CullenThis page provides links to course resources – in particular, weekly readings!
the reproduction of consumer culture
when does culture matter culture based judgements
Week 2 2010: Culture as an Individual Process
Week 3 2010: D&H2005Approaches to Modelling Human Mental Representations
Week 4 2010: Monga on Post-Macroeconomics
Week 5 2010: intergenerational persistance of educational outcomes
Week 6 2010: Vischer on Conscience and community
Week 7 2010: Neighbourhood Attainment and Residential Segregation among Toronto’s Visible Minorities
Week 8 2010: Hermann Pillath Neuroeconomics, Naturalism and Language; Seidenberg Language acquisition and Use Learning and Applying Probabilistic Constraints
Week 9 2010: Fuck
Week 10 2010: John McCarthy Culture Cognition and Conflict; the role of culture in negotiation
Week 11 2011: North on Insitutions; North on the Evolution of Efficient Markets
Week 12 2011: crossing the boundaries of time
Week 13 2011: how much does money really matter; Recordkeeping and Reciprocity
Week 14 2011: Human Capital and Weber
Week 15 2011: value and stakeholder theory
Week 16 2011: Eric Schliesser Galilean Reflections on Milton Friedman; management control and Enron
Week 17 2011: Burri Nenova Making the WTO Conducive to Culture
Week 18 2011: cross cultural advertising; cross cultural business practices
Week 19 2011: Anthropology and Economic Imperialism the Battlefield of Culture
Week 20 2011: Guiso et al Does Culture Influence Economic Outcomes
Gelmini reforms Dec. 2010:
About the article by C.M. Fairman.
In the article, I read: “…the fact that the society may find speech offensive is not a sufficient reason for suppressing it.”
What do you think about this sentence?
It really impresses me: I absolutely don’t want to sponsor censura BUT is it possible to say things the way we like without considering people around?
What’s about omophobia? Should it be allowed just because is the free expression of thought of someone?
What’s about racism? Shouldn’t we react to racist slogans, just because everyone is free to express personal point of view?
Shouldn’t we be offended by such words? Should we let EVERYTHING to be said?
Isn’t there a point in which vulgarity and violence of words give the only result of offending, discriminate and humiliate?
Moreover, should we judge the same word, used in different contexts, in the same way?
Here an example:
A student wearing a t-shirt on which you can read “Drugs sucks” , shuold be punished as a boss calling his secretary “Good suckers”?
Waiting for your opinions…
Have a nice week.end!
Hi Laura – you’ve raised the key points of the free-speech argument. The answers are cultural (it’s not just a cop-out!) in the sense that they reflect the norms that develop in a community or a society over time – but in the context of change. I’ll give you an example: years ago it was socially acceptable to use the word “nigger” as a term for black people. Some people used it as an express term of suspicion, hatred, sense of superiority, etc., and some people used it without such heavy thought or emotion behind it. As a word, of course, it developed out of various latin language terms for “black” – indicating similar connotations to the later use of the term “black” for black people. The problem was the intent, which although perhaps not majority, was still very loud and active in the oppression of black people. The problem lies in the contextualisation of identity. We know that culture is based on differentiation – of roles and identities – but in the extreme this produces negative emotions attached to a group or community. Is it appropriate to create superficial divisions of populations – i.e., based on skin-colour? In a globalised society, even in a multicultural national society, this makes no sense. Even the use of the term “black” makes no real sense as an identifier of that person’s contribution and role in society. So what are the alternatives? In the United States the term “Afro American” became popular, so as to emphasise the connection between the black communities and their African roots. (An interesting read on these subjects is a book published by the Smithsonian Museum called “Seeds of Change” – all about the cultural clash of Europe in the “New World”. What about other former African natives living abroad – is the term African-Canadian appropriate, or are we importing a problem from the United States, given that we had racism without African slavery? How can this cultural question meet the identity needs of newer, post civil rights African newcomers who don’t have the same question of identity formation?
Another example is the Italian-American community. I participated in a debate on the use of the term “wop” about 3 years ago – online – among Italian historians. The problem was that a Canadian newspaper used this term (derogatory against Italians), sparking a reaction among sensitive Italian-studies professors, none of whom were Italian. The term is miss-guidedly interpreted as “WithOut Papers” – indicating clandestine immigration (not the case with Italians in North and South America). The term actually comes from the Italianised term “guapo” – meaning “bello” in the southern social sense – popularised in North America by Neopolitan, Calabrian and Sicilian immigration. So the use of the term, deprived of it’s root form, was established as a derogatory term, like dago or kike or kraut or limey or nigger. The problem is in the reception: Italian Canadians did not appear to have a great problem with the term, in part because the interaction among themselves is already quite harsh in Protestant North American terms (think social space and social norms). So, in this case it was the northern European component of Canadian society that, by being offended on behalf of Italians, in the end made a great deal of noise about a non-issue. They were over sensitive, and in doing so actually ascribed their social norms on a group (Italian-Canadians) that did not share them.
This is happening to a certain, much more difficult extent among the black communities on one hand, and the gay communities on the other. Once upon a time the term “gay” was derogatory for “homosexual”, now it is standard jargon for the linguistic reason that “homosexual” sounds is so technical you might as well be fucking a vacuum cleaner. Gay, on the other hand, seems much more suited to the group – direct and no longer caught up in negative connotation. That’s America.
Italy, on the other hand, has the Catholic Church, which may be facing a “cultural bubble” in which the nominal value of the church far exceeds the real social value – or ability to maintain coherency of message when faced with the changes in Italian society today. In part, this value-system may be somewhat (but not generally) extended to Italian society. Some forms of value-maintenance mechanisms are going to have to change as the newcomer population establishes 2+generations of residents. As well, as ICTs and global interaction pull Italian interests outside of the territory, we are seeing the disappearance of centuries-old traditions. This means that the question of sensitivity to other cultures is perhaps more at the front of socio-political issues in Italy today than it is in other countries. I remember in 1996 being told by a French professor that Americans were backward in their over-sensitivity to women’s issues, while in progressive France that problem had been culturally digested! I recently watched a film called “Vogliamo Anche le Rose” – about life for Italian women in the 1970′s, and was surprised to see how much was similar today (not everything!).
So – we have a general problem when it comes to offensiveness – intent. In democratic legal systems, designed to guarantee rights, it is also important to prove that malicious intent was present in the act in order to punish someone for something. Think of murder cases. Did you plan and execute the murder? Did it happen during an emotional rage? Was it the outcome of a two-way fight? Did you accidentally kill someone and then didn’t do anything to help the situation? Offensiveness can be like that. Did you go out of your way to offend someone? Did you do so in a way that you knew beforehand would create a significant emotional response? Can this be proven in a way that is fair for all groups within a nation state (big problem). Also, and societies do this, is the cure simply creating a culture of victimisation?
Victimisation – this is a big problem. It is an oversensitivity to possible issues to the point that it gets in the way of issues that are actually present. In other words, it is dysfunctional sensitivity. In the Canadian debate about the word “wop”, my contribution was to ask if anyone participating had actually taken the time to find out if Italians were offended? They hadn’t, they weren’t. The term was seen as a mild reflection of ignorance, given that no Italians arrived in Canada “without papers”, and if you want to see two people spend a great deal of time hurling offensive remarks at each other – as friends – spend time south of Lazio-Abruzzo.
This was the problem with the word “fuck”. What is the intent? Are we saying something that has any real bearing on the present situation? Is the term “fuck you” a literal threat of sexual violence (introduction of sex-taboo and violence-taboo) or is it a combination of vocally strong words that may mean any of the things we saw in the small video yesterday. My kid, for example, tells me to fuck off all the time, but it is rarely offensive because usually he says it in teenage barrier-challenging jest. So usually I tell him to watch his language and not to get too comfortable speaking that way (I probably did). Sometimes, however, he means it angrily, and then it becomes an inappropriate expression of rebellion against authority. Then I get angry with him because his intent is to subvert the authority chain, which, unfortunately is still necessary at the age of 14 when many problems can arise that he doesn’t have the experience to deal with.
