By assuming that marginalisation threatens social trust formation, this study introduces a new analytical framework to explain the relationship between a welfare state’s institutional design and trust levels in European societies. A good’s lifecycle view, consisting of production and consumption, is applied to the provision of social benefits to discern four forms of marginalisation in an individual’s experience with the welfare state: (a) marginalisation through attitude, (b) marginalisation through context, (c) marginalisation through poverty and (d) marginalisation through opportunity lack. We argue that universalism in benefit provisions minimises each of the four marginalisation forms whereas selectivity is characterised by higher odds of marginalisation. We further demonstrate that this especially holds true when universal social programmes are generous, and the State dedicates substantial resources to their funding. When the State’s resources are scarce, selectivity becomes a good alternative to universalism and may enhance social trust formation among individuals. We tested our hypotheses using data from the European Social Survey (2010).
AnejaR.Barkha & BandayU. J. (2020). Regional economic growth and inequality in India: A sector-wise decomposition analysis. Arthaniti: Journal of Economic Theory and Practice. https://doi.org/10.1177/0976747920910825
2.
ArtsW.GelissenJ. (2002). Three worlds of welfare capitalism or more? A state-of-the-art report. Journal of European Social Policy, 12(2), 137–158.
3.
BalasubramaniamD.ChatterjeeS.MustardD. B. (2020). Public versus private investment in determining child health outcomes: Evidence from India. Arthaniti: Journal of Economic Theory and Practice, 19(1), 28–60.
4.
BarberB. (1983). The logic and limits of trust. Rutgers University Press.
5.
BerghA. (2011). The rise, fall and revival of the Swedish welfare state: What are the policy lessons from Sweden?(IFN Working paper No. 873). Research Institute of Industrial Economics, Stockholm, Sweden.
6.
BjørnskovC. (2005). The determinants of trust (Working paper). Retrieved from https://pure.au.dk/ws/files/39599381/cb_trust.pdf
7.
BjørnskovC. (2007). Determinants of generalized trust: A cross-country comparison. Public Choice, 130(1–2), 1–21.
8.
BoixC.PosnerD. N. (1998). Social capital: Explaining its origins and effects on government performance. British Journal of Political Science, 28(4), 686–693.
9.
BrehmJ.RahnW. (1997). Individual level evidence for the causes and consequences of social capital. American Journal of Political Science, 41(3), 999–1023.
10.
ChowdhuryI. R.ChowdhuryP. R. (2018). Public–private partnerships, commitment and X-inefficiency. Arthaniti: Journal of Economic Theory and Practice, 17(2), 157–167.
11.
ChristoforouA. (2004, September9–11). On the determinants of social capital in countries of the European Union. Paper presented at ESPAnet Conference ‘European social policy: Meeting the needs of a New Europe’, Oxford, England.
12.
DattG.RavallionM.MurgaiR. (2016). Four questions and answers on growth and poverty reduction in India. Arthaniti: Journal of Economic Theory and Practice, 15(2), 1–10.
13.
FarrellH. (2005). Trust and political economy. Comparative Political Studies, 38(5), 459–483.
14.
HallP. A. (1999). Social capital in Britain. British Journal of Political Science, 29(3), 417–461.
15.
HerrerosF.CriadoH. (2008). The state and the development of social trust. International Political Science Review, 29(1), 53–71.
16.
JensenC.SvendsenG. T. (2011). Giving money to strangers: European welfare states and social trust. International Journal of Social Welfare, 20(1), 3–9.
17.
JordahlH. (2007). Inequality and trust(IFN Working paper No. 715). Research Institute of Industrial Economics, Stockholm, Sweden.
18.
KawachiI.KennedyB. P.LochnerK.Prothrow-StithD. (1997). Social capital, income inequality and mortality. American Journal of Public Health, 87(9), 1491–1498.
19.
KnackS. (2002). Social capital and the quality of government: Evidence from the states. American Journal of Political Science, 46(4), 772–785.
20.
KumlinS. (2004). The personal and the political: How personal welfare state experiences affect political trust and ideology. Palgrave Macmillan.
21.
KumlinS.RothsteinB. (2007). Making and breaking social capital: The impact of welfare- state institutions. Comparative Political Studies, 38(4), 339–365.
22.
LarsenC. A. (2007). How welfare regimes generate and erode social capital: The impact of underclass phenomena. Comparative Politics, 40(1), 83–101.
