Carla I. Koen. Comparative International Management
Подождите немного. Документ загружается.
Child, J. and Tayeb, M. (1981) Theoretical perspectives in cross-national organiz-
ational research. International Studies of Management and Organization 10(1),
23–70.
Cox, R.W. (1992) Global perestroika, in Miliband, R. and Panitch, I. (eds), New World
Order? Socialist Register 1992. London: Merlin.
Dicken, P. (1998) Global Shift: Transforming the World Economy (3rd edn). London:
Sage.
DiMaggio, P. and Powell, W. (1991) Introduction, in Powell, W. and DiMaggio, P. (eds)
The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press, 1–40.
Dobbin, F. (1994) Forging Industrial Policy: the United States, Britain and France in the
Railway Age. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Dore, R. (1996) Convergence in whose interest?, in Berger, S. and Dore, R. (eds)
National Diversity and Global Capitalism. London: Cornell University Press.
Earley, P.C. (1989) Social loafing and collectivism: a comparison of United States and
People’s Republic of China. Administrative Science Quarterly 34, 565–81.
Garcia Canclini, N. (1995) Hybrid Cultures: Strategies for Entering and Leaving
Modernity. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
Geertz, C. (1976) From the native’s point of view: on the nature of anthropological
understanding, in Basso, K. and Selby, H. (eds) Meaning in Anthropology.
Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, 221–37.
Geertz, C. (1983) Local Knowledge: Further Essays in Interpretive Anthropology. New
York: Basic Books.
Giddens, A. (1999) Runaway World: How Globalization is Reshaping our Lives. London:
Profile Books.
Gregory, K. (1983) Native-view paradigms: multiple cultures and culture conflicts in
organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly 28, 359–76.
Hall, P. and Soskice, D. (2001) Varieties of Capitalism: the Institutional Foundations of
Comparative Advantage. New York: Oxford University Press.
Hannerz, U. (1987) The world in Creolization. Africa 57, 546–59.
Harris, M. (1979) Cultural Materialism: the Struggle for a Science of Culture. New York:
Vintage.
Hickson, D.J., Pugh, D.S. and Pheysey, D. (1969) Operations technology and organiz-
ation structure: an empirical reappraisal. Administrative Science Quarterly 14,
378–97.
Hickson, D.J., Hinings, C.R., McMillan, C.J. and Schwitter, J.P. (1974) The culture-
free context of organization structure: a trinational comparison. Sociology 8,
59–80.
Hickson, D.J., McMillan, C.J., Azumi, K. and Horvath, D. (1979) Grounds for compara-
tive organization theory: quicksands or hard core?, in Lammers, C.J. and Hickson,
D.J. (eds) Organizations Alike and Unlike. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Hofstede, G. (1980) Culture’s Consequences. London: Sage.
Horvath, D., Azumi, K., Hickson, D.J. and McMillan, C.J. (1981) Bureaucratic struc-
tures in cross-national perspective: a study of British, Japanese, and Swedish
firms, in Dlugos, G., Weiermair, K. and Dorow, W. (eds) Management Under
Differing Value Systems. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
INTRODUCTION TO THE APPROACHES TO COMPARATIVE INTERNATIONAL MANAGEMENT 21
MG9353 int.qxp 10/3/05 8:33 am Page 21
Kerr, C., Dunlop, J.T., Harbison, F. and Myers, C.A. (1960) Industrialism and Industrial
Man. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Kondo, D.K. (1990) Crafting Selves: Power, Gender, and Discourses of Identity in the
Japanese Workplace. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lane, C. (1989) Management and Labour in Europe. Aldershot: Edward Elgar.
Lane, C. (2000) Globalization and the German model of capitalism – erosion or sur-
vival? British Journal of Sociology 51(2), 207–34.
Levitt, T. (1983) The globalization of markets. Harvard Business Review 61
(May–June), 92–102.
Lincoln, J.R., Hanada, M. and McBride, K. (1986) Organizational structures in
Japanese and US manufacturing. Administrative Science Quarterly 31, 338–64.
Malinowski, B. (1922) Argonauts of the Western Pacific. London: Routledge.
