Networks and trust in the Hungarian countryside. Social capital of mayors of small settlements in Baranya

Abstract

The paper examines the social capital of mayors of small settlements in Baranya county, Southern Hungary. It is interested in two components of their social capital: a) the mayors’ personal relationships which are strongly tied to their positions; and b) the mayors’ trust towards other people and more abstract entities.

Personal relationships and trust are fundamental features of one’s social capital. Linkages between the two components are important since trust sheds light on the subject’s ability to create and maintain personal relationships, in that those people who have more trust in their fellow human beings can interact more easily and develop their relationships more fully. This theoretical connection is of crucial importance for Hungarian society which appreciates the instrumental value of relationships.

In Hungary, people are aware that personal relationships can make a significant contribution to goal-oriented action. However, this understanding as a cultural pattern raises the question of informality, i.e. the practice of doing and asking favours rather than respecting and applying the more formal and transparent mechanisms. The logic of informality motivates subjects to strive for beneficial relations and to extend their social networks. But these extensive relationships are not based on trust in others in general, they are rather an in-group particularity.

The paper tries to conceptualise this particularity through the lens of social capital, while it aims to empirically identify its foundations as well. What is the reason behind the selection of this particular target group?

Mayors in small settlements are in a social position that makes them central agents in their environment. Most small settlements in Baranya struggle with severe erosion such as infrastructural underdevelopment, persistent emigration, lack of institutions and jobs, weak civil society and civil disengagement, etc. The mayors hold most of the remaining local government competencies, not because they deliberately centralise them, but because there are no relevant agents with whom they can share. Accordingly, in this particular constellation, it is crucial to reveal the temptation of mayors to informality, as their practices can influence the whole atmosphere of local governance and policy-making.

Regarding the findings, it should be briefly noted that most mayors have relatively extensive personal relationships with agents in senior institutional positions; their trust in generalised others is rather low, as is their trust in institutions, while they have relevant trust in their more intimate strong ties. The regression models applied show that there is a positive correlation between the mayors’ higher trust in their particular strong ties and the extent of their personal relationships, while the other forms of trust have no influence at all on the same variable.