23.
LeeC. (2012). Welfare states and social trust. Comparative Political Studies, 46(5), 603–630.
24.
LewisD. J.WeigertA. (1985). Trust as a social reality. Social Forces, 63(4), 967–985.
25.
LukeD. A. (2004). Multilevel modeling. SAGE Publications.
26.
NelsonG.PrilleltenskyI. (Eds.). (2005). Community psychology: In pursuit of liberation and well-being. Palgrave Macmillan.
27.
NewtonK. (1999a). Social trust and democracy in modern Europe. In van DethJ.MaraffiM.NewtonK.WhiteleyP. (Eds.), Social Capital and European Democracy (pp. 3–24). Routledge.
28.
NewtonK. (1999b). Social and political trust in established democracies. In NorrisP. (Ed.), Critical citizens: Global support for democratic government (pp. 169–187). Oxford University Press.
29.
PaulS.LalK. (2020). Technology intensity and employment in the Indian economy. Arthaniti: Journal of Economic Theory and Practice. https://doi.org/10.1177/0976747919895326
30.
PaxtonP. (2002). Social capital and democracy: An interdependent relationship. American Sociological Review, 67(2), 254–277.
31.
PutnamR. (1993). Making democracy work: Civic traditions in modern Italy. Princeton University Press.
32.
PutnamR. (2000). Bowling alone. Simon & Schuster.
33.
QuintanillaV. D. (2012). Judicial mindsets: The social psychology of implicit theories and the law. Nebraska Law Review, 90(3), 611–646.
34.
RothsteinB. (1998). Just institutions matter: The moral and political logic of the universal welfare state. Cambridge University Press.
35.
RothsteinB. (2001a). Social capital in the social democratic welfare state. Politics and Society, 29(2), 207–241.
36.
RothsteinB. (2001b). The universal welfare state as a social dilemma. Rationality and Society, 13(2), 213–233.
37.
RothsteinB. (2003). Social capital, economic growth and quality of government: The causal mechanism. New Political Economy, 8(1), 49–71.
38.
RothsteinB. (2005). Social traps and the problem of trust. Cambridge University Press.
39.
RothsteinB.StolleD. (2001, November). Social capital and street-level bureaucracy: An institutional theory of generalized trust. Paper presented at ‘Trust in Government Conference’, Centre for the Study of Democratic Politics, Princeton University.
40.
RothsteinB.StolleD. (2002, August–September). How political institutions create and destroy social capital: An institutional theory of generalized trust. Paper presented at 98th meeting of the American Political Science Association in Boston.
41.
RothsteinB.StolleD. (2003). Introduction: Social capital in Scandinavia. Scandinavian Political Studies, 26(1), 1–26.
42.
RothsteinB.StolleD. (2007). The quality of government and social capital: A theory of political institutions and generalized trust(QoG Working paper series 2). The Quality of Government Institute, Göteborg.
43.
RothsteinB.StolleD. (2008). The state and social capital: An institutional theory of generalized trust. Comparative Politics, 40(4), 441–459.
44.
RothsteinB.UslanerE. M. (2005). All for all: Equality, corruption, and social trust. World Politics, 58(1), 41–72.
45.
RothsteinB.UslanerE. M. (2006). All for all: Equality and social trust(Working paper series no. 117). Center for European Studies.
46.
SimpsonB. (2006). The poverty of trust in the Southern United States. Social Forces, 84(3), 1625–1638.
47.
TillmarM.LindkvistL. (2007). Cooperation against all odds: Finding reasons for trust where formal institutions fail. International Sociology, 22(3), 343–366.
48.
UslanerE. M. (2000, April). Trust, democracy and governance. Paper presented at the European Consortium for Political Research (ECPR) Workshop 13 on Voluntary Associations, Social Capital, and Interest Mediation: Forging the Link, Copenhagen, Denmark.
49.
Van OorschotW.ArtsW. (2005). The social capital of European welfare states: The crowding out hypothesis revisited. Journal of European Social Policy, 15(1), 5–26.
50.
WangL. F. S. (2020). Relative performance versus market share delegation in a vertically related market. Arthaniti: Journal of Economic Theory and Practice, 19(1), 16–27.
51.
YamagishiT.CookK.WatabeM. (1998). Uncertainty, trust and commitment formation in the United States and Japan. The American Journal of Sociology, 104(1), 165–194.
