Popular in Course
verified elite notetaker
Popular in Business
This 807 page Document was uploaded by an elite notetaker on Monday December 21, 2015. The Document belongs to a course at a university taught by a professor in Fall. Since its upload, it has received 38 views.
Reviews for EXAMINING-TRUST-IN-JAMAICA
Report this Material
What is Karma?
Karma is the currency of StudySoup.
You can buy or earn more Karma at anytime and redeem it for class notes, study guides, flashcards, and more!
Date Created: 12/21/15
EXAMINING TRUST (or MISTRUST) IN JAMAICA Paul Andrew Bourne i EXAMINING TRUST (or MISTRUST) IN JAMAICA By Paul Andrew Bourne Health Research Scientist and Social Demographer Photograph was taken by Paul Andrew Bourne ii Copyright© 2009 by Department of Community Health and Psychiatry, Faculty of Medical Sciences, the University of the West Indies, Mona Campus, Kingston, Jamaica. National Library of Jamaica Cataloguing Card Number: ISBN: 978-976-41-0235-9 EXAMINING TRUST (or MISTRUST) IN JAMAICA Bourne, PaulAndrew While the copyright of this text is vested in Paul Andrew Bourne, the publisher is the Department of Community Health and Psychiatry, UWI, Mona Campus, and no parts of the chapters may be reproduced wholly or in part without the express ed written permission of both author and publisher. All rights reserved. Published April, 2009 Covers were designed by PaulAndrew Bourne Printed and bound in Jamaica iii Acknowledgement Trust is what holds a society toget her. And although legislations are critical to the functioning of a stable democracy, it is held together by thestrength of trust in all relationship. Somepeople may believe that within the context ofhighly developed legislative frameworks in the world, we are still have many fundamental problems and that these are substantially related to challenges due to interpersonaldistrust. Despite the complex legislative structure of America and its economy, there are issues relating to cooperation. Many of the challenges that we face including crime, cynicism, suspicion of other character, dishonesty and integrity are producing people who are not distrust but people who arehighly responsive to other intent and motives as general perception is that one should protect him/herself from another person’s ‘bad’ intent or motive. Within the context of the exponential increases in crime and victimization and the undeniable correlation between trust and corruption (i.e. crime), it is difficult to comprehend why Caribbean intelligentsia have not launched a thorough investigation of trust in seeking to understand the regions crime problems, and other issues. Thus, this study seeks to provide explanations for many of the issues in the Caribbean region from the perspectiv e of trust. As trust is what explains cooperation, confidence in others and institutions, the willingness to communicate with others without fear as people believe that others are ‘good’ and can be trust. Ergo, I would like to thank the Centre for Leade rship of Governance, Department of Government, the University of the West Indies at Mona, Jamaica, for the opportunity to utilize its dataset, from which this book is made possible. In addition to the aforementioned congratulatory message offered to Cent re for Leadership and Governance, I would wholeheartedly like to thank – all my colleagues and associates – who gave me the impetus to complete this project iv Prologue Cronyism, extortion, misappropriation of funds, personal graft and greed, lows level of accountability, political patronage, low risk of detection, low risk of punishment, murders, and cost overruns are just a few of a plethora of things that have arisen and continue to baffle public officials as well as governments in Jamaica, astheireffective solutions seem to be far removed from our grasp, competence and capacity . Some people believe that Jamaica is the most murderous nation of the world and be this reality (or not), Jamaicans are predominantly polite, hospitable, understanding, kind, com passionate, friendly, and anti -murderous class of people. We continue to look and analyze many of the tenets of crimes and victimization, corruption in particular cronyism, extortion,political patronage and low risk of detection of crimes from the vantage point of actual statistics of these issues. This discourse lacks a critical component, that of trust. As trust is that crux of democracy, cooperation, civic engagement, understand between and among different cultures and people, and it that driving for ce that allows people to communicate with cynicism or suspicion. Trust is more than ‘cooperation between people, groups, institutions or a coalescing of any pair of thoseevents to socialcapital, credibility, accountability, transparency, lower t ransactional costs, development, loyalty, communication, positive expectations and energy, integrity, honesty, morale, intent, character, to results. Thus, trust is thecrucible component that explains the core of the functioning of a people, a society, a nation, a wider geopolitical space. Unlike statistics that may provide some realism to what is fact, one perception of someone character, intent, credibility, goodwillor his/her honesty allaffect interpersonal, organizationaland other forms of trust. People on seeing someone for the first time make an assessment (value judgement) of the other individual’s intent, character, and credibility without information. It is this expectation (negative or positive) that drives the people’s behaviour to others (people, institutions, things or otherwise). Thus, a number of the cronyism, extortion, and misappropriation of funds, dishonesty, political patronage and low accountability are due to the other’s perspective that v he/she needs to do this in order to competitive because the other person’s intentions are not ‘good’. With this cosmology, distrust is such that people are usually suspicious of the next person’s motives as each party operates under the premise that there is ‘negative’ expectation of the other party’s motives, intent or integrity. This explains why someone will physically harm another person who step s on his/her shoe, toe, ormaterialpossession because the feeling is that the nextperson’s intent,motives and integrity is questionable in part icular it is ‘bad’ against the vulnerable party. There is a cosmology in Jamaica that there is always an agenda behind amotive, intent or behaviour. This has tarnished the psycheof the average person so much that people evaluate another’s attitude, intent, motives and honest based on this general self -distrust (or trust), which expands into a base for the understanding of others. In seeking to explain a number of the fundamental social problems that have been unnerving the society of Jamaica, I believe that what lies at the core of these issues is trust. This book puts together a number of research on different typologies of trust, models that were develop to explain correlates of trust, politicalparticipation, wellbeing, religiosity as studies have shown that these issue are interrelated, and will foster a more in-depth understanding of some of the issues in our society. One ofthe challenges that somepeople use to predetermine the intent, motive or integrity of another is past performance (or results). For some people there trust is adjudged on past‘track record’ of the other person. It is not limited