The fourth case is more complicated. The sociologist Niklas Luhmann (1980, 8) says trust constitutes a more effective form of complexity reduction. This is a very elliptical claim. Clearly, where there is trust that is justified there are increased possibilities for beneficial experience and action. Trust by itself, however, constitutes nothing. Presumably Luhmann is saying that we cannot handle enormous complexity without having others act de facto on our behalf. If we cannot count on their acting in our interests, however, we may be reluctant to empower them or to follow their advice. Hence whatever can secure their trustworthiness enough for us to trust them will help us manage complexity. That is to say, again, the focal problem is trustworthiness, not trust. Elsewhere, Luhmann (1988, 95) says he is concerned with social mechanisms that generate trust. Once again, he has substituted concern with trust for concern with trustworthiness. Commonly, the best device for creating trust is to establish and support trustworthiness. As before, acting on trust without the latter can bring harm.

Russell Hardin, Trust and Trustworthiness, loc. 174