IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/jfr/bmr111/v12y2023i1p26-35.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Double Molotov Cocktail of Brexit and COVID-19: Can Contact Intensity Help Explain Levels of Trust and Belief in the Future between Companies?

Author

Listed:
  • Gert Tinggaard Svendsen
  • N. Leila Trapp
  • Poul Erik Flyvholm Jørgensen
  • Line Skov

Abstract

Can contact intensity help explain levels of trust and belief in the future among companies? This question is particularly important in times of exogenous shocks such as Brexit and COVID-19 when various sectors frequently experience a contraction of business activity. Putnam’s theory can help explain cooperation and long-term resilience among companies when business conditions radically change. Trustworthy companies can be named ‘hard-riders’, as they are good at creating social relationships and rewarding their trading partners through social recognition and continued cooperation. With their capacity for contact intensity, hard riders receive an extra social benefit to reinforce trust-based cooperation. Survey responses from 193 participants in our new database (DanComTrust) on British and Danish small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) show that there is a significant effect from both contact intensity and trust intensity on belief in the future when tested individually in logit models. However, when both variables are included, all effects from contact intensity disappear and only trust intensity remains significant, indicating that the effect from contact intensity works through trust. These results suggest that a high level of contact intensity will increase the trust between cooperating companies, resulting in a greater belief in the future. This insight is relevant for maintaining and building future resilience between companies and their trading partners within and outside the EU.

