethics, 16(1-3):99-132.Lewicki, R.J., Tomlinson, E.C., & Gillespie, N. (2006). Models of interpersonal trust development: Theoretical Approaches, Empirical Evidence, and Future Directions. Journal of Management 32: 991-1022.Lewicki, R.J. & Wiethoff, C. (2000). Trust, Trust Development, and Trust Repair. In. M. Deutsch & P.T. Coleman (Eds.), the handbook of conflict resolution: Theory and practice (p. 86-107). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Lingis, A. (2004). Trust. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Loury, G. (1977). A Dynamic Theory of Racial Income Differences. In Women, Minorities and Employment Discrimination, P. Wallace and A. LeMund eds. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.Markόczy, L. (2003). Trust but verify: Distinguishing distrust from vigilance. (Accessed April 23, 2008 from http://www.goldmark.org/livia/papers/socint/socint.pdf.Mayer, R. C., Davis, j.h., & Schoorman, F.D. (1995). An Integrative Model of Organizational Trust. Academy of Management Review, 20: 709-734. 35  
  45. 45. Morgan, B. (2005). Trust, education and development in Jamaica, 1950 – 2000. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Case Western Reserve University.Morris, J.H., & Moberg, D.J. (1994). Work organizations as contexts for trust and betrayal. In T.R. Sarbin, R.M. Carney, & C. Eoyang (Eds.), Citizen Espionage: Studies in trust and betrayal (pp. 163–187). Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers/Greenwood Publishing Group.Newton, K. (2001). Trust, Social Capital, Civil Society, and Democracy. International Political Science Review, 22: 201–214.Newton, K. (2004), ‘Social trust: individual and cross-national approaches’, Portuguese Journal of Social Science 3: 15–35.Planning Institute of Jamaica. (2005). Jamaica Human Development Report, 2005. Kingston, Jamaica: Planning Institute of Jamaica.___________. (1990-2005). Economic and Social Survey Jamaica, 2005. Kingston, Jamaica: Planning Institute of Jamaica.Putnam, R. (2001), Social Capital: Measurement and Consequences, in The Contribution of Human and Social Capital to Sustained Economic Growth and Well-Being, International Symposium Report edited by the OECD and HRDC.Putnam, R. (1995). The Case of the Missing Social Capital. mimeographed.Putnam, R. (1993). Making Democracy Work: Civic Traditions in Modern Italy. Princeton: Princeton University PressRotter, J. B. (1980a). Trust and gullibility. Psychology Today, 14, 35-42.Rotter, J. B. (1980b). Interpersonal trust, trustworthiness, and gullibility. American Psychologist, 35, 1-7.Rotter, J. B. (1967). A new scale for the measurement of interpersonal trust. Journal of Personality, 35, 651-665.Simmonds, L.E. (2004). The problem of crime in an Urban Slave society: Kingston in the early nineteenth century, In Harriott, A., Brathwaite, F., & Wortley, S. (2004). Crime and Criminal Justice in the Caribbean. Kingston: Arawak Publishers.Sosis, R. (2005). Does religion promote trust? The role of signaling, reputation, and punishment. Interdisciplinary Journal of Research on Religion 1:1-30.Statistical Institute of Jamaica, STATIN. (1972 – 2006). Demographic Statistics, various years. Kingston: STATIN.Tan, J.H.W., & Vogel. C. (2005). Religion and Trust: An experimental Study. Department of Business Administration and Economics, European University Viandrina Frankfurt (Oder), Discussion Paper No. 240. 36  
  46. 46. Uslaner, E. M. (2005). Trust and corruption. In global corruption report, 2005 Transparency International. London: Transparency International.Uslaner, E. M. (2002). The Moral Foundations of Trust, New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Waller, Lloyd G. 2006. “ICTs for Whose Development? A critical analysis of the discourses surrounding an ICT for Development Initiative for a group of micro enterprise entrepreneurs operating in the Jamaican tourism industry: Towards the development of methodologies and analytical tools for understanding and explaining the ICT for Development Phenomenon.” PhD diss., University of Waikota, 2006. 37  
  47. 47. Chapter 3Public Confidence in Organizations: Using Sample SurveyResearch for July-August, 2006 Introduction: Contextual Background …people’s behaviour is essentially influenced by their perception of what they believe reality is, not by reality itself. Despite the many anti-corruption measures which have been implemented over the years, generally speaking, the critical findings of this CaPRI Taking Responsibility Survey revealed that there exists a broad consensus among many Jamaicans that corruption is still prevalent and persistent in all government institutions. (Waller, Bourne, Minto, & Rapley, 2007, p. 25) [Corruption] violates the public trust [i.e. confidence] and corrodes social capital (World Bank, 1997, pp. 102-104) Traditionally, there is a perception that corruption was widespread and