Social trust is an outcome and byproduct of social capital

Evidence

For Ostrom, social trust is not a form of social capital, but rather an outcome (Ostrom and Ahn 2009, 22). Whether trust is social capital or simply a byproduct of it7 is not necessarily something that has an impact upon the claim that it is in the interest of safeguarding freedom from non-domination to promote social capital. Rather, it is a dispute that becomes relevant for practitioners. What is important here is that the presence of social capital—manifested in the “dense networks of social exchange”—becomes a “crucial condition for the rise of the norm of generalized reciprocity” (Ostrom and Ahn 2009, 27). In this sense, the existence of social capital is correlated (and probably serves a causal function) with social trust, the “positive expectation about the trustworthiness of the generalized, abstract other” (Robinson and Jackson 2001, 117). — Adelin-Costin Dumitru, Forging the Resistive Republic, 41

Categorization

• DEFINE: Lays out the Bloomington School’s precise conceptual distinction between social capital (dense networks, generalized reciprocity norms) and social trust (trustworthiness expectation) as outcome rather than constituent.
• XREF: Connects to republican freedom-from-domination theory debates the paper frames around, informing how social capital serves non-domination. — connects to: Dense civic networks enable trust, reciprocity and collective action. — Robert Putnam, Bowling Alone: America’s Declining…, 17; Social trust and civic engagement co-vary across societies as one underlying factor. — Robert Putnam, Bowling Alone: America’s Declining…, 59; Trust functions as social capital enabling collective purposes. — Russell Hardin, Trust and Trustworthiness, 399 (+7 more)
• corroborated: 2 independent passages support this claim — Adelin-Costin Dumitru, Forging the Resistive Republic: Social…, 41

Related

• Trust emerges as a result of cooperation rather than an element of social capital. (similarity 0.85)
• Social trust and civic engagement co-vary across societies as one underlying factor. (similarity 0.83)
• Dense civic networks enable trust, reciprocity and collective action. (similarity 0.82)
• Trust functions as social capital enabling collective purposes. (similarity 0.82)
• Social capital grows from participation, not prior endowment alone. (similarity 0.82)
• Social networks themselves constitute capital with measurable productive value (similarity 0.81)
• Trust and social fabric are mutually constitutive and two-way (similarity 0.81)
• Virtue only produces social benefit when embedded in reciprocal networks (similarity 0.80)
• Mutual trust predates and is prerequisite for civic virtue. (similarity 0.80)
• Social capital’s self-reinforcing strength does not explain how it emerges originally. (similarity 0.80)
• Social capital is variously defined as relationships, networks, and cooperation-enabling capacity. (similarity 0.80)
• Networks sustain conduct rules because they embed mutual obligation (similarity 0.79)
• Social order produces the conditions that generate trust, not vice versa (similarity 0.79)
• Social capital enables citizens to contest policies endangering non-domination. (similarity 0.79)
• Trust-based obligations function as exchangeable credit within social relationships. (similarity 0.78)

Broader Connections

• Trust emerges as a result of cooperation rather than an element of social capital. #corroborates (0.92) — Russell Hardin, Trust and Trustworthiness, 409
• Social order produces the conditions that generate trust, not vice versa #corroborates (0.82) — Russell Hardin, Trust and Trustworthiness, 785
• Trust and social fabric are mutually constitutive and two-way #complicates (0.80) — Diego Gambetta, Trust - Making and Breaking Cooperative…, 502
• Trust functions as social capital enabling collective purposes. #contradicts (0.78) — Russell Hardin, Trust and Trustworthiness, 399
• Social capital consists of networks, not the trust they generate #complicates (0.75)