The role of trust in citizen participation in building community entrepreneurial capacity: a comparison of initiatives in two rural Texas counties.

Summers, David F. ; Holm, James N. ; Summers, Cynthia A. 等

Research has shown that citizen participation in entrepreneurial capacity building programs

improves the outcomes and sustainability of the programs. Citizen participation, however, involves

escalating effort and commitment as the level of participation increases. This paper suggests that

the extent of participation is influenced by the level of trust citizens have in the program leaders.

It appears that as the level of participation increases, the level of trust needed to sustain

participation increases because of perceived increased personal risk to the citizen. The results of

the development and implementation of programs in two rural Texas counties are used to evaluate

trust's role in citizen participation in entrepreneurial capacity building programs.

INTRODUCTION

Entrepreneurship is recognized as a critical component of economic development (e.g., Formaini, 2001; Holcombe, 2003; Wennekers & Thurik, 1999). While some resent research calls into question many of the widely-held beliefs that may overstate the economic impact of small firms (e.g. Shane, 2008), the critical role entrepreneurship plays in rural community economies is well documented (e.g., Dabson, 2007; Drabenscott, Novack, & Abraham, 2003; Drabenscott, 2006; Low, Henderson, & Weiler, 2005). In many small communities, entrepreneurial activity plays a much larger role in the economy than may be reflected in national statistics (Markley, 2007). In response, many rural communities are looking for ways to encourage and support local entrepreneurs (Markley, Macke, & Luther, 2005; Walzer, Athiyaman, & Hamm, 2007; Hart, 2003). Successful programs, such as the Enterprise Facilitation program developed by Ernesto Sirolli (Sirolli, 1999) and the Home Town Competitiveness program developed as a joint effort of the Rural Policy Research Institute (RUPRI) Center for Rural Entrepreneurship, the Heartland Center for Leadership Development, and the Nebraska Community Foundation, promote entrepreneurship as critical to economic growth. A key component of each program is citizen involvement in building community entrepreneurial capacity. The basic premise is that citizen effort and participation are necessary to build sufficient entrepreneurial capacity for individual entrepreneurs to be successful in establishing businesses (Markley, Macke, & Luther, 2005; Sirolli, 1999).

Scholars argue that citizen involvement in entrepreneurial capacity building efforts, as well as all types of economic development programs, leads to better program outcomes and sustainability (i.e. Isham, Narayan, & Pritchett, 1995; Mansuri & Rao, 2003; Narayan, 1995). Taking a broad view of citizen participation, Putnam (2000) posited that voluntary participation and civic engagement, a form of "social capital," is good for economic development and social integration. More specifically, empirical research of the micro, or individual participation level of "social capital," indicates that trust and civic cooperation (participation) are associated with stronger economic performance (Putnam, 1993; Fukuyama, 1995; Helliwell & Putnam, 1995; Kaldaru & Parts, 2005). Because of the benefits of citizen participation, this paper attempts to extend our understanding of the role trust plays in determining levels of community participation (a form of civic cooperation) in entrepreneurial capacity-building programs. The paper proposes that perceptions of trust combined with assessments of the participation risks to the individual will determine the level of citizen involvement in such programs.

A unique opportunity presented itself to study citizen participation in economic/capacity building efforts. Two rural Texas counties that were in similar economic situations requested help in developing and implementing economic strategic plans. Because the counties were rural, much of each strategic plan was devoted to entrepreneurial capacity building. While observing the development and implementation of the strategic plans in the counties, it became apparent that the individual commitment and actions of citizens in the two counties were different. The development and especially implementation in one county were more successful than the other. Many factors may have impacted the results, but trust, or lack there of, seemed to emerge as the primary factor. Researchers have established a link between trust and individual action. In a seminal article by Mayer, Davis, and Schoorman (1995), the scholars developed a model that suggests that a certain level of trust is necessary before an individual will assume the risk of taking action. The model has had widespread use and provided positive results in a variety of research settings (Schoorman, Mayer, Davis, 2007). It was observed that as the economic development plans unfolded and more commitment and action were required of citizens, the more the effectiveness of the strategic initiatives differed. Therefore, it was theorized using the Mayer et al. (1995) trust model that as more commitment and action were required, the level of citizen trust needed to assume the risk of action was deficient in one county and sufficient in the other. Consequently, the differences in the level of trust led to the differences in results.

