ALEXANDER JOHNSTON wrote this comment about New York to a correspondent in Scotland in 1783. Johnston had decided to set up in business there having travelled around the Atlantic sorting out his financial affairs. He obviously saw that new opportunities would be available to men like him following the American War of Independence. In order to organise his new trading venture as best as possible, he had set up a new partnership in St. Kitts where he had been in business for some time with his brother and a Mr Moore, and another house, under the name of John Stewart & Co., in St. Eustatia. Johnston had also visited London, Baltimore and Philadelphia in the previous two years, but he clearly sensed, quite prophetically, that New York's role as a port city was going to be increasingly important. Johnston reasoned that because many established merchants were leaving the city, it would be easier to construct new networks. Interestingly, he also noted that the habits, manners and customs of people in New York were quite European, and that this was agreeable to him. Presumably this common cultural ground made it easier to trust people.

Johnston's comments raise many of the issues covered in previous chapters. He was prepared to risk establishing a new business despite the changing institutional framework. He had constructed personal trust with enough people in order to set up in business and clearly general levels of trust were returning. Johnston needed to build up his own reputation, no doubt using existing ties with people he had met during his travels, but the fact that many established merchants were leaving New York meant that many old obligational relationships were being severed in the city, giving him the chance to build up his own. The whole situation highlights the constantly changing nature of networks. They are dynamic and instrumental.

This chapter is the first of two, based around case studies, which bring the themes of risk, trust, reputation and obligation together. The term network(s) is the most often borrowed by historians from socio-economics, but much of the analysis remains broadly positive.