So – as Marco said below – food for thought. I’ll stop here – for now! What would Rainer Lenz say? Pillath?
All the best! Thanks for your comment!!!!
Hi there!
I’ve found an interesting (yet easy!) article on Time Magazine Online about Italians-Americans and a tabbooed word…the G word.
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1947338,00.html
this is the link!
Hi!
I just wanted to say that today I found the F-word discussion very interesting…
It really gives you food for thoughts!
See you later
Hi Giulia! Interesting article about the Guidos. That sums up the problem – do the derogatory senses intended by one generation translate into another one? Obviously, the term “Guido” was used in the television show because it was commonly recognised, but does the devaluation of its derogatory sense also devalue the culture that uses it? I.e., does current misuse/adaptation of former derogatory terms indicate an ignorance in terms of cultural/intellectual terms in a way that before usage of the term itself indicated ignorance in terms of bigotry, whether one was very intelligent or not? Also, there is a question of approach to immigration: there are conflicting values transmitted to immigrant communities – one is bigotry/racism, the other is condescention/pandering. The first attacks the person’s identity directly, while the other attacks the person’s dignity as a functional and intelligent human being – albeit in a new and perhaps linguistically different context, and therefore with some immediate challenges to overcome culturally and linguistically. So what’s wrong with being a Guido? Part of the problem that creates the “loadedness” of the term is the internal cultural misunderstandings present in Italy itself. It is, for example, not a term used among all Italian communities abroad. It is not used in my area of Canada, where most of the Italians came from Abbruzzo and Friuli – not “Guido” territory? The questions continue – as will our conversations!
Comment of the Role of Culture in the Negotiation Process
In the last decades many studies have been conducted in order to figure out what role the culture plays in a nagotiation process. The issue is not that new, negotiations have always been taken place between business partners from all over the world and the concept of culture is not new too. Maybe not every negotiation brought a positive result in the past, because of the lack in the intercultural comunication knowledge. A high quantity of theories about interculturale negotiation have been developed.
Before talking about the role of culture in a negotiation process, it is necessary to understand what culture is. Culture as a concept has been studying for many year now and some of the researchers like, for example, Hofstede have defined culture as
In fact, culture can be described as a sum of beliefs, ways of thinking, feeling and reacting. From my point of view, the most interesting theory is the Hofstede’s which describes culture as “the colletive programmain of the mind”, puting the human brain as the same level with a computer processor, which is quite controversial if we consinder that human beings are the most intelligent “creators” in the world. Thus, culture is an important issue to discuss and is part of the intercultural comunication which lead to intercultural negotiations. The knowledge of culture as a concept is necessary to work on intercultural negotiation.
But how intercultural negotiation can be defined? Negotation is just a process between two or more business partners which objective is to achieve a compromise about a determine issues. When talking about intercultural negotiation it is the same process but between business partners having different cultural background.
Having read the article, I was wondering if all those theories and hypothesis are enough to be a good negotiater. From my point of view it is not. Of course, theory helps you to understand many things and to find answers to some questions. But in my opinion it is only a little help and the majority consists of practice, practice and practice. It doesn’t help you to read a big quantity of specialized books about intercultural business or some cultural guidlines if you have never been and experienced personally what the other cultures beliefs, what their point of views and behaviours are.
I strongly believe that culture influences in someway the way we behave or interact with other people, but on the other hand, I don’t think that knowing the culture of a determine social group is 100 percent enough to answer all questions and to achieve the win-win goal which is fundamental in a intercultural negotiation.
What I want to say is actually the fact, that culture is, of course something “national” but I believe in “personal culture” too which is relevant too, which means that it’s up to the negotiater to achieve to win-win goal.
Yep – in fact, there are many types of culture beyond, and only difficultly defined by, the confines of the nation state. In terms of negotiation, you’re right – all of the theory in the world doesn’t make you a good negotiator. Just like having a theoretical knowledge of music doesn’t make you a good musician, and even good musicians are not necessarily good performers.
It is useful, however, to have theoretical tools. In practice, they help provide an explanatory model with which you can compare lived experiences – not all people use them, not all people need them, but if they’re there, they can be of use – if they’re not, they can’t. More on this later – excellent points!
Pete
Nice comparison Pete. Yeah, I completely agree with your point of view, a good knowledge about music doesn’t make you a good musician – that’s true! Well, I guess that this point is valid for all other disciplines in the world. But maybe culture is something deeper which you have excavate the essence of it, to, at least, understand the “mechanism”, because bofore constructing a machine, for example, the engineer has to understand how that machine works. A
Concluding this issue, I strongly believe that there is no right way to achieve a goal. However you do it and which means you use to reach it, the important thing is to comprehend and be convinced of it.
COMMENTAR
WHAT TIME DOES REALLY MEAN?
Have you ever questioned youselves what time means? Well, I have not until read the article written by Margerete H. Freeman which honestly gave me some points to think about.
Firstly, I would like to recall Lakoff’s and Johnsons’ theory about time. They say that time is not necessarly a biological, social or cultural constrict. I would agree partially only. From my point of view time IS something biological given to us human beings by nature. During the last centuries time has been trasformed to adapt it to the new ways of life, so it has to be something cultural and of course social. On the other hand it is really difficult to find an answer to the question if time really exists. The Philosopher Merlaus-Ponty pointed out that time is “our primordial experience” which is based on analysis, comparism and evaluation. Well, I wouldn’t say that this theory is that wrong. Of course time is based of analysis bacause if you put it on the cultural level you have to analyse if it time is a relevant element or not. And for sure it is a metaphor, even if Ponty’s thesis is quite difficult to comprehend. Another interesting point is that Lakoff and Johson and Ponty see time as a river where Marleau-Ponty sustain the idea that the present is a cosequence of the past and the future of the present. I think that this is the most interesting point in the article because I completely agree with it. Everythink that we did in the past will in somehow effect our present and even the future. I strongly believe in destiny so for me it is a consequence of destiny which influnced the past, is doing the same to the present and will be present in the future. Another interesting observation is that all depends on the observers and his position. If I am in a boat flowing with the stream of the river I am passing the landscape leaving it behind me. Does it mean that the landscape is in the past? From my point of view, it is not! How can a phisical element as the landscape be in the past?! And can the present, the past and the future be put in one?! This is a very difficult question that I couldn’t answer.
Concluding, I would say that everyone should explain time on itself like many other things in this world which are difficult to comprehend.
Money and happiness – a difficult relationship?
Asking someone whether money is important or not, I guess the majority will answer positively to that question. Of course is money important, otherwise we could not survive, because we could not buy all those things that we need to our dayly life. But is money really important to be happy? This question is very philosophical and the answer depends surely on the personal point of view and experience. For me personaly money gives me safety, I’m safe to buy all those things that I need to survive and if there is enough money left to buy something that satisfy my personal needs and make me happy. So it is not money that makes me happy, but the material think or the experiece that I buy thanks to it. Well, but if all material or non material things, like envorinmental protection or good service, satisfy us, is it not money that makes us happy?! From my point of view, the sum that everyone has on its own current account monthly, makes us happy – indirectly.
Another point to discuss is, where the market should govern. Michael Sandel discourse is very intersting at this point. He is analysing this question and try to understand how the free market should be implemented into our life. Well, from my point of view, it shouldn’t that much. Of course, the western societies are strongly connected to the capitalistic market and they profit more or less from it, but is it necessary to unite society and the free market? Well, if money gives us happiness indirectly, the market does the same for sure.
The important thing is, to find a sane cohesion and to balance everything in a right way.
