If within-system regressions do not differ from zero in all systems, but the total regression does differ from zero, the ecological correlation is spurious.I Adam Przeworski and Henry Teune in this quotation from their seminal study comparative methodology alert readers to the risk committing the classical ecological fallacy, first described by Robinson, when attempting to overcome one the great challenges in comparative research, bridging the gap between micro and macro levels analysis. As is well known, Robinson demonstrated that patterns found at the (macro) level the system may contradict the true patterns found at the (micro) within-system level.2 Advances made by Gary King toward solving the ecological inference problem work well when individual-level data are absent or difficult or costly to obtain, as long as one develops a data base many, relatively homogeneous ecological units.3 But in recent years researchers who have rich individuallevel data bases have been aggregating their data at the national level. Not everyone is persuaded the validity their comparisons, however. For example, serious questions have been raised about Ronald Inglehart's postmaterialist values.4 The purpose this article is to recall Przeworski and Teune's warning against a particular form the ecological fallacy, the individualistic fallacy. The individualistic fallacy is the error of incorrectly imputing to the higher order unit the aggregation values individuals.5 This article will reexamine the conclusions drawn by what may be the most important effort since Gabriel Almond and Sidney Verba's The Civic Culture to bridge the micro-macro gap in comparative politics. In an impressively broad and influential body research, Ronald Inglehart makes an explicit link between an aggregation micro-level attitudes, denominated as political culture, and the macro-level variable regime type.6 Specifically, Inglehart attempts to show that a particular form political culture, civic culture, is strongly linked to the emergence and stability democracy. He finds a direct causal connection between what he calls the civic culture syndrome, on the one hand, and democracy, on the other. The cornerstone Inglehart's approach rests upon the variable interpersonal trust. This variable is also central to Robert Putnam's explanation democracy in Italy in Making Democracy Work.7 The logic The Civic Culture was straightforward: no trust, no secondary associations, no genuine political participation, and no democracy. In other words, individuals in a society must trust each other in order to form and join civil society organizations. In the aggregate, then, societies undergird-