to interpersonal relations as this expands to businesses. Basically, our confidence (or trust) forsomeone’s or entity’s grows based on tested and proven past results. People measure their current expectations based on past performance of the other party. And if information is not had on the party, we usually speculate on expectation based on initialclassification of the person or entity. Hence, future trust is based on past, present happenings. The past happening (or situations) are had through socialization, experiences and performance. It follows that ‘track record’ or reputation is substantially used to interpret credibility, intent or motive of an individual. And this guide people future expectation of people – as how people experience, vi interface with events and think will fundamentally guide their future behaviour. Thus, trust is built on a multi -sociocultural premise. Within this context, people will not cooperate with someone if past experiences were ‘negative’ or disbeneficialfor the receiving party. The embodiment of aforementioned issues explains distrust, uncooperation, low expectation, reprisal, cynicism, suspicion, guided communication, low confidence, anarchy, and disconnect between the paying of taxes and cooperating with all forms of government because distrust the intent, motive, character, integrity and honest of others in particular governments. Slavery was not kind t o developing countries, in particular those in the Caribbean, and successive governments and related institutions have not sought to reconstruct the society that trust be a core function. Many of these organizations are not cognizant of the importance of trust to democracy, cooperation, confidence and interpersonal relations that they do not watch their inactions (and actions). Crime, corruption and victimization as well as that venom that current exits in the society are due to thedishonesty, injustices , and the level of distrust that thesociety is built on. Many people are cognizant of the challenges – which include dishonesty, injustices, inequalities, low tract record, low transparency and accountability, low credibility, responsibilities and ‘bad’ intent that distrust is so intense that silence is a prefer tool in communication that wrong intent or motives. The low informant cosmology in the nation is primarily as a result of the distrust, and this cannotbe lowered by merely speaking it into being. The distrust (low trust) is not only affecting interpersonalas wellas organization involvement, it is also affecting development, production, efficiency, productivity as if people cannot cooperative, and be confident around each other, and they will not be able offer their best, as division does not create increased production nor improves productivity. Trust is that adhesive that holds a society (company, nation, or community) together. Although each individual is a separate entity, people existence is dependent on others more so since mass production, industrialization and globalization. In this globalmilieu, each person is a microorganism that collective comes together for the effective functioning of the whole. It is trust that allows for the c ooperation and operations of the whole, and not thedominance of any vii particular entity. Thus, the survivalof the group is dependenton the collective consensus, and so the group depends on theunit, and theunit functions becauseof thecollective whole. Hence, we cannot deny the fact that civic engagement is based on a generalized belief of cooperativeness and confidence in the particular entity. This text looks at a number of those aforementioned issues as they are crucible to stable democracy, cooperation, confidence and institutional responsibility. Trust, ergo, is the building block for many of the challenges currently facing the nation. Hence, this book examines those issues as they will provide explanations from an empirical standpoint forsocial woes affecting the society. What Jamaica needs at this time is someone who can inspire that trust, resort hope, accept the disparities seek to honestly address them; and not hesitate in establishing competence, credibility, trustworthiness, and extend tru st to thedistrusting among us. Because by distrusting someone (or entity) we miss allthe opportunities of harmonious living between humans. Paul Andrew Bourne Health Research Scientist and Social Demographer Department of Community Health and Psychiat ry Faculty of Medical Sciences The University of the West Indies, Mona Campus Kingston, Jamaica viii Table of Contents Page Acknowledgement iv Prologue v 1 – Introduction 1 2- Understanding Interpersonal Trust (distrust) andidentifying its Correlates 12 3- Public Confidence inOrganizations 39 4 - An examination of Generalized Trust in Jamaica 104 5 - Modeling PoliticalTrust in Jamaica 146 6 - Examining Wellbeing of the Working Aged Population in Jamaica. 189 7 - Does Trust Change Well-Being? 223 8 - Trust (or distrust) and Morale inthe Jamaica Constabulary Force (JCF) 256 9 - Religiosity and its association with Subjective Psychological Wellbeing ofJamaic385 10 - Religiosity and Trust 428 11 - Dispelling Some of the Myths on Unconventional Political Participationin Jamaic460 12 - Political Participation, and Trust, and its Correlates 493 13 - Public Opinionand Voting Behaviour of Jamaicans: Pre-2007 General Elections 520 14 - Crime, Tourism and Trustin J amaica 573 15 - Curbing Deviant Behaviours in Secondary Schools 623 ix 16 - The positives: A content (or Textual) Analysis of an address to nation by [Former] 686 Prime Minister of Jamaica, The Most Hon. P. J. Patterson on Sunday March 21, 2004 17- Political Participation: Using croectional data to model its correlates 704 18- Unconventionalpoliticalparticipation in a middle -income developing country 729 19- Epilogue 752 x Chapter 1 Introduction The Jamaican society is undersieged by criminality and this has been forthcoming for some time now. It is welldocumented in voluminous texts and different scholarly materials that the period of 1970s and 1980s accounted for the nation’s current crime rat es, corruption and silence. According to Anthony Harriott, “The problem of crime in the Caribbean – it causes, its consequences, and its control– emerged as a major concern during the 1990s” (2004, p. 1). The levels of murders, and corruption – extortion, misappropriation of funds, dishonesty, low accountability and transparency, bureaucracy, and fraud have created a milieu of frustration, confusion, suspicion, cynicism - have created a general cosmology of intense silence and distrust that is embedded in the sub- consciousness of the people of the society. Every kind of peaceful cooperation among men is primarily based on mutual trust and only secondarily on institutions such as courts of justice and police (Albert Einstein,in Covey, & Merrill, 2006, p. 273) There are two main perspectives on many issues that appear to beunfolding in Caribbean societies, in particular Jamaica – Is corruption a perception? And secondly, corruption’s influence on the society is minimal. But, what is the fact on corruption? Does corruption exists? And, are there indicator through the actions (or inactions) of political leaders that implies or accept the realities of corruption? The public has been claiming that corruption exists, and this was concretized by Transparency International, TI (1999- 2007). TI