Interesting points Dawid! Part of the argument is that base-line salary improvements don’t help “buy happiness” in North America, because they don’t actually add noticeably to perceived disposable income. If you earn 1500 euro each month, and I give you a 10% raise, that’s good – but the extra €150 euro, once you’ve paid taxes on it, is almost insulting depending on the work you’ve done to get the raise.
On the other hand, rewards, where baseline cost of living is comparatively low, may seem like a great idea. With a lump-sum reward, people who are otherwise financially stable will be able to purchase goods or services that they would otherwise have to save for – giving immediate satisfaction and gratification. If, on the other hand, relative cost of living is high compared to salaries, then perhaps even one off rewards won’t make a significant difference, since their immediate value diminishes in perceived value as time goes by and normal life “grinds” on. I agree with you. In my opinion the free market is not a great mechanism for ensuring (within reason) baseline standards of living – but what it does do is trick us into perceiving rewards as a great benefit – because of the psychology of “winning” and “competing”. How can we find the balance – and are the same balances applicable in jurisdictions and cultures?
To find a balance is quite impossible. From my point of view there is no way to make all people satisfied. As long as we’ve got the same economic system, which have caused this terrible crisis, we will never improve and will be always forced to be anxious of the next crisis.
Another interesting point are the terms “winning” and “competing” you mentioned. I am not really convinced if the way people think in nowadays, is either right or not. They are always trying to be more competitve, more winning oriented. Is this the right way? Is this the result of our system, which is provocating us every day to behave this way? Maybe, there is no chance to find a balance in economic issues, but for sure there is a probable way when dealing with culture. Which it is, I can’t answer. Everyone has first find its own balance to be able to give it to the others. Is the human being not a social animal?
Religion and Economy
Weber’s controversial thesis
Religion has been taking a significant part in our daily life for centuries. Even if a lot of things have changed, it is still, more or less, part of our lives. But what does religion have to do with economy? Is there a real relationship between these scientific areas?
Max Weber is still considered of the most important sociologists in Germany and in fact he contributed a lot by writing his thesis about sociology. The most controversial on the one hand and interesting affirmation is the relationship between Protestatism and Economy or better the final outcome. He argued in his thesis that people belonging to the Prostant Church would earn more money than Catholics. There are a lot of empirical studies which certified that in fact Prestants earn more than Catholics. Does it mean that Catholics are less educated and therefore their outcomes are lower? Well, if we take the Webers thesis this might be the answer. It sounds strange, but in someway everything depens on how the Bible is written. The most interesting example is that Martin Luther, who founded the Protestant Church in the 16th century, translated some parts of the Bible differently which made it revolutionary. On of the most significant words is the word “call” cited in the article, which translated means “der Ruf, die Berufung” (in a spirital way). Luther translated it as “Beruf” which means “work, job”. This provoked an important change in the way of thinking and understanding the reason of being a human being, created by God and the role which every person is put on. Form the Protestant point of view, work ist strongly connected to the religion, because it means that you have to contribute to the society, not only by earning money but of course being successful. The Catholic church is more spritual in this way, because what counts is not the job but the relationship you have with God, not by working but praying. Does it mean that the Protestants were and still are more successful (eccept atheists) because they base their personal life on the word of the Luther Bible? It might be correct, but on the other side there are a lot of catholics that earn a lot of money and are successful too. I don’t believe that Religion has an impact on economy, at least in our modern world, but for some people Webers thesis could be true and realistic. But if the Catholic Church highlights the important of a sane relationship with God based on prayers and not work, why the Catholic hierarchy is profoundly based on work? This is very contradictory, as many thinks inside the Catholic Church.
I don’t believe that the outcome depends on the religion, but I do believe that people which strongly believe and follow the Church are effected by her dogmas and believes.
Dear Dawid,
your understanding of Weber theory is very insightful. Nevertheless, you left out something very relevant. And that makes sense to the overall Weber theory: investments.
The issues it not so much that protestant people are more successful than, let’s say, Catholics; but that protestant religion values very much ascetics. This means that, once protestant people earn some money, they are not kin to spend them for luxury. Instead, they invest it. This provokes a virtuous circle. Earning money and investing them. More money are in this way generated. Everyone becomes richer even if nobody seems richer.
Giovanni
Hi!
Cool comment! Yes, I think it’s more important to invest money in something usefull which can generate benefits as to spend it immediately. Because the more you invest, the more possible it becomes to generate a higher turn-over. Okay, spending money is cool too….
Heh heh… I love it when a blog comes together! These are interesting comments! Relationships between belief and behaviour are always good food for thought. As are relationships between individual agents and greater collective networks. So, I’ll throw in my 2 cents on the topic. (That’s what I’m paid for, right?)
1. It is important to remember that Protestantism did not develop as a detached doctrinal criticism of Catholicism. Many critics of the Catholic church remained inside the church – such as Erasmus. Luther himself did not initially intend to break with Rome, but found increasing division and reticence of position between the Pope and various German populations. Remember – the pope at this time was Leo X, a real nepotistic Medici family member who helped tie papal interests to the engrandisement of his dynasty. At a time when visual culture communicated power through architecture, dress and pictoral art, the ability to command maestros such as Raffaello and Michelangelo fit into the logic of communicating the territorial validity and stability of both the Church in Rome, the Papal States and Medici territorial aspirations in Tuscany – all of which helped secure Leo’s position at a time when Spanish, French and German armies were running up and down the peninsula. Michelangelo, and in particular the Sistine Chapel, cost a great deal of money, however.
This cost to the entire Catholic world occured, however, at a time when land holding patterns were shifting in Germany as well, as local lords became increasingly territorial rulers in their own right (see. O. Brunner, Land und Herrshaft…) and began to re-think the tax bases for their evolving giurisdictions – putting increased fiscal pressure on the peasant farmers. For a variety of reasons, therefore, Germany was rife with anti-Roman sentiment as it saw the Church pay for the aggrandisement of it’s own ability to communicate power with German silver – at the expense of the territorial lords in Germany.
Luther’s reform, therfore, fell on favourable times – almost immediately gaining significant support in Saxony and other states.
2. The formulation of “work-ethic” in protestantism, therfore, occured as a contrastive device to the seemingly self-aggrandising and bloated territorial politics of the Medici family. This raises another point – productivity. Gerard Delille has demonstrated that the way populations are able to exploit their landed resources between north and south directly affects their productivity. This is really the measure of “work-ethic” as increased productivity creates the cultural illusion of moral success. In reality, much of the base-line ability to be productive in the pre-industrial world depended on the ability to maximise physical strength in either humans or animals. As northern Italy, and even more-so northern Europe gets significant and steady quantities of rain it has greater ability to use cows as draught animals. Combined with the relatively extended lowlands and plains areas of central Europe, the cattle-raising economies of the north did not suffer the geographic “restrictions” of central Italy, but rather could divide up more land and operate it more efficiently by a factor of 15 (or thereabouts). This means that the same amount of human work produced a greater amount of product. Another, non-religiously tied, example is Poland. From the 15th to the 18th century polish farmers probably enjoyed the highest standards of living in Europe due to their ability to produce agricultural products efficiently. With a relatively stable property-owning system, the arguments of protestantism did not gain widespread support at a political level (as far as I know).
3. In Italy specifically, but in the Mediterranean in general, society has developed in a long-term cycle of pressure on limited resources – very different than in the north. As well, the weather is generally clement enough that much social interaction (reinforcing links in the community network) can happen in public spaces. You won’t die waiting for someone in piazza – even in the middle of winter. Try that in (Lutheran) Sweden in January. This component too has had a great impact on our interactional cultures. In order to avoid the cold, northerners tend to organise themselves in advance of participation in an event, and are less willing to accept modifications to these plans as it may mean more time spent in inclement weather and greater physical cost to the intended social transaction. Hot weather communities, on the other hand, can spend more time outside in public spaces for the same physical cost – allowing a) more opportunity for unforeseen interruptions b) generating a greater acceptance of them and c) reinforcing social confirmation and competition through publically oriented visual culture – like dress, architecture and ultimately, art (also posture, attitude and speech!).
