Generalized social trust in Greece and its ... - IngentaConnect

PJSS 12 (1) pp. 63–84 Intellect Limited 2013

Portuguese Journal of Social Science Volume 12 Number 1 © 2013 Intellect Ltd Article. English language. doi: 10.1386/pjss.12.1.63_1

Kostas Rontos and Myrsine Roumeliotou University of the Aegean, Mytilene, Greece

Generalized social trust in Greece and its association with demographic and socioeconomic predictors Abstract

Keywords

Social or generalized trust has been identified as one of the most important attitudinal elements of social capital and social cohesion, or even described as a social lubricant, which allows the wheels of society to run smoothly. An attempt is made in this article to measure levels of generalized trust in Greece and explore its association with various demographic and socio-economic factors. Data draw upon a specific survey conducted in 2007, where a sample of 822 inhabitants of Greece, men and women aged 18 and above, were interviewed. For the purposes of this article, the ‘generalized trust’ question was explored and associated with various demographic and socio-economic variables. Responses were analysed by Chi-square tests, where the relationship between control variables and the dependent one was explored. At the second stage of data analysis, a Logistic Regression Model was used. Statistical analysis of the generalized trust question revealed significant association of generalized social trust with educational level and marital status. More specifically, better-educated individuals tend to exhibit higher levels of trust and the same seems to apply for the divorced, widowed or those living in cohabitation. As far as age is concerned, results partly confirmed prior surveys, where generalized trust

social trust generalized trust Greece social capital socio-economic predictors demographic predictors

63

Kostas Rontos | Myrsine Roumeliotou

1. The World Values Survey (1995–99) dataset was retrieved from the website http://www. worldvaluessurvey.org on 10/2/2009.

follows a U-curve pattern, with the youngest and the oldest individuals exhibiting higher levels of distrust. In particular, a simple Chi-square test reveals nuclear statistical significance between age and social trust, while a Logistic Regression Model excludes the former from the final equation. On the other hand, no significant effects were found for other control variables, i.e. gender, employment status and income.

Introduction During the last few decades social scientists have placed particular emphasis on the notion of social capital, as well as its constituent elements, the most important of which being social trust (e.g. Fukuyama 1995; Inglehart 1999). In fact, such interest on social trust can be attributed to the fact that it has been recognized as an important factor for the creation of meaningful social relationships and the development of a healthy society, characterized by social cohesion, economic robustness, as well as democratic values (Arrow 1972; Coleman 1988; Ostrom 1990; Putnam 1993, 1995a, 1995b, 2000; Fukuyama 1995). However, since social trust has long been recognized as one of the main components of social capital, only rarely does it occur in literature review alone, independently of the notion of social capital. As a matter of fact, the two concepts often appear in the literature review as completely synonymous (Putnam 2000; Arrow 2000). Brehm and Rahn (1997) support that social capital and trust are bound by a mutually reinforcing relationship, with social trust having a strong effect on social capital, stronger than the one social capital has on social trust. In this article, an attempt is made to measure levels of social trust of citizens in Greece. Therefore, it is of vital importance to refer to the various approaches and terms used to define ‘trust’, as defining the term is a basic precondition for its way of measurement. Furthermore, an attempt is made to identify the factors that determine trust within the wider socio-economic context. For this reason, social trust will be explored in association with certain demographic and socio-economic factors. More specifically, the main objective of this article is to (1) provide data on the levels of social trust exhibited by the Greek population, (2) identify the demographic and socio-economic factors that could serve as social trust predictors, and (3) provide a probability model about the individuals that are most likely to exhibit high levels of trust according to their demographic and socio-economic factors, such as gender, age, educational level, marital status, employment status and income. The first two, gender and age, constitute the basic demographic factors, the other four represent the social status of a population, while income is the most common economic indicator used in the development of relevant models. The article is structured as follows: first, an attempt is made to shortly present the literature around the concept of social trust. Second, a number of relevant studies are presented along with their findings. Furthermore, a literature review on the association of social trust with demographic and socio-economic factors is provided. After the theoretical background, the methodology of data collection and analysis is described. The final section presents primary analysis of our data, as well as secondary analysis of the World Values Survey data,1 in an attempt to compare our findings and identify any changes in population attitude over time (from 1999 when the World Values Survey was conducted through 2006, the year of our survey). Finally, conclusions drawn from the analysis will be presented.

64

Generalized social trust in Greece and its …

Theoretical background Defining trust Although the concept of trust has long been recognized by scholars as a necessary prerequisite for stable societies and democracies (Tocqueville, Simmel, Toenies, Durkheim, Weber, etc.), there is still much controversy on what it is, as well as how it can be defined. To confuse matters more, a constellation of synonyms appear in relevant literature, such as mutuality, empathy, reciprocity, civility, respect, solidarity, toleration and fraternity, which tend to substitute the term (Barber 1983; Baier 1986; Misztal 1996; Warren 1999). According to Newton (2007), trust is ‘so closely associated with its synonyms that to substitute one of them is to simply pass on all the old problems’. Levi (1998: 79) agrees, adding that ‘trust is not one thing and it does not have one source; it has a variety of forms and causes’ and there is no point in defining its essence, because it has none. Therefore, the pragmatic approach of the concept should be taken into account. However, literature review has revealed a number of definitions given so far for trust. Giddens (1990: 34) defines it as ‘confidence in the reliability of a person or system, regarding a given set of outcomes or events, where that confidence expresses a faith in the probity or love of another, or in the correctness of abstract principles’. Gambetta (1988: 217) argues that trust is built on the belief that others will act beneficially rather than maliciously towards us. Such a view is also shared by Fukuyama (1995, 2000), who defines trust as the expectation shared by the members of a community that the others will act in mutually supportive ways and that no one will try to exploit the vulnerability of others. Actually, Cox (1997) regards trust as a ‘measure of the quality of relationships’ and Warren (1999: 311) points out that trust involves shared interests and a lack of malice. Similarly, Woolcock (1998) agrees that trust is involved in social relationships and includes elements of confidence, expectation, motivation, cooperation, collaboration, mutual obligation and reciprocation in a complex social milieu. Recent literature on trust relates and identifies it as one component – or probably the main component – of social capital, which is in turn regarded as a necessary condition for social integration, economic efficiency and democratic stability (Arrow 1972; Coleman 1988; Ostrom 1990; Putnam 1993, 1995a, 2000; Fukuyama 1995).