has reported that corruption has been increasing 1 for some time now in Jamaica, and whenever these reports are published there is a general decrying of this as a fabrication of the nation’s realities. The discourse ha s taken on a new tone when the former prime minister of Jamaica – Mrs. Portia L. Simpson -Miller – admitted in her inaugural speech that she willbe tackling the issue of corruption. Mrs. Simpson- Miller says: I want to pledge to the Jamaican people to wor k tirelessly to eradicate corruption and extortion. I am committed to their eradication (Jamaica Information Service, 2003, p.1) Embodied in the former Prime Minister’s inaugural presentation is the acceptable that corruption is realty as is the perception and the reports from Transparency International. The element that this has failed to highlight is the correlation between corruption and other socioeconomic issues. There is an irrefutable fact that corruption is associated with development and democracy (Transparency International, 1999 -2007; Waller, Bourne, Minto, & Rapley, 2007; Fukuyama 1995), and that another condition is equally important in his discourse, trust. Trust is the crux of a stable democracy (Francis Fukuyama, 1995) and corruption (Uslaner 2005). And there is no denial that development is negative correlated to trust or vice versa. Modernization, post -modernization, mass production, and capitalism rest on specialization and division of labour. People’s inputin theproduction proc ess is a sector thereof, and no one is completely responsibility for the creation of any product or service. The production process is sub-divided into sectors, and this requires many human resources in the production of final products. Each sector relies on the other, all is cooperation of each. It is through this understanding and processes thattrustis the core ofmodern industrialsociety, and this is equally the case in traditional (or prehistoric) societies. 2 There is no doubt the distrust explains many of the uncooperation, mis -confidence and negative expectation ofothers, which is used to interpret others intent and motives (Fukuyama 1995; Uslaner 2005; Transparency International 2005; Covey, & Merrill, 2006). Thus, people interpret dishonesty, past performance, and corruption as indicators of low integrity and character, and so they are their mutual action is to act as being deceived, which will commence the growth of more conflicts, crimes, victimization, corruption, dishonesty and negative expectation as people reciprocate the perceived distrust from other’s actions (or inactions). In such a society social consensus is difficult, peace is an elusive construct, and crimes will be high. Embedded in low trusting societies is the negative expectation of others. This makes it difficult for each person to communicate effective and openly with other as there is low confidence in the intent and motives of another. This text is a collection of study on different typologies of trust in Jamaica and there various correlates, as well as political participation and wellbeing as these are all integrated in trusting (or low trusting) societies. Chapter 1 provides an insightfuldescription of the entire text in order to provide its readers with a comprehens ive understanding of the fundamentals of trust and its related explanations for many of today’s ills. Chapter 2 begins this text because we believe that trust, in particular interpersonaltrust, is the most crucible component of a stable democracy, devel opment, productivity, production, economic growth, cooperation between and among people including institutions, communication, the provide for the basis upon which one interprets intent, motive, credibility, results and human existence. It is so primary that its inclusion was automatic and provides answers to issues of crime problem, the silence that emerge due to distrust and how low trust societies are likely to disintegrate into anarchy, low civic engagement, bureaucracy, high cost 3 production and low dev elopment and growth. Within the context of aforementioned issue, chapter 2 provide an insightfulunderstanding of what determines interpersonaltrust (or distrust) in order that we become knowledge of justifications of many of the problems that continue t o grapple us that appear unsolvable despite our attempt to address many of these issue. Like Albert Einstein, we believe that while interpersonal trust is fundamental to cooperation, stability of a democracy, development of all facet of a society, the bui lding of social capital, civic engagement in various entities is substantially due to people’s trusting of these institutions. And people cooperation with many of these institutions is crucible to socio- political and economic development. It should be understood, that a justice system will be ineffective in a society that there is low trust (or distrust) as such a system cannot legislate trust in it or its related institutions. This becomes even more complex for police officer who must serve, protect and reassure. In an atmosphere where there is distrust, silence dominance, low communication on issues is a byproduct as it person is fearful and distrusting of the next person. The duty of the police is becomes exponentially more difficulty when distrust for that institution is high because of past performance (or the lack of). Chapter 3 looks at trust in organizations as this is primate stable democracy, civic cooperation, productivity, production and development of socialcapital. Chapter 4 was aptly fitting as it examined ‘generalized trust’ in the nation. The chapter investigates the correlates of ‘generalized’ trust as well as modeled generalized trust in Jamaica using observational research data. Often times trust is viewed through the lens of inter personal, organizational, or political trust, but infrequently they are coalesced as a single variable to measure generalized trust. And when the termed generalized trust is mentioned, it usually captures self-reported interpersonaltrust. In this chapte r the term ‘generalized trust’ is used in a 4 broader context that self -reported interpersonal trust to a single variable that embodies interpersonaland organizationaltrust. Trust is not specialized to interpersonaland organizational trust, but of equa l importance is politicaltrust. The aforementioned chapters have excluded this pivotalarea and so chapter 5 is fittingly about political trust. Chapter 5 builds a model on what constitutes political trust. This chapter will make for interesting and in sightful understanding of what not only comprises political trust but those factors that influence the people’s interest in political matters. Political trust in this chapter is measured as self -reported trust in government, and undoubtedly fosters a better understanding of people’s suspicion and cynicism about successive governments in the nation. Distrust does not only influence tax evasion and avoidance, and interpersonal relations but also people’s wellbeing. Thus, we believe that it is appropriate t hat a few chapters be dedicated to quality of life (i.e. wellbeing) of people and the role trust plays in affecting this human state. In chapter 6 and 7, the authors examine the role of trust in changes in quality of life as well to investigate the wellbeing of many Jamaicans who are of working age (15 to 60 years). These two chapters willnot