To test the theory, a method of analysis termed "theorypractice" was used (Phalen & Rabinowitz,1994). The methodology involves juxtaposing theory and narratives about what actually happened. Where the theory and narratives align, the theory is supported, and where there are differences, explanations are developed. Therefore, the narrative of what happened in each county was compared to the trust model developed by Mayer et al. (1995). The model and the theory aligned very well as will be discussed in the remainder of the paper. The alignment between theory and reality will greatly help our understanding of the role of trust in developing and implementing entrepreneurial capacity-building efforts.

TRUST AND INDIVIDUAL ACTION

Mayer et al. (1995, p. 712) define trust as "... the willingness of a party to be vulnerable to the actions of another party based on the expectation that the other will perform a particular action important to the trustor, irrespective of the ability to monitor or control that other party." The definition suggests that trust is the result of an individual's evaluation of the trustworthiness of the other party--an expression of faith and confidence (Carnevale, 1995), and a willingness to be vulnerable (Mayer et al., 1995). Trustworthiness is defined as "the antecedent accumulated perceptual experiences that lead one to trust another person, institution, or organization (Caldwell & Clapham, 2003, p. 351)." Consequently, the act of trusting is based on experiences, interactions, and perceptions of others, organizations, and institutions (Caldwell & Clapham, 2003). Therefore, trustworthiness, or the level of trust, could be considered as a subjectively-perceived point along a trust continuum at which observed behaviors are perceived as being proper for a certain level of trust. To summarize, trust is based on an individual's perception of whether the person to be trusted has demonstrated he or she is trustworthy.

Mayer et al. (1995) suggested there are three factors which are used to determine if a person should be trusted--ability, benevolence, and integrity (Figure 1). To be trusted, a person(s) must demonstrate the necessary skills, competencies, and characteristics (ability) required to have influence in a specific domain (Mayer et al., 1995). For example, the person in charge of entrepreneurial capacity-building program development and implementation must be perceived to have the necessary ability to develop effective capacity building programs before others will have trust in that individual.

In addition, the trustee must demonstrate a level of benevolence toward the trustor. Benevolence is defined as the extent to which the trustee is believed to want to do or be good to the trustor (Mayer et al., 1995). In the context of community entrepreneurial capacity-building, individuals must believe the person(s) responsible for the capacity-building initiatives is motivated by wanting to serve the good of the community and not by selfish, personal gain. Finally, the trustee must have integrity. Integrity involves the trustor's perception that the trustee follows a set of principles deemed acceptable by the trustor (Mayer et al., 1995). In other words, people leading the entrepreneurial capacity-building program development and implementation must be perceived as following the accepted rules of the community or situation.

[FIGURE 1 OMITTED]

The three characteristics are interrelated but separable (Mayer et al., 1995). For example, a leader of community entrepreneurial capacity-building may be perceived to have integrity but lack the necessary skills to effectively develop and implement such programs. The person would not be trusted. As another example, trust may be withheld from someone who appears to be competent but is perceived to be motivated by selfish interests. In other words, a person evaluates past experiences, interactions, and perceptions of another person(s) to determine if sufficient levels of ability, benevolence, and integrity exist to warrant his/her trust.

Trusting someone is necessary but not sufficient to cause action based on that trust (Mayer et al., 1995). An individual would not engage in activity until the perceived level of trust exceeds the threshold of perceived risk involved in taking action. In fact, Schoorman et al. (2007 p. 346) state that, "Trust is the "willingness to take risk" and the level of trust is an indication of the amount of risk one is willing to take." Consequently, an individual may trust someone enough to accept the risk associated with one level of action but not another. For example, an individual may trust someone enough to loan him/her $500, but not enough to give that person access to the individual's bank account information. The action would be moderated by the degree of risk involved as posited by the Mayer et al. (1995) model. Consequently, a person would not only need to trust the person(s) in charge of strategy development and implementation, but also evaluate the risk in taking action to help develop or implement the strategy. A favorable evaluation of the risk associated with taking action would be necessary before a person would engage in behavior to either develop or implement entrepreneurial capacity-building programs.

