Controlling trust creates new opportunities for abuse in an inflationary spiral.

Evidence

I have argued that impersonal trust permits complex developments in social organization and exchange that create distinctive opportunities for abuse. These are responded to by new social-control strategies that unfortunately share some of the same structural properties as the original developments. Therefore, similar opportunities for violation emerge and stimulate new social-control measures that contain the structural seeds of further deviance. And so on. The paper exposes an inflationary spiral of escalating trust relationships and the paradox that the more we control the institution of trust, the more dissatisfied we will be with its offerings. — Shapiro, Susan P., The Social Control of Impersonal Trust, 145

Categorization

• XREF: This self-reinforcing control/abuse spiral echoes risk-regulation loops and Goodhart’s law where monitoring measures themselves become the next source of risk. — connects to: Mechanisms for controlling impersonal trust themselves create new opportunities for abuse — Shapiro, Susan P., The Social Control of Impersonal Trust, 1; The very mechanisms that enable trust also enable its abuse. — Shapiro, Susan P., The Social Control of Impersonal Trust, 13; The same features enabling trust also enable agent abuse. — Shapiro, Susan P., The Social Control of Impersonal Trust, 33 (+8 more)
• DEFINE: Defines ‘morale hazard’ indirectly and the structural irony of control measures sharing the flaws of what they regulate.

Related

• Mechanisms for controlling impersonal trust themselves create new opportunities for abuse (similarity 0.92)
• The very mechanisms that enable trust also enable its abuse. (similarity 0.90)
• Controlling trust institutions increases dissatisfaction with their offerings. (similarity 0.88)
• The same features enabling trust also enable agent abuse. (similarity 0.85)
• Social-control remedies reproduce the structural vulnerabilities they target. (similarity 0.84)
• Guardians of trust are themselves positioned to abuse the trust placed in them. (similarity 0.83)
• Impersonal trust emerges where principals lose direct power to regulate agents. (similarity 0.83)
• Escalating trust guardianship distorts the original agency purpose (similarity 0.82)
• Third-party trust guardians create new opportunities for exploitation. (similarity 0.82)
• The same factors enabling agency relationships create the opportunity for agent abuse. (similarity 0.82)
• Trust institutions vary dramatically in the guardianship they receive (similarity 0.81)
• Institutional trust guardians offer advance protection against future agent misconduct. (similarity 0.81)
• The institutions that police trust are themselves trustees subject to the same agency problems. (similarity 0.80)
• Trust is structurally vulnerable because agents can exploit principals’ ignorance and distance. (similarity 0.80)
• Trust is structurally precarious because agents control symbolic wealth at a distance from principals. (similarity 0.80)

Broader Connections

• Third-party trust guardians create new opportunities for exploitation. #corroborates (0.85) — Shapiro, Susan P., The Social Control of Impersonal Trust, 141
• Guardians of trust are themselves positioned to abuse the trust placed in them. #corroborates (0.80) — Shapiro, Susan P., The Social Control of Impersonal Trust, 112
• System trust is easier to acquire but harder to control than personal trust #complicates (0.75)
• Socially extensive trust requires an aristocracy to create it, which then undermines it #corroborates (0.75)
• Trust is an irreducible tradeoff between over- and under-constraining agents. #qualifies (0.75)
• Controlling trust institutions increases dissatisfaction with their offerings. #contradicts (0.70) — Shapiro, Susan P., The Social Control of Impersonal Trust, 145