Maurice, M. and Sorge, A. (2000) Embedding Organizations. Amsterdam: John
Benjamins Publishing.
Meyer, J.W. (2000) Globalization: Sources and effects on national states and soci-
eties. International Sociology 15(2), 233–48.
Meyer, J.W. and Rowan, B. (1977) Institutionalized organizations: formal structure as
myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology 83, 340–63.
Meyer, J.W. and Rowan, B. (1991) Institutionalized organizations: formal structure
as myth and ceremony, in Powell, W. and DiMaggio, P. (eds) The New
Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis. Chicago: University of Chicago Press,
41–62.
Morris, M.W., Kwok Leung, Ames, D. and Lickel, B. (1999) Views from inside and
outside: integrating emic and etic insights about culture and justice judgement.
Academy of Management Review 24(4), 781–96.
Munroe, R.L. and Munroe, R.H. (1991) Comparative field studies: methodological
issues and future. HRAF Journal of Comparative Management 25(1–4), 155.
Nederveen Pieterse, J. (1994) Globalization as hybridization. International Sociology
9(2), 161–84.
North, D. (1991) Institutions. Journal of Economic Perspectives 5(1), 97–112.
North, D. (1995) Institutions Matter (mimeo). Washington University.
Nye, J.S. and Donahue, J.D. (2000) Governance in a Globalizing World. Washington:
Brookings Institution Press.
Pieterse, J.N. (1995) Globalization as hybridization, in Featherstone, M., Lash, S. and
Robertson. R. (eds) Global Modernities. London: Sage, 45–68.
Pike, K.L. (1967) Language in Relation to a Unified Theory of the Structure of Human
Behavior. The Hague: Mouton.
Pugh, D.S., Hickson, D.J., Hinings, C.R., MacDonald, K.M., Turner, C. and Lupton, T.
(1963) A conceptual scheme for organizational analysis. Administrative Science
Quarterly 8(3), 289–315.
Pugh, D.S., Hickson, D.J., Hinings, C.R. and Turner, C. (1968) Dimensions of organ-
ization structure. Administrative Science Quarterly 13(1), 65–105.
Pugh, D.S., Hickson, D.J., Hinings, C.R. and Turner, C. (1969) The context of organiz-
ation structure. Administrative Science Quarterly 14(1), 91–114.
Robertson, R. (1992) Globalization: Social Theory and Global Cultures. London:
Sage.
22 COMPARATIVE INTERNATIONAL MANAGEMENT
MG9353 int.qxp 10/3/05 8:33 am Page 22
Robertson, R. (1995) Globalization: time–space and homogeneity–heterogeneity, in
Featherstone, M., Lash, S. and Robertson. R. (eds) Global Modernities. London:
Sage, 24–44.
Robertson, R. (2001) Globalization theory 2000: major problematics, in Ritzer, G.
and Smart, B. (eds) Handbook of Social Theory. London: Sage, 458–71.
Rohlen, T. (1974) For Harmony and Strength: Japanese White-collar Organization in
Anthropological Perspective. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Rose, M. (1985) Universalism, culturalism and the Aix group: promise and problems
of a societal approach to economic institutions. European Sociological Review 1(1),
65–83.
Rugman, A. and Hodgetts, R. (2001) The end of global strategy. European
Management Journal 19(4), 333–43.
Schneider, B. (1990) Organizational Climate and Culture. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Scott, W.R. (1995) Institutions and Organizations. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage.
Scott, W.R. (2001) Institutions and Organizations. London: Sage.
Shweder, R.A. (1991) Thinking Through Culture: Expeditions in Cultural Psychology.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Skinner, B.F. (1938) The Behavior of Organisms: an Experimental Analysis. Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Smith, P.B. and Bond, M.H. (1998) Social Psychology: Across Cultures (2nd edn).
Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Soskice, D. (1996) German Technology Policy, Innovation, and National Institutional
Frameworks. Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin, Discussion Paper FS I, 96–319.