Are there risks to someone participating in capacity-building program development and implementation? The answer is yes. Chinman and Wandersman (1999) conducted an extensive review of the literature that researched the cost (risk) of voluntary participation in community organizations. A review of about a dozen studies indicated that there are a variety of costs of participation (pp. 56-57). Costs (risks) appear to fall into three categories: fianancial/resources costs that include items such as loss of time and out of pocket expenses, social costs that include embarrassment and feeling stigmatized, and psychic costs that include frustration and disagreement with goals. The Civil Society Institute (2007) produced a multi-dimensional Civic Empowerment Index. The index includes a "civic activity risk assessment" dimension. The Civic Empowerment Index project report (2007) included a study of the Lithuanian population which found the risk of civic participation included loss of job, stigmatization, public attack and slander, accusations of personal gain, and even death threats. While some of these may be extreme risks of participation and probably not a problem in participation in capacity-building programs, they do indicate that there are potential serious risks in participation. For example, people could fear a "loss of face" in the sight of others in the community and decreased self-esteem as a result of capacity-building programs that go wrong or being perceived as complicit in the political ambitions of community officials.

There are also benefits to participation that tend to offset the risks. The Chinman and Wandersman (1999, pp. 52-54) study also included a review of the literature of the benefits of participation. The benefit categories appear to follow the same ones as the costs, but with positive outcomes for participants. It appears that a participant conducts an internal cost/benefit ratio analysis to determine the level of participation (Prestby, Wandersman, Florin, Rich, and Chavis, 1990). Participants must perceive that the benefits outweigh the costs to continue participate (Rich, 1980). For example, positive results could be very favorable to those engaged in implementation of community building programs that go well. Therefore, according to the Mayer et al. (1995) trust model, only when a favorable evaluation of risk coupled with perception of trust is present will a person take action to implement strategy. Stated another way, a person will take action to help develop and implement entrepreneurial capacity-building programs when the ability, benevolence, and integrity of those in charge are sufficient to overcome the risks of taking action.

Finally, as the program development and implementation process progresses, the consequences of taking action provides feedback to reevaluate trust and risks before additional action is taken. Therefore, as the capacity-building program progresses, the individual decides to continue taking action based on an assessment of the experiences, perceptions, and interactions of past actions to determine the level of trust versus risk need for future actions. Remember, perceptions of trust and assessments of risk develop over time as individuals are able to observe and evaluate the behavior of others (Caldwell & Clapham, 2003; Mayer et al., 1995).

LEVELS OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION

Sherry Arnstein (1969) developed what was called a ladder of citizen participation. The latter represented eight rungs or levels of citizen participation. Drawing on the work of a variety of scholars, Bramson (2005) adapted and consolidated Arnstein's original ladder into five levels of participation. Figure 2 presents Bramson's levels of participation. Developing entrepreneurial capacity-building programs often follows the same patterns as Bramson's levels. An example of developing a typical program is found in the book Energizing Entrepreneurs: Charting a Course for Rural Communities (Markley, Macke, & Luther, 2005). The process outlined follows the process of holding town informational meetings, asking community members to identify and map entrepreneurs along with existing support assets, deciding what actions need to be taken, taking specific actions, and providing long-term support. Normally as community entrepreneurial capacity-building programs develop, the amount of citizen involvement increases as the process moves from reading information about upcoming town meetings (inform stage--minimum participation required) to the final program support stage (maximum participation required).

[FIGURE 2 OMITTED]

The first stage, inform, requires minimal participation from the individual citizen. All that is required is for the individual to be receptive enough to evaluate information provided by those civic leaders proposing the capacity-building programs. The consult stage requires the individual citizen to participate by providing input through methods such as a community listening session or completion of a survey. Decide jointly requires citizens to participate in the actual development of the plans and goals through extensive participation in such activities as workshops, meetings, and discussion forums. Often the process of identifying entrepreneurs and existing support assets (asset mapping) is completed. Act jointly requires even more commitment and participation from individual citizens as citizens start to take responsibility for seeing the entrepreneurial support programs implemented. The support level requires the most participation from citizens as the support programs are implemented and carried through to completion (Bramson, 2005). The last step often requires a long-term personal commitment.

It would stand to reason that as the level of participation increases through the various stages, the level of trust needed by the individual citizen to support action would increase and the decision to continue participation may also change because the level of risk increases. As previously indicated (see Figure 1), the trust--action/participation relationship is moderated by assessments of risk (Mayer et. al., 1995). The more a citizen participates at higher and higher levels, the greater the level of trust that is needed because the individual risk of participating also increases. This is consistent with the findings of Prestby et al. (1990) that individuals conduct an internal cost(risk) benefit analysis to determine the level of participation. Much of the increased risk may stem from the increased community visibility and accountability associated with increased levels of participation. Consequently, the higher the risk to the individual citizen, the more the individual citizen must perceive that the official(s) in charge of the community entrepreneurial support program process possess sufficient benevolence, ability, and integrity to warrant the citizen's participation.