only provide direct answer to question of‘does trustaffect quality of life (or wellbeing) but also the different correlates of wellbeing and impact of trust among different typologies of variable. Having established interpersonal, organizational, political and generalized trust in the nation and what are the correlates in each mentioned trust within the context that Jamaica is suffering from a crime phenomenon – that recently has claimed the life of the Chairman of the Jamaica Urban Transit Corporation (i.e. JUTC), June 28, 2008, to date the discussion has 5 excluded the quality of life of police officers, their morale status at this time and the trust in the force and degree of trust of police officer s for different sectors within the JCF. Chapter 8 addresses this gap, while arguing that job performance due to job dissatisfaction as well as the problems of low morale and distrust are accountable for how office approach ‘serve, protect and reassure’ in the execution of their daily functions. This chapter – chapter 8 – is the longest of this 19-chapter book. The primary and essential rationale for this comprehensive and in- depth chapter is the delicacy of the role of the police in crime reduction in the society. It follows that with the degree and typologies of crimes that are committed and the low rate of detection of thesematters, a thorough investigation ofpolice officer’s state ofmind as well as quality of life must be pivotal to crime reduction. This chapter explores, examines and identified different correlates of morale, and special typologies of trust. It makes for a greater reading as it provides vital information to an understanding of the state of police officers, and how these realities a re helping to withhold the policies of crime reduction in the nation. The nation – Jamaica – has been looking for a saviour to the crime phenomenon forsome time now, and this has been to no avail. Crime, fear of crime and victimization affect us all and so any examination for a solution of crime must understand the people of the society. Thus, chapter 9 comes in this wake as we seek to understand the people, the reason and the crime in an attempt to formulate solution this ‘bloody’ phenomenon. Chapter 9 is about the subjective wellbeing of the people of Jamaica. The people with whom we refer are the religious and non- religious- using religiosity as the yardstick to evaluate this social reality. This chapter is followed by noneother than chapter 10 that looked at religiosity and trust. In this chapter the authors examine thedistinction between lowly and highly religiosity and who trustmore. Given that trust is crucible to social solidarity and democracy as wellas cooperation, we believe that a 6 distinction between thetrust level of those groups (religiosity) were important in helping us to different aspect to the socialization process and how this helps to fashion a better understanding of many of the social ills within the society. Publications from the statistical institute of Jamaica (STATIN) has shown that in excess of 70% of Jamaicans are religious, and this begs the question – ‘What is the crime statistics so high?’ And what explains the high levels of unconventionalparticipations? The answers to those questions are complex. However, we believe that some answers need to be forthcoming and we provide chapter 11 that examine unconventional (or unorthodox) political participation in Jamaica followed by chapter 12 (general political participation and trust), chapter 13 (voting behaviour), and chapter 14 that examines subjective wellbeing of voters. Having established the different areas (chapter 2 through 12), within the context of the high crime statistics and the level of fear of crime and victimization (read Anthony Harriott’s fear of crime and victimization article and text), no material has made a linkage between distrust and crime and so this chapter (chapter 13) seek to bridge this gap, but the emphasis is on tourism. This chapter was from a general perspective, but within the context that crimes are substantially committed by youth (ages less than 25 years), we believe that a chapter must on measures used by schools to address social deviance and their effectiveness from students’ perspectives, and what students believe is the most effective approach that should be taken to alleviate the social deviance in schools. The rationale for the inclusion of this chapter is simple as among the social deviances in schools is crime, and we believe that our youth folks can provide some answers to solution of their problem and extension thatof crime in the society. 7 Some intelligentsia may critique the logistic of this text in that there appear to no fluidity between the chapters – because we have included a qualitative study on a speech by the one of former Prime Minister, Right Honourable Percival James Patterson (chapter 17). But this is crucible to the discourse of trust as one of the reasons for Jamaica’s low civic engagement is trust (see Chapt ers 11 1nd 12). Jamaicans have low trust in the government. In a nationally representative study conducted by agroup of Caribbean scholars, they find that Jamaicans had the least confidence (proxy for trust or distrust) local government council and befor e this politicalparties, police, parliament, judiciary, large companies and governments, with the Prime Minister– at the time of the study Mrs. Simpson- Miller was inaugurated as nation’s first female Prime Minister – having the sixth most confidence from the Jamaicans respondents (Powell, Bourne, & Waller, 2007, pp. 22- 23). Despite the high degree of public confidence in the Mrs. Simpson- Miller prior to the general election of November 13, 2007, she lost the elections because the Jamaican electors change their confidence in her party and in her. The issue of trust in government, political parties and political leadership is fragile because of(1) people do not trust the integrity of politicians, and this is adjudged based on (2) their past performance (or lack of) and (3) the inconsistencies between their speeches and their implications on the lives of the citizenry. Hence, the final chapter is in keeping with the aforementioned issues. Its relevance is primary in understanding distrust (or low confide nce) in governments, politicians and political parties as peoples in the different geopolitical spaces evaluate their leaders based on motives, intent and results – further readings on this can be found in Francis Fukuyama, 1995; United Nations 2007; Barack Obama 2006; Covey, & Merrill, 2006). 