So, the concept of work-ethic concept comes rather out of a cultural moralising component in Weber’s observation of a break between two inherently different production systems at a time when both systems were undergoing shifts in land managment at a political scale. Whether or not catholic communities or protestant communities are more productive usually has more to do with the communitiy’s relationship to available production factors than it does with religious belief. How these communities decide to use the fruits of their labours is something different. The religious component serves as a communications device between systems in competition. Is this a model – I dunno. Why don’t you guys tell me!
About the article by Rainer Lenz, “Culture as an individual process”.
Yesterday i read this article, and it made me form an opinion about the traditional way to see an individual as a person belonging to a “fixed cluster”, especially in cross-cultural management.
Isn’t this a sort of a “plataform for prejudice”?Well, that’s the way i see it. To know how to do business with a person on the basis of his nationality is constrictive, in my opinion. But the worst thing is to be convinced to know how to behave with that person, just because he is “German” or “Chinese”, so we know his “German” or “Chinese” cultural dimension.
There is much more behind an individual and of course, there is much more to know behind the idea of culture.
An individual have his own collection of past events, his own experiences, and he is a unique individual, because everyone has different histories, different way to react to some good or bad experiences, and to me this doesn’t depend on “cultural dimensions”.
I really liked an expression used by the author in this article, “life’s lottery” (page number 7), well, isn’t life a lottery? This describes very well how we are, how every individual should be seen, as a product of many experiences, many events, many different relationships, and a tonne of other elements.
To have a fixed idea of someone (bad or good) because of his nationality, could be very dangerous; as i’ve said before, this is the base of prejudice. And prejudice is not a fertile ground to build a solid relationship with a person, i think this is true in business as well.
This is my point of view, i’m waiting for your opinions!
Chiara C.
About the article by D. Checchi, C. Fiorio, M. Leonardi “intergenerational persistance of educational outcomes”.
I’ve found this article very interesting, even if i don’t agree with some part of it. Anyway, I am the exception to the rule; i come from a low income family, my parents are not graduated， neither are my grandparents, but i’ve already get my three years’ degree and i’m going to take my two years’ degree as well! I know many people in my same situation, that’s why i believe that our parents’ income, our families’ wealth or the fact that schooling could be seen as a risky investiment only represent a financial problem, but these factors can’t affect our will to get a degree. From my point of view, the difference lies on the reason why a person decide to study and reach an high level education; people from wealthy families tend to enroll at university and get their degrees because they know they will find good job opportunities “according to family networking and their parents’ education” (page 22). On the contrary, people from low income families get a degree and decide to study for the simple pleasure to study and to gain access to a wider knoledge, at least this is true for me; studying allows us to become open minded, and to become aware of many aspects of different matter, but at the same time i know that it will be hard to enter in a certain kind of labour market, at least here in Italy!
As for the liquidity constraint theory, it can be true that family’s wealth determine if a child will enroll at the college, but ,again, there is no attention to the fact that we can obtain scholarship or other financial aid in order to have the possibility to study, and we can also work and study at the same time (this is my case!).
Finally, i agree with the last part of the reading, precisely in the part when the Italian high school system is discussed (page 24); i think that a comprensive high school would be better in order to give the same level of education to every student. Anyway, again, i am the exception to the rule: my parents have a low level education, but i ended up in an academic high school, and not in a vocational one, as the authors expected!
I’m curious to know what do you think about it!
Chiara C.
Thank you for the video:”Writing a compelling reasearch proposal”. I’m writing the thesis and there are a lot of useful advices!!!!
Thank you!
Alessandra
I’m glad it was useful!!! It means that YOU and I are doing our jobs!!! Not too bad for this day and age!!!
Pete
I read the article “Culture as an Individual Process” and I recommend this link : http://www.ifitweremyhome.com/.
It allows you to visualize your life in onother country comparing living conditions in your own country to those of another.
It’s amazing!!!!!
I would like to make some comments on the text of Douglass C. North: “THE EVOLUTION OF EFFICIENT MARKETS IN HISTORY”.
North speaks about the efficiency of the markets and about what influences on trend.
What I think is that there is no “magic formula” for a perfect market.
If this had existed, the crisis could have been avoided. I know that this is a strong assertion, but with the formula for perfect markets everything should go at best.
No magic formula and no perfectly efficient market.
Every market has a particular structure and particular features and it is impossible to think at a magic formula to apply without any modification in each country.
A lot of studies have been done about the markets, the strengths and the weaknesses of the economy, and if a magic formula had existed, it would have yet been revealed and discovered.
The perfect market doesn’t exist because every country is different form the other, and the world and so the markets evolve in a very rapid way.
The differentiation of the markets must be done, first of all, on the basis of the position: North and South, East and West.
The culture also influences the economy of each county, as institutions and politics and not always in a positive way…sometimes they can create some obstacles for an evolution.
On the basis of the different structure of the States and on the law in the different countries, we can differ from “common law” countries and countries of the “Roman-German” lawful family.
In effect, politics, social structure and historic evolution create different convictions in a country, and even if it is always possible (and it could be useful) to learn from other countries, it not always happens.
There is not always the trust to do it, i.e. to learn and use a particular efficient method of a country in another one.
It also depends on the mentality (open or closed) of the citizens.
A reason for the differences between the markets and the strategic decisions in the economic field can also be found in the different resources and products of each country: different resources need different strategies and organizations. The economy of a country in effect is not only based on the request but also on the offer.
To conclude, it is not possible to generalize and to talk about an efficient market in gemneral.There are too many points to consider.
The globalization hasn’t yet created, as effect of its job, one perfect and efficient market, but what really misses today is, in my opinion, the willingness to think at and to search for a uniform solution to apply to different types of market for better commercial relations and results.
But,at least, if someone discovers the magic formula for an efficient market, please let me know…Italy really needs it!
Comments on the article “The Role of Institutions in economic development” by North.
I just want to leave my comment on the article mentioned above.
I agree with Mr North when he claimed that we live in a world that is a mixture of policy, economics, and society…They should be perfectly integrated in order to work and improve the welfare of the common people, But unfortunately in the daily life they’re not mixed and they often operate agaist each other: they think in a selfish way, in order to reach their own benefit; this happens in Italy, where the Government is involved only in the achievement of the private objectives of the Head of the Government. We can only dream of a world where the common people could trust in the Institutions, in the economics and in the society, but since now there is no way to let us hope in this “perfect world”…
Comment on the paper of Margaret H. Freeman “Crossing the boundaries of time
Margaret H. Freeman in her paper tries to give us an explanation of the cencept of time. She argues that time is an abstract concept and she agrees with the common metaphor of time as “orientation in space”. Objects are part of the space and they are both spatial and tempora. I agree with this point of view as well: I think that in all cultures the different notions of time are all related to space.
During my university studies path I could learn sevral different approaches to time which mark some differences among cultures. For instance the difference between monochronic and polychronic time: monochronic timing means to do one thing at a time, following a schedule with different tasks; monochronic cultures conceive time as practical and hands-on; time is an important resuorce which has not to be wasted; moreover time is linear, that’s to say it represents a line from the past through the present into the future. This vision is typical of anglosaxon and West cultures. On the other hands polychronic timing means to do many things at the same time with an high involvememt with people and emphasis on the personal relationships; time is noy perceived as a resourse and it could be also wasted, if this means to highligt the relationships with the members of a group. In this case time is not linear, but perceived as a point or a circle where the past, the present and the future exist simultaneously. This a typical approach of East cultures.
Being involved in an intercultural relationship with foreign people means also being aware of such cultural differences.
Hi Annamaria!