THE TALE OF TWO COUNTIES

The following narrative of the development and implementation of economic strategic economic development plans in two rural Texas counties is based on conservations with Jerry Pearce Director of DeGoLa which is the local affiliate of the Resource Conservation and Development Councils (RC&DC) a United States Department of Agriculture initiative. Mr. Pearce facilitated the planning process in both counties and continues to interact with both counties. The first author of this paper served as part of the resource team in the final stages of the process in Green Tree County. The second author served on the resource team for both counties.

Economic development is a priority for many Texas counties. In response, many organizations, both public and private, provide help in developing and implementing strategic economic development plans which include entrepreneurial capacity-building. Two rural Texas counties took advantage of the help provided by the Texas Rural Partners Inc. (formally known as the Texas Rural Development Council). Texas Rural Partners, Inc. is a nonprofit organization promoting community development and leadership training in communities throughout Texas. With the facilitation help of Texas Rural Partners Inc., economic development plans were developed and implemented in both counties, but with different results. Initial analysis suggested that trust played a critical role in producing different outcomes in each county.

It is important to note that the goal of the strategic economic plan was to establish the economic direction of the county and not just to build entrepreneurial capacity. The process used, however, closely followed the typical process used for entrepreneurial capacity-building as previously described. In fact, entrepreneurial capacity-building is often intermingled in overall strategic planning. Consequently, analyzing the results of the strategic planning process will help us better understand developing and implementing entrepreneurial capacity-building programs. The narratives of the results from each county were juxtaposed with the trust model (Mayer et. al., 1995). Where the theory and narratives align, the theory is supported, and where there are differences, explanations are developed. Remember, this methodology follows "theory practice" as described by James Phalen and Peter Rabinowitz (1994). As mentioned previously, theory practice involves juxtaposing a narrative of what happened to the theory and analyzing the fit. The following is what happened in the two counties and how the results aligned with the theory of trust suggested by Mayer et al. (1995).

Like many rural counties in Texas, Roy (pop. 20,595) and Green Tree (pop. 12,014) counties (actual names have not been used) faced uncertain economic times. According to the United States Census (2004), both counties had experienced slight population declines in the years just before the plans were developed (-0.03% Roy and--2.4% Green Tree). The per capita income of $17,125 in Roy and $15,886 in Green Tree were both below the state per capita income of $19,617. The percentage of the population below the poverty line was approximately 16.5% percent in each county. The economic base of each county was very similar with both counties relying very heavily on agriculture, petrochemical operations, and tourism. Roy County is on the Texas Gulf coast and has several chemical plants and farming operations. The coast attracts sportsmen and others interested in saltwater activities. Green Tree County is located inland, but has petrochemical operations, ranching, and a large freshwater reservoir that attracts sportsmen and others interested in water sports. Consequently, both counties found themselves in similar economic circumstances.

THE PROCESS

Counties may request a Rural Community Resource Team Assessment to help develop a strategic economic development plan. The request must come from an individual, group of individuals, or an organization in the county. The resource team program is administered by the Texas Rural Partners, Inc., but must be requested by the county as described above before the program can be implemented in the county. The resource team assessment is carried out in partnership with various organizations such as Resource Conservation and Development Councils (RC&DC). The local RC&DC facilitated the assessments in both Roy and Green Tree Counties. Resource team members are volunteers from various fields who donate their time to evaluate the strengths, challenges, and goals within a community. Most team members do not live in the counties requesting the assessment. Developing the strategic economic development plan is done in two phases--plan development and plan implementation. Each phase has a variety of steps that require various degrees of community participation. Table 1 presents an outline of the ten step resource team assessment process for plan development and implementation, and how the process fits with the levels of citizen involvement presented in Figure 2.

The ultimate success of the process is determined by the degree of involvement of individual citizens. Several levels of citizen participation are required for both the development and implementation phases. The proposed proposition would suggest that as the level of participation increases, the level of risk to the individual increases which requires the level of trust to increase for participation to continue.