8 Another rationale for the inclusion of the analysis of oneof thespeeches of former Prime Minister, Rt. Hon. P.J. Patterson is not only its contribution that leads to an interpretation of intent, motive, character, integrity and results, but how Jamaican view governments and the interrelationship between this a trust (or low confidence). We are not forminiature second indicating that the Rt. Hon. P.J. Patterson was or is corrupt, but what we are doing here is explaining Jamaicans low confidence in government and their political leaders. In a cross - sectionalprobability survey research of some 1,100 Jamaicans, a group of researchers found that Jamaicans believe that the 5 -most corrupt institutions in descending orde r are police, parish council, customs, centralgovernment and public work (Waller, Bourne, Minto, & Rapley, 2007, p. 14). In this text we will not venture into the discourse as whether perception is reality or statistical relation between the two issues, but we are cognizant that just a debate exists. And that it is well established that there is a strong statistical association between self -reported measurement and objective measurement of events. Hence, we have found that there is a negative association between corruption and political participation, and trust. And this is the primate reason for the inclusion of the qualitative assessmentof speech by one of nation’s former Prime Minister. Consequently this text is a plenary research on trust in Jamaica as the tutelage of this society is not only the responsibility of governments, but the collective efforts of all peoples within the society. This current work is more than a guardianship of socialsolidarity in a nation that cannot seem to understand how to solve crime. Thus, the material will provide an empirical basis upon which policies must be fashioned as it [text] is an intrepid step in examining correlates of the social ills that are causing the breakdown of the social fabric of this county. 9 Within the difficulties of current social decay of countless developing nations in particular Jamaica, we believe that a comprehensive study on trust will provide our people with answers the some of the questions that were asked to which no answers have been forthcoming. This text we hope will not only be germane to a paradigm shift in the study of socials ills in Third World nations; but that it willprovide the platform upon which a real solution of some of symptoms that have overtaken many discourse. Tr ust is more than a commodity; it is premise upon which all social system functions. It is within general framework that a research on trust becomes pivotal to addressing some of the social ills that are provided in a society that is low trusting. The Jama ican society like Haiti, Guyana, Trinidad and Tobago, Zimbabwe, Nigeria, Cambodia, Columbia, to name afew nations are experiencing an obnoxious time at this juncture in their annals as it relates to crime, corruption,bloodshed,distrust and more distrus t. From this perspective these societies are looking for saviours, but the problem has not been identified as it relates to trust. 10 Reference Covey, S. M.R., & Merrill, R.R. (2006). The speed of trust. The one thing that changes everything. New Yor k: Free Press. Harriott, A., Brathwaite, F., & Wortley, S, (Eds). (2004). Crime and criminal justice in the Caribbean. Kingston:Arawak. Inglehart, R. (1997). Modernization and postmodernization: Cultural, economic and political Change in 43 societies. Princeton:Princeton University Press. Jamaica Information Service, JIS. (2006). Inaugural address by the Hon. Portia Lucretia Simpson-Miller, MP, Prime Minister of Jamaica. Retrieved October 1, 2006 from http://www.jis.gov.jm/PMspeeches/html/20060331T120000- 0500_8456_JIS_INAUGURAL_ADDRESS_BY_THE_HON_PORTIA_LUCRETIA_SI MPSON_MILLER_MP_PRIME_MINISTER_OF_JAMAICA.ASP. Lewicki, R.J., & Stevenson, M.A. (1998). Trust development in negotiati on: Proposed actions and a research agenda. Journalof Business and professionalEthics , 16(1-3):99-132. Miller, A. H. (1974). “PoliticalIssues and Trust in Government, 1964 -1970,” American Political Science Review 68, 3: 951-972. Morgan, B. (2005). Tr ust, education and development in Jamaica, 1950 – 2000. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Case Western Reserve University. Obama, B. (2006). The audacity of hope. Thoughts on reclaiming the American dream. New York: Three Rivers Press. Powell, L., Bourne, P., & Waller, L. (2007). Probing Jamaica’s Political Culture, vol. 1. Main Trends in the July- August 2006 Leadership and Governance Survey. Kingston: Centre of Leadership and Governance, the University of the West Indies at Mona. Putnam, R. D. (199 3). Making democracy work: Civic traditions in modern Italy. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Transparency International. (1999 – 2007). Transparency International Annual Report . Berlin: Transparency International. Uslaner, Eric M. 2005. Trust and corruption. In globalcorruption report, 2005 Transparency International. London:Transparency International. Waller, Lloyd, Bourne, Paul, Minto, Indianna, & Rapley, John. (2007). A landscape assessment of politicalcorruption in Jamaica. Kingston:CaP RI Taking Responsibility. 11 Chapter 2 Understanding Interpersonal Trust and identifying its Correlates Introduction All contemporary plantation societies or slavery colonies owe their current socio- economic status to metropolis’ nations such as England, Spain, Portugal, and France. Those countries during their trajectory to identify and expand their economic bases in the process have plunged many developing societies into highly divisive societies. It is well established in scholarships thatdeveloping nations such as those in Africa and the Caribbean have not recovery from the legacies of slavery. Plantation economies, in particular Haiti, Jamaica, Nigeria, Zimbabwe, to name a few are currently faced with high levels of corruption, some degree of anarchy, low productivity, survivability of its citizenry, and high distrust. And that those issues are legacies of the plantation establishments. Thus in studied any of those societies’ current social ills, we must examine their history and evaluate the role o f institutionaldistrust and its role on present human relationships. Trust is essentially the foundation upon which all human relationships rely (also see, Hardy, 1990). Therefore, among the legacies of slavery and plantation societies is distrust, which accounts for many of thesocial decays that currently are manifesting in crime, uncooperation, tax evasion and avoidance, corruption, low transparency and accountability, bureaucracy and divisiveness between peoples of different cultures and socialization. George Beckford (1999) in one of his books titled ‘ Persistent Poverty: Underdevelopment in Plantation Economies of the Third World’ provide an account of the 12 ‘plundering’ past of metropolis of many nations that current are facing instable democracies, high degree of distrust and low development, when he opines that: Latin America and the Caribbean, Africa, and Asia comprise what is now popularly described as the Third World. Although vast in area and rich in resources, the Third World does not provide adequate levels of living for its people. Very low levels of income, malnutrition, disease, poor housing, sanitation and medicalservices, and little or no education are the lot of the majority of people. The task of improving the welfare of Third World peoples is the most important and formidable one confronting mankind today. (Beckford, 1999, p. xxi) The countries of the North Atlantic – stretching from the Un ited States and Canada on the one side to the former Soviet Union on the other – have managed, on the whole, to achieve high level of material advancement. It is becoming increasingly clear that the fortunes of North Atlantic peoples are closely related to the misfortunes of Third World peoples, in many fundamentalways. For a long time the Third World has relied heavily on trade ties with the more advanced countries but, for various reasons, trade expansion has not proved to be a sufficiently effective st imulus to economic development in the Third World (Beckford 1999, xxxi). In George Beckford’s discussion, although he examined the issueof underdevelopment of Third World economies with extensive brevity and understanding of the annals on what obtains today,he failed to provide an account of the metropolis’ influence on distrust in those societies. Whereas he identify many of the problematic of Third World economies, he exploitation of the metropolis of those nations was such that the precept that wer e fashioned and left in those economies are still present, and explain the difficulty that they face today. Hence, it is difficult for those states to improve the welfare of its citizenry by merely building of the structure of any modified system of the plantation economies. Using the Jamaican Constitution since the independency from Britain in 1962, there is no fundamentalchange in the precept that began thenation. This discourse is so crucible that it may extend to the entire text and this is not the purpose therein, this means that one could do further readings on the topic in George 13 Beckford’s text (1999). Thus, the issue here is now does our current low distrust fashioned from our past? In an attempt to manage the difficulties of the plantation e conomies or slavery, slave owners notonly instituted ‘unfair’ precepts buta partof thestrategy was to have a divisive slave population. The plantation owners would have slave report on each other as a way ofbeing cognizant of theslaves’ intent,moti ve and plans. Although was able to accomplish it primary objective, slave began distrust each other as they were sure of the integrity and credibility of their fellow slaves. As many slaves would have witnessed betrayed slaves being physical punished, put to death or imprisoned because of the report of other slaves as to those slaves ‘bad’ intent or motive. For the plantation classes the important issue was to rule and protect their investment (Simmonds, 2004 in Harriott, Brathwaite, & Wortley, 2004), and so they could not afford anarchy, slave rule or runaway slave as slaves were the primary component in the production process. This meant that slaves who saw the system as oppressive and a betrayal of their humanity were cautious of their actions in rela tion to who they madeaware of their plans, but this deepens thedivide between slaves and slaves, and some slaves and plantation owners. This reality permeates the atmosphere (i.e. distrust), and slaves socialize their children to be distrusting of the s ystem, and of other slaves. Thus, it was not surprising that the uprising that emerged in the future was not only between slaves and plantation owners but these were also between slaves and slaves as each party could not trust theother. Such an explanation goes to thecoreof many of the crimes that were committed them. One intelligentsia provides us with some work as to rationale for the revolt. According to Simmonds, 14 The Jamaican slave laws were elitist, ethnocentric and expedient, locally designed with the clear intention of establishing planter class ascendancy through a coordinated system of coercion and repression,paying little attention to securing consent. Whatever benefits accrued to any other socialgroup was incidentalbenefited from leg alprotection primarily because of their status as property. With a rigorously elitist legal superstructure, the judicial system, by logic, was inequitable in its application, policing mechanisms were crude and inefficient, with social cohesion dependent on military repression (2004, p. 14) Within the contextof Simmonds’ perspective, we must ask the question as whether there have been any fundamental changes in to the precepts in Jamaica since those elitist and ethnocentric establishments. Jamaicans continue to believe that the governance of the country is in favour of the rich, and that the administration of justice still addresses the concerns of the affluent while the poor are always disadvantaged in the process. Powell, Bourne, & Waller (2007) asked Jamaican “would you say that [the] administration of justice in Jamaica mainly favours the rich, or that [the] administration of justice in Jamaica benefits most citizens equally?” and 69.4% reported that it favours the rich; and when the respondents wer e asked “would you say that the country is governed forthebenefit of a fewpowerful interests, or is it governed for the good of everyone?” found that 68.8% indicated that it benefits ‘a few powerful interest’ groups. Hence, within this social reality, crimes in Jamaica and country with similar characteristics like this nation should be expected to be high as with low confidence in the system, people should be expected to protect themselves, and to seek their own solution for problem that face them. And so, the core of many of socio- political problem in Caribbean societies, in particular Jamaica, is expressed through crimes (Harriott, Brathwaite, & Worley, 2004; Planning Institute of Jamaica, 2005, 1990 -2005; Statistical Institute of Jamaica, 1994 - 2006). Like the reality of slavery distrust breaths uncooperation, low confidence in socio- political institutions, crime, and bureaucracy. It follows that with the high levels of crimes and victimization in many developing nations, in particular Caribbean socie ties, that trust would have 15 being wellexamined to provide an understanding of the crime problem, in order to provide some solutions to the issue of crime. Contextualizing Interpersonal Trust What is trust? And, what are interpersonal trusts as well as its correlates? This study will provide answers to theaforementioned questions. There is no doubtthatinterpersonaldistrust in Jamaica is very high – Powell, Bourne, & Waller (2007, p. 25) provide some empirical answers to this issue when they found that approximately 4 out of 10 people trust each other, with confidence in two institutions being over 50% (i.e. the family and the schools as well as universities; with others indicating less than 25% except the church, which was approximately 48%) – and that crime is as a result of this distrust(or low confidence). Interpersonaltrust is not only low in Jamaica as in Europe a study found that the average interpersonal trust was 40% (i.e. 4 out of 10 people trust each other), and this was about the same in America and Belarus (4 out of every 10 persons – i.e. 41.9%) but generally trust in Europe is lower than that in Jamaica (average trust in Europe is 3 out of every 10 people or 30.7%). However, there are particular nations in Europe in which trust is e ven lower than that in Jamaica – such as Ukraine (3 out of every 10 persons or 27.2%); Lithuania (3 out of every 10 persons or 29.9%); Russia 2 out every 10 persons (i.e. 23.7%); and 2 out of every 10 people in Poland (i.e. 18.9%) (see UNDP 1, ud). Covey & Merrill (2006) opine that the simplest way to conceptualize trust is to speak of confidence (also see Berman, 1996, 1997; La Porte & Met lay, 1996), but other scholars have added vulnerability, and willingness and expectation (Lewicki, Tomlinson, & Gilles pie 2006; Uslaner 2002, 2005; Morgan, 2005; Markόczy, 2003; Lewicki, & Stevenson, 1998; Fukuyama, 1999). But, how is trust defined? Trust is "the willingness of a party to be vulnerable to the 1UNDP’s article canbe found at http://undp.by/pdf/1321_eng_Chapter_5.pdf. The title of the text is ‘Building Stronger Social Capital for Belarus. 