Trust over time — two series that diverge
Sweden ranks high in international comparisons of interpersonal trust. The SOM Institute's series shows that the share of Swedes reporting high trust in other people was 62 % in 1996 and 57 % in 2025 (7–10 on a 0–10 scale, a new cross-section each year). Trust is lower in socio-economically disadvantaged groups, but according to the SOM Institute the gaps between such groups are relatively stable over time; widening gaps appear between age groups and generations.
Confidence in the police is measured by Brå's National Safety Survey (NTU), which began in 2006 — not the 1990s. That series looks different: the share reporting fairly or very high confidence in the police was relatively stable 2007–2016, fell in 2017 and has mostly risen since 2018, with a temporary dip in 2023, reaching 65 % in 2026 (62 % in 2025). The interesting story is that interpersonal trust and institutional trust in the police do not move together.
High interpersonal trust (national)(SOM)
- Then
- 62 % (1996)
- Now
- 57 % (2025)
High trust in socio-economically disadvantaged groups(SOM 2026 (Persson & Carlander))
- Then
- lower
- Now
- lower, gap relatively stable
Fairly / very high confidence in the police(Brå NTU 2026)
- Then
- relatively stable (2007–2016)
- Now
- 65 % (2026)
| Measure | Then | Now |
|---|---|---|
| High interpersonal trust (national)(SOM) | 62 % (1996) | 57 % (2025) |
| High trust in socio-economically disadvantaged groups(SOM 2026 (Persson & Carlander)) | lower | lower, gap relatively stable |
| Fairly / very high confidence in the police(Brå NTU 2026) | relatively stable (2007–2016) | 65 % (2026) |
Why trust matters for the welfare state
Robert Putnam's early claim — that ethnic diversity itself lowers trust — remains contested. The meta-analysis by Dinesen, Schaeffer & Sønderskov (Annual Review of Political Science 2020, 1,001 estimates from 87 studies) finds a statistically significant negative relationship between ethnic diversity and social trust, stronger for trust in neighbours and when diversity is measured locally. A survey correlation does not by itself show cause or size in a given country.
Consequences for the welfare state
When interpersonal trust falls, willingness to pay for shared systems, compliance with rules, and willingness to help strangers fall with it. The picture is not uniform: confidence in the police as an institution is at historic highs in Brå's NTU and has risen during the 2010s, while the share with high interpersonal trust has fallen somewhat. The measures do not move together.
The question this page answers
Is Sweden still a high-trust society — and what does 'trust' actually mean?
At a glance
Key figures — the most important numbers on this page
1996
≈ 62 %
SOM — high general interpersonal trust
2025
57 %
SOM — high interpersonal trust (7–10)
ESS 2020
≈ 6.3
Scale 0–10, 'most people can be trusted'
2006
≈ 60 %
Brå NTU — high confidence in the police
2026
65 %
Brå NTU — high confidence in the police
Series
1986–
SOM Institute — annual since 1986
What does the data show?
Objective observations — not interpretations
- Sweden ranks high in international comparisons of general interpersonal trust; the page shows no individual WVS or ESS wave values.
- The SOM Institute series: the share reporting high trust in people in general (7–10 on a 0–10 scale) was 62 % in 1996 and 57 % in 2025. Each year is a new cross-section, not the same people.
- Institutional trust moves at a different pace. According to Brå's NTU, confidence in the police was relatively stable 2007–2016, fell in 2017 and has mostly risen since 2018, with a temporary dip in 2023, reaching 65 % in 2026 (62 % in 2025).
- The national average hides large differences between groups and areas. Trust is lower among young people, lower-educated, low-income earners and residents of socially vulnerable areas — and it is falling faster there.
- No single indicator captures 'trust'. SOM, ESS, WVS and OECD ask different questions with different scales, samples and periodicity — the series are not interchangeable and must not be combined in a single chart.
- Survey data show correlation, not causation. Statistical differences between groups or areas cannot be read as one trait 'causing' high or low trust.
Definitions
How the numbers are counted — and what they do not cover
- General (interpersonal) trust
- An individual's baseline expectation that people in general can be trusted. Usually measured via the SOM/ESS standard item 'Generally speaking, would you say that most people can be trusted…' on a 0–10 scale, or the WVS yes/no variant 'Most people can be trusted'.Source: SOM Institute codebook; European Social Survey Rounds 1–11; World Values Survey Wave 7.