I want to reply to your comment, since i’m trying to write a thesis about the concept of time in intercultural relationship. In my thesis i’m comparing the concept of time in the United States with the one of Chinese people. The fact is that i’ve found limits in Trompenaars and Hofstede’s studies, because they “only” provided me the basic part of my thesis, but then i’m understanding that from a western point of view, time is a psychologycal issue, linked with neuropsychological and cognitive science’s theories. i’ve found a lot of interesting material in this direction! But if we look the problem from a Eastern point of view, it becomes a philosophical question, just try to think about the concept of time in Taoist and Buddhist tradition!
But i agree with you; every culture has its own sense of time and space.
Chiara
Hi Annamaria,Hi Chiara…this topic is very interesting,so I would like to express my opinion about it!
I agree with both of you about the fact that the conception of time is different in relation to different countries and cultures.
For this reason, to me,the focus point must not be time itself.
The study of the different conceptions of time in different countries must begin from the culture.
Everey country influences its citizens ideas and way to act…Every citizen adapts to the conditions of his own city/country.It also happens when you go abroad…I don’t mean fo a vacation,but I mean to study,to live,to work abroad…At the beginning you feel lost,and you have a lot of difficulty in adapation…When you understand that the problem is in your approach to the new place, you begin to adapt and to act like the other people there.
This is also true for the conception of time…if an italian person are in/move to India, for example, he/she will find the very big difference in the conception of time.
The fact that this conception is connected to psycolgical sphere is natural,but on the other hand, is natural that the conception of time is connected to the place,the space,the personal,the religion; a mix of factors.This is the culture in general,and the assertion “in general” in this case is fundamental:all these factors are summarized in the culture. It’s so difficult to find only one influencing factor!
Moreover,a study about the differences in the conception of time of some years ago could differ from a modern study about the same discipline. This is because the wolrd is more and more globalized and the evolution of each country is very speed…Today’s world is no more yesterday’s world and this is true for politics,as for economy,as for culture too!
Comment on: How Much Does Money Really Matter? Estimating the Causal Effects of Income on Happiness -Nattavudh Powdthavee* University of York – January, 2009
How much does money really matter to our happiness? I would like to express my opinion about it.
Today money is a very big probem for a lot of young people. They have dreams for the future about family, job, personal satisfaction,and so on; but they don’t have enough money to realize these dreams.
The fact is that they face a lot of difficulties in finding a stable job…I speak about the situation here in Italy…Young people don’t have the correct rights supporting them into the working world.
Jobs today are difficult to find, and when you find one, it is often not stable.
How could we be happy without the possibility to be sutisfied? I’m not speaking about irrealizable dreams, I mean that today we, young people, must be supported by our parents if we want to create a family soon (at the age of 25-30 years).
You find a job, but at the beginning you earn few; you find a job but this is not stable and you always risk to loose it (and it doesn’t depend on your capabilities)…this is what we young people must face today.
It’s a right for every one to work if needed…..Young people if there are no other solutions must accept a job that is very far from what they’ve studied or they wanted to do…..
It’s very frustrating, and ,moreover, here in Italy, if with a job we don’t have the certainty to obtain a pension when old….
In this sense, YES, I THINK THAT MONEY CAN BUY THE HAPPINESS.
I really suffer for this situation:I’m married but without a stable job and with a loan to pay ….I study because I really like what I’m learning, but I don’t know if I will find a workplace where to apply my capabilities.Now, I don’t have a stable job…
I don’t want to be too pessimistic, and I think that the best way to react it’s to repeat to myself that I’m lucky for what I have now…
No look into the future, but live day by day…this is the secret today.
I want to express my opinion about this reading, because it made me think about some things.
First, it is true that money can buy our happiness, we all need them, but to me true happiness can’t depends on money only. Many times i see my boss in the office, he really owns a lot of money, but i’ve never seen him happy, i really mean never!
I also think that some people work hard a lot of hours per day in order to earn an high income, but then, are they really happy? I mean, do they find time to spend those money, and to think about their loved ones? Money can make things easier – if you have a lot of money, you can buy your own house, you can get married soon, and so on – but “easier” doesn’t always mean “happiest”.
In the readings, this issue is underlined very well, in fact the author affirms that we can have a good payslip, but then, we have to consider other features correlated with money, as time to commute from home to the workplace, average of hours spent in working, how much we like to do our job, ecc..ecc.., and this is very important in my opinion.
I know that here in Italy the situation is critical – no stable jobs, very low payslips, ecc..ecc..- and as Claudia said, it is very frustrating, i agree with her, but for once in my life i want to be positive, and think that WE can change this situation, if we really want to. Because maybe a better job situation here in our country could make us happier, since to me owning a lot of money doesn’t represent true happiness.
Looking forward to hearing your opinions!
Chiara
Hi Claudia and Chiara.
I just want to leave my comment too.
I’ve just read the paper “How much does money really matter” and I agree with both you you and I’m going to explain my opinion about that.
I guess that money is really fundamental in our daily life, because without money we couldn’t manage our private contest, our interests and we are not able to take care of our family and neither of us. Money can buy our happiness: I let you think about a vacation, a relaxing week end, a dinner with our best friends, and I could give thousand of examples about my thought. We are happy when we can satisfy our needs, and mereover when we purchase our objectives with a special benefit for us…. Achieving a positive results for the others could make us happy too, but usually we are able to reach this aim only trough money…I guess that this thought could be perceived as materialistic and superficial but in the contemporary society Money (with the capital M) is considered as a God or as an entity that guides our actions and our objectives. I hope that we could move towards a better society where other values could dominate; I mean deeper values that embrace our life in a spiritual way and let us have trust in the world…
I hope so and I try to think positively day by day…
Annamaria, let’s talk about religion now!
In the paper “Was Weber Wrong? A Human Capital Theory of Protestant Economic History“ (week 14) I read: there is indeed a significant positive association between Protestantism and economic success.
To make a good comment on this paper and topic I should have studied more about the different religions in the world and how they affect the economy and the society of a particolar country.
So, I would like to write few words about my opinion.
Recentely I’ve studied that Muslim religion gives to people who believe in its concepts not only a religiuos way to act, but it also affects the society…That is: the society is entirely based on sacred books.
Also in the Catholic religion the Church influences the State. It should be laic,but sometimes some decisions suffer from the strenght of the Church. In Italy this is more evident, also because here in Italy there is Vatican City, where the Pope lives.
I don’t want to say directly:Yes, religion affects economy, but I can affirm that Religion affects society.
Waht do you think about it?
Claudia
Hi Claudia!
Here I am to answer to you!
I want to leave my coment about the paper “Was Weber Wrong? A Human Capital Theory of Protestant Economic History“…
Accordingly to you, I don’t know a lot about the field of regions…and I’m not able enough to comment in a proper way this argument.
I can only expose my opinion about religion and the way it influences economy and culture.
All religions express a fatalistic view of life, as they believe the man subject to God. Even when religions are aggressive (for instance the holy wars ), the intention is always to preach submission to God and to church.
The difference between a religion and the other is therefore only formal; we can say that some religions, or better than others, may have influenced the birth of capitalism (for exemple the Protestantism as the paper mentioned above titles).
Te religion has the power to influence social processes, in different forms: it can not be compared to fairy tales, myths and legends, which are often products of single individuals that have an educational and intellectual function.
Religion represents, through its principles, an organization of collective type, able to influence the socio-cultural and political whole society.
I agree with you, Claudia, when you say that in Italy this strong role of the Church and the Catholic Religion is particular evident, because of the Vatican State and the Pope, who represents the main istitution of our religion…
Comment on “Value Maximization, Stakeholder Theory, and the corporate Objective Function”.
I would like to leave my comment on this lesson to underline how the stakeholder theory presents several lacks on the basis of my personal work experience in a company involved in a big boilers business since 1959. Particularly I will focus my attention to the real necessity of a good communication among constituencies and to the important role they play in a company.