Soskice, D. (1999) Divergent production regimes: coordinated and uncoordinated
market economies in the 1980s and 1990s, in Kitschelt, H., Large, P., Marks, G.
and Stephens, J.D. (eds) Continuity and Change in Contemporary Capitalism.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sorge, A. (1996) Societal effects in cross-national organization studies, in Whitley, R.
and Kristensen, P.H. (eds) The Changing European Firm. London: Routledge.
Sorge, A. (2003) Cross-national differences in human resources and organization, in
Harzing, A.-W. and Van Ruisseveldt, J. (eds) Human Resource Management (2nd
edn). London: Sage.
Streeck, W. (1992) Societal Institutions and Economic Performance: Studies of
Industrial Relations in Advanced Capitalist Economies. London: Sage.
Streeck, W. (1996) Lean production in the German automobile industry? A test for
convergence theory, in Berger, S. and Dore, R. (eds) National Diversity and Global
Capitalism. New York: Cornell University Press.
Streeck, W. (1997) German capitalism: does it exist? Can it survive?, in Crouch, C.
and Streeck, W. (eds) Political Economy of Modern Capitalism. London: Sage.
Streeten, P. (1996) Free and managed trade, in Berger, S. and Dore, R. (eds) National
Diversity and Global Capitalism. London: Cornell University Press, 353–65.
Tolbert, P.S. and Zucker, L.G. (1996) The institutionalization of institutional theory, in
Clegg, S.R., Hardy, C. and Nord, W.R. (eds) Handbook of Organization Studies.
London: Sage Publications, 175–90.
Tomlinson, J. (1999) Globalization and Culture. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
INTRODUCTION TO THE APPROACHES TO COMPARATIVE INTERNATIONAL MANAGEMENT 23
MG9353 int.qxp 10/3/05 8:33 am Page 23
Van Maanen, J. (1988) Tales of the Field: on Writing Ethnography. Chicago: University
of Chicago Press.
Vitols, S. (2001) Varieties of corporate governance: comparing Germany and the UK,
in Hall, P.A. and Soskice, D. (eds) Varieties of Capitalism. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Whitley, R. (1994a) The internationalization of firms and markets: its significance and
institutional structures. Organization Studies 1(1), 101–24.
Whitley, R. (1994b) Dominant forms of economic organization in Market economies.
Organization Studies 15(2), 153–82.
Whitley, R. (1999) Divergent Capitalisms: the Social Structuring and Change of Business
Systems. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Wundt, W. (1888) Über Ziele und Wege der Volkerpsychologie. Philosophische Studien
4.
Zucker, Lynne G. (1983) Where do institutional patterns come from? Organizations as
actors in social systems, in Zucker, L.G. (ed.) Institutional Patterns and
Organizations: Culture and Environment. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.
24 COMPARATIVE INTERNATIONAL MANAGEMENT
MG9353 int.qxp 10/3/05 8:33 am Page 24
MG9353 int.qxp 10/3/05 8:33 am Page 25
Learning Objectives
By the end of this chapter you will be able to:
appreciate why in general we should be interested in the role of culture
evaluate the relationships between culture and economic development
discuss the use of the concept of social capital and trust
explore the role of trust in economic development
explain the relationship between trust and institutions
understand the antecedents of cultural differences between countries
understand the processes of modernization and postmodernization
assess why mono-causal interpretations of the relationship between culture
and economy are not productive.
Chapter
1
The Societal
Environment and
Economic
Development
SJOERD BEUGELSDIJK AND ANTON VAN SCHAIK
26 COMPARATIVE INTERNATIONAL MANAGEMENT
MG9353 ch01.qxp 10/3/05 8:34 am Page 26
Chapter Outline
1.1 Introduction
1.2 The Economist’s Point of View
‘It’s the culture, stupid!’
The Weber thesis
Social capital and trust
Culture, institutions and the societal environment
Case: Corruption and the Financial and Educational Systems in Nigeria
1.3 How the Economy Influences Culture: the Sociologist’s Stance
Inglehart’s thesis
1.4 Conclusions
Study Questions
Further Reading
References
THE SOCIETAL ENVIRONMENT AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 27
MG9353 ch01.qxp 10/3/05 8:34 am Page 27
28 COMPARATIVE INTERNATIONAL MANAGEMENT
1.1 Introduction
Where do cultural differences come from? This is a useful question with which to begin a
study of comparative international management. An awareness of the antecedents of
cultural features can help us to improve our understanding of the differences between
cultures. A better understanding of cultural differences, in turn, can help us to enhance
our approach to them in an international management context.
