“Liberal political and economic institutions depend on a healthy and dynamic civil society for their vitality” wrote Francis Fukuyama in his book “Trust: The Social Virtues and the Creation of Prosperity”. If a society has a culture of trust and particularly if its members have the capacity to trust people outside their families, it generates “social capital” which is “critical to prosperity and to what has come to be called competitiveness”. In short, Mr. Fukuyama argues, countries where people trust each other tend to be richer than countries where they do not.

Measuring how much people trust each other is a difficult thing. But we all assume thieves to be liars and suspect liars of being potential thieves. Where corruption is high trust will likely be low, and vice versa. So the best available method of measuring national trust levels is likely Transparency International’s Corruption Perception Index.

The best available measure of a country’s overall well being is probably the UNDP’s Human Development Index, which is based on per capita gross national product, literacy and life expectancy. The chart below lists the 25 highest ranked countries according to both CPI and HDI.

Twenty two countries appear on both lists. Only three countries which rank in the top 25 least corrupt countries are not in the top 25 HDI rankings – Chile, Portugal and Botswana. And only three countries in the top 25 UNDP rankings do not appear on the top 25 Transparency International list – Belgium, Italy and Brunei.

So the facts back up Mr. Fukuyama’s thesis – honest countries do tend to be richer. (Cynics might argue that these charts do not necessarily show that countries become rich because they are honest. Perhaps countries only become honest when they are rich. Maybe poor countries – like Mr. Doolittle in George Bernard Shaw’s Pygmalion – cannot afford morals.)

It is worth noting that Jamaica falls almost exactly in the middle of both lists. Meaning that according to the official figures we are both a moderately honest (or dishonest) country and a moderately wealthy (or poor) country.

But whatever Jamaica’s true position in the global honesty league, there is little doubt that integrity is widely perceived to be on the decline here. Polls show that people think public officials are becoming more corrupt. And they certainly have many reasons to feel this way. FINSAC, the Ministry of Finance Fat Cats Scandal, the police wiretapping episode, the secretive road contracts – these are only a few of the major governmental disgraces of the past few years. And look at our leaders - a Prime Minister tainted by the Iran Contra and Shell Waiver scandals, and an opposition leader haunted by the Spring Plains and Tissona affair and who owes millions in unpaid back taxes.

But then many of those lambasting the politicians for their greed and dishonesty are scarcely moral exemplars themselves. Can all the government’s private sector critics claim to be fully honest in their tax dealings? We hear countless cries for governmental “transparency and accountability”, but not many calls for stringent tax laws like those of Britain and America where transgressors are regularly jailed.

On the other hand British and American taxpayers at least have some idea where their tax dollars are going and generally get good value for their money in the form of excellent schools and hospitals. There are dishonest public officials everywhere, but at least in the UK and USA  those caught redhanded are generally punished and often imprisoned. When was the last time any prominent Jamaican official was jailed or even dismissed for misuse of public funds?

Why is nearly every major public contract here given to some government crony? Exactly who and what amount was involved in the FINSAC bailout? Just how much money has the government really pumped into Air Jamaica? It is hardly a wonder that Jamaicans are so reluctant to pay taxes when they have no control over how the government spends the money it takes out of their pockets.

It wouldn’t be so bad if it were only our politicians and businessmen who seemed to be lacking in integrity. But time and again seemingly upstanding figures who the public looked to for hope and inspiration have proven to be dishonest.

Perhaps the saddest example of this has been Ferdinand Mahfood of Food For The Poor. For years he was seen as a beacon of light in the darkness, a man who had turned his back on personal gain to serve the less fortunate. Some whispered darkly that FFTP was partially a front for customs evasion. But his supporters, who included myself, dismissed such talk as jealousy. So it was deeply saddening to hear a few months ago that Mr. Mahfood had been embezzling money to support two female companions in Miami.

Perhaps the claims that he was suffering from a ‘bipolar’ mental disease were true. And undoubtedly he did much improve the lot of many poor people – “let he who is without sin cast the first stone”. But would the same excuse be accepted for others in different social circumstances who acted in the same way?

The real tragedy of such a situation is that it makes us suspicious of anyone who professes to be working for the public good and not selfish private ends. To trust means leaving ourselves open to the disappointment of betrayal, and the line between being trusting and foolish is often a thin one. Hence the old adage “Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.”

Francis Fukuyama is undoubtedly right in saying that that social capital is a crucial component of economic growth and that trust is an essential part of social capital. But how does a society create trust? changkob@hotmail.com