APPLICATION OF THE PROCESS IN ROY AND GREEN TREE COUNTIES Program Development

Prior to the invitation of the resource team, each county had been involved in politically-charged elections. In Roy County, an elected official invited the resource team and took a major role in coordinating the other steps of the process. In contrast, an individual representing a group of citizens called Leadership Green Tree invited the Green Tree resource team. Elected officials supported the initiative, but took a "behind-the-scenes" approach. Many citizens of Roy questioned the motives (benevolence) and integrity of the elected officials in requesting Roy's assessment. In fact, one Roy official indicated that the resource team assessment could (and would) be used in the upcoming campaign for re-election because the incumbents would have to use everything they could to win. Many citizens felt it was a breach of integrity to use an event designed to help the economic well-being of the county for personal political gain. In Green Tree County, however, the benevolence and integrity of Leadership Green Tree were not questioned. There is no evidence that the ability of the elected officials in Roy County or Leadership Green Tree in Green Tree County was questioned. Consequently, the initial level of trust in the county leadership requesting the resource team was higher in Green Tree County than in Roy County.

The program development phase appeared to go rather smoothly in both counties. The initial visits by the resource teams went well. There was good citizen participation in the listening sessions except for a few sessions in Roy. The poor attendance at some of the Roy sessions was attributed to the fact that the sessions were held during the day when many people were working. In the final analysis, there was a striking similarity in the strengths and challenges identified by the citizens in each county. The only major difference in the two counties was the attendance at the "town hall" meeting at the end of the team visit. The meeting in Roy was attended primarily by elected officials and resource team members. The Green Tree "town hall" meeting had a more diverse cross-section of its citizens. Overall, there appeared to be satisfaction and excitement about the team visits in both counties. The resource teams completed the reports concerning strengths, challenges, and recommendations and presented them to the counties.

There had been some concern that the team who visited Green Tree County did not have as much expertise and ability as the Roy team. In fact, the report delivered to Green Tree had a narrower range of recommendations for the strategic plan. It was feared that this would negatively impact implementation. It will be clear in the following section that this fear was unfounded. In both counties, however, the bulk of the recommendations corresponded directly to building the entrepreneurial capacity of each county.

Implementation

Both counties requested help with implementing the program. In Roy, citizens were asked to participate in the implementation of the resource team's recommendations. An implementation session was held where the participants were divided into committees to prioritize and address the issues identified in the final resource team report. The major concerns addressed were housing, beautification, infrastructure, and recreation. All felt that these areas were necessary to attract and encourage firm development. Attendance at this session was good except most participants had been involved from the beginning of the process. At the end of the session, there appeared to be consensus on what needed to be done. Only a few people, however, accepted responsibility for implementing the needed actions.

After approximately two years, only two actions had been completed. First, a "market days" promotion had been reestablished. "Market days," a monthly event showcasing the work of local artisans and craftsmen, is designed to attract people from outside the county to visit and shop with local merchants. The other result in Roy County is a Keep Roy County Beautiful Committee that is trying to beautify the county. It is uncertain exactly what beautification projects have been completed.

The lack of action was recently discussed with the elected official who initially requested the Roy resource team assessment. The official, who no longer holds elected office, indicated the major problem was the perception that the initiative was politically motivated and people did not want to participate as a result. The RC&DC resource team facilitator agreed with the elected official's conclusion about the poor results in Roy County and further speculated the trust issue resulted in a lack of willingness by individuals to take responsibility to guide the actions to completion. Everyone seemed to be waiting for someone else to take charge and get it done. Lack of trust in conjunction with the perceived risk involved led to limited participation which ultimately produced minimal results.

In Green Tree County, the implementation process was basically the same as the one used in Roy County. Citizens were invited to participate in sessions to set priorities and plan for the implementation of the economic plan. Attendance was good and the individual committees produced many implementation ideas. Committees were established to enhance economic development and entrepreneurial capacity by upgrading the county's technology infrastructure, emergency medical services, and housing. Several of the committees developed specific actions and found people who would be willing to ensure specific actions were taken. There appeared to be an air of excitement about economic development.

In the approximately 20 months after the implementation sessions were held, several major actions had occurred. The citizens formed the Green Tree County Community Development Corporation, a nonprofit (501c3) corporation, designed to coordinate economic development and provide a way for people to make tax deductible contributions to help economic development. Thus, the committees were combined into one unit that still meets on a regular basis. High-speed internet service has been obtained for businesses and individuals in the county (a goal of the technology infrastructure committee). Support was gained from the county commissioner's court to purchase a building for a senior citizens center. The building has been purchased and money is being raised to furnish it. The county may be successful in attracting a major retail or grocery store to the county, a goal of one of the committees. Overall, implementation in Green Tree County has been fairly successful and is ongoing.

