It looks like a tautology to me. Like: "Corruption erodes social trust in places where social trust exist and is key for the political system."
China's pretty corrupt politically but the social trust is quite high, the highest outside of northern europe as far as I can tell
There are a few reasons for that that I can imagine:
- China is one of very few autocracies that has managed to significantly improve the standard of living of most of its population.
- The public trials and (sometimes) executions of allegedly corrupt individuals might help improve the perception of corruption.
- The same harsh penalties mentioned above might influence people to declare a higher level of social trust than they actually have, even if the poll is supposedly "confidential" and "only for scientific purposes".
This 100%.
Political imprisonment and reeducation camps are antithetical to any definition of a high trust society that I would subscribe to.
Eg Nazi Germany still benefited from a high-ish level of social trust, despite numerous atrocities.
You can’t honestly say that a country where citizens inform on each other and put each other in forced labor camps based on rumor is a society where trust is high.
> The Deutscherblick ("German Look") was a tense, habitual glance over the shoulder used by citizens in Nazi-era Germany before speaking about sensitive topics like food rations, Hitler jokes, or the war’s progress
Nazi Germany was full of dedicated informers who would even earn money or other privileges for denouncing someone. It had about as much trust between strangers as Iran under the Revolutionary Guards might have today.
Care to elaborate, Mr. Godwin?
Something about this doesn’t sit right with me. I’m not a historian but something tells me not everyone else was a-ok with atrocities that existed before nazis.
Also, again I’m not a historian, but I believe their promise to act was also tied up in blaming others and hate.
“At least they got things done” is very often the seed around which a belief in fascism crystallizes. They don’t deserve any recognition for what they promised or what they accomplished.
This is a thread about my definition of a high trust society.
So far the only argument in support of nazi germany being high trust is that they got shit done.
I don’t see how anyone could argue that imprisoning your own population in forced labor camps based on rumor is something that can happen in a high trust society.
There is no trust in such a society, only fear.
Arguing about this any more is making me feel sick.
You can read more about the Weimar Republic. If it weren't so fundamentally broken, Nazis would never come to power. Stating this is not Nazi apologia but a warning of what happens if governments and the ruling class ignore the will of their own people and actively work against it for a long time.
The nazis don’t need you to come to their defense.
Nazism is basically ignoring the will of their own people and actively working against them.
>Eg Nazi Germany still benefited from a high-ish level of social trust, despite numerous atrocities.
>What's the benefit of social trust when a society can commit such atrocities?
Then you come in with
> It's not like atrocities started with Nazis
Your comment pretty much directly says the nazis weren’t that bad and in context looks like you’re agreeing with previous poster they are high trust.
Nazis were one of the worst regimes we had in Europe, but the German regime before them was also bad. Bad enough that many saw Nazis as a viable alternative. In desperate times, people make desperate choices.
This is more or less a historical consensus, which I pointed out. If we want to prevent a Nazi-like regime from coming to power again, we need to avoid mistakes made by the Weimar Republic. Unfortunately, I see a global trend of governments making the same mistakes again, and I fear it will end in the same way.
I don't think Nazi society was high-trust. But I also don't think Nazis destroyed trust, because it already eroded before them.
What are those?
Yes? How does that preclude Germany still having absolutely high trust (by global standards), even if it was lower than the even higher levels before?
I found Singapore somewhat bracing in how honestly they acknowledge the two tiers (natives + wealthy foreigners vs poor "guest" workers) in their society. The same division functionally exists in many "western" countries, but is broadly ignored. (To be clear, I do not endorse this - and, in fact, think it appalling - but appreciate straightforwardness more than I do obfuscation by empty rhetoric.)
2. In a relatively severe, but consistent regime, the high penalties for violating trust in everyday cases (crime) act as a deterrent.
3. Fear may cause people to be selective and mindful about their social associations based on stronger proofs of trustworthiness. You might tell a Hitler joke to someone you have used more energy/caution to "vet", but avoid being too casual in environments of undetermined trustworthiness.
That is China is a complex country and books (which are not written and many cannot be for decades yet) are needed to understand this, not a short comment box. [This applies to every other country anyone here mentions]
I think you’re right that culture plays a key role. For example if small bribes are customary, that doesn’t erode trust, that’s just the way things are.
For (2) China doesn't look too different from the U.S., for (3) experts think it has gotten much worse since the time of Mao but I'd say China is on the honest side of the "global South".
Note that lay perceptions of corruption are widespread in the US
https://yougov.com/en-us/articles/51398-most-americans-see-c...
https://news.gallup.com/poll/185759/widespread-government-co...
https://www.occrp.org/en/news/survey-reveals-corruption-as-t...
though unlike India I think very few Americans have paid a bribe to a cop. See also
https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2026/03/05/in-25-countr...
Since SG has the opposite problem from China: ((low) gov corruption XOR (low) social trust).
The paradox is that the strat will have wildly different failure modes in SG vs CN or JP (all are aware of this!)
Note also that SG is consistently ranked in the top 10 together with the Nordics+NZ+IE+CH in spite of this failure mode..
My informed opinion is that LDP+loyalist-bureaucrats have been shipping and failing the same strat for years-- LDP dominance is the tell. Any critique of Xi's policy can be backed with JP data. Prediction: Xi will succeed if and only if CPC fall (or do the ship-of-theseus thing)
https://www.fairobserver.com/world-news/japans-new-ldp-scand...
Keywords (actual jargon)
天下り (fox->human) 忖度 族議員 行政指導
No one, left or right, thinks there is street level corruption. Not the kind accessible to someone in a traffic stop. I have experienced it in Mexico and think that kind of corruption would still be worse because I cannot imagine how to recover from it. I have hope that a few high profile arrests of c level fall his may turn the tide. If not then there are extrajudicial methods open to American culture.
I know from my own personal experience that I haven't paid a bribe to a cop or to an alderman to get a zoning variance. There are some places where this kind of thing is routine. (e.g. I know there is a crooked cop somewhere but I also believe that if I tried to pay a bribe to a cop it wouldn't go well)
Thus I trust people's reports of street level corruption.
If it comes to perceptions of "corruption in high places" that is mediated by the media. It may well be that it is very corrupt and you never hear about it, or that it squeaky clean but you hear allegations 10 times a day. Or a Democrat might think everything is corrupt when Republicans are in power and then when Democrats are in power, Republicans take up the slack.
So I don't trust people's reports of corruption in high places.
Now I know a lot of people who are involved in road construction and maintenance in upstate NY who range from "drives a truck" to "manages $10M+ projects" and the belief that there is corruption in highway projects is widespread based on second- and third- hand accounts.
What are you comparing with? I don't think PR China has more social trust than Singapore or Japan or Korea?
My company took the biggest telecom company in France to court for a violation of our license on a soft, license was GPLv2, we won, but it took 12 years.
Justice is a very poor and slow institution in France. For the same countries the budget of police forces per capita are nearly the same for example.