Protection substitutes for trust when trust is lacking in transactions

Evidence

In every transaction in which at least one party does not trust the other to comply with the rules, protection becomes desirable, even if it is a poor and costly substitute for trust. This book shows that mafia protection fulfills this role, albeit in an erratic and limited fashion. The market is therefore rational in the sense that there are people who find it in their individual interest to buy mafia protection. While some may be victims of extortion, many others are willing customers. … There is a propensity to reduce cognitive dissonance by reverting to the view of mafiosi as mere extortionists. — Diego Gambetta, The Sicilian Mafia The Business of…, 13

Categorization

Category: Causal Relationships

  • XREF: This is Gambetta’s causal mechanism: trust deficit in transactions creates demand for third-party enforcement — exactly the reader’s analytical bridge to Milgrom’s private judges.
  • QUESTION: The claim that ‘many others are willing customers’ is empirical — how does one distinguish willing customers from coerced payers in practice?

Broader Connections