Types of trust Literature review reveals various types of trust, as well as many ways of distinguishing among the different types. The first distinction to be made is between social and political trust: the former refers to trust in other people, whereas the latter deals with trust in political leaders (Newton 2007). Another important distinction also used in surveys is between trust in people and confidence in institutions (Giddens 1990), while other forms of trust that have been distinguished so far include civic, institutional, organizational and psychological trust (Lewicki and Bunker 1996). Jones and George (1998) distinguish between conditional and unconditional trust, with the former having its basis on knowledge (knowledge-based trust) and the latter coming from shared values through which individuals experience trust. Another important distinction made in literature is between specific, thick or particularized social trust on the one hand and abstract, thin

65


or generalized trust on the other (Newton 2007). Particularized trust is based on ‘personal, first-hand knowledge of individuals, while generalised trust is based on more general information about social groups and situations’ (Newton 2007: 344). In fact, according to Stolle and Rochon (1999: 197), generalized trust involves a leap of faith that the trustworthiness of those one knows can be broadened to include others beyond his or her personal sphere. The ever growing impersonality in modern societies makes it even more crucial for social theorists to try to measure generalized trust, in order to better identify the degree of social integration and stability. We accept the definition that ‘trust’ is the individual’s belief that, at worst, others will not knowingly or willingly do him harm, and at the best of situations, they will act in his interests (Newton 2001). The transformation of this definition to a measurement question and relevant criticism is more explicitly analysed in the methodological section.

Importance of generalized social trust In the research literature on social capital, generalized trust features as one of the most important attitudinal elements of social capital and social cohesion in general (Putnam 1993, 2000; Stolle and Rochon 1999; Uslaner 2002). Putnam (1993) recognizes trust as one of the features of social organization – apart from norms and networks – that can improve the efficiency of society by facilitating coordinated actions, or one of the features of social life that enable participants to act together more effectively to pursue shared objectives. He identifies it as ‘a precondition for economic development as well as for effective government’ (Putnam 1993: 36). The same view is shared by Etzioni (1988, 1996), who points out that the combined effect of trust, networks, norms and reciprocity results in the creation of a strong community, with shared ownership over resources owned by no one, used by all (‘commons’). High levels of social trust (and subsequently, of social capital) in a society are believed to be strong predictors of its development and economic success (Arrow 1972; Fukuyama 1995). Trust has even been described as a universal lubricant, allowing the wheels of society to run smoothly (Arrow 1972; Stolle 2001). Knack and Keefer (1997) found a significant positive relationship between generalized trust and growth rates, supporting that high levels of trust encourage greater investment. In fact, Uslaner (1998) thinks that trust may not produce wealth directly, but, yet, through tolerance, it can promote trade that in turn leads to greater prosperity and better quality of life. Finally, according to Francois and Zabojnik (2003), trustworthy people are those who keep their promises; such trustworthiness is extremely valuable when relationships cannot be fully and formally circumscribed by contracts. Therefore, a society with members trusting each other allows them to build relationships more easily and it is, thus, rich in social capital (Francois and Zabojnik 2003).

The evolution of social capital in Greece Research conducted in Greece on social capital, especially its specific dimensions (civic participation, social networks and social trust) is quite limited and only few data exist to serve as a comparison with past years (e.g. European Values Survey and Eurobarometer). However, it is widely assumed that social

66


capital in Greece is rather weak, due to certain structural characteristics of Greek society (Paraskevopoulos 2006). Evidence from research in Greece has shown that civic participation and confidence in institutions rates are particularly low (Jones et al. 2008). This is attributed by many theorists to the weak Greek civil society, which has favoured the creation of hierarchical clientelistic networks over the past years, inhibiting in this way the development of social capital (Lyberaki and Paraskevopoulos 2002; Jones et al 2008). Other theorists (Mouzelis 1987; Tsoukalas 1987) believe that the particular political and social conditions that have taken place since the foundation of the Greek state in 1830 have impeded social capital development: political opportunism and corruption, infringement of social norms and clientelism, have led to a political distrust on the part of the citizens. Nevertheless, research has revealed that social capital in Greece is not low in each of its dimensions. More specifically, researchers have found that the so-called ‘informal networks/ties’ (family and friend networks) are quite strong and dense in Greece, functioning most often in a supportive way, compensating for both Greek welfare state and labour market weaknesses (Chtouris et al. 2006; Christoforou 2005; Paraskevopoulos 2006). One of the most well-known social surveys in the world, which has also been conducted in Greece, is the World Values Survey (originally European Values Survey), a multi-nation survey conducted in many waves, which also includes the generalized trust question. According to research findings of the survey (Table 1) conducted in 1999 (Wave IV), the citizens of Denmark exhibit the highest levels of trust (67 per cent), with Swedes and the Norwegians following (66 and 65 per cent, respectively), while the least trusting are the citizens of Uganda (8 per cent), Tanzania (8 per cent) and Brazil (3 per cent). In

Denmark Sweden Iran Norway Netherlands Finland China Indonesia N. Zealand Japan Belarus Iceland India Vietnam Switzerland Australia N. Ireland

67 66 65 65 60 58 56 52 49 43 41 41 41 41 41 40 40

Canada Taiwan Egypt Spain USA Germany Ireland Austria Montenegro Italy Belgium Pakistan UK Jordan Bulgaria S. Korea Ukraine

39 38 38 36 36 35 35 34 34 33 31 31 30 28 27 27 27

Dom. Rep. Luxembourg Nigeria Armenia Lithuania Albania Israel Bangladesh Czech Rep. Greece Morocco Russia Chile Estonia Puerto Rico France Hungary

26 26 26 25 25 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 23 23 23 22 22

Slovenia Uruguay Azerbaijan Malta Mexico Croatia Georgia Poland Serbia Latvia Singapore Bosnia Slovakia Turkey Venezuela Argentina El Salvador

22 22 21 21 21 19 19 19 19 17 17 16 16 16 16 15 15

Moldova Macedonia S. Africa Zimbabwe Algeria Colombia Peru Portugal Romania Philippines Uganda Tanzania Brazil

15 14 12 12 11 11 11 10 10 8 8 8 3

Source: World Values Survey Wave IV (1999–2000).

