東華大學圖書館 |

語系: 繁體中文

說明(常見問題)

回圖書館首頁

手機版館藏查詢

登入

回首頁

切換: 標籤 | MARC模式 | ISBD

Measuring Trust in Post-Communist St...

Ford, Nicole M.

FindBook

Google Book

Amazon

博客來

Measuring Trust in Post-Communist States: Making the Case for Particularized Trust.

紀錄類型:	書目-電子資源 : Monograph/item
正題名/作者:	Measuring Trust in Post-Communist States: Making the Case for Particularized Trust./
作者:	Ford, Nicole M.
出版者:	Ann Arbor : ProQuest Dissertations & Theses, : 2017,
面頁冊數:	240 p.
附註:	Source: Dissertation Abstracts International, Volume: 79-04(E), Section: A.
Contained By:	Dissertation Abstracts International79-04A(E).
標題:	Political science. -
電子資源:	http://pqdd.sinica.edu.tw/twdaoapp/servlet/advanced?query=10640283
ISBN:	9780355544961

Measuring Trust in Post-Communist States: Making the Case for Particularized Trust.
Ford, Nicole M.

Measuring Trust in Post-Communist States: Making the Case for Particularized Trust. - Ann Arbor : ProQuest Dissertations & Theses, 2017 - 240 p.

Source: Dissertation Abstracts International, Volume: 79-04(E), Section: A.

Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of South Florida, 2017.

While the literature on democracy and its relationship to trust provides little consensus regarding the role of trust, researchers have emphasized the importance of generalized trust over particularized in relation to democracy. This research marks a departure from this consensus, and exposes the neglected role of personal relationships in fostering successful democracy.

ISBN: 9780355544961Subjects--Topical Terms:

528916
Political science.

Measuring Trust in Post-Communist States: Making the Case for Particularized Trust.
LDR:04168nmm a2200361 4500 001 2154529
005 20180416072033.5
008 190424s2017 ||||||||||||||||| ||eng d
020 $a 9780355544961
035 $a (MiAaPQ)AAI10640283
035 $a (MiAaPQ)usf:14399
035 $a AAI10640283
040 $a MiAaPQ $c MiAaPQ
100 1 $a Ford, Nicole M. $3 3342258
245 1 0 $a Measuring Trust in Post-Communist States: Making the Case for Particularized Trust.
260 1 $a Ann Arbor : $b ProQuest Dissertations & Theses, $c 2017
300 $a 240 p.
500 $a Source: Dissertation Abstracts International, Volume: 79-04(E), Section: A.
500 $a Adviser: Darrell Slider.
502 $a Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of South Florida, 2017.
520 $a While the literature on democracy and its relationship to trust provides little consensus regarding the role of trust, researchers have emphasized the importance of generalized trust over particularized in relation to democracy. This research marks a departure from this consensus, and exposes the neglected role of personal relationships in fostering successful democracy.
520 $a One of the key measurements of democracy in a country is social trust. There are three forms of trust: generalized, particularized and institutional. Previously, the measurement of social trust focused on the importance of generalized trust, that is, trust in those we do not know (Putnam, 1993; Fukuyama, 1995, et. al). Generalized trust is marked as having the greatest benefits for democracy. Those who are generalized trusters have the will to bridge across ethnicities and join civic groups in larger numbers. Institutional trust is society's trust in its institutions. Countries ranking high on institutional trust are also believed to have positive democratic outcomes. By contrast, particularized trust is often dismissed because it is seen as highly atomizing and, therefore, incapable of making bridges to ethnic others resulting in a bankruptcy of democratic values. Thus, the combination of institutional and generalized trust has been the main crux of measurement and understanding in relation to a country's ability to democratize.
520 $a The problem with this approach is two fold: first, it assumes the unidimensionality of trust and ultimately resigns a country of trusters to one category or the other with often negative impacts. The reality is, we are not solely one truster or the other: we are a combination of each form of trust. Secondly, this approach is Western in focus and does not account for the differentiation within cultures and is therefore unable to truly account for trust in a society. Nor does it account for new forms of trust and civil society in the new digital age. Recently, some questions about the legitimacy of this approach have surfaced and new methods have been employed to ascertain the true nature of social trust, however these methods have also fallen short (Gibson 2001; Bhary, et. al. 2005). Because trust is one measure used to determine the amount of democracy in a nation or the ability for it, accurate description is vital.
520 $a Here, the author will take a new approach and focus on the importance of the often overlooked particularized trust, as well as control for the importance of institutionalized trust. Using Khodyakov's (2007) research on trust and the Soviet case as the launching pad, the author will empirically examine trust in the former Soviet Union today. Using the most recent World Values Survey data, a new trust variable will be constructed that will be better able to capture the true, dynamic nature of trust. Placing this new trust variable in a Bayesian hierarchical linear model which will control for country level variables, it will be revealed that particularized trust can and does have positive impacts on support for democracy, debunking current notions to the contrary.
590 $a School code: 0206.
650 4 $a Political science. $3 528916
650 4 $a International relations. $3 531762
650 4 $a Social research. $3 2122687
650 4 $a East European studies. $3 3172488
690 $a 0615
690 $a 0601
690 $a 0344
690 $a 0437
710 2 $a University of South Florida. $b Government and International Affairs. $3 2093708
773 0 $t Dissertation Abstracts International $g 79-04A(E).
790 $a 0206
791 $a Ph.D.
792 $a 2017
793 $a English
856 4 0 $u http://pqdd.sinica.edu.tw/twdaoapp/servlet/advanced?query=10640283