The RC&DC resource team facilitator for both assessments attributes the success in Green Tree County to the lack of political problems that led to the mistrust in Roy County. Citizens appeared to trust the people who spearheaded the resource team visits. The increased trust allowed people to accept the increased risks associated with increased participation and voluntarily take action for the good of the community. In addition, several people were willing to take responsibility to ensure the actions were completed. It appears that implementation in Green Tree County is a continuing success.

DISCUSSION

In comparing the development and implementation of the economic strategic plans in Roy and Green Tree counties, the suggested proposition tends to be supported. It appears that perceptions of trust had an impact on results. Roy citizens questioned the benevolence and integrity of the people requesting the resource team assessments. Based on the highly-charged political nature of a previous election, too many county residents perceived that certain elected officials were using the Resource Team assessment for political gain rather than to benefit the county. Playing politics by using the economic plight of the county was seen as a violation of accepted behaviors for local elected officials and would call into question the benevolence and integrity of the officials. The abilities of the elected officials did not appear to be questioned. As Mayer et al. (1995) indicated, however, the expected conditions for trust of ability, benevolence, and integrity are interrelated, but can be separated.

It would be reasonable to assume that the mistrust in the county would impact the entire resource team assessment process. In Roy County, however, the program development phase and parts of the implementation phase appeared to go smoothly. The answer may lie in the assertion by Mayer et al. (1995) that trust is necessary but not sufficient to cause action. Action will result only after a positive evaluation of trust versus the risks involved in taking action (Figure 1). This suggests that, along the trust continuum (Caldwell & Jefferies, 2001), the level of trust versus the risks involved was sufficient for people to participate in at the consult and decide jointly levels, but not at the act jointly or support stages. The potential "loss of face" and reduced self-esteem associated with the accountability and exposure required to be part of the implementation overshadowed the level of trust. Consequently, people were not willing to commit to higher levels of participation. For example, the stigma of being used as a political tool in the re-election of a county official may have squelched the willingness to participate at levels that require more action and commitment.

In Green Tree County, the people requesting the assessments were perceived as having a sufficient level of ability, benevolence, and integrity to be trusted. In fact, the level of trust in relation to assessment of risk was sufficient to encourage people to engage at all levels of participation. Consequently, it can be concluded as the economic development program progresses, individuals continually evaluate the level of trust versus the risks involved in taking action. Therefore, economic development or community entrepreneurial capacity-building programs may hit snags along the way when action is stymied due to a lack of trust in relation to risk.

Finally, the possibility exists that program development and implementation in both counties were influenced by factors other than trust. There is, however, no evidence other factors had major influences. The counties are approximately the same in size and economic condition. The resource team process was applied consistently in both counties. The only apparent difference was perceptions about the people who requested the team visits. Furthermore, over the two years following the assessment team visits, there were extensive evaluative discussions between the local RC&DC facilitator and the citizens, elected officials, and resource teams for each county. These discussions have revealed that the level of trust is the primary reason for the differences in outcomes. In fact, one of the former elected officials from Roy County who was involved in requesting resource teams admitted that politics in Roy negatively impacted results.

CONCLUSION

In rural communities, building community entrepreneurial capacity is often critical to economic growth and is often part of comprehensive economic strategic plans. Therefore, successfully conducting the entrepreneurial capacity-building process is important. Because of the similarities, and often intermingling, of the process of entrepreneurial capacity-building and economic strategic planning, lessons from the development and implementation of economic strategic plans in Roy and Green Tree counties provides insight into the dynamics of the process of community entrepreneurial capacity-building.

Overall, the outcomes of the strategic initiatives in the two counties tend to support the application of the Mayer et al. (1995) trust model to entrepreneurial capacity-building programs. The results of the economic development plans in Roy and Green Tree Counties do indicate that trust would play a key role in citizen participation in entrepreneurial capacity-building programs. For individuals to participate, there must be a perceived level of trust based on the trustee's ability, benevolence, and integrity moderated by assessments of personal risk. While ability was not questioned in either case, the citizens of Roy perceived the leadership to have questionable motives (benevolence) and integrity. Overall, there appeared to be a greater initial degree of trust in Green Tree County than in Roy County. Consequently, the cases in Roy and Green Tree counties support the importance of trust versus risk evaluation in determining individual action. The evidence showed that certain levels of trust combined with an evaluation of the risks of taking action may be enough to spur participation in one instance but not another. In both counties, citizens trusted enough to participate in many lower-levels of involvement, but in Roy the level of trust was not enough to overcome negative perceptions of risks to participate at higher levels.