Table 1: Generalized social trust in 81 countries in the year 2000: percentage of adult population stating that ‘they can trust most people’. (%)

67


Greece, the survey was conducted on a sample of 1142 men and women. Greek people showed rather low levels of generalized trust, with only 24 per cent of them (more accurately 23.7 per cent) stating that ‘most people can be trusted’ and the vast majority (i.e. 76.3 per cent) opting for the ‘have to be careful with most people’ response. According to these data, Greece ranks low (24 per cent) in comparison with most of the other European countries, even the South European ones (e.g. Italy and Spain), with which it is supposed to share common social capital characteristics (Jones et al. 2008). More specifically, as seen in Table 1, in a total of 81 countries where generalized trust was measured, Greece ranks in the 44th position in relation to this type of social trust. Apart from comparative research data from the World Values Survey, another attempt has been made to compare social trust in Greece with other EU countries. More specifically, using secondary data from both the Eurobarometer and the European Values Survey conducted in the EU countries, Paraskevopoulos (2007) attempted to create a social capital index by taking into account the two basic parameters of social capital: generalized social trust and social participation. As seen in Table 2, Scandinavian countries (Sweden, Denmark and Finland) present again the highest percentages, while Greece ranks in the 21st position, lower than the other Mediterranean countries, with a generalized social trust level (0.18) that is much lower than that of the EU average (0.33 for EU 15 and 0.30 for EU 25).

Demographic and socio-economic characteristics associated with social trust Research on social trust usually explores a wide complex of social, economic and political features of society (Putnam 1993; Knack and Keefer 1997; Tyler 1998; Inglehart and Welzel 2005; Levi and Stoker 2000). Therefore, several attempts have been made to associate social trust with more general, social and even national characteristics, i.e. macro-level ones (Inglehart 1999; Rothstein and Stolle 2001). However, research on social trust and individual characteristics seems to be rather limited and patchy.

Gender As far as the association between social trust and gender is concerned, evidence seems to be divided. In their study, Croson and Buchan (1999) found that there is no significant difference in trust behaviour among men and women, whereas Feingold (1994) found that women score slightly but consistently higher than men on scales of trust. On the other hand, Chaudhuri and Gangadharan (2003) found that men exhibit higher levels of trust than women, attributing it to a greater degree of risk aversion inherent in women. Similarly, Patterson’s (1999) study in the United States has revealed that women are sometimes significantly less trusting than men, although gender seems to make little difference in other western countries (Whiteley 1999; Newton 2001). Foeman and Pressley (1987) argue that men, as compared to women, have different socialization patterns, come from different backgrounds, possess different values and, therefore, quite possibly differ in their social interaction mode as well as their levels of trusting. According to the social role theory of gender differences, social behaviour differences are an outgrowth of gender roles that dictate the behaviours that are appropriate for men and women (Eagly and Wood 1991). Woolcock (1998) argues that those who are vulnerable to discrimination on the basis of their gender could be less trusting.

68


Rank

Country

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

Sweden Denmark Finland Luxembourg United Kingdom Ireland Austria Belgium Germany Slovenia France Spain Estonia Malta Italy Cyprus Portugal Czech Republic Hungary Slovakia Greece Latvia Lithuania Romania Bulgaria Poland EU 15 EU 25

Generalized social trust 0.65 0.62 0.61 0.31 0.36 0.34 0.33 0.30 0.34 0.24 0.22 0.36 0.33 0.22 0.22 0.19 0.24 0.17 0.25 0.16 0.18 0.15 0.14 0.17 0.20 0.10 0.33 0.30

Source: Paraskevopoulos (2007).

Table 2: Social Capital Index in EU countries, 2007.

Age The effect of age on trust has been studied by Putnam (1995b, 2000), who found that ‘the older civic generation’ of trusters is dying out, giving way to younger people who do not have as much faith in other people. The same tendency also appeared in other studies conducted in the United States (Norris 1996; Rahn 1997; Uslaner 1998), showing that generalized trust has a positive association with age. However, other studies conducted on life-cycle or cohort basis (Patterson 1999; Torcal and Montero 1999; Whiteley 1999; Newton 2001) seem to have revealed (although not always being consistent) that generalized trust follows a U-curve pattern, with the youngest and the oldest individuals exhibiting higher levels of distrust.

69


Educational level Most evidence has shown positive association between education and trust (Knack and Keefer 1997; Putnam 2000; Uslaner 2002), i.e. the higher the educational level the higher the levels of trust. According to Putnam, education is ‘by far the strongest correlate […] of civic engagement in all its forms, including social trust and membership in many different types of groups’ (Putnam 1995b: 667). He points out that highly-educated people are more inclined to trust others, as they are more likely to be better off economically, thanks to the confidence they have in the skills, resources and inclinations imparted to them at home and in school. Glaeser et al. (2000) attribute higher trust levels of highereducated people to the fact that better-educated people usually associate with other well-educated individuals, who are, for some reason, more trustworthy. A similar research on social trust which was conducted at local level in Greece revealed that higher levels of education are strongly associated with higher generalized trust levels, while low-educated people tend to exhibit lower levels of trust (Roumeliotou and Rontos 2009). Nie, Junn and Kenneth (1996) went much further in their empirical research and found that one’s tolerance is increased not only by one’s own education but also by the average education level of those in the surrounding community. More specifically, both own education and average education have significant positive effects, with the effects of average education being even larger than those for own education.

Employment status In the study conducted by Leigh (2006), no statistical significance was found among trust and unemployment. This finding was attributed to two main causes: first that the unemployed may feel frustration at society in general and not at their community and second, that the unemployed tend to spend more time in their local area resulting in high levels of trust in their community.

Marital status According to Lindström (2009), marriage and children change the kind of social networks to which individuals belong and in which they participate. Therefore, married people may tend to participate more in community organizations rather than spend time with friends. Other evidence has shown that married people present higher scores in neighbourhood attachment, but lower scores in social network and social trust than those who are either single, divorced or widowed (Li, Pickles and Savage 2005). Putnam (2000) attributes this aspect to the fact that family life precludes much of the need or opportunity for outside emotional support. Fukuyama (1997) thinks that divorced people are more inclined to be distrusting, as they are more likely to have experienced betrayal and deception. Moreover, he argues that those who have a priori less trust towards other people have great possibilities of getting a divorce.

