MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3087469684 · doi:10.1162/1542476053295304

Trust, Social Capital, and Economic Development

2005· preprint· en· W3087469684 on OpenAlexaff
Patrick François, Ján Zábojník

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the European Economic Association · 2005
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicExperimental Behavioral Economics Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSocial capitalSocializationIncentiveProcess (computing)Capital (architecture)EconomicsCommunismTrustworthinessPositive economicsEconomic systemNeoclassical economicsPolitical scienceMicroeconomicsSociologySocial psychologyPsychologySocial scienceComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Many argue that elements of a society s norms, culture or social capital are central to understanding its development.However, these notions have been difficult to capture in economic models.Here we argue that trustworthiness is the economically relevant component of a society s culture and hence comprises its social capital.Individuals are trustworthy when they perform actions they have promised, even if these do not maximize their payoffs.The usual focus on incentive structures in motivating behaviour plays no role here.Instead, we emphasize more deep-seated modes of behaviour and consider that trustworthy agents are socialized to act as they do.To model this socialization, we borrow from a relatively new process of preference evolution pioneered by Bisin and Verdier (2001).The model developed endogenously accounts for social capital and explores its role in the process of economic development.It captures in a simple, formal way the interaction between social capital and the economy s productive process.The results obtained caution against rapid reform, provide an explanation for why late developing countries cannot easily transplant the modes of production that have proved useful in the West, and suggest an explanation for the pattern of reform experiences in ex-communist countries.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.325
Threshold uncertainty score0.994

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.027
GPT teacher head0.289
Teacher spread0.262 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the European Economic AssociationSame topicExperimental Behavioral Economics StudiesFrench-language works237,207