AbstractWe build a simple model of trust as an equilibrium phenomenon, departing from standard "selfish" preferences in a minimal way. Agents who are on the receiving end of an other to transact can choose whether to cheat and take away the entire surplus, taking into account a "cost of cheating." The latter has an idiosyncratic component (an agent's type), and a socially determined one. The smaller the mass of agents who cheat, the larger the cost of cheating suffered by those who cheat. Depending on the parameter values, the model can have a unique equilibrium level of trust (the proportion of transactions not cheated on), or two equilibria, one with high and the other with low trust. Thus, differences in trust levels across societies can reflect different fundamentals or, for the same fundamentals, a switch across multiple equilibria. Surprisingly, we find that these two possibilities are partially identifiable from an empirical point of view. Our model can also be reinterpreted as one with standard selfish preferences and an enforcement agency with limited resources that are used to catch and fine a subset of those who cheat. Lastly, we carry out a robustness exercise in which agents learn in a simple way from experience about how many agents cheat in society. Our results indicate that when there are multiple equilibria the high trust equilibrium is less robust than the low trust one.
Download InfoIf you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
Bibliographic InfoPaper provided by Einaudi Institute for Economics and Finance (EIEF) in its series EIEF Working Papers Series with number 0913.
Length: 33 pages
Date of creation: 2009
Date of revision: Dec 2009
Other versions of this item:
- D80 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - General
- D89 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Other
- C79 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Game Theory and Bargaining Theory - - - Other
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Rafael La Porta & Florencio Lopez-de-Silane & Andrei Shleifer & Robert W. Vishny, 1996.
"Trust in Large Organizations,"
NBER Working Papers
5864, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- Jeffrey Butler & Paola Giuliano & Luigi Guiso, 2009.
"The Right Amount of Trust,"
NBER Working Papers
15344, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- Jeffrey Butler & Paola Giuliano & Luigi Guiso, 2009. "The Right Amount of Trust," Economics Working Papers ECO2009/33, European University Institute.
- Butler, Jeff & Giuliano, Paola & Guiso, Luigi, 2009. "The Right Amount of Trust," CEPR Discussion Papers 7461, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
- Butler, Jeffrey V. & Giuliano, Paola & Guiso, Luigi, 2009. "The Right Amount of Trust," IZA Discussion Papers 4416, Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA).
- Jeffrey Butler & Paola Giuliano & Luigi Guiso, 2009. "The Right Amount of Trust," EIEF Working Papers Series 0908, Einaudi Institute for Economics and Finance (EIEF), revised Sep 2009.
- Jeffrey Butler & Paola Giuliano & Luigi Guiso, 2010. "The Right Amount of Trust," Working Papers 2010.61, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei.
- Peter C.B. Phillips, 1987.
"Partially Identified Econometric Models,"
Cowles Foundation Discussion Papers
845R, Cowles Foundation for Research in Economics, Yale University, revised Aug 1988.
- Knack, Stephen & Keefer, Philip, 1997. "Does Social Capital Have an Economic Payoff? A Cross-Country Investigation," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, MIT Press, vol. 112(4), pages 1251-88, November.
- Glaeser, Edward Ludwig & Laibson, David I. & Scheinkman, Jose A. & Soutter, Christine L., 2000.
4481497, Harvard University Department of Economics.
- Joel Sobel, 2002. "Can We Trust Social Capital?," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 40(1), pages 139-154, March.
- Guido Tabellini, 2008.
"The Scope of Cooperation: Values and Incentives,"
CESifo Working Paper Series
2236, CESifo Group Munich.
- Tabellini, Guido, 2007. "The Scope of Cooperation: Values and incentives," CEPR Discussion Papers 6534, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
- Guido Tabellini, 2007. "The Scope of Cooperation: values and incentives," Working Papers 328, IGIER (Innocenzo Gasparini Institute for Economic Research), Bocconi University.
- J. Scheinkman & U. Horst, 2003.
"Equilibria in Systems of Social Interactions,"
Princeton Economic Theory Working Papers
d5a39039d26e0b08775b915bf, David K. Levine.
- Blume, Lawrence, 2002.
"Stigma and Social Control,"
119, Institute for Advanced Studies.
- Bernd Irlenbusch, 2006. "Are non-binding contracts really not worth the paper?," Managerial and Decision Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 27(1), pages 21-40.
- Avinash Dixit, 2003. "Trade Expansion and Contract Enforcement," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 111(6), pages 1293-1317, December.
- Vernon L. Smith, 1998. "The Two Faces of Adam Smith," Southern Economic Journal, Southern Economic Association, vol. 65(1), pages 2-19, July.
- Young, Alwyn, 1994. "Lessons from the East Asian NICS: A contrarian view," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 38(3-4), pages 964-973, April.
- Kim Jong-Il & Lau Lawrence J., 1994. "The Sources of Economic Growth of the East Asian Newly Industrialized Countries," Journal of the Japanese and International Economies, Elsevier, vol. 8(3), pages 235-271, September.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Facundo Piguillem).
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.