Income Using indicators of trust from the World Values Survey, Knack and Keefer (1997) found that increasing levels of generalized trust are associated with higher and more equal incomes, evidence also supported by other researchers (Inglehart 1999; Putnam 2000; Paxton 2002). Patterson’s (1999) study of the relationship between trust, class and race in the United States revealed that the poorest are far less trusting than the 70


richest, as anxiety and insecurity lead to distrust. This seems to come in line with Banfield’s theory (1958) that it is more risky for the poor to trust than for the rich. While the poor cannot afford to lose even a little of what they have if their trust is betrayed, the rich seem to gain comparatively more benefits from trusting behaviour (Banfield 1958). Li, Pickles and Savage (2005: 116) also point out that the middle and high classes ‘tend to have weaker neighbourhood attachment but stronger social networks than the other social classes’, as they tend to differentiate between friends and acquaintances. Putnam (2000, 138) argues that in all societies ‘“have-nots” are less trusting than “haves”’probably because the latter are treated by others with more honesty and respect. Within the same spirit, Newton (1999) came to the broader conclusion that social trust is most strongly expressed […] by the winners in society, in so far as it correlates most strongly with education, satisfaction with life, income, class, and race. For that matter, social trust is the prerogative of the winners in the world. (Newton 1999: 185)

Data and methods Background information about the survey During the year 2007 a survey was conducted by us, with the aim of measuring social capital in Greece. However, for the purposes of this article, only generalized trust will be explored in association with a number of demographic and socio-economic variables.

Sample and sampling method A sample of 822 inhabitants of Greece, men and women, aged over 15, coming from various educational, economic and employment backgrounds, participated in the research. Distribution of the various independent variables can be found in Table 3. The research was conducted on different areas of Greece: urban, semirural and rural, and selection was made on a random basis. After selection of the cities, towns and villages that participated in the research, a ‘three-stage random sampling’ technique was used with localities as the first stage, building blocks as the second stage, and individuals as the third stage (Rontos and Papanis 2006). In the first two stages a sampling with probability proportionate to the population size was drawn, while in the last stage, inhabitants were selected with equal probability among building blocks. Questionnaires were completed by researchers by face-to-face interview with the interviewees.

Methodological tool and research design The ‘Questionnaire for the measurement of social capital’ (2006) used is quite an extensive questionnaire, which includes questions on civic participation, particularized and generalized trust, political trust, confidence in institutions and values. A number of the questions included in the questionnaire have been drawn from the well-known World Values Survey (1995–98). As mentioned above, in this article we explore only the ‘generalized trust question’, first produced by Rosenberg (1956), but mostly known from the World Values Survey and Putnam’s (1995a) work on US citizens’ trust. 71


Independent variables

Frequency

%

Gender

Male Female Total

330 491 821

40.2 59.8 100.0

Age

15–20 21–30 31–40 41–50 51 and over Total

179 279 119 154 87 818

21.9 34.1 14.5 18.8 10.6 100.0

92

12.3

241

32.1

Educational level

Primary school graduate Secondary school graduate University student University graduate Total

176 242

23.4 32.2

750

100.0

Below 600 euro 601–1100 euro 1101–1600 euro More than 1600 euro Total

315 218 119 85

42.7 29.6 16.1 11.5

737

100.0

Marital status

Single Married Other Total

469 299 53 821

57.1 36.4 6.5 100.0

407

49.9

Employment status

Economically active Non economically active Total

408

50.1

815

100.0

Monthly income

Table 3: Independent Variables Frequency Table. Therefore, we are going to explore respondents’ replies to the question: ‘Generally speaking, would you say that you trust most people or that you have to be careful when dealing with them?’ The alternative replies were: ‘Generally, I trust most people’ and ‘I have to be careful’. The first reply was interpreted as ‘trusting’ and the other as ‘distrusting’. It is true that this way of measuring generalized trust has been strongly criticized by various theorists, as they argue that there may be ambiguity about what is meant by ‘most people’ in the question (Glaeser et al. 2000; Rotenberg

72


et al. 2005); the term covers a wider range than family members, friends and neighbours and there is the question of how far the is circle open. Trusting individuals may extend the circle boundaries wider than low-trust people, who may interpret ‘most people’ as those they actually trust. Others have argued that the concept of trust too needs to be qualified according to the setting and the specific transaction (Gambetta 1988; Hardin 2002). However, after extensive research on various questions about whom and what people trust, Uslaner (2002) concluded that generalized trust lies heavily on strangers. Therefore, there is good evidence to support that this question about trust in strangers is an effective way of measuring generalized trust (Uslaner 2002). Moreover, trust seems to be less of an expression of an internal and unvarying personality trait, than a response of individuals to the changing external world around them. In this way, responses to this trust question tell us not about the disposition of people to be trusters or distrusters, but about how they evaluate the trustworthiness of the world they live in (Newton 2001). Furthermore, as this question relies mostly on the attitudinal dimension, it explores respondents’ actual attitudes towards other people and reflects their behaviour. As a matter of fact, Yamagishi and Yamagishi (1994) found a correspondence between trusting attitudes and trusting behaviour.

Methods of data analysis Data collected are analysed by Chi-square tests, where the relationship between control variables and the dependent (generalized social trust) is explored. At the second stage of data analysis, the Logistic Regression Model is used. The family of Logistic Regression provides a powerful tool for the examination of discrete decisions or views, as these models assume that all explanatory factors determine the variable examined simultaneously (Bishop, Fienberg and Holland 1975; McCullagh and Nelder 1983; Nerlove and Press 1973). The general formula of the model is: Logit(p)=b0+b1X1+b2X2+K+bnXn(1). The goal of Logistic Regression Analysis is to find the best fitting model to describe the relationship between an outcome (dependent variable, in our case ‘social trust’) and a set of independent (predictor or explanatory) variables (in our case demographic features). What distinguishes the Logistic Regression Model from the Linear Regression Model is that the outcome variable in the Logistic Regression is categorical and most usually binary or dichotomous (Cox and Snell 1989; Hosmer and Lemeshow 1989). Logistic Regression Analysis does not only identify these factors, but also explores the cases or groups of individuals with certain features that are more ‘trusting’ than others. In this specific application of the Binomial Logistic Regression Model, the maximum likelihood approach was used and the Conditional Forward Stepwise procedure was chosen. Moreover, a Logistic Regression Model estimates the probability with which a certain event will happen or the probability of a sample unit with certain characteristics (expressed by the categories of the predictor variables) to have the property expressed by the value 1 of the dependent variable Yi. This property of the Logistic Regression can answer to the research question of the present article and it will be fully understood in the present application. The estimation of this probability is performed by using the cumulative logistic distribution:

73


Research variables The dependent variable Y is a dummy variable and represents social trust with value 1 if individuals respond that they ‘trust most people’ and the value 0 if they respond that they ‘have to be careful’. Independent variables are gender, age, educational level, employment status, marital status and income. All independent variables are introduced as categorical and their categories are given in Table 2. If categorical variables are used instead of quantitative, the prediction capability of the model is increased, as the values and the direction of coefficients predicted for each category of the explanatory variables have the following specific meaning. Positive coefficients indicate a higher probability of an individual to generally trust most other people, whilst negative coefficients indicate a lower probability of this kind. A second useful rule is that the higher a positive estimated coefficient of a variable’s category is, the higher the probability of an individual included in this category to be ‘trusting’, and vice versa. Data were analysed with software SPSS 16.