By the analysis of the text in object, I found that it’s really true when Mr. Jensen says that the stakeholder theory “leaves boards of directors and executives in firms with no principled criterion for decision-making” because, paying only attention on managers behaviour towards all constituencies, it doesn’t propose specific guides and procedures, it doesn’t consider the different objectives that constituencies can have and the necessity to direct these personal desires towards a common objective to lead the company to the success and stakeholders to the personal satisfaction. This theory apparently seems to legitimate the economic/political/social decisions of managers who seem to be supported by all constituencies, but if we analyse the reality, often stakeholders are not considered an important resource as this theory wants to attest.
A company is an organisation constituted by share, financial, social and human capital. A company couldn’t exist without one of them, therefore it’s necessary to consider stakeholders a fundamental value for a company. Stakeholders performances should be all direct to a common objective and, in order to reach important results, all members which “can affect the value of the firm”, should develop a good communication and cooperation among themselves.
By the analysis of my experience in an export department, I can surely affirm that the communication is fundamental between:
- customers and managers: to define the product design, technical features of the product, commercial sales conditions ( payment terms, delivery conditions, prices, eventual promotions, offers and special discounts..)
- Managers, production and technical department: to project prototypes and to finalise, modify or improve the product, once the agreements have been stipulated.
- Export department and purchasing department: to be in contact with all the suppliers and to order the components necessary for the production to respect the customers’ orders plan.
- Export department and production: to work orders and organise a monthly production plan.
- Export department and transport companies: to plan shipments according to the customers requests.
- Export department and warehouse: to organise shipments inside the company.
- Export department and technical department: to solve customers’ technical problems, to modify or personalise instructions manuals and components lists which must always be updated according to the customers requests, and to the Italian or other countries regulations.
- Export department and administrative department. To check the payment conditions of customers.
- And so on…
If only one department, like the export, needs a constant and daily contact with all the others, why does the stakeholder theory focus its attention on managers behaviour only? Why do managers focus their attentions on personal objectives without considering that more consideration, recognition, organisation and team work could bring important results for all the people living the company reality?
Each department plays obviously fundamental role to improve: the product value which consequently improves the company image in the market and the customer and stakeholders’ fidelity. All these features allows the company to rise its turnover in a long term perspective and at last to reach the value maximisation.
Hello Monica!!!
I’ve read the text too, and there are a lot of theories about this topic!
I would like to comment on what you’ve written:
“If only one department, like the export, needs a constant and daily contact with all the others, why does the stakeholder theory focus its attention on managers behaviour only? Why do managers focus their attentions on personal objectives without considering that more consideration, recognition, organisation and team work could bring important results for all the people living the company reality?”
The problem you speak about it’s properly an Italian problem.
In Italy the hierarchy counts a lot unfortunately! This is because the industries are mostly family companies and they are based on the idea of a leader/manager/chief administrating everything and taking final decisions on every discipline…
This is to me improper!
Sometimes the Italian manager doesn’t have the capabilities to take decisions on a particular way….He/she doesn’t look at the future but at the present and on what will bring money easier and soon!
This idea is enforced by my personal experience. I’ve been employed in little and big Industries but everywhere I’ve seen that the roles are very static and it’s very difficult to change position, to grow… because, even if you demonstrate a lot and a particular propensity to a specific kind of job your boss hardly accepts your suggestions and rarely he/she finds interest on them.
Some months ago I’ve studied Geert Hofstede and his analysis….On this analysis he emphasizes how culture influences on Economy too…
At this link: http://www.cyborlink.com/besite/italy.htm
you can find an interesting résumé about the application of Hofstede’s theory in Italy….look at one of the focal points.. “Italian companies often have a rigid hierarchy, with little visible association between the ranks”.
And there are a lot of similar sites about it!
I
Claudia
Hi to everyone!
I want to leave my opinion about stakeholder theory, since i’ve found it very interesting.
I’m working in a sea company, and from this year i have much more responsabilities, because i’m also responsible for the Croatian tour operator department, and this thing means that i have to spend a lot of time with my boss, i have to discuss with her all my decisions, all the things that “we sould do” to improve my department, and so on.
This is not my first time in a sea company or in a travel agency, i’ve already worked in companies like this, but this year is different, because i’m not a simply “employer” i feel many times the pressure of the decisions that i make, the pressure of my responsabilities, i think you will understand. Anyway, one thing i’ve noticed in my boss behaviour: as you’ve already asserted, she wants a lot of money in the quicker way, without thinking about future, she is always thinking about the present, without considering the implications. And this was true for all the bosses that they hired me in the past; i think this is an Italian problem, here we all hold hierarchy sacred in some way, and these are the results. Stakeholder’s theory is an utopia here in Italy; i mean, i know that a manager should be interested in all stakeholder needs and their condition too, as well as their goals, but our job situation doesn’t allow people to live int his way. Managers are always right, even when they are wrong, but we, employers, pay for their mistakes – it is sad, but true.
At least, in my job, i’m trying to avoid this mistake; a girl started to work in my department some weeks ago, and i always try to explain her everything with patience, trying to understand her needs, her goals and her fears when we have to talk with customers.
Waiting for your opinions!
Chiara
Dear Chiara and Claudia,
, at this point, I can only wish you good job!
I’m not surprised to read that we are living the same situation (the same of all my friends) and obviously I’m perfectly agree with you. As I wrote, I’m working in an export department where, because of the daily vast amount of work (enviable situation considering the negative period that industries are facing in Italy!), we are obliged to stay 8 and more hours in front of the personal computers and at the phone, but when we speak with our managers, It seems that our job is not considered a demanding job and often it results without responsibilities. The thing I cannot understand, is the reason why, in front of problems, which obviously can arise during our job, the fault is always attributed to employees, even if causes can be related to different factors/people and sometimes it should be only necessary a different company organization or a different way to work, in order to avoid them. Yes, Chiara, managers are always right!!! I think that only a minority of them in Italy is able to understand the needs of employees. Surely, I can consider myself very fortunate: I have 2 managers (2 brothers) and one of them tries often to understand our position (if you don’t ask him money), I have since 1 year (after 5 years of precarious situation) an open-ended contract and the most important thing is that I like my job and the relationships with my colleagues. These are the things that push me to continue in this direction and that we must consider important. These are always the reasons for which, I think, we are keeping on studying: to improve our job performances and to reach personal satisfactions. In my opinion a personal satisfaction, a personal goal reached, has more value than a recognition from our manager.
Dear “colleagues”
Monica
Hi Monica!Hi Chiara!Unfortunately my situation is a bit different!Since I work in a very big company, my opinions are considered completely useless!This is so frustrating!!!!Sometimes I try to expose my ideas, but the job in my company proceeds “by force of habit” and if I try to ameliorate some process the result hardly changes. It doen’t matter … Now I need this job, but I hope in future better work proposals! Claudia
Dear colleagues,
I just want to leave my comment about the paper “Value Maximization, Stakeholder Theory, and the corporate Objective Function”, and I’d like to answer to your debate too.
As we can point out from the abstract mentioned above there is a very famous theory called “STAKEHOLDER THEORY” and according to it a STAKEHOLDER is “any group or individual which can affect or is affected by an organization.”
Such a broad conception would include suppliers, customers, stockholders, employees, the media, political action groups, communities, and governments. A more narrow view of stakeholder would include employees, suppliers, customers, financial institutions, and local communities where the corporation does its business.
Considering these definitions we can argue that stakeholders in a company represent hose groups without whose support the organization would cease to exist; this let us be aware about the fact that in a firm, the manager who wish to maximize his company’s benefits should take all the stakeholders interests into account.
Further to the analisys of this topics and my colleagues/friends’ comments, I can appreciate and give value to my job position: I work in a Tour Operator which is a medium-size company with only 15 employees. We are all women and only one man , who is one of the 3 owners. We are all considered important member of the firm and our bosses give every day lot of importance to our single contribute; I can feel part of a sort of family, where I’m able to find satisfaction from little conquest sand results I reach every day.
