The Nordic countries and the United States offer a compelling case study in high-trust international relations, demonstrating how enduring partnerships are sustained by more than shared interests—they are grounded in institutionalized confidence and mutual reliability.
Economic Interdependence: Trust in Action
Trust is not abstract in Nordic–US relations—it is quantifiable. According to the Congressional Research Service, Sweden’s direct investment in the US reached $60.3 billion in 2022, while US direct investment in Norway totalled $36.9 billion. These flows represent more than financial exchange; they reflect confidence in regulatory stability, contract enforcement, and legal predictability across borders. Firms invest across jurisdictions when trust reduces the need for exhaustive due diligence and mitigates risk.
The scope of collaboration extends beyond economics. Finland hosts a multinational centre dedicated to combating hybrid threats with US partnership, while all five Nordic countries contributed to the US-led coalition against ISIS. Such cooperation involves intelligence sharing, coordinated defence posture, and alignment on values—domains where trust not only reduces transaction costs but also enables bold strategic moves that a purely interest-driven calculus would avoid.
Business School Insights: Trust as a Strategic Lever
In international business scholarship, trust is measurable, not sentimental. A comprehensive review in the Journal of International Business Studies demonstrates that companies emphasizing relationship-building in foreign markets are 23% more likely to achieve long-term success. Trust operates on multiple dimensions: perceptions of ability, benevolence, and integrity; expectations about future behaviour; and the willingness to accept vulnerability.
Crucially, trust differentiates between personal and institutional dimensions. In Nordic–US economic relations, institutional trust—confidence in the US and Nordic legal frameworks, regulatory stability, and enforceable contracts—underpins complex supply chains and technology sharing. Research shows trust is particularly critical in strategic alliances (40.7% of cases) and buyer–supplier relationships (15.4%)—precisely the categories where Nordic–US engagement is most intensive.
International Relations Theory: Explaining Trust
From a theoretical perspective, several lenses illuminate the dynamics of Nordic–US trust:
- Liberal Institutionalism: Repeated interactions, transparency, and shared institutions build trust that mitigates systemic anarchy. The Nordic–US relationship exemplifies this logic.
- Realism: Sceptics argue that trust is merely the appearance of interest convergence—Nordics gain security guarantees; the US gains strategic positioning.
- Constructivism: Shared democratic norms, transparency, and multilateralism create ideational trust foundations beyond material interests.
- Neoliberalism: Dense institutional networks—NATO, OECD, WTO, and bilateral agreements—functionally reduce uncertainty, allowing predictable cooperation.
The Contemporary Context: Stress Tests to Trust
Today, trust is increasingly contested in global relations. The European Union Institute for Security Studies reports a 12.9% drop in European favourable attitudes toward the US between 2024 and 2025. US reliability is questioned not only in Europe but across East Asia (Japan and South Korea) and the Gulf states, leading to hedging strategies in alliances. This is not merely a political debate—it has direct implications for business, as firms navigate an environment where historical trust may no longer guarantee predictability.
Benefits and Risks of Trust in Nordic–US Relations
Trust is not universally beneficial; it is domain-specific and context-dependent. Its functions include:
- Reducing transaction costs: In technology sharing and cross-border supply chains, trust diminishes verification burdens.
- Enabling long-term investments: US firms’ $94.1 billion investment in Sweden reflects confidence in predictable returns.
- Facilitating crisis response: Trust allows rapid action without protracted negotiation.
Yet risks exist:
- Path dependency: Relationships may continue despite changes in rational incentives.
- Asymmetric exposure: Smaller partners may rely more heavily on trust, creating potential vulnerability.
- Strategic surprise: High-trust assumptions can mask shifts in intention or policy.
Looking Ahead: Trust in the Era of Hedging
The Nordic–US case demonstrates trust as both a social reality and a strategic resource. However, contemporary trends—ranging from transactional US foreign policy to global uncertainty—suggest that institutionalised trust faces stress tests. The most sophisticated frameworks now treat trust not as binary but as domain-specific: high in defence technology, variable in trade or climate cooperation. This mirrors findings in international business research: competence, benevolence, and integrity are separate dimensions, each subject to change.
For Nordic firms and policymakers, the next frontier lies in balancing trust-based engagement with hedging strategies—diversifying partnerships to mitigate overreliance while preserving the strategic advantages of high-trust alliances.
Next Steps for Readers:
Our follow-up article will explore Nordic Hedging Strategies in a Low-Trust World: how firms and governments manage partnerships to maintain resilience without sacrificing opportunity. Connect with us to share insights or contribute your perspective—trust is a conversation as much as a concept.