As is explained more extensively in Chapter 2, the term culture has a multiplicity of
meanings. Narrowly understood it refers to the arts and entertainment, whether
upmarket or popular. More generally, it can be understood as the perceptual frames,
values and norms used in social life: as the way society looks at itself and filters what it
sees.
The two are connected, in that arts and entertainment provide symbols of identity
and representations of social norms, holding up a more or less distorting mirror to society.
Numerous broader definitions of the word culture exist, and most include elements like
meanings, values, and religion or ideology. One of the most accepted and extensive defi-
nitions is that proposed by Clifford Geertz, who defines culture as ‘an historically
transmitted pattern of meanings embodied in symbols, a system of inherited conceptions
expressed in symbolic forms by means of which men communicate, perpetuate, and
develop their own knowledge about and attitudes toward life’ (1973: 89).
Hofstede’s more succinct definition of culture as the ‘collective programming of the
mind’ comes close to the one by Geertz (cited in Hofstede, 2001: 1). Hofstede adds that
culture does not only manifest itself in values but also in more superficial ways, in
symbols, heroes and rituals (2001: 1). A central element in most definitions of culture is
the concept of values. Similar to culture, numerous definitions of values exist. Building on
a large body of literature, Hofstede (2001: 5) defines a value as a ‘broad tendency to prefer
certain states of affairs over others’.
This chapter examines the relationship between economy and culture. Specifically, it
deals with the relationship between economic development and cultural differences, and
aims to provide a broader perspective on the complex relationship between culture and
economy. The chapter consists of two parts, which correspond to the two views on the
relationship. These are the economist’s and the sociologist’s perspectives, respectively.
1. Economists argue that cultural differences may cause differences in economic
growth.
2. The core question for sociologists is where cultural differences come from. It is argued
that one of the most important factors driving cultural differences is the level of
economic development.
The chapter thus discusses both directions of causality between culture and econ-
omic development. Since mono-causal explanations are unable to explain sufficiently the
relationship between culture and economic development, it is essential to have an under-
standing of both paradigms.
The first part of this chapter is devoted to the economist’s stance and examines the
question of whether cultural traits have economic consequences. It provides a general
MG9353 ch01.qxp 10/3/05 8:34 am Page 28
THE SOCIETAL ENVIRONMENT AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 29
background to the role of culture in the economic sciences. Next, the chapter discusses
the Weber thesis, since this was one of the first studies to suggest a link between culture
and economic growth. The first part of the chapter also deals with the concept of social
capital, and the important role of trust and institutions for economic development. This
discussion on the economist’s perspective is followed by the sociologist’s discussion on the
causes of cultural differences. We have chosen to discuss here Inglehart’s thesis, as he is
one of the most celebrated authors on this topic.
1.2 The Economist’s Point of View
‘It’s the culture, stupid!’
Why are some countries rich while others are poor? This is perhaps one of the most
crucial research questions, if not the core question in economics. For many decades this
question has triggered many economists to study growth differences between countries.
One of the groundbreaking contributions has been Solow’s neoclassical growth model, in
which the core factors determining growth are investment in physical capital (K) and
labour (L). The neoclassical growth model was formulated as national income (Y) and is
a function of K and L.
However, economists studying growth differences between countries also found that
these two factors alone are not sufficient to explain the differences in economic growth.
From then onwards, the standard neoclassical model has been extended with factors that
are thought to contribute to some countries growing faster than others. Subsequently,
economists have concentrated on the level of education or human capital; the way in
which society is formally organized in terms of, for example, laws (institutional differ-
ences); and, finally, they have turned to the role of culture as a potentially explanatory
factor for cross-country diversity in levels of growth and welfare.
In the second half of the 1980s and at the beginning of the 1990s, it was popular
among economists to study a range of variables that might cause growth differences.