Results Frequencies Frequency analysis revealed that only 27.2 per cent of respondents declared that they trust most people, while 72.8 per cent said that they have to be careful (Figure 1).

Chi-square trust associations with demographic and socio-economic factors Results in Table 4 show no statistically significant differences in trust according to gender ( 2 = 0.493, p = 0.521 > 0.05). In fact, 71.4 per cent of men and 73.7 per cent of women turned out to be ‘distrusting’, stating that they have to be careful when dealing with other people (Table 4). Nuclear statistical significance was revealed in trust according to age ( 2 = 7.933, p = 0.094 < 0.10). However, our research data confirmed the U-curve pattern mentioned in literature, with younger and older people exhibiting low social trust levels, which rise as age

Figure 1: Generalized trust.

74


advances and peak for individuals aged 31–40 (i.e. 37 per cent). On the other hand, educational level seems to be a predictor of social trust ( 2 = 9.971, p = 0.019 < 0.05) at a statistically significant level. As a matter of fact, social trust levels present an ascending trend as educational level rises. Thus, primary school graduates have the lowest levels of trust (15.6 per cent), while university graduates present the highest levels (32.4 per cent). As far as income is concerned, analysis revealed no statistical significance in association with social trust ( 2 = 1.091, p = 0.779 > 0.05), as social trust levels ranged at almost the same levels for all income groups. However, it is remarkable that individuals belonging to the lowest income group (i.e. less than 600 euro a month) exhibit the highest level of distrust (73.4%). Furthermore, marital status seems to present statistically significant differences at marginal level ( 2 = 1.180, p = 0.554 > 0.05). The highest levels of trust are presented by those who belong to categories other than

Trust Generally, I trust most people (%)

Independent Variables

I have to be careful (%)

Pearson 2

Stat. Sig.

Gender

Male Female

28.6 26.3

71.4 73.7

0.494

0.482

Age

15–20 21–30 31–40 41–50 51 and over

27.1 27.2 37.0 22.9 23.0

72.9 72.8 63.0 77.1 77.0

7.933

0.094

Primary school graduate Secondary school graduate University student University graduate

15.6

84.4

26.3

73.7

9.971

0.019

30.1 32.4

69.9 67.6

Less than 600 601–1100 1101–1600 more than 1600

26.6 30.7 28.8 28.2

73.4 69.3 71.2 71.8

1.091

0.779

Single Married Other

27.6 25.7 32.7

72.4 74.3 67.3

1.180

0.554

Employed Unemployed/ not economically active

26.9 27.5

73.1 72.5

0.032

0.858

Educational level

Monthly income ( )

Marital status

Employment status

Table 4: Trust levels by gender, age, income, educational level, marital status and occupation status and 2 test results.

75


married or single (i.e. are divorced, separated or widowed). Finally, as far as trust associations with occupation status are concerned, no statistical significance was observed ( 2 = 0.858, p = 0.875 > 0.05), as there seems to be a balance between the two values (economically active and economically non-active).

Logistic Regression Model The model was applied on the sample of 822 respondents but 727 remain in the model because of missing values in the variables involved. The model was found to have a strong explanatory function, with generalized likelihood ratio statistic test being 2 = 151.886, df = 5, p = 0.00 < 0.001. The equation’s goodness of fit is also indicated by the statistical insignificance of Hosmer and Lemeshow Test ( 2 = 2.768, df = 5, p = 0.736 > 0.05). Statistical significance appears in educational level (wald stat = 14.933, p = 0.002 < 0.01) and marital status (wald stat = 26.238, p = 0.000 < 0.01) (Table 4). Conditional Forward Stepwise procedure keeps the other explanatory variables out of the model, as they are statistically insignificant (i.e. age, gender, income and employment status). Primary school and secondary school graduates, as well as university students, appear to have negative coefficients b (b1 = −1.115, b2 = −0.404 and b3 = −0.26), whereas b coefficient of the reference educational level category (university graduates) is positive (b4 = 1.779). Therefore, individuals having graduated university tend to be more trusting towards most other people, in comparison to individuals of lower educational levels. In general, the more education rises, the more trust also rises. Actually, according to the present application, university graduates are the only group that tends to have a positive trust attitude. Similarly, single and married individuals seem to have a higher probability of being distrusting: coefficients b for the categories of single and married people are negative (Table 5), which reveals a lower probability of these categories to generally trust most other people. On the contrary, all

Independent variables in model and categories Step 1

S. E.

−,940 −,951

,109 ,138

Marital status Single Married

Step 2

B

Educational level Primary school

Wald

df

Sig. Exp(B)

121,386

2

,000

73,731 47,655

1 1

,000 ,000

14,933

3

,002

,391 ,386

−1,115

,318

12,327

1

,000

,328

Secondary school

−,404

,194

4,338

1

,037

,668

University student

−,026

,237

,012

1

,914

,975

26,238

2

,000

20,963 12,093

1 1

,000 ,001

Marital status Single Married

−,785 −,590

,171 ,170

,456 ,554

Table 5: Detailed empirical results from the estimation of a Logistic Regression Model measuring the impact of demographic and socio-economic features on social trust in Greece, 2007 (cases in model: 727).

76


other categories (divorced, widowed, etc.) seem to have higher levels of trust towards other people, as the b coefficient of this group is estimated positive and equal to 1.375.

