Francisco Herreros

Institute for Public Goods and Policies (IPP)

C/Albasanz 26-28, Madrid
28037 |  Visit Personal Website

Search Google Scholar
Search for Google Scholar Profile

I have two main lines of research: trust and social capital and the analysis of political violence. My research on social capital and trust has been focused in the role of the state and formal institutions in the creation of interpersonal trust. As regards to political violence, I have studied violence against civilians in civil wars and state repression.

Herreros, Francisco. 2015. “The Ties that Bind. Family relationships and social trust”. Rationality and Society 27 (3): 334-357
Abstract: There have been two main arguments concerning the effects of family relationships on social trust. The first claims that the intensity of the family relationship reduces the capacity of the family members to interact in the outside world, where social uncertainty prevails. The second considers that trust inside the family spills over into trust in strangers. There is a corollary to the first argument: intense family relationships, by reducing social trust, affect community development negatively. In this article, I show, first, that it is the intensity of family relationships, and not trust in the family, that negatively affects social trust, and, second, that there is an interaction effect between trust in the family and state efficacy on social trust. While high trust in the family and low trust in strangers can go together, the relationship is spurious. It is low state efficacy that causes low trust in strangers and, to a lesser extent, high in-family trust. These arguments are tested with a sample of 44 countries from the 2005 wave of World Value Surveys
DOI: 10.1177/1043463115593122
Herreros, Francisco. 2008. “The State and the creation of an environment for the growing of trust.” Rationality and Society 20 (4): 497-521
Abstract: This article shows that the state does not create trust directly by acting as a third-party enforcer of agreements. In this role, the state promotes a pooling equilibrium in cooperation for both opportunistic and trustworthy types, but it does not promote trust. However, if the state does not enforce private agreements, trustworthy types are crowded-out.
DOI: 10.1177/1043463108096790
Herreros, Francisco, and Henar Criado. 2009. “Pre-emptive or arbitrary. Two forms of lethal violence in a civil war.” Journal of Conflict Resolution 53 (3): 419-445
Abstract: This article analyzes the determinants of the variation in the levels of lethal violence against civilians during a civil war. It departs from the usual explanations of this variation advancing two different logics to account for civilians? victimization: strategic violence directed to avoid rebellions by targeting would-be political entrepreneurs and violence as a consequence of the breakdown of the State?s authority. It employs a new dataset on violence against civilians during the Spanish Civil War of 1936-1939.
DOI: 10.1177/0022002709332208
Herreros, Francisco. 2011. “Peace of cemeteries. Civil-war dynamics in post-war state’s repression”. Politics and Society 39 (2): 175-202
Abstract: This article analyzes whether state?s repression in post-civil war situations is explained by dynamics associated to the previous civil war. It claims that in post-civil war situations the state can more easily resort to indiscriminate repression against social groups, relying on information related to the civil war. Two civil-war dynamics are tested: pre-emptive indiscriminate violence to eliminate opposition by the defeated population and retaliation for crimes committed during the war. Using data from the first decade of the Francoist regime in Spain it is found that indeed civil-war dynamics, and not actual dissent, explains most of the post-war violence.
DOI: 10.1177/00323292

Substantive Focus:
International Relations SECONDARY
Comparative Public Policy PRIMARY

Theoretical Focus:
Public Opinion PRIMARY