I love my job and I found a very pleasant place where to practice what I’ve learned during my studies courses and what I like to do…
I can’t deny that there are difficulties as in the every day life and as it happens in all job positions: for example it may happen that I have to stay longer than what is expected from my working timetable, but even in this case I’m pleased to participate to the creation of the added value for the company I work for.
From the point of view described above, I can consider myself as a stakeholder for the firm I work for, because I contribute to the benefit and profit maximization…
Looking forward of hearing from you all soon…..
Comment on :” MANAGEMENT CONTROL PRACTICE AND CULTURE AT ENRON: THE UNTOLD STORY”
Today I would like to leave my comment on the text indicated above.
It speaks about the evolution of a Company (Enron), passing through the study of the management in different periods.
I’ve found particular interesting Enron’s Code of Ethics of the period 1996-2002, based on 4 pillars:
-obligation to communicate
-respect
-integrity
-excellence.
The code was re-affirmed by every Enron employee, proved to be of wide interest; however the reality of Enron’s business practices flew in the face of the code.
Probably there were a lot of other factors that influenced Enron’s business, but the Code of Ethics is surely good!
OBLIGATION TO COMMUNICATE
Everyone in a Company should communicate and cooperate in order to learn from colleagues’ experience and in order to share some notions.
But at the basis of a good communication there is:
RESPECT.
We always should behave respectfully, treating the others like we would be treated ourselves, but it not always happens!!!
The big problem is in a relationship with a Chief. Often the Chief thinks that he/she could treat you as he/she wants…He/she often takes it out with the employees without any reason! The employee, on the other hand, must always be helpful, obviously respectful, always at disposal and very patient!
The other two pillars: INTERGRITY AND EXCELLENCE should be considered important in every company…
I also think that all these values should be implicit in a company…
Every employee should behave considering:
RESPECT,COMMUNICATION,INTEGRITY,EXCELLENCE.
In my opinion, the most important value is the respect, because when you respect and fell respected, you are more relaxed in the interpersonal relationships and every solution can be reached easier!
Claudia
I want to leave my comment about the reading “Galilean Reflection on Milton Friedman’s “Methodology of positive Economics”. First of all, the author let me think about a little simple detail : considering the costant value of a theory it’s almost impossible, and this thing is more valid nowadays, since scientific world and theories are more complicated and detailed. As we can find in this reading, “the hard work of science is turning theory into a tool for generating interesting mesauraments”, and i find it true, because many scientists found out new theories, but just few of them described when and how apply them. Another important feature to improve the metodology of science, is to link one kind of science with another one: for example, int he reading, we see that when Physics and astronomy united to each other, theories improved and scientists understood well how to apply certain theories, this is very useful, and if it were possible centuries ago, now it’s even simpler thanks to new technologies which allow people to share their reserches and to communicate in a quicker way. In my opinion, we can extend these observations to our economic world: if we observe things better – differences, details, and mistaked as well- and if we share better our knowledge, we can improve more and more, and we can apply these metodology to all the fields of research. So, collaboration and attention to details are the key point to start a good research, always.
Chiara
Hi Chiara.
Here I am to reply to your comment about the text of ERIC SCHLIESSER “Galilean Reflection on Milton Friedman’s “Methodology of positive Economics”.
There is a long tradition of studies which considers economics as a science and most economists see their discipline as scientific. All the economic theories are based on facts and on how these facts fit together; economists can also measure the results of some researches as they would be scientists, but their approaches are clearly different.
In my opinion economists can almost never use controlled experiments to gather facts with which to demonstrate theories; they must use the objective facts of the real life and have trust on statistics in order to reach any kind of conclusions.
I think that only statistical procedures can give them enough security about the results of researches and experiments, but they are subject to serious limitations.
If there are variables that the theory says are important but they cannot be measured or they can be measured only imperfectly, statistical procedures may give wrong and inaccurate results.
This is the reason why we can not really consider economics as a pure science as Physics or Astronomy, which can base and test their thesis upon controlled experiments, where all the variables canbe measured.
This is my point of view, and now I’m waiting for your replies!
Annamaria
Hi guys! I like the way this is going! I agree, statistics are limited – both in development and in interpretation. The problem is not that mathematical relationships can be found – in any scientific discipline, but using them to understand an event, convergence or long term pattern in human activity without adding other non-statistical considerations is a serious limit. All sciences have a degree of this, human sciences are more obvious in their complexity. Think about meteorology, though, very mathematical – but not always right (although getting better) and particularly not right where you are right now. Mathematical modelling is always limited. In economics, it is even more so by the cultural bias to believe in the magic of mathematical generalisations of human behaviour without understanding other aspects of that behaviour, thought processes, cognitive limits, memory functions and communications (language) constraints. Hmmmm… maybe they should have a course in Language and Culture for Business in which to discuss this stuff! ;D
All the best to everyone!
Pete
Hallo to everybody!Very interesting topic!I absolutely agree with you!Mathematic is based on a limited model…In every science,every process,every event there is something more than a “simple” schema!!Culture,behaviour and so on, are fundamental….If this wasn’t true our course wouldn’t have sense!! I think that our course is very important and very interesting!!!Next working paper is about trade and (guess what?) culture… ☺ I’m curious to know your opinion about it!Hope to read you soon! Claudia
Hi collegues!
Today I’m going to leave my point of view about the topic upon whcih the paper of Mirra Burri-Nenova is centred: trade versus culture.
One sentence of the article captured my attention: ” …the extreme disconnect between trade and culture is politically driven….”.
It sounds to me as a single country wants and claims to protect its local traditions and cultural features through legal restriction on international trade. From a selfish point of view I can even accept this statement, but how can we think this way nowadays, when we are aware to live in a globalized world, in which the word “local” challenges every day the word “global”.
In my opinion it’s our right to preserve our traditions and customs, but at the same time we have to try to open our minds toward what we consider “different” from us, and to accept it.
Our vision of the world should move towards the so called GLOCAL (global + local), where our restricted reality (in which we feel safe) becomes a mix with the entire world, where all the people is the same and acts the same way.
Obviously such differences concerning religion and customs still exist, but when we talk about trade and commerce we could argue that “It’s the same the whole world over” ..
Awaiting for your comments about this interesting topic…
Annamaria
Hi Annamaria!
I agree with you…very interesting topic!
Today the process of globalisation is unstoppable, also because it happens even through the net: Facebook, Twitter, MySpace , YouTube, and so on (as explained in the text you indicated).
For this reason, the globalisation is evolving into a new direction: a mix of different cultures and thoughts interacting every day, in a very simple and rapid manner.
I think that the consequence is a strong integration between different cultures, that can be positive or negative. It depends on the points of view.
I agree with you Annamaria, when you say that we should preserve our traditions and religions and differences…they are very important and interesting and they let us feel safe in the place we live.
We should learn from the mistakes of other countries and cultures about different disciplines, but we should also enforce our traditions….
It is also true that the past and the traditions are important for us, Italians, which strongly believe in the lessons learned from our forefathers, but other cultures consider more important the future and the evolutions, so they are more open to the globalisation.
Let’s think at the USA, from that country a lot of evolutions arose and arise.
I don’t know if globalization is a good thing from every side, but I think that it is impossible to stop this process, now it is becoming natural… an evolution can’t be interrupted!
I also think that we note this process because we’ve seen the birth and the development of the Internet and the ICT, but I also think that next generations will find natural to chat with a friend on the opposite side of the world and maybe the concept of globalization won’t be examined no more….
Claudia
Hi guys! I’ll just throw in something on globalisation. This is a thought, not an observation or really opinion. What about the logistics of globalisation? All of our network capabilities – from shipping to internet and telecom takes a hell of a lot of expensive and costly equipment. How do societies find a balance between paying for connectivity and paying for more local forms of well being? This runs from getting cell phones to fishermen in Madagascar to server energy usage stacking up to 7% of the total US energy consumption to off-shoring business processes from the Macerata shoe district. In other words, when we run the numbers on globalisation, what are the grey areas or trouble spots? (i.e. – how can we make the WTO culturally sensitive?) hah hah hah hah… Have a great day!