There are three major implications for successful community participation that can be applied to the entrepreneurial capacity-building process. First, community leaders must be perceived as being competent, benevolent, and having integrity. Second, it is also important to note that three expected behaviors are inter-related, but are separable. For example, a leader may be perceived as competent but lacks enough integrity or benevolence to be considered trustworthy. Third, a certain level of trust may be sufficient to overcome the risks of participation at one level, but not another. Therefore, community leaders must continually build levels of trust necessary to encourage citizen participation at all levels.

The primary limitation of the investigation into the capacity building programs is the observation about the role of trust was observed after the process had been completed. Therefore, it was not possible to verify many of the conclusions with actual participants. For this reason, it was decided to use the "theoryparctice" concept of juxtaposing the narrative of results with accepted theory. The close alignment of theory and actual results provides moderate support for the paper's premises.

While the fates of the programs in the two counties do not provide strong empirical evidence, they do tend to support the overall premise that higher levels of citizen participation are influenced by the level of trust. Further research, however, is necessary to verify the various relationships between trust, risk and participation. In addition, several unanswered questions remain. For example, are there specific behaviors that provide strong positive perceptions of ability, benevolence, and integrity? Are certain categories of risk more important to the process than others? Is it easier to build trust or destroy trust? The list is almost endless.

The lessons for practitioners of entrepreneurial capacity-building initiatives are clear and support the suggested proposition. Sufficient levels of trust must be built to offset citizen risk concerns, thus, encouraging increased levels of participation in all phases of the process. The payoff of increased citizen participation is the better likelihood that the capacity-building program will be successful.

REFERENCES

Arnstein, S. R. (1969). A ladder of citizen participation. JAIP, 35, 216-224.

Bramson, R. A. (2005) Involving the public in economic development. Economic Development Journal, Summer, 24-31.

Caldwell, C. & Clapham, S.E. (2003). Organizational trustworthiness: An international perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 47, 349-364.

Caldwell, C. & Jeffries, R.L. (2001). Ethics, norms, dispositional trust, and context: Components of the missing link between trustworthiness and trust. Paper presented at the annual International Conference on Ethics in Business, Chicago.

Carnevale, D.G. (1995). Trustworthy government: leadership and management Strategies for building trust and high performance. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Chinman, M. and Wandersman, A. (1999). The benefits and costs of volunteering in community organizations: Review and practical implications. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly. 20(1), 46-64.

Civil Society Institute. (2007). Civic Empowerment Index: 2007. Retrieved June 10, 2009 from http://www.civitas.lt/en/?pid=24&id=81

Dabson, B. (2007). Entrepreneurship as rural economic development policy: A changing paradigm. In N. Walzer (ed.), Entrepreneurship and local economic development. (pp. 21-37) New York, NY: Lexington Books.

Drabenstott, M. (2006). Rethinking federal policy for regional economic development. Economic Review. First quarter.

Drabenstott, M., Novack, N., & Abraham, B. (2003). Main streets of tomorrow: Growing and financing rural entrepreneurs - A conference summary. Economic Review. Third quarter.

Formaini, R. L. (2001). The engine of capitalists process: Entrepreneurs in economic theory. Economic and Financial Review. (4th quarter)

Fukuyama, F. (1995). Trust: The social virtues and the creation of prosperity. NY: The Free Press.

Hart, D. (2003). Entrepreneurship policy: What it is and where it came from. In D. Hart (ed.), The emergence of entrepreneurship policy: governance, Statt-ups, and growth in the U.S. knowledge economy. (pp. 3-19). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Helliwell, J, & Putnam, R. (1995). Economic growth and social capital in Italy. Eastern Economic Journal, 21, 295-307.

Holcome, R. G. (2003). Progress and entrepreneurship. The Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics. 6(3), 3-26.

Isham, J., Narayan, D., & Pritchett, L. (1995). Does participation improve performance? Establishing causality with subjective data. World Bank Economic Review, 9, 175-200.

Kaldaru, H., & Parts, E. (2005). The effect of macro-level social capital on sustainable economic development. University of Tartu - Faculty of economics and business administration working paper series, 42. 3-50.

Low, S., Henderson, J., & Weiler, S. (2005). Guaging a region's entrepreneurial potential. Economic Review. Third quarter.

Markley, D. M. (2007). Building communities through entrepreneurship development: Financing entrepreneurs and entrepreneurial support systems. In N. Walzer (ed.), Entrepreneurship and local economic development. (pp. 125-145). New York, NY: Lexington Books.

