Cultural values as constraints and facilitators of socio-economic change
description
Transcript of Cultural values as constraints and facilitators of socio-economic change
Cultural values as constraints and facilitators of socio-economic change
Shalom H. SchwartzThe Hebrew University of Jerusalem
andHigher School of Economics, Moscow
October 10, 2013
Overview Three dimensions for measuring societal culture Mapping of world cultures & of Europe National culture as constraint & influence on socio-
economic change [empirical evidence] Health Expenditures Military expenditures Democracy Income inequality Tax burden Corruption
All societies confront basic problems in regulating human activity
Societal responses to basic problems emphasize certain values and sacrifice others
Derive 3 bipolar cultural value dimensions/ orientations from societal responses to 3 problems
Evolution of Cultural Value Emphases
HARMONY Unity with Nature EMBEDDEDNESS World at Peace Social Order, Obedience Respect for Tradition EGALITARIANISM Social Justice Equality HIERARCHY Authority Humble INTELLECTUAL AUTONOMY Broadmindedness Curiosity MASTERY Ambition AFFECTIVE Daring AUTONOMY Pleasure Exciting Life
CULTURAL DIMENSIONS: PROTOTYPICAL STRUCTUREIdeal Individual / Group
Relationship People: role players embedded in groups
Individuals inde-pendent actors
HARMONY Unity with Nature EMBEDDEDNESS World at Peace Social Order, Obedience Respect for Tradition EGALITARIANISM Social Justice Equality HIERARCHY Authority Humble INTELLECTUAL AUTONOMY Broadmindedness Curiosity MASTERY Ambition AFFECTIVE Daring AUTONOMY Pleasure Exciting Life
CULTURAL DIMENSIONS: PROTOTYPICAL STRUCTUREIdeal way to elicit
productive, cooperative,
activity in society
Hierarchical alloca-tion roles/resources legitimate/desirable
Socialize: Others morally equal transcend selfish interestscooperate voluntarily
HARMONY Unity with Nature EMBEDDEDNESS World at Peace Social Order, Obedience Respect for Tradition EGALITARIANISM Social Justice Equality HIERARCHY Authority Humble INTELLECTUAL AUTONOMY Broadmindedness Curiosity MASTERY Ambition AFFECTIVE Daring AUTONOMY Pleasure Exciting Life
CULTURAL DIMENSIONS: PROTOTYPICAL STRUCTURERegulate use of
human and natural resources
fit harmoniously, avoid change & self-assertion
master, control, change through assertive action
Measuring Cultural Value OrientationsCultural value orientations shape daily
contingencies to which individuals adaptDefine what viewed as more or less legitimateDefine what expected, encouraged or discouraged
Individuals in a society exposed to ‘press’share many value-relevant experiences socialized to take for granted shared social values
Average of value priorities of all individuals Unique individual differences don’t affect average
Data and Sources
77 cultural groups, 74 countries, N=55,022Dominant cultural group: average of teachers
& students in most Data gathered between 1988-2010, most
1990-1998, median 199546 value items with near equivalent meaning
in within-country analyses, based on within sample MDS
Measurement: SVS"What values are important to ME as guiding principles in MY
life, and what values are less important to me?"AS A GUIDING PRINCIPLE IN MY LIFE, this value is:
opposed of to my not very supreme values important important important importance -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Before you begin, choose one that is most important to you ….one that is most opposed to your values…. [self-anchoring]
1 EQUALITY (equal opportunity for all)
2 INNER HARMONY (at peace with myself)
3 ____SOCIAL POWER (control over others, dominance)
Mapping National Cultures Compute cultural distances between all pairs of
cultural groupsSum absolute distances on each of 7 orientations
Russia & Sweden: Sum of distances = 4.4Russia: Poland 0.8; USA 1.6; Gt Britain 2.5; France 3.8Create 77 x 77 matrix with cultural distances in cells
Map countries by distances in 2 dimensional space
Intntl. Mean 4.3 3.8 2.3 3.9 3.5 4.3 4.7
Orientation Har Emb Hier Mas AfAu InAu Ega Russia 3.9 3.8 2.7 4.0 3.5 4.3 4.4 Sweden 4.5 3.1 1.8 3.8 4.2 5.1 4.9 Abs Distance .6 .7 .9 .2 .7 .8 .5
EMBEDDED-NESS (.98)
HIERARCHY (.87)
HARMONY (.79)
MASTERY (.88) AFFECTIVE
AUTONOMY (.92)
INTELLECTUAL AUTONOMY (.93)
EGALITAR-IANISM (.75)
EGYPT CAMEROON
ETHIOPIA
YEMEN
SENEGAL
NIGERIA FIJI PHILIPPINES BOLIVIA
MALAYSIA INDONESIA
SINGAPORE S AFRICA GHANA
UGANDA
IRAN NEPAL
NAMIBIA
JORDAN
ZIMBABWE INDIA
CHINA
THAILAND
S KOREA
HONG KONG
ISRAEL ARABS
TAIWAN UKRAINE
MACEDONIA PERU
BULGARIA RUSSIA
TURKEY
CROATIA
ROMANIA
SERBIA
GEORGIA
POLAND
CYPRUS Gr
BOSNIA HZ
MEXICO
ESTONIA
SLOVAKIA
LATVIA
CZECH REP
HUNGARY
SLOVENIA
CHILE
ARGENTINA
COSTA RICA
VENEZUELA
BRAZIL
USA ISRAEL JEWS
JAPAN
AUSTRALIA
NEW ZEALAND
CANADA ENG
IRELAND
UK
GREECE
PORTUGAL NETHERLANDS
CANADA FR
FRANCE
GERMANY E AUSTRIA
DENMARK
NORWAY
ITALY
FINLAND
BELGIUM
SPAIN SWITZER-LAND FR
GERMANY W
SWEDEN
Map of 77 National Groups on Seven Cultural Orientations
Coefficient of Alienation .116
Cultural Map of World Regions
MASTERY ambition, change
West Europe
INTELLECTUAL AUTONOMY curiosity
EGALITARIANISM justice
English Speaking
AFFECTIVE AUTONOMY
pleasure
HARMONY fitting in, no change
Confucian
HIERARCHY authority
Muslim Middle East &
Sub-SaharanAfrica
Latin America
South &
South East Asia
EMBEDDEDNESS order, obedience
East-Central & Baltic Europe
Prot/Cath East Europe
Orthodox
EMBEDDEDNESS(.97)
HIERARCHY(.80)MASTERY(.77)AFFECTIVE
AUTONOMY(.89)
INTELLECTUALAUTONOMY(.90)
EGALITARIANISM(.80)
HARMONY(.81)
ARMENIA
GEORGIA
CYPRUS gk
POLAND
SERBIA
MACEDONIA
BULGARIARUSSIA
UKRAINE
CROATIA
ROMANIA
BOSNIA-HERZEG.
