In economics, much is said about capital, technology, and policy as drivers of efficiency. Yet beneath these tangible factors lies a subtler force that often decides whether systems thrive or falter: trust. Trust is not merely a moral virtue but an economic resource. It reduces transaction costs, lowers monitoring expenses, and enables smoother coordination. Where trust flourishes, efficiency emerges almost naturally; where it erodes, inefficiency and waste take hold.

One of the enriching aspects of higher education is that it exposes research scholars and students to responsibilities beyond academics. Alongside rigorous coursework and research, they are often engaged in managing shared activities and institutional functions, which serve as valuable lessons in leadership, cooperation, and accountability. During hostel life, a striking example of how trust can shape outcomes became evident. Surprisingly, within weeks, the per-day mess bill dropped from around ₹104–105 to ₹85–86—not through stricter controls or aggressive cost-cutting, but because mess workers were given greater autonomy and authority. For a student, this saving of ₹15–20 per day translates to nearly ₹500–600 a month. For a hostel of about 100 students, the collective savings amount to an impressive ₹50,000–60,000 each month. Such a transformation highlights how trust-based management can generate tangible benefits, fostering both efficiency and a sense of ownership.
What played out in the hostel is not an isolated occurrence but a microcosm of a larger truth. Trust → autonomy → ownership → accountability is a general mechanism. By contrast, systems built on suspicion tend to produce compliance without commitment: actors focus on avoiding penalties rather than achieving outcomes.
The Indian economy provides multiple examples. The rapid improvement in India’s Ease of Doing Business ranking—from 142nd in 2014 to 63rd in 2020—was driven largely by reforms that simplified approvals, enabled online tax payments, and introduced self-certification. These reforms reflected a conscious move away from bureaucratic micromanagement toward a facilitative, trust-based approach. Entrepreneurs responded with higher compliance and investment, demonstrating that trust reduces frictional costs and spurs productivity.
Similarly, in community health, Kerala’s model shows how trust enhances outcomes. Accredited Social Health Activists (ASHAs) and local workers, empowered with decision-making autonomy, have helped deliver some of India’s best maternal and child health indicators. By contrast, mistrust in public facilities often leads patients to bypass government hospitals—even when care is free—and instead spend heavily in private clinics. WHO data indicates that nearly half of healthcare spending in India is borne directly by households, much of it avoidable—an illustration of the steep costs of mistrust.
Financial inclusion offers another striking case. Women’s Self-Help Groups (SHGs) in Andhra Pradesh and Telangana have consistently secured bank credit despite lacking formal collateral. Why? Because banks trust them. Built on peer accountability and mutual monitoring, SHGs often record repayment rates higher than many corporates. Trust here does more than unlock finance—it fosters respect, humility, and cooperation within groups. The result is a virtuous cycle: credit flows smoothly, women invest productively, and households and local economies grow stronger.
The same logic holds globally. High-trust societies in the Nordics—Denmark, Finland, Norway—consistently pair strong public services with high tax compliance. Citizens trust that revenues will be used effectively, and states reciprocate with transparent delivery in healthcare, education, and social protection. Trust lowers the need for heavy policing of compliance, letting resources flow into services rather than enforcement—an efficiency dividend that compounds over time. But trust is not just a domestic phenomenon—it also shapes relations between nations, geopolitics and the world economy.
International trade frictions between India and the United States, for instance, reveal how mistrust inflates costs. Every tariff dispute or WTO case injects uncertainty into supply chains and raises consumer prices, while trust-based blocs like the EU demonstrate how commerce thrives when reciprocity is assured. The Russia–Ukraine war is another stark example: beyond its human tragedy, it fractured global food and energy markets because trust in Russia as a gas supplier and Ukraine as a wheat exporter collapsed, forcing costly diversification and stockpiling across the world. At the multilateral level, institutions like the WTO, UN, and climate summits depend on mutual credibility, yet progress often stalls because developing countries doubt that wealthier nations will honor their commitments.
From tariffs to wars to climate finance, the efficiency costs of mistrust are measured not just in billions of dollars but in lost stability and stalled human development. The same is true within India: when trust collapses, even well-designed welfare systems falter—as the Ayushman Bharat crisis in Haryana shows. Recently, around 650 private hospitals resigned from the scheme over unpaid dues nearing ₹500 crore. The dispute was not merely financial but institutional: hospitals lost trust in the state’s commitment to timely reimbursements. The fallout was severe—nearly 1.8 crore beneficiaries were abruptly denied affordable healthcare, pushing the poor back into catastrophic out-of-pocket spending. Trust once broken, even a well-designed welfare system failed.
The global stage shows similar dynamics. Sri Lanka’s 2022 crisis was not only about external debt; it was also about the collapse of public trust in governmental competence and honesty. As credibility eroded, protests surged, political instability deepened, and the economy deteriorated further—a stark reminder that when institutional trust unravels, so does macroeconomic stability.
The corrosion of trust also explains India’s stubbornly high levels of corruption. The Local Circles India Business Corruption Survey 2024 found that 66% of businesses across 159 districts had to pay bribes last year—either coerced (54%) or voluntarily (46%) to get things done faster. This is not merely a moral failure but an institutional one: firms distrust that procedures will work smoothly without ‘greasing the wheels.’ Transparency International’s 2024 Corruption Perceptions Index places India 96th of 180 countries, with a score of 38/100—signaling how deeply mistrust continues to shape economic life. Where trust falters, efficiency collapses and rent-seeking becomes the default.
Economists call this the “trust premium.” Classic research shows that a 10% increase in societal trust correlates with an additional 0.8–1 percentage point in long-term GDP growth, largely because less time and money are wasted on monitoring, enforcement, and conflict resolution.
Seen in this light, the hostel story is not a quaint anecdote but a precise lens on how institutions work. Efficiency is rarely the product of endless oversight or tighter audits. More often, it emerges when trust is translated into autonomy, autonomy into ownership, and ownership into accountability. From kitchens to clinics, from credit groups to corporates, from Nordic welfare states to national markets struggling with credibility, the principle holds: trust is not a soft sentiment but the hardest infrastructure on which growth, equity, and dignity are built.

Email:---------------------------- sameersofi013@gmail.com