Authors like Baumol (1986), Barro (1991), and Mankiw, Romer and Weil (1992) have
made important contributions to the question of why some countries are poor and others
rich. During the 1990s, more and more economists felt that existing models of economic
growth could be further improved by including culture. Aside from the improvement of
existing growth models, however, the interest in the role of culture in explaining growth
and welfare differences has been emphasized for other reasons.
One important reason has been the formidable growth performance of Japan in the
1970s and 1980s. The major stimulus that has made economists more attentive to
macro-level forces (e.g. culture) other than the aforementioned orthodox ones
(investment in physical capital and labour) has been the rise of the global economy and
the recognition that the USA and western Europe had lost their hegemonic pos-
ition within it (Zukin and DiMaggio, 1990). Although the Japanese economy has been in
crisis since the beginning of the 1990s, the Japanese economic miracle of the 1970s and
1980s has led to a recognition that a variety of successful economic models exists. The
Japanese success has led economists to rethink the idea that there is only a single model
that brings economic success. In other words, the recognition of the heterogeneity of
MG9353 ch01.qxp 10/3/05 8:34 am Page 29
successful economic models has accorded a new prominence to institutional and cultural
factors.
The importance of the broader societal environment to economic development has
been strengthened further by the policy experiences of the World Bank. The main task of
the World Bank is to fight poverty across the world. One of the ways that the World Bank
tries to do this has been to introduce market-based policies in poor and less-developed
countries (LDCs). Typically, some of the instruments used to reduce poverty are cutting
budget deficits, and reducing the number of import barriers and other market-disturbing
policies. In other words, the focus has been very much on the introduction of a free-
market system by taking away all kinds of obstacle, mostly created by the governments of
LDCs. Together with the International Monetary Fund (IMF) the World Bank has followed
a neoliberal market-based approach.
However, this approach – sometimes referred to as the Washington Consensus – has
increasingly been criticized for not always yielding beneficial results or for yielding dif-
ferent results across different countries. The latter has led to the acknowledgement of the
crucial influence of the broader societal environment in which these adjustment policies
have taken place. The hidden social basis of neoliberal success and failure has led econ-
omists and policy-makers to think of development in a broader way than just the
neoliberal market-orientated one (Portes, 1997). The interest in culture and the possi-
bility of culture facilitating economic development and growth has been further
emphasized by the impressive economic development of South-east Asia and the assumed
role of culture, in particular religion.
A related reason why a critique of the neoliberal market view emerged has been the
development of new methods of research in economics. Experimental economics, or
game theory, has led many economists to recognize that some core assumptions in econ-
omics are not realistic, the most important being the assumption of rationality. The use of
experiments has shown that individuals do not always take decisions that are rational.
Instead, many decisions are taken because ‘we always do it like this’ or ‘because we are
expected to do so’. Based on insights from psychology and sociology, a richer picture of
human behaviour has been introduced in economics. At a more abstract level, the devel-
opment of new methods like game theory has led to a broader acceptance of
socio-cultural factors in economic analysis.
Besides the above-mentioned factors, it has been suggested that the interest in culture
should be linked to the process of increased internationalization or globalization.
Globalization implies a reduction in the effectiveness of traditional economic policy instru-
ments because there are leakage effects in a globalized world economy. However, it is not only
policy-makers that have to take the effect of globalization forces into account. Multinational
firms are affected, too. Rapid flows of trade, capital and information have significantly
reduced the advantages that a firm gets from inputs sourced from elsewhere. Buying prod-
ucts in a foreign country is not unique, and these strategies have therefore been neutralized
as a competitive advantage in today’s global economy. The remaining sources of competitive
advantage are increasingly local, including special buyer–supplier relationships, specialized
access to local knowledge and knowledge of local human resource traditions. To paraphrase
Michael Porter (2000: 17), since many of the external sources of advantage for a nation’s
firms have been nullified by globalization, potential internal resources of advantage must be
cultivated if a country wishes to upgrade its economy and create prosperity for its citizens.
30 COMPARATIVE INTERNATIONAL MANAGEMENT
MG9353 ch01.qxp 10/3/05 8:34 am Page 30