LATVIA
ESTONIA
SLOVENIACZECHIA
SLOVAKIA
HUNGARY
ITALY
FINLANDSPAIN NORWAY
BELGIUMWGERMANYSWEDEN
DENMARKAUSTRIAEGERMANY
FRANCE
NETHERLANDS
PORTUGAL
SWITZERLANDGREECE
IRELANDGT BRITAIN
35 European countries mapped on 7 cultural values
Cultural Orientations Correlates (Controlled for Country GDPpc)
N
Autonomy minus
Embeddedness
Egalitarianism minus
Hierarchy
Harmony minus
Mastery Public Health
Expend. %GDP 2005 69 .84** (.70**) .58** (.41**) .29* (.27*)
Military Expenditure %GDP 2006
74 -.28* (-.29*) -.20‡ (-.12) -.32** (-.32**)
Income Inequality (Gini) 2007
70 -.40** (-.15)
-.35**(-.18)
-.35** (-.32**)
Tax Burden on Wealthy 2009
74 -.68**(-.43**) -.51**(-.32*) -.24*(-.20)
Democracy 2009 (Freedom House)
75 .69**(.49**)
.44**(.25*)
.23* (.18)
Corruption 2009 Transparency Intl.
71 -.71**(-.26*) -.45**(-.12) -.15 (-.07)
**p<.01, *p<.05, ‡p<.10, 2-tailed
GDPpc 1985
Democracy 1995
Values 1995 Autonomy vs.
Embeddedness
Democracy 2009
Democracy 1985
Cultural Orientations Predict Change in Democracy across Countries
R2=.57.43
.78
.50
.29
.32
.71
GDPpc (85, 95, or 00) does not add to prediction
4 Hofstede dimensions do not enter (N=67)
2 Inglehart dimensions (1999) do not enter (N=57)
GDPpc1990
Public Health Expenditure %GDP 1990
Autonomy vs. Embeddedness
1995
Public Health Expenditure %GDP 2000
Public Health Expenditure %GDP 2005
.75
.57
.80
.19
.35
Adj. R2=.92
Change in Public Health Expenditures
N=68 countriesInglehart dimensions do not enterHofstede Ind/Col and UncAvoid add with N= 53, AutEmb remains
All betas p<.01
Western Europe
Middle East North Africa
Log Military Expenditures %GDP 1992
Log Military Expenditures %GDP 2006
Harmony vs. Mastery
1995
Autonomy vs. Embeddedness
1995
.55
-.23.28
.27
-.20.43
-.29
.59
Adj. R2 =.62
Change in Military Expenditures
N=70 countriesInglehart and Hofstede dimensions do not enter
Change in Income Inequality (Gini)
Gini 1989 closest
Gini 2007 closestRoman
Catholic
GDPpc 1990
Autonomy vs. Embeddedness
1995
Egalitarianism vs. Hierarchy
1995
-.19
-.31
.59
.24
.30
.50
.33
.74.58
N=59 countriesHofstede dimensions do not enterInglehart Trad/SecRat & Surv/SExpr show similar effects (N=51)
Adj. R2=.67
Conclusions 7 cultural value orientations capture significant
aspects of societal cultures
Countries across the world form broad cultural regions that vary in meaningful ways on these orientations
Analyses of European countries reveal four distinct cultural regions: Anglo, West, East Central and East
Conclusions Consistent contrast of opposing orientations yields 3
cultural dimensions: Aut/Emb, Egal/Hier, Har/Mast National differences on 3 dimensions correlate with &
predict later levels of public health expenditures level of democracymilitary expenditures corruptionincome inequality tax burden on the
wealthy
Cultural differences on 3 dimensions constrain or facilitate temporal change in societal variables mediate effects of religion and GDPpc on change
Consider adding cultural value orientations to your toolbox
Schwartz, S. H. (2006). A theory of cultural value orientations: Explication and applications. Comparative Sociology, 5, 137-182. Also in Y. Esmer & T. Pettersson (Eds.) (2007). Measuring and mapping cultures: 25 years of comparative value surveys (pp. 33-78). Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill.
S. H. (2009). Culture matters: National value cultures, sources and consequences. In C.-Y. Chiu, Y.Y. Hong, S. Shavitt, & R. S. Wyer, Jr. (Eds.), Understanding culture: Theory, research and application (pp. 127-150). New York: Psychology Press.
Schwartz, S. H. (2011). Values: Individual and cultural. In S. M. Breugelmans, A. Chasiotis, & F. J. R. van de Vijver (Eds.), Fundamental questions in cross-cultural psychology (pp. 463-493). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Some References