Markley, D., Macke, D., & Luther, V. (2005). Energizing Entrepreneurs: Charting a course for rural communities. Lincoln, NE: Heartland Center for Leadership Development.

Mansuri, G. & Rao, V. (2003). Evaluating community-based and community-driven development: A critical review of evidence. Working Paper, Development Research Group. World Bank.

Mayer, R.C., Davis, J.H. & Schoorman, F.D. (1995). An integrative model of organizational trust. Academy of Management Review, 20, 709-734.

Narayan, D. (1995). The contribution of people's participation: Evidence from 121 rural water supply projects. ESD Occupational Paper Series 1. World Bank.

Pearce, J. L. (2004). Leadership as a factor in the success of community resource team assessments. Master's Thesis, University of Houston - Victoria, Victoria, TX.

Phalen, J. & Rabinowitz, P. J., eds. (1994). Understanding narrative. Columbus, OH: Ohio State University Press.

Prestby, J. E., Wandersman, A., Florin, P., Rich, R, & Chavis, D. (1990). Benefits, costs, incentive management and participation in voluntary organizations: A means to understanding and promoting government. American Journal of Community Psychology, 18(1), 117-149.

Putnam, R. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. NY: Simon and Schuster.

Putnam. R. (1993). Making democracy work: Civic Traditions in modern Italy. NJ: Princeton University Press.

Schoorman, F. D., Mayer, R. C. & Davis, J. H. (2007). An integrative model of organizational trust: Past, present, and future. Academy of Management Review, 32(2), 344-354.

Rich, R. (1980). The dynamics of leadership in neighborhood organizations. Social Science Quarterly, 60(4), 570-578.

Shane, S. (2008). The illusions of entrepreneurship. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Sirolli, E. (1999). Ripples from the Zambezi. Gabriola Island, BC, Canada: New Society Publishers.

United States Census. (2004). Retrieved on June 24, 2007 from http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/48000.html

Walzer, N., Athiyaman, A., & Hamm, G. F. (2007). Entrepreneurship and small business growth. In N. Walzer (ed.), Entrepreneurship and local economic development. (pp. 59-79) New York, NY: Lexington Books.

Wennekers, S. & Thurik, R. (1999). Linking entrepreneurship and economic growth. Small Business Economics, 13(1), 27-56.

David F. Summers, University of Houston-Victoria

James N. Holm, University of Houston-Victoria

Cynthia A. Summers, The Victoria College

Table 1: The Resource Assessment Process and Levels of Participation

Phase of Process Steps to be Taken Level of Citizen
 Participation

 1. Someone in the county Steps 1, 2, and 3 often
 requests an assessment. do not require individual
 citizens of the county to
 2. A local team leader is participate. The
 appointed who helps exception is the person,
 facilitate the local organization, or civic
 process. leader requesting the
 team. The resource teams
 3. Resource teams are are composed mostly of
 developed. (The number of citizens from outside the
 team members depends on county. Often, the
 the number of requesting party becomes
 identifiable communities the trustor (who others
 within the county.) must trust) in the trust
 model. This was the case
 in the two counties being
 discussed.

 4. Teams visit the county Steps 4 and 5 require
 for two or more days. One citizens to participate
Development day is devoted to at the consult level.
of Program familiarizing the team County citizens are asked
(entrepreneurial with the county. Team to attend and provide
capacity members attend listening input to the listening
building) sessions the following sessions.
 day(s) where citizens
 provide input.

 5. At the end of the
 listening sessions, the
 resource team holds a
 "town hall" type meeting
 where the results are
 summarized and final
 citizen input is
 recorded.

 6. Team members return County citizen
 home and develop a participation is not
 written report with required in steps 6 and
 recommendations to the 7. These steps are
 county for solving completed by the outside
 problems and implementing resource team.
 projects.

 7. The individual reports
 are consolidated into a
 single report and
 returned to the county.

 8. The county requests Steps 8 and 9 require
 help with implementation. citizens to participate
 at the decide jointly
 level.

 9. Strategic planning
 sessions are held in the
Plan counties to concentrate
Implementation on how to implement the
 recommendations.

 10. Actions are taken to Citizens are asked to
 implement the volunteer to head
 recommendations. committees and oversee
 the implementation of the
 economic strategic plan.
 Participation is at the
 act jointly level.

The resource team involvement ends after The ongoing
step 10. Implementation is left to the implementation of the
citizens who volunteered to oversee economic strategic plan
different parts of the plan. represents the Support
 level of participation.