Discussion and conclusion Although evidence in Greece has shown that informal networks and particularized trust are strong, this is not the case with generalized trust, where rates are quite low. Moreover, our research has shown that social trust in Greece does not associate strongly with all the usual set of economic and socio-demographic variables; however, it is more likely for individuals with certain characteristics to generally trust or not trust other people. Our findings seem to agree with and confirm the general conclusion of other researchers (Knack and Keefer 1997; Putnam 2000; Uslaner 2002) that high levels of trust are more likely to be found among the ‘winners’ in society, rather than the ‘losers’. More specifically, social trust associates positively with high educational level, which has once again turned out to be the strongest correlate of social trust and – by extension – social capital. Logistic regression results indicated that university degree holders are more likely to generally trust most other people than secondary and primary school graduates. This finding is consistent with another relevant research conducted in Greece – at a local level though – where university degree holders presented higher social trust rates, whereas low educated individuals seemed to be less trusting (Roumeliotou and Rontos 2009). Chi-square tests for the independence between generalized trust and educational level also revealed statistical significance ( 2 = 20.007, p = 0.000 < 0.001) Another characteristic that has shown high association with social trust is marital status, with married people being distrusting, whereas separated and divorced people exhibit higher levels of trust towards other people. This finding confirms Li, Pickle and Savage’s (2005) theory that married people are more distrusting than the single and divorced people. However, the finding that divorced people show higher levels of generalized trust seems to contradict Putnam’s theory (2000) about divorced and separated people. However, the attribution offered by the same theorist that family life precludes much of the need or opportunity of married people for outside emotional support seems to be logical at this point. Moreover, this finding can be accounted for the Greek society’s characteristic of dense and strong family ties. Following the ‘emancipation theory’ developed by Yamagishi, Cook and Watabe (1998: 166), ‘strong and stable relations (such as family ties) promote a sense of security within such relations, but endanger trust that extends beyond these relations’, i.e. trust towards people that are beyond their social circle or are strangers. On the other hand, nuclear statistical significance was found between age and social trust, as revealed by Chi-square test ( 2 = 7.933, p = 0.094 > 0.05), which means that further research might show stronger association between age and social trust. The Logistic Regression Model applied did not reveal statistical significance of age with generalized trust; however, we have to keep in mind that logistic regression models tend to pinpoint as significant factors those that have a simultaneous impact on the dependent variable, so any Chi-square vagueness should be re-explored for significance. For instance, in the similar logistic regression model conducted at local level (Roumeliotou and Rontos 2009), where marital status was not included in the input variables of the model, age turned out to be a significant factor

77


along with educational level. Furthermore, our research findings confirmed the U-curve pattern formed in the age–social trust relation, which has already been noted by other researchers (Norris 1996; Putnam 1995a; Putnam and Yonish 1997; Rahn 1997; Uslaner 1998). The Greek youth and the elderly are those that trust other people more, while the middle-aged Greeks are more distrusting. This could be possibly attributed to the fact that the middle aged are most often those with either power or more wealth, so, like in the case of rich people, they do not easily jeopardize and cannot afford to lose, in case their trust is betrayed (Banfield 1958). No dependence was also revealed with income and occupational status, as no statistical significance was revealed by Chi-square test and the variables did not turn out to be a predictive factor in the logistic regression model. Nevertheless, low-income individuals tend to be more distrusting, a fact which could be attributed to the general deception and dissatisfaction with life they might feel. In conclusion, Greek people exhibit low levels of trust towards strangers, while they rely much more on their family and friends, forming strong informal networks. This fact seems to confirm the theory developed by Yamagishi, Cook and Watabe (1998), that strong family ties inhibit generalized trust. Although strong family and friend networks can be very helpful and supportive in many ways at micro level, the importance of generalized trust (especially at macro level) is not to be ignored. Trust is an essential aspect of social cohesion and social capital; it is considered to facilitate human interactions and informally influence modes of cooperation. Trust is also based on assumptions and beliefs members of society have about each other and on expectations that others will comply with certain arrangements, norms and rules (Offe 1999). Therefore, the quality of social and institutional arrangements and relations contributes critically to trust building. Lack of trust is generated from negative perceptions of social realities, especially by the weakest individuals, i.e. the low-income earners, the young, the less educated and the more vulnerable in general (Foley and Edwards 1999). In this way, Greek people, especially the less-favoured ones, seem to be disappointed by the Greek modern social reality. Social inequalities, political clientelistim, opportunistic relations, and political corruption over the years have led to a feeling of deception and disappointment, which may have also turned into suspicion and distrust towards other people in general. As a result, Greek civil society is weak and so is social capital in general. Lack of prospects and hope for a better life, e.g. finding a better job, earning more or improving one’s living conditions, has created a generation of hopeless Greeks who have nothing to expect either from the formal institutions or from other people. Their only support is their family and close friends, who are most likely to stand by them in a difficult situation. Amidst such a situation and having nothing to lose, they seem to have no constraints to antisocial behaviour, so they opt for suspicion and distrust. In view of all these, as well as taking into account the difficult financial situation in which Greece has found itself, it is now more important than ever that social trust be enhanced, as social cohesion and solidarity are also essential for economic recovery. For this reason, the Greek state has a difficult but crucial task to accomplish: regain citizens’ trust and make them believe in social equality and transparency. This can be achieved by providing equal opportunities for all, as well as combating corruption and clientelism. Education is also important:

78


opportunities for education and vocational training should be offered, so that optimism and hope for a better future rises again. Furthermore, efficient social policies should be implemented, focusing on the ‘have nots’ rather than the ‘haves’, and on the ‘losers’ of the society instead of the ‘winners’. After all, democratic political arrangements are those that determine levels of generalized trust and optimism, influencing in this way people’s attitudes and the adoption of cooperative values, such as tolerance and solidarity (Kalati and Manor 1999). Only in this way could high social trust levels among Greek people be achieved, ensuring that the wheels of Greek society start running smoothly again, heading for a shared vision of development and prosperity.

References Arrow, K. (1972), ‘Gifts and exchanges’, Philosophy and Public Affairs, 1: 4, pp. 343–62. Arrow, K. (2000), ‘Observations on social capital’, in P. Dasgupta and I. Serageldin (eds), Social Capital: A Multifaceted Perspective, Washington DC: The World Bank Group, pp. 3–5. Baier, A. (1986), ‘Trust and anti-trust’, Ethics, 96: 2 pp. 231–60. Banfield, E. C. (1958), The Moral Basis of a Backward Society, New York: Free Press. Barber, B. (1983), The Logic and Limits of Trust, New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press. Bishop, Y. M., Fienberg, S. E. and Holland, P. W. (1975), Discrete Multivariate Analysis: Theory and Practice, Boston: MIT Press. Brehm, J. and Rahn, W. (1997), ‘Individual-level evidence for the causes and consequences of social capital’, American Journal of Political Science, 41: 3, pp. 888–1023. Chaudhuri, A., Barry, S. and Strand, P. (2002), ‘Cooperation in social dilemmas, trust and reciprocity’, Journal of Economic Psychology, 23: 2, pp. 231–49. Chaudhuri, A. and Gagadharan, L.(2003). ‘Gender Differences in Trust and Reciprocity’, Working Paper, University of Auckland mimeo. Christoforou, A. (2005), ‘On the determinants of social capital in Greece compared to countries of the European Union’, Working Paper, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei, Milan. Chtouris, S., Zissi, A., Papanis, E. and Rontos, K. (2006), ‘The state of youth in contemporary Greece’, Youth, 14: 4 pp. 309–22. Coleman, J. S. (1988), ‘Social capital in the creation of human capital’, American Journal of Sociology, 94: Supplement pp. 95–120. Cox, D. R. and Snell, J. E. (1989), The Analysis of Binary Data, 2nd ed., London: Chapman & Hall. Cox, E. (1997), Measurement as Paradox [transcript], Radio National: Ockham’s Razor. www.abc.net.au/rn/science/ockham/stories/s364.htm. Accessed 5 March 2010. Croson, R. and Buchan, N. R. (1999), ‘Gender and culture: International experimental evidence from trust games’, American Economic Review Papers and Proceedings, 89: 2, pp. 386–91. Eagly, A. E. and Wood, W. (1991), ‘Explaining sex differences in social behavior: A meta-analytic perspective’, Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 17: 3, pp. 306–15. Etzioni, A. (1988), The Moral Dimension: Toward a New Economics, New York: Free Press.