16 actions of another party based on the expectation that the other will perform a particular action important to the trustor" (Mayer, Davis, & Schoorman, 1995, p. 712). Such a conceptual perspective on trusthighlights a criticaltenet of thephenomenon,which is psychologicalstate of the trustee (receiver) based on a particular forward by a truster (giver) (Morgan, 2005; Hardin, 2002; Morris & Moberg, 1994; also see Deutsch, 1962; Rotter, 1967). Thus, trust is a subjective assessment of people state of mind. Some scholars measure trust from the aforementioned psych ological state of people by way of ‘generalized trust’ perspective. In Generalized trust, the researcher would asked a single question that states – “Generally speaking, would you say that most people are essentially good and can be trusted, or that most people are not essentially good and cannot be trusted?”, with responses being either ‘most people essentially good, [and] can [be] trust[ed]” or most people [are] not essentially good, [and] cannot [be] trust[ed]’ (Powell, Bourne, & Waller, 2007, p. 109). But this raises the question of subjective versus objective assessment of trust? And whether we should use a subjective measure of trust to analysis such a vital social construction, given that it affects all areas of human existence? Uslaner helps us to understand that validity of a subjective assessment of trust is equally reliable and valid as if it were an objective valuation of this construct. Uslaner states: Overall, subjective measures matter a lot more than objectives ones. Collectively, the most optimistic person – who wants a fulfilling job, thinks about the future, and believes that she can make it regardless of luck, connections, or current economic circumstances – is 36 percent more likely to trust others than the most convinced pessimist. The mode prosperous person – with a relatively high family income, who owns his own home, has a savings and a pension plan but does not have to make debt payments, whose parents were well-off, and has neither been laid off nor worried about losing his job – is 2 percent less likely to trust others than people who do not fare so well economically. Clearly your worldview, not your resources, determines whether you will trust other people. … Only one objective measure of well -being achieves significance, comp ared to five subjective indicators – collectively there is no net impact of objective measures on trust (2002, p. 109) 17 Having provided somepremise upon which we are able to generalized trust, we will not prolong this discourse as it is well documented in literature that there is a strong statistical relationship between subjective and objective assessment of variables (al so see, Easterlin, 2003, 2001; Diener, 1984; Gaspart, 1998). As such, an assessment of trust from a self -reported perspective is equally potent, and does provide some insight for us to understand this phenomenon and its correlates. Fukuyama is among thos e who have started the discourse of trust from a generalized perspective. And he has argued that role of trust is multidimensional, and that it affects democracy, social capital, unit cost of production, cooperation among people and institution, without w hich there is anarchy. He writes: It is perhaps easier to appreciate the economic value of trust if we consider what a world devoid of trust would look like. If we had to approach every contract with the assumption that ourpartners would try to cheat us if they could, then we would have to spend a considerable amountof time bulletproofing the document to make sure that there were no legal loopholes by which we could be taken advantage of. Contracts would be endlessly long and detailed, spelling out every possible contingency and defining every conceivable obligation (1995, pp. 152 -153) Again ‘what is a world devoid of trust would look like’? Third World societies are replica of this world – corruption, bureaucracy, low accountability and transparency, high crime, victimization, low civic engagement, high production unit cost, cynicism, suspicion, integrity and credibility issues, and system void a core ‘good’ exception from others or entities – and one scholar has shown that there is a negative asso ciation between corruption and trust (Uslaner, 2005). Trust affects ‘good’ governance (Blind, 2007); and according to Blind, the association is vice versa (2007, p. 20) such as political -legitimacy, economic-efficiency, civic engagement, Peri K. Blind, Eric Uslaner and Transparency Internationalhas shown that corruption influences trust. Blind argues that perceived corruption also damages trust,and this is vice versa; and that scandal erodes legitimacy in institutions. Alesina, & La Ferrara (2000), Put nam (2001) and 18 Newton (2001, 2004) have identified among them cooperation, scalability and collective action, social intelligence, networking, and socialcohesion as factors of trust. Using generalized trust – “Generally speaking, would you say that mos t people can be trusted, or that you can’t be too careful?” (Morgan, 2005, p. 54) - Morgan did an online survey research of some 104 respondents during the months of April and May 2005 and she finds that sex; education (i.e. secondary education); influence ofones father; and optimism, numberof years of education influence generalized trust. Generalized trust, on the other hand, influences sociability, agency, and civic engagement (Morgan, 2005, p. 16). Beverley Morgan’s work used single hypothesis testing; and her model constitutes of gender, educational type, and number of years of schooling. Other non- Caribbean scholars have established the correlation between religiosity and church attendance and generalized interpersonaltrust (Tan & Vogel, 2005; Sos is, 2005; Johansson- Stenman, Mahmud, & Martinsson, 2004). Hence, this study will examine a number of predisposed variables and their influence on generalized interpersonal trust in Jamaica. Secondly, the study seeks to ascertain whether those predisposed variables are predictor or just factors of trust. Method Sample In July-August 2006, the Centre of Leadership and Governance (CLG), Department of Government, University of the West Indies at Mona, Kingston, examines ‘Jamaica’s Political Culture’, thr ough a sample survey. The survey uses a questionnaire of some 166 items, which probes issues relating to the orientation of democracy, leadership and governance in Jamaica. The survey was a stratified random sample of the fourteen parishes of Jamaica, usi ng the descriptive research design. The sample frame is representative of the population based on gender and ethnicity. A totalof 1,338 respondents aged 16 years and older were interviewed for this study, with a sampling error of approximately ± 3%, at the 95% confidence level (i.e. CI). The average age for the sample is 34 years and 11 months ± 13 yrs and 7 months. The results 19 that are presented here are based solely on Jamaicans’ opinion of their political orientation. Descriptive statistics were used to analyze the data. Data were collected and stored using the Statistical Packages for the Social Sciences (SPSS). Dummy variables were created from some demographic and some other variables – sex, race, religiosity, area of residence, generalized trust, unemployed person, perceived social class and justice. Wellbeing and political participation were computed from a number of scale questions. Descriptive