Small Works: Poverty and Economic Development in Southwestern China

moves beyond individuals as it explores ‘‘Networks, Organizations, and Trust,’’ capturing context in a way that is appealing to those interested in trust at any level of analysis. This is the shortest of the three sections and perhaps fittingly, Henry Farrell’s theoretical chapter that leads it off laments the dearth (and highlights the importance) of mid-level theories on trust. The two empirical chapters in this section take different approaches to the mid-level analysis of trust, but both focus on the embedded nature of trust. Irena Stepanikova and her colleagues draw on qualitative interviews with physicians to gauge the effect of managed care on both levels of trust and efforts at fostering trust in their relationships with patients. Robert Sampson and Corina Graif note the enduring influence of neighborhoods on trust and collective efficacy among residents and the potential of strong networks of community leaders to counteract these lasting effects. The final section, Part III, is on ‘‘Institutions and Trust.’’ The first two articles therein explore credit markets; Bruce Carruthers lays out ten factors that influence trust among creditors and debtors (from individual character to networks to overall monetary environment) and Philip Hoffman and his collaborators use historical data to track the relationship between social capital and trust in French financial markets. Gabriella Montinola’s research on trust in courts in a developing democracy (the Philippines) stood out as the book’s contribution with the most clear policy implications and suggestions, but Cleary and Stokes’ final chapter ultimately stole the show, pushing social scientists on causal assumptions (i.e., considering whether trust is a cause or a consequence of experience, and current research’s focus on trust as a cause rather than a symptom), methods and measures, and the overwhelming belief that trust is good, if not necessary, and should be sought. An argument for a healthy skepticism toward institutions, and toward research on trust itself, is an invigorating way to close a volume titled ‘‘Whom Can We Trust?’’ With contributions from sociologists, economists, political scientists, psychologists, and others, this collection illustrates the expansive hold that trust has taken across social science disciplines. It accomplishes the main goal the authors set forth, to add nuance to our understanding of trust and to consider the contextual nature of both trust and trustworthiness. It also highlights the need for more interdisciplinarity in research. While there is a bit of cross-disciplinary dialogue in this volume, there could be more, and there certainly should be in future research. Cook, Levi, and Hardin paved the way for such endeavors. The organization, careful introduction, and insightful contributions of this book demonstrate how conscientiously the editors crafted the volume. However, the editors make it clear that the volume is not meant to answer all our questions about trust, but to push us to ask new ones. The best way to do that and to move research on trust forward and in fruitful directions is to step outside of boundaries. Where can we start? Consider reading more multidisciplinary edited volumes, and read them in their entirety.