Suggested Citation

  • Gert Tinggaard Svendsen & N. Leila Trapp & Poul Erik Flyvholm Jørgensen & Line Skov, 2023. "The Double Molotov Cocktail of Brexit and COVID-19: Can Contact Intensity Help Explain Levels of Trust and Belief in the Future between Companies?," Business and Management Research, Business and Management Research, Sciedu Press, vol. 12(1), pages 26-35, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:jfr:bmr111:v:12:y:2023:i:1:p:26-35
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.sciedupress.com/journal/index.php/bmr/article/download/22991/14557
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.sciedupress.com/journal/index.php/bmr/article/view/22991
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Svendsen, Gunnar Lind Haase & Svendsen, Gert Tinggaard, 2016. "How did trade norms evolve in Scandinavia? Long-distance trade and social trust in the Viking age," Economic Systems, Elsevier, vol. 40(2), pages 198-205.
    2. Erich Gundlach & Gert Tinggaard Svendsen, 2019. "How Do High and Low Levels of Social Trust Affect the Long‐run Performance of Poor Economies?," Journal of International Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 31(1), pages 3-21, January.
    3. Ostrom, Elinor, 1996. "Crossing the great divide: Coproduction, synergy, and development," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 24(6), pages 1073-1087, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Gert Tinggaard Svendsen, 2020. "Two bandits or more? The case of Viking Age England," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 182(3), pages 443-457, March.
    2. Jacob Torfing & Eva Sørensen, 2019. "Interactive Political Leadership in Theory and Practice: How Elected Politicians May Benefit from Co-Creating Public Value Outcomes," Administrative Sciences, MDPI, vol. 9(3), pages 1-18, July.
    3. Jane Freedman & Tamaryn L. Crankshaw & Yasmin Rajah & Victoria Marcia Mutambara, 2024. "“But We Just Need Money”: (Im)Possibilities of Co‐Producing Knowledge With Those in Vulnerable Situations," Social Inclusion, Cogitatio Press, vol. 12.
    4. Anthony Bennett, 1998. "Sustainable public/private partnerships for public service delivery," Natural Resources Forum, Blackwell Publishing, vol. 22(3), pages 193-199, August.
    5. Valentina Burksiene & Jaroslav Dvorak & Mantas Duda, 2019. "Upstream Social Marketing for Implementing Mobile Government," Societies, MDPI, vol. 9(3), pages 1-13, July.
    6. Brian Dill, 2010. "Public-public partnerships in Urban water provision: The case of Dar es Salaam," Journal of International Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 22(5), pages 611-624.
    7. Eggers, Jorg & Laschewski, Lutz & Schleyer, Christian, 2005. "Agri-Environmental Policy: Understanding the Role of Regional Administration," 2005 International Congress, August 23-27, 2005, Copenhagen, Denmark 24496, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    8. A. Arrighetti & G. Seravalli & G. Wolleb, 2001. "Social Capital, Institutions and Collective Action Between Firms," Economics Department Working Papers 2001-EP08, Department of Economics, Parma University (Italy).
    9. Pargal, Sheoli & Gilligan, Daniel & Huq, Mainul, 2000. "Private provision of a public good - social capital and solid waste management in Dhaka, Bangladesh," Policy Research Working Paper Series 2422, The World Bank.
    10. Gaetano Martino & Giulia Giacchè & Enrica Rossetti, 2016. "Organizing the Co-Production of Health and Environmental Values in Food Production: The Constitutional Processes in the Relationships between Italian Solidarity Purchasing Groups and Farmers," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(4), pages 1-22, March.
    11. Svetlana Suslova, 2016. "Collective Co-Production in Russian Schools," Voprosy obrazovaniya / Educational Studies Moscow, National Research University Higher School of Economics, issue 4, pages 144-162.
    12. Bouquet, Emmanuelle, 2009. "State-Led Land Reform and Local Institutional Change: Land Titles, Land Markets and Tenure Security in Mexican Communities," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 37(8), pages 1390-1399, August.
    13. Colvin, John & Blackmore, Chris & Chimbuya, Sam & Collins, Kevin & Dent, Mark & Goss, John & Ison, Ray & Roggero, Pier Paolo & Seddaiu, Giovanna, 2014. "In search of systemic innovation for sustainable development: A design praxis emerging from a decade of social learning inquiry," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(4), pages 760-771.
    14. Philippe BANCE & Marie-J. BOUCHARD & Dorothea GREILING, 2022. "Conclusions and Directions for further Research," CIRIEC Studies Series, in: Philippe BANCE & Marie-J. BOUCHARD & Dorothea GREILING & CIRIEC (ed.), New perspectives in the co-production of public policies, public services and common goods, volume 3, chapter 0, pages 259-274, CIRIEC - Université de Liège.
    15. Sophie King & Peter Kasaija, 2018. "State-movement partnership in Uganda: Co-producing an enabling environment for urban poverty reduction?," Global Development Institute Working Paper Series esid-098-18, GDI, The University of Manchester.
    16. Luciana Cingolani & Tim Hildebrandt, 2022. "Incentive Structures for the Adoption of Crowdsourcing in Public Policy: A Bureaucratic Politics Model," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(20), pages 1-16, October.
    17. Daniel Edevbaro, 1997. "Promoting Education within the Context of a Neo-Patrimonial State: The Case of Nigeria," WIDER Working Paper Series wp-1997-123, World Institute for Development Economic Research (UNU-WIDER).
    18. Brinkerhoff, Derick W., 2000. "Democratic Governance and Sectoral Policy Reform: Tracing Linkages and Exploring Synergies," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 28(4), pages 601-615, April.
    19. Espen Eigil Barratt-Due Solum & Anniken Førde & Monica Guillen-Royo, 2024. "Sharing for Health, Inclusion, and Sustainability: The Co-Production of Outdoor Equipment Lending in Norway," Urban Planning, Cogitatio Press, vol. 9.
    20. Anne Seneca Terkelsen & Christian Tolstrup Wester & Gabriel Gulis & Jørgen Jespersen & Pernille Tanggaard Andersen, 2022. "Co-Creation and Co-Production of Health Promoting Activities Addressing Older People—A Scoping Review," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(20), pages 1-20, October.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • R00 - Urban, Rural, Regional, Real Estate, and Transportation Economics - - General - - - General
    • Z0 - Other Special Topics - - General

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:jfr:bmr111:v:12:y:2023:i:1:p:26-35. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Simon Lee (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://bmr.sciedupress.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.