Szociológiai Szemle 22. (2012)
2012 / 4. szám - STUDIES - Sík Endre: Trust, Network Capital, and informality – Cross-Border Entrepreneurship in the First Two Decades of Post-Communism
54 Review of Sociology, 2012/4 up, and as one of the many other responses (such as icebergs, barter, the Mafia, the suzerainties, etc. Humphreys, 2002a, 2002b) informality has grown considerably (Sik 1994a). In the course of transformation all other forms of capital (monetary, physical, human capital) were scarce and/or lost their value, hence trust and network capital became core assets, often the most crucial forms of capital to enable success in this mushrooming informal environment (Sik 1994b). Even more so, since informality (being both beyond the scope of the legal system and without a written code of conduct or official law enforcement organizations) is the fertile soil of particularistic trust and network capital. Thus the role of particularistic trust and network capital has increased in the course of post-communist transformation. In the early 1990s the inbuilt inertia of particularistic trust and network capital, amassed during the socialist era, survived, and created path-dependent processes (Arthur 1989; David 1986) which - at least temporarily - successfully tailored some of the old/new institutions to their own needs in the course of post(Portes-Sensenbrenner 1993;Portes - Landolt 2000; Portes et al. 2001). Informality, particularistic trust and network capital are mutually reinforcing each other due to the following reasons: The actors have a common interest to be invisible to the authorities. They share secrets, hidden investments and codes (etiquette, vocabulary, body language, communication patterns) and something that could be called a culture of anti-etatism (corruption gives prestige, circumventing the system is not only acceptable but the basis of pride and self-esteem). These factors mutually reinforce the conditions for the path-dependent nature of particularistic trust and of network capital, which in turn maintain the favorable conditions for informality. And this is even more the case, where these three institutions are embedded in ethnically and/or spatially defined and segregated subcultures (Portes - Landolt 2000; Portes et al. 2001; Portes-Sensenbrenner 1993). The key questions, as far as particularistic trust, network capital, informality and their intertwined impact on the process of post-communist transformation is concerned, are whether and through what mechanisms does the legacy of these institutions influence the process of socioeconomic development (Sik 1994a; Rose- Ackerman 2001). Focusing on two forms of cross-border entrepreneurial activities we illustrate the role of particularistic trust and of network capital in these informal and transnational activities.