- Particularised trust
- Trust in a defined circle — family, kin, clan, colleagues, neighbours. High in almost all societies and therefore varies little between countries. Not to be confused with general trust, which is the variable that sets Sweden apart internationally.Source: Rothstein & Uslaner (2005); Trägårdh & Wallman Lundåsen (SNS 2013).
- Institutional trust / confidence in public authorities
- Share reporting high or fairly high confidence in a single institution (police, courts, health care, parliament, municipality). Measured separately for each institution in SOM and NTU and cannot be added together into a single 'institutional trust' score.Source: SOM — Society Opinion Media; Brå NTU 2024.
- Perceived safety
- Self-reported feeling of being able to move around outdoors without fear of crime, measured mainly in Brå's NTU for Sweden. Safety is not the same as trust — a person can hold high general trust but still feel unsafe in their own neighbourhood.Source: Brå — National Safety Survey (NTU).
- Social capital
- Resources produced by networks, norms of reciprocity and trust between people. Robert Putnam's foundational concept (Bowling Alone, 2000). Contains both relationships (bonding/bridging) and norms and cannot be reduced to a single trust score.Source: Putnam (2000); OECD — How's Life? chapter on social capital.
- Social cohesion
- Broader concept describing the degree to which members of a society share basic norms, trust each other and cooperate across group lines. Usually measured as a composite index in OECD and EU work, rarely as a single question.Source: OECD — Perspectives on Global Development, Trust chapter.
- Self-reported measure
- A measure where the respondent reports their own perception or experience. Affected by non-response (who answers), cultural interpretation of the wording, and the general mood of the moment — and is not the same as an observed behaviour.Source: SOM — method reports; Brå NTU — technical report.
- Area vs individual effect
- When people with different characteristics live in the same area, it is difficult to tell whether differences in trust are caused by the individuals or by the local environment. Ecological correlations at area level cannot be transferred to individual persons.Source: Dinesen, Schaeffer & Sønderskov, Annual Review of Political Science 2020.
How does it look in your municipality?
Trust and safety are reported by municipality in SOM's regional volumes and in local NTU rounds. Open the municipality tool to see trust and safety indicators for your municipality.
Primary sources
Agencies and research institutions behind this page
4
agencies/institutions
6
reports & studies
4
primary datasets
Frequently asked questions
Short answers to what is most often discussed
Related topics
Logical next steps if you want to understand the background
The question this page answers
Is Sweden still a high-trust society — and what does 'trust' actually mean?
At a glance
Key figures — the most important numbers on this page
1996
≈ 62 %
SOM — high general interpersonal trust
2025
57 %
SOM — high interpersonal trust (7–10)
ESS 2020
≈ 6.3
Scale 0–10, 'most people can be trusted'
2006
≈ 60 %
Brå NTU — high confidence in the police
2026
65 %
Brå NTU — high confidence in the police
Series
1986–
SOM Institute — annual since 1986
What does the data show?
Objective observations — not interpretations
- Sweden ranks high in international comparisons of general interpersonal trust; the page shows no individual WVS or ESS wave values.
- The SOM Institute series: the share reporting high trust in people in general (7–10 on a 0–10 scale) was 62 % in 1996 and 57 % in 2025. Each year is a new cross-section, not the same people.
- Institutional trust moves at a different pace. According to Brå's NTU, confidence in the police was relatively stable 2007–2016, fell in 2017 and has mostly risen since 2018, with a temporary dip in 2023, reaching 65 % in 2026 (62 % in 2025).
- The national average hides large differences between groups and areas. Trust is lower among young people, lower-educated, low-income earners and residents of socially vulnerable areas — and it is falling faster there.
- No single indicator captures 'trust'. SOM, ESS, WVS and OECD ask different questions with different scales, samples and periodicity — the series are not interchangeable and must not be combined in a single chart.
- Survey data show correlation, not causation. Statistical differences between groups or areas cannot be read as one trait 'causing' high or low trust.
Method note
Interpersonal trust is measured by the SOM Institute using the same core question since 1996 (0–10 scale, share answering 7–10). Institutional trust in the Police is measured by Brå's NTU since 2006 (share expressing ‘fairly/very great confidence’). International comparisons draw on the World Values Survey and European Social Survey; these measure related but not identical concepts.
Definitions
How the numbers are counted — and what they do not cover
- General (interpersonal) trust
- An individual's baseline expectation that people in general can be trusted. Usually measured via the SOM/ESS standard item 'Generally speaking, would you say that most people can be trusted…' on a 0–10 scale, or the WVS yes/no variant 'Most people can be trusted'.Source: SOM Institute codebook; European Social Survey Rounds 1–11; World Values Survey Wave 7.