statistics were done to provide background information on the sample; tests were done for Cronbach alpha to examine the reliability of the construct – i.e. wellbeing and politicalparticipation. Then, logistic regression was used to build a model. A goodness of fit statistics was done for on the model Measure Age, ‘A’. Ageis a continuous variable, whi ch is recorded in years. Religiosity, ‘R’. The frequency with which people attend religious services, which does not include attending functions such as (1) graduations, (2) weddings, (3) christenings, (4) funerals. This variable begins with 0 being none at all to 7, being at least once per week. Sex, ‘X’. This variable is being male or female. It is a binary measure, where 1=male and 0=female. Interpersonal Trust , ‘T’. This is people’s perception of their ‘trust’ in other people, and for government. It will be a dummy variable, where 1=Yes, and 0=Otherwise. The question from which this is measured reads - Generally speaking, would you say that most people are essentially good and can be trusted, or that most people are not essentially good and cannot be trusted?”, with responses being either ‘most people essentially good, [and] can [be] trust[ed]” or most people [are] not essentially good, [and] cannot [be] trust[ed]’ (Powell, Bourne, & Waller, 2007, p. 109). Subjective Psychosocial Wellbeing Index , ‘SPWB’. SPWB= ΣQ / Σf; where Q is the selected i i value from each ladder of Maslow’s Hierarchy of Need, and ‘f’ being the frequency of the event. The Cronbach α=0.762 for the 5- item variables, which are used to constitute this Index. Thus, subjective psyc hosocial index is interpreted as from 0 to 1.9 represents very low SPWB; 2.0 to 3.9 is low; 4.0 to 6.9 is moderate, 7.0 to 8.9 is high, and 9.0 to 10 is very high SPWB. Confidence in sociopoliticalinstitutions , CFI. This is the summation of 22 likert scale questions, with each question on a scale of (4) a lot of confidence, (3) some confidence, (2) a little confidence, to (1) no confidence. The heading that precedes the question reads: I am going to read to you a lis t of major groups and institutions in our society. For each, tell me how much CONFIDENCE you have in that group or institution. (See Appendix). Confidence index = 20 summation of 22 items, with each question being weighted equally; and 0≤confidence index≤88 , with a Cronbach α for the 22 -item scale being 0.896. The higher the scores, the more people have confidence in sociopolitical institutions within the society. Thus, the confidence index is interpreted as from 0 to 34 represents very little confidence; 35 to 61 is low confidence; 62 to 78 is moderate confidence and 79 to 88 is most confidence. Results Of a sampled population of 1,338 respondents, approximately 63% (62.7%, n=795) report that they do not trust other people compared to 37% (n=472). The sample had marginally more females (55.7%, n=723) than males (44.3%, n=574). Continuing, most of the respondents are Blacks include those who classified themselves as Brown (90.0%, n=1,201), with 8.0% (n=106) Caucasians, and 20% (n=26) of other ethnicitie s. Furthermore, 59% of the respondents report that they are within the lower class, approximately 37% (36.6%, n=476) middle class compared to 4.4% (n=57) who say upper class. Another demographic characteristic was the educationallevelof the respondents , 1.5% (n=20) report ‘no formal’ education, 3.1% (n=40) say primary/preparatory education, 69% (n=892) remark secondary/high, and 26.2% (n339) indicate post-secondary level education. (See Table 1.1) (Insert Table 1.1, here) A finding of utmost importa nce is the ‘subjective psychological wellbeing’ (i.e. SPWB) of therespondents. The mean SPWB forthesampled respondents was 6.9 (± 1.7), range:0 to 10 - out of 10 - with the mode being 7.8. Thus, this finding reveals that on an average the self - reported psychologic wellbeing of Jamaicans is high. However, confidence in institutions in Jamaica, based on the sampled responses, is low (i.e. 56.7±11.23, Range: 3 - 87). Concurrently, interpersonal trust in Jamaica is very low as 37.3% of Jamaicans say that h tey trust other persons. (See Table 1.1). This is translated to be approximately 4 out of every 100 Jamaicans trust each other. 21 On an average the subjective psychosocial wellbeing of the sampled population (6.9 ± 1.7) is more than that for people who cl assify themselves as being within the working class (i.e. 6.6 ± 1.7). On theotherhand, thesubjective psychosocialwellbeing for the middle class and the upper class is more than the national average – that is, (i.e. 7.3 ± 1.6) and (i.e. 7.2 ± 2.0) respectively. Concurrently, the subjective psychosocial wellbeing is the greatest for middle class. Although the difference between middle and upper class is 0.1, there is a statistical difference between the two groups [i.e. ρ value = 0.001]. (See Table 1.)2 . (Insert Table 1.2, here) Main Findings In this section of thepaper, we describe the results of the multivariate analysis in attempting to test the hypothesis stated in Eqn. (1). The logistic regression was conducted on full sample, which consisted of allthe respondents who answered the questions (i.e. completed data). Hypothesis to be tested: T=ƒ (A, R, X, SPWB, CFI)..……………………………………….……………….. (1) The analysis of this research was to test the hypothesis in Eqn (1), which state that interpersonal trust is a function of age, religiosity, sex and self -reported psychological wellbeing of the respondents, and this was carried out by logistic regression. Where T represents the dependent variable, which refers to Jamaicans interpersonal trust, A stands for the age of the respondents in years, R means religiosity, Xbeing the sexes and SPWB denotes the subjective psychological wellbeing index, and CFI means ones confidence in sociopolitical institutions. 22 Analysis of Multi Regression Model From Table 2, of the five preselected variables that we test from the data, only three factors are predictors of interpersonaltrust. Firstly, subjective psychologic wellbeing is directly related to interpersonal trust (b=0.129, ρ < 0.05, 0.001). This fa ctor is the second most significant predictor of interpersonaltrust (Wald statistic, 12.346), with confidence in institutions being the most significant (Wald statistic, 12.403) followed by religiosity (Wald statistic, 6.095). We found a positive relatio nship between interpersonal trust and confidence in institutions (b=0.469, ρ < 0.05, 0.001). An inverse relationship was found between interpersonal trust and religiosity (b= -0.074). It means that less people attend church, the less they will high degree of interpersonaltrust. Thus, the finalmodelthat we proposed as follows: T=ƒ (R, SPWB, CFI)..……………………………………………… ..…………………….. (4) (Insert Table 2, here) However, the following variables were not found to be statistically significant – age (b=0.001, ρ > 0.05, 0.893), sex (b=0.088, ρ >0.05, 0.494). This implies that there is no difference between the sexes and their interpersonal trust or age for that matter. We have placed the goodness of fit of the modelin Appendix I. In addition, we have found tha t the 0.043 or 4.3
Are you sure you want to buy this material for
You're already Subscribed!
Looks like you've already subscribed to StudySoup, you won't need to purchase another subscription to get this material. To access this material simply click 'View Full Document'