Pete
Hi Pete and Claudia.
Globalisation is a very interesting argument…
and the question “how can we make the WTO culturally sensitive?” is interesting as well….
By reading the paper “Cross culture and Business Practices: Are they Coterminous or Cross-verging” by Rama Prasad Kanungo, I tried to clarify this topic to me; the author gives some exemples of cultural models very usefull in the business field in order to face several culture-based divergences: Hofstede and Trompenaars are the most common.
But if we try to go ahead and overcome the academic theory, in a practical level we can find out that organisations all over the world are becoming “global neighbours”: there is a global culture which is crossing the local boundaries and a new cultural community is coming out in the global business.
Companies from different countries are speaking the same language, because the consumers needs are becoming the same and the medias propose to users a unique consuption pattern.
The most explicative exemple is the COCA COLA, which is global recognized and appreciated.
Even with some little adaptations to the local restricted way of life, the product “Coca Cola” represents the same both in the USA that in the Middle and Far East.
I agree with the author of the article: the key for well-living in globalized world is to accept changes and adapt to them….
Have a nice day.
Annamaria
Comment on “Cross-cultural advertising research: What do we know about the influence of culture on advertising?” Of Stephan Dahl
Globalisation is a very interesting and wide topic…communication, logistic, culture,…,all these factors are influenced by globalisation and they change very rapidly during the years.
As we can see culture is a constant and it emerges in a lot of discussions…In effect, if culture is influenced by the process of globalisation,on the other hand it influences other processes…
For example, in the indicated text emerges the following question: how culture influences advertising?
The papers doesn’t give any answers, because there are many different opinions about it.
For example, Levitt thought that globalisation was and is transforming the world into a ‘homocultural’ market place where all customers can be persuaded by the same advertising appeals and values, irrespective of the culture they belong to. But, this affirmation was contraticted by other authors, who affirmed that there were important differences in the reasons why consumers purchase products familiar to different countries. So,if there are differences Levitt’s theory is challenged.
I would like to leave my opinion about this topic: I think that globalisation is uniforming thoughts and tastes of people from differnt countries, but I also think (and it is demonstrated by marketing teories) that preferences in a consumer also derive from the surrounding environment…Every country has different features and these differences contributes in the creation of different needs in people living in different places.
Hi Claudia!
) we often see in our country advertising of very big cars for very big families, with two or three children. It would be impossible broadcasting an advertising like this in China, where families can have only one child because of their one-child policy. Companies adapt their product to the countries where they decide to sell them, so they must adapt the way they advertise them as well. Another interesting example; Nike case study in China. We have seen a lot of Nike brand advertisings broadcast in China, one of them was a failure, in fact you can see a basketball player beating a dragon (a symbol of Chinese culture) and then he also beats a kung fu master (Chinese are very proud of their kungfu); you can imagine how Chinese people felt about it! If you are interested to watch it, here’s the link:
here i am to reply to your comment…
cross cultural advertising it’s a very interesting topic, and i would like to share with you my opinion..first of all, i don’t agree with Levitt theory, which asserted that marketing and advertising should be standardised; can you imagine a famous brand of car ( for example Wolswagen brand) which produces only one kind of advertising for all the countries? This would be impossible and it would leads to a big failure for the company. This year at Chinese course we talked about cross cultural advertising, and we compared a lot of Chinese advertisments; it really made me think about how complex the topic is. For example, talking about cars ( i know, i’m always talking about cars, but i really love them
enjoy it, and let me know what you think about it!
Chiara
Hi guys! So, what do you think about the Bin Laden question? It is interesting to see that the debate seems to focus on the relevance of killing Bin Laden. Yes, he was a symbol for Al Queda terrorism, but does the end of that manhunt mark the last stage of US political-economic domination in the world (not of the world) as a single super-power? The generations pre-1991 lived in a Cold War world – bipolarized into Soviet and US supported blocs. We knew what that was about – we mutually hated each other and strove politically, economically and militarily (the three are combined) to defeat each other. I remember, however, discussing with friends when we were in junior high school (12-14 years old) what exactly we would do after the Cold War was over! By 1985, we could see that Russia was opening up and that Soviet communism was failing – largely due to US economic pressure in the arms race. When the price of oil hit the floor in 1985, the Soviet system needed to find other ways of financing the country = relaxing it’s boarder protectionism toward trade – financial and otherwise. After the Soviet Union fell, however, the US was the single super power. Nobody knew how that was supposed to work. Given North American individualism anyway – helping break the Soviets gave the US a feeling of self-righteousness that it rarely enjoyed before. It also forced the US to begin to deal with the fact that it had driven it’s economy very hard – into financial services and the credit market – to beat the Russians. The 1990′s were a great period of expanding popular use of credit and the cultural belief system needed to support a non-gold dollar regime. The became even more complex after 2001, when the Twin Towers went down. At that point, the US saw it’s politics and economics diverge – the government following the strategies of companies in order to maintain the financial system – and the Bush energy policy that made it run (oil protectionism oversees – for companies, not countries). This was a serious deflation of value in terms of nationalism. In order to finance this, the US drove it’s borrowing ever higher – leading to a system in which China did the saving through the purchase of US govt. bonds and currency – effectively becoming the single largest owner of US currency by 2004.2005. By 2006, however, the Iraq war was continuing even though Hussain was executed and Bin Laden was still running around the mountains. The US belief system – propped up by a financial system based on diffuse credit, was cracking and the Chinese began to sell their US currency reserves. This put a great deal of pressure on US banks, as their own assets had been propped up in part by sub-prime loans and complex financial instruments on the international market. The US financial system was greatly de-coupled from the trade economy that formed the basis of the Chinese economy. In effect, America became the debtor nation consumer engine of the global economy by convincing the world that it’s very wealthy financial systems were based on something solid. In the end, stress on banks that forced them to call in their loans in the housing market revealed that their housing loan policy had been largely over-stretched – causing a recession. The question is this – what is the US without it’s capacity to buy imported consumer goods? What is China without a US market dependent on it? This has logistical effects. What will the price of gas and oil be in the future without US military intervention to pressure oil prices one way or another – and US borrowing to finance consumer purchases (credit cards, line of credit, housing loans, university loans etc.) Killing Bin Laden may be the last significant US foreign policy move we see for a while – at least in terms of independent foreign policy. If you think about it, Bin Laden was a hugely expensive man-hunt – almost like a 3 trillion dollar game of capture the flag. Well, now they’ve done it – possibly the last unilateral foreign policy move the US makes in our lifetimes – waddaytink?
Pete
Hi Pete!
maybe my observation it’s not so interesting, but since they’ve killed Bin Laden, i noticed that many people are calling in my office, just to know if it is safe or not go on holidays abroad in this moment. Many people are afraid of the effects of this fact, and i think that tourism will sharply drop – it is only my opinion, but of course i hope that things will be completely different!
Killing Bin Laden is not the problem; the main issue to me is that America are handling the problem in a wrong way; i mean, it seems that they are proudly waving their flag, provoking in a strong way Islamic terrorists, which is very dangerous in my opinion. They’re right to be happy, i understand them and their situation, but i think that provoking Islamic terrorists it’s not so smart as it seems. They killed a man\monster – it’s not up to me to say if it’s right or not – but now they cannot “advertise” this thing all over the world strongly provoking the other part. I’m sure we will soon feel consequences. Anyway, this is only my opinion, hope to hear other people talking about this topic, which is very interesting.
Chiara
Hi Pete, and Hi All!
First of all I just want to reply to the BIN LADEN QUESTION: I don’t have much to say about it, and I just want to add that