79


Etzioni, A. (1996), ‘The responsive community: A communitarian perspective’, American Sociological Review, 61, 1, pp. 1–11. Feingold, A. (1994), ‘Gender differences in personality’, Psychological Bulletin, 116: 3, pp. 429–56. Foeman, A. K. and Pressley, G. (1987), ‘Ethnic culture and corporate culture: Using black styles in organizations’, Communication Quarterly, 35: 4 pp. 293–307. Foley, M. W. and Edwards, B. (1999), ‘Is it time to dis-invest in social capital?’, Journal of Public Policy, 19: 2, pp. 141–73. Francois, P. and Zabojnik, J. (2003), ‘Trust, social capital and economic development’ Discussion Paper 116, Centre for Economic Research, Tilburg: Tilburg University. Fukuyama, F. (1995), Trust: The Social Virtues and the Creation of Prosperity, New York: Free Press. Fukuyama, F. (1997), The End of Order, London: The Social Market Foundation. Fukuyama, F. (2000), ‘Social capital’, in L. E. Harrison and S. P. Huntington (eds), Culture Matters: How Values Shape Human Progress, New York: Basic Books. Gambetta, D. (1988), ‘Mafia: The price of distrust, in D. Gambetta (ed.), Trust: Making and Breaking Co-operative Relations, Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 158–75. Giddens, A. (1990), The Consequences of Modernity, Standford, CA: Stanford University Press. Glaeser, E. L., Laibson, D., Scheinkman, J. A. and Soutter, C. L. (2000), ‘Measuring trust’, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 115: 3, pp. 811–46. Hardin, R. (2002), Trust and Trustworthiness, New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Hosmer, D. W. and Lemeshow, S. (1989), Applied Logistic Regression, New York: Wiley. Inglehart, R. (1999), ‘Trust, well-being and democracy’, in M. E. Warren (ed.), Democracy and Trust, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 88–120. Inglehart, R. and Welzel, C. (2005), Modernisation, Cultural Change and Democracy, New York: Cambridge University Press. Jones, G. R. and George, J. M. (1998), ‘The experience and evolution of trust: Implications for cooperation and teamwork’, Academy of Management Review, 23: 3, pp. 531–46. Jones, N., Malesios, C., Iosifides, T. and Sophoulis, C. M. (2008), ‘Social capital in Greece: Measurement and comparative perspectives’, South European Society and Politics, 13: 2, pp. 175–93. Kalati, N. and Manor, J. (1999), ‘Elite perceptions of poverty: South Africa’, IDS Bulletin, 30: 2, pp. 117–26. Knack, S. and Keefer, P. (1997), ‘Does social capital have an economy payoff ? A cross-country investigation’, Quarterly Journal of Economics, CXII, pp. 1251–88. Leigh, A. (2006). ‘Trust, inequality and ethnic heterogeneity’, The Economic Record, 82: 258, pp. 268–280. Levi, M. (1998), ‘A state of trust’, in V. Braithwaite and M. Levi (eds), Trust and Governance, New York: Russell Sage Foundation, pp. 77–101. Levi, M. and Stoker, S. (2000), ‘Political trust and trustworthiness’, Annual Review of Political Science, 3: 1, pp. pp. 475–508.

80


Lewicki, R. J. and Bunker, B. B. (1996), ‘Developing and maintaining trust in work relationships’, Trust in Organizations: Frontiers of Theory and Research, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Li, Y., Pickles, A. and Savage, M. (2005), ‘Social capital and social trust in Britain’, European Sociological Review, 21: 2, pp. 109–23. Lindström, M. (2009), ‘Marital status, social capital, material conditions and self-rated health: A population-based study’, Health Policy, 93: 2–3, pp. 172–79. Lyberaki, A. and Paraskevopoulos, C. (2002), ‘Social capital measurement in Greece’, OECD,ONS International Conference on Social Capital Measurement, London, UK, September 25–27. McCullagh, P. and Nelder, J. A. (1983), Generalised Linear Models, London: Chapman & Hall. Misztal, B. (1996), Trust in Modern Societies: The Search for the Bases of Social Order, Cambridge, UK: Polity. Mouzelis, N. (1987), /Parliamentarism and Industrialisation in the Semi-periphery: Greece, Balkans and Latin America, Athens: Themelio. Nerlove, M. and Press, J. (1973), Univariate and Multivariate Loglinear Logistic Models, Santa Monica, CA: Rand. Newton, K. (1999), ‘Social and political trust in established democracies’, in P. Norris (ed.), Critical Citizens, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 169–87. Newton, K. (2001), ‘Trust, social capital, civil society, and democracy’, International Political Science Review, 22: 2, pp. 201–14. Newton, K. (2007), ‘Social and political trust’, in R. Dalton and H. D. Klingemann (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Political Behaviour, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 342–61. Nie, N. H., Junn, J. and Kenneth, S.B.. (1996), Education and Democratic Citizenship in America, Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Norris, P. (1996), ‘Does television erode social capital? A reply to Putnam’, PS: Political Science and Politics, 29: 3, pp. 474–80. Offe, C. (1999), ‘How can we trust our fellow citizens?’, in M. E. Warren (ed.), Democracy and Trust, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 42–87. Ostrom, E. (1990), Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action, New York: Cambridge University Press. Paraskevopoulos, C. J. (2006), ‘ ’/‘Social capital and public policy in Greece’, /Science and Society, 16, pp. 69–106. Paraskevopoulos, C. (2007), Social Capital and Public Policy in Greece (GreeSE Paper No. 9), London: The Hellenic Observatory, London School of Economics. Patterson, O. (1999), ‘Liberty against the democratic state: On the historical and contemporary sources of American distrust’, in M. E. Warren (ed.), Democracy and Trust, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Paxton, P. (2002), ‘Social capital and democracy: An interdependent relationship’, American Sociological Review, 67: 2, pp. 254–77. Putnam, R. D. (1993), Making Democracy Work: Civic Traditions in Modern Italy, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Putnam, R. D. (1995a), ‘Bowling alone: America’s declining social capital’, Journal of Democracy, 6: 1 pp. 65–78.

81


Putnam, R. D. (1995b), ‘Tuning in, tuning out: The strange disappearance of social capital in America’, PS: Political Science and Politics 28: 4 pp. 664–83. Putnam, R. D. (2000), Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community, New York: Simmon and Schuster. Putnam, R. D. and Yonish. S . (1997), New Evidence on Trends in American Social Capital and Civic Engagement: Are We Really “Bowling Alone”? Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Papanis, S., Rontos, K. and Roumeliotou, M. (2006). Questionnaire for the Measurement of Social Capital, Mytilene: University of the Aegean. Rahn, W. M. (1997), ‘The decline of American national identity among young Americans: Diffuse emotion, commitment, and social trust’, unpublished manuscript, Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota. Rontos, K. and Papanis, E. (2006), / Statistical Research: Methods and Applications, Athens: Sideris. Rosenberg, M. (1956), ‘Misanthropy and political ideology’, American Sociological Review, 21: 6, p. 695. Rotenberg, K., Fox, C., Green, S., Ruderman, L., Slater, K., Stevens, K. and Carlo, G. (2005), ‘Construction and validation of children’s interpersonal trust belief scale’, British Journal of Developmental Psychology 23: 2, pp. 271–92. Rothstein, B. and Stolle, D. (2001), ‘Social capital and street-level bureaucracy: An institutional theory of generalised trust’, ESF Conference Social Capital: Interdisciplinary Perspectives, University of Exeter, UK, September 15–20. Roumeliotou, M. and Rontos, K. (2009), ‘Social trust in local communities and demographic, socio-economic predictors: The case of Kalloni, Lesbos, Greece’, International Journal of Criminology and Sociological Theory 23: 1, pp. 230–50. Simmel, G. (1950), The Sociology of Georg Simmel, Glencoe, IL: Free Press. Stolle, D. and Rochon, T. R. (1999). ‘The myth of American exceptionalism: A three nation comparison of associational membership and social capital’, in J. van Deth, M. Maraffi, K. Newton and P. Whiteley (eds), Social capital and European Democracy, London: Routledge, pp. 192–209. Stolle, D. (2001), ‘Clubs and congregations: The benefits of joining an association’, in K. Cook (ed.), Trust in Society, New York: Russell Sage. Torcal, M. and Montero, J. R. (1999), ‘Facets of social capital in new democracies’, in J. van Deth, M. Maraffi, K. Newton and P. Whiteley (eds), Social Capital and European Democracy, London: Routledge, pp. 167–91. Tsoukalas, C. (1987), / State, Society and Employment in Post-war Greece, Athens: Themelio,. Tyler, T. (1998), ‘Trust and democratic governance’, in V. Braithwaite and M. Levi (eds), Trust and Governance, New York: Russell Sage Foundation, pp. 269–94. Uslaner, E. M. (2002), The Moral Foundations of Trust, New York: Cambridge University Press. Uslaner, E. M. (1998), ‘Social capital, television, and the “mean world”: Trust, optimism, and civic participation’, Political Psychology, 19: 3 pp. 441–67. Warren, M. E. (1999), ‘Democratic theory and trust’, in M. Warren (ed.), Democracy and Trust, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 310–45.

82


Whiteley, P. F. (1999), ‘The origins of social capital’, in J. van Deth, M. Maraffi, K. Newton and P. Whiteley (eds), Social Capital and European Democracy, London: Routledge, pp. 25–40. Woolcock, M. (1998), ‘Social capital and economic development: Toward a theoretical synthesis and policy framework’, Theory and Society 27: 2, pp. 151–208. Yamagishi, T., Cook, K. S. and Watabe, M. (1998), ‘Uncertainty, trust and commitment formation in the United States and Japan’, American Journal of Sociology 104: 1, pp. 165–94. Yamagishi, T. and Yamagishi, M. (1994), ‘Trust and commitment in the United States and Japan’, Motivation and Emotion 18: 1, pp. 129–66.

sugGested citation Rontos, K. and Roumeliotou, M. (2013), ‘Generalized social trust in Greece and its association with demographic and socio-economic predictors’, Portuguese Journal of Social Science 12: 1, pp. 63–84, doi: 10.1386/ pjss.12.1.63_1

Contributor details Kostas Rontos is associate professor and head of the department of sociology, University of the Aegean, Greece, where he also teaches Demography and Statistics. He is the director of the postgraduate programme “Research in Local Development and Social Cohesion”. He studied economics at the National and Kapodistrian University of Athens and obtained an MSc in regional studies from Panteion University in Athens, Greece, where he also obtained his PhD in demographic statistics. He pursued post-doctoral studies on statistics and econometrics at the London School of Economics and Political Sciences. From 1981 until 2005 he worked as a statistician at the National Statistical Agency in Greece, where he also became head of department. In this capacity, he was in charge of many statistical surveys and census surveys. He has represented Greece at the United Nations, European Commission/Eurostat, FAO, OECD, European Advisory Committee and Statistical Agencies of other countries and worked for four years in order to promote the position of Greece in the European and National Statistical System (Statistics Commission, UN, Euro-Mediterranean Cooperation, etc.) He has published numerous articles in peer-reviewed scientific journals. Contact: Department of Sociology, University of the Aegean, University Hill, GR-811100, Mytilene, Greece. E-mail: [email protected] Tel: (+30) 22510 36517 Myrsine Roumeliotou is a doctoral candidate at the department of sociology, University of the Aegean, Greece. She studied English language and literature at the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Greece and Spanish language and culture at the Hellenic Open University. She holds a Master of Arts in translation from the University of Westminster, London, UK, and a Master of Science in applied sociological research from the University of the Aegean, Greece. She is currently head of educational affairs at the Direcotrate for Secondary Education in Lesbos. She has worked at the General Directorate

83


for Translation at the European Parliament and the European Investment Bank in Luxembourg. She has published articles in peer-reviewed journals. Contact: Department of Sociology, University of the Aegean, University Hill, GR-811100, Mytilene, Greece. E-mail: [email protected] Kostas Rontos and Myrsine Roumeliotou have asserted their right under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, 1988, to be identified as the authors of this work in the format that was submitted to Intellect Ltd.

84