rampant inJamaica, and that this has remained the same in 2007 (see Boxill, et al. 2007; Waller, Bourne,Minto, & Rapley, 2007). In Waller et al.’s monograph (2007) titled ‘A landscape assessment ofpolitical corruption in Jamaica’, using sample survey research of some 1,140 Jamaica by way ofprobability sampling technique, find that 85% of the respondents report that it was easy tocorrupt public officials. Based on current public perception, Jamaicans have a low level of trustin socio-political institutions (in particular government, police, customs) (see for example,Powell, Bourne, & Waller, 2007, pp. 22-27 – trust in government 8%; trust in police 46.7%;political parties 30.3%; local government 40.3%) and that this is due to perception of corruption, 38  
  48. 48. past performance of organizations, unmet expectations, injustices and inequitable distribution ofeconomic resources and the lack of transparency within the global context of increasedaccountability, credibility and transparency. The issues of unaccountability and low transparencyare characteristics that have led to violation of public trust (Uslaner, 2005), and that this breedscorruption which erodes the public’s confidence in socio-political institutions as well as thedepletion of social capital. Uslaner argues that there is a strong reciprocal relation betweencorruption and trust. He added that countries with high levels of corruption have a low degree oftrust and the opposite is true (Uslaner, 2005, pp. 262-264), and further offered that this affectsgross domestic product (i.e. economic growth). In examining distrust, Uslaner find that distrustis statistically association with tax evasion, and bureaucracy. Tax evasion is a clear case ofcorruption, and dishonesty; but how critical is it in an in society? A low social capital country is not only likely to have small, weak, and inefficient companies; it will also suffer from pervasive corruption of its public officials and ineffective public administration (Francis Fukuyama, 1995, p.358) In March 2006, in her inaugural address [to the nation], the Most Honourable Portia Lucretia Simpson-Miller, Jamaica’s first female Prime Minister, made the following oath [that] “I want to pledge to the Jamaican people to work tirelessly to eradicate corruption and extortion. I am committed to their eradication” (Jamaica Information Service, 2003, p. 1 in Waller et al. 2007, p.1) The issue of corruption is longer a perception, it is a reality; and this was admitted by theformer Prime Minister of Jamaica in her inaugural address to the nation. Recently Jamaica hasseen unprecedented number of arrests of police officers for corruption, and a number of keypublic officials have been defamed due to - (1) falsification of academic qualifications (“Dr.”Omer Thomas), (2) misuse of public funds (former Junior Minister in the ministry of Energy – 39  
  49. 49. Mr. Kern Spencer; Mr. JAG Smith), (3) alleged ‘wife beatings’, and (4) confession of thefalsification of statement (Detective police constable, Corey Lyn Sue) – and these have furtherreduce the public’s trust in particular sociopolitical institutions as well as they are increasedinterpersonal distrust (or confidence). Those issues are not specialized to the geopolitical spaceof the Jamaica as they extend to the Caribbean, United States, Europe, Asia, Africa and theOceania. Jamaica, Haiti, Iraq, Grenada, Dominica, and Guyana to name of few nations havecontinuously had to interface with crime and violence, and high distrust in sociopoliticalorganizations. Anthony Harriott; Christopher Charles; Don Robotham; Dillon Alleyne and IanBoxill; Mark Figueroa and Amand Sives; Farley Brathwaite, and Scot Wortley have allcontributed various scholarships on crime, criminal justice (or injustice), and victimization froma Caribbean perspective (also see Boxill et al. 2007), but dearth of literature exists onorganization trust despite the seemingly correlation between crime and different typologies ofdistrust. Hence, this study bridges the gap by examining organization trust (confidence), usingsample survey research. The sample was a stratified random sample of some 1,338 Jamaicans,which was a nationally representative cross-sectional research. The aim of this study is twofold.Firstly, to build an organizational trust model for sociopolitical institutions in Jamaica (usingconfidence in 22-sociopolitical institutions in the society) as well as to examine the top five andthe lower five institutions based on particular demographic characteristics. And secondly, toascertain what are some of the factors of organizational trust along with explanatory power of thefinal institutional trust model. Conceptual Framework Perception is sometimes different from reality, and the truth is difficult to establish whenthere is the absence of knowledge, information and the cosmology of what is hidden from 40  

×