- Particularised trust
- Trust in a defined circle — family, kin, clan, colleagues, neighbours. High in almost all societies and therefore varies little between countries. Not to be confused with general trust, which is the variable that sets Sweden apart internationally.Source: Rothstein & Uslaner (2005); Trägårdh & Wallman Lundåsen (SNS 2013).
- Institutional trust / confidence in public authorities
- Share reporting high or fairly high confidence in a single institution (police, courts, health care, parliament, municipality). Measured separately for each institution in SOM and NTU and cannot be added together into a single 'institutional trust' score.Source: SOM — Society Opinion Media; Brå NTU 2024.
- Perceived safety
- Self-reported feeling of being able to move around outdoors without fear of crime, measured mainly in Brå's NTU for Sweden. Safety is not the same as trust — a person can hold high general trust but still feel unsafe in their own neighbourhood.Source: Brå — National Safety Survey (NTU).
- Social capital
- Resources produced by networks, norms of reciprocity and trust between people. Robert Putnam's foundational concept (Bowling Alone, 2000). Contains both relationships (bonding/bridging) and norms and cannot be reduced to a single trust score.Source: Putnam (2000); OECD — How's Life? chapter on social capital.
- Social cohesion
- Broader concept describing the degree to which members of a society share basic norms, trust each other and cooperate across group lines. Usually measured as a composite index in OECD and EU work, rarely as a single question.Source: OECD — Perspectives on Global Development, Trust chapter.
- Self-reported measure
- A measure where the respondent reports their own perception or experience. Affected by non-response (who answers), cultural interpretation of the wording, and the general mood of the moment — and is not the same as an observed behaviour.Source: SOM — method reports; Brå NTU — technical report.
- Area vs individual effect
- When people with different characteristics live in the same area, it is difficult to tell whether differences in trust are caused by the individuals or by the local environment. Ecological correlations at area level cannot be transferred to individual persons.Source: Dinesen, Schaeffer & Sønderskov, Annual Review of Political Science 2020.
Primary sources
Agencies and research institutions behind this page
4
agencies/institutions
6
reports & studies
4
primary datasets
Frequently asked questions
Short answers to what is most often discussed
Related topics
Logical next steps if you want to understand the background
Sources for this page
The data comes from official primary sources.
Brå · Annually
Nationella trygghetsundersökningen (NTU)NTU — utsatthet och otrygghet
Latest data point · Source published
Use this statistic
Copy a reference or the canonical link. The original source is included when registered for this page.
SVERIGEFAKTA, “Social trust and the social contract in Sweden”. Original source: Brå. https://sverigefakta.com/en/what-happened-to-sweden/social-trust
SVERIGEFAKTA, “Social trust and the social contract in Sweden”. Original source: Brå (https://bra.se/statistik/statistik-fran-enkatundersokningar/nationella-trygghetsundersokningen). https://sverigefakta.com/en/what-happened-to-sweden/social-trust
Social trust and the social contract in Sweden. (n.d.). SVERIGEFAKTA. Retrieved 2026-11-04, from https://sverigefakta.com/en/what-happened-to-sweden/social-trust Original source: Brå.
“Social trust and the social contract in Sweden” (n.d.) SVERIGEFAKTA. Available at: https://sverigefakta.com/en/what-happened-to-sweden/social-trust (Accessed: 2026-11-04). Original source: Brå.
@misc{sverigefakta_2026_en_whathappenedtosweden_socialtrust,
title = {Social trust and the social contract in Sweden},
howpublished = {\url{https://sverigefakta.com/en/what-happened-to-sweden/social-trust}},
note = {Presented by SVERIGEFAKTA; original source Brå}
}https://sverigefakta.com/en/what-happened-to-sweden/social-trust
Sources
- SOM Institute — Swedish trends 1986–2025 (Interpersonal trust)
- Brå — National Safety Survey (NTU)
- Persson & Carlander — Vart är tilliten på väg? (SOM Institute 2026)
- Trägårdh & Wallman Lundåsen — The Cool Swedish Trust (SNS 2013)
- European Social Survey Round 10 (2020)
- Dinesen, Schaeffer & Sønderskov (ARPS 2020) — Ethnic diversity and social trust: a narrative and meta-analytical review
Read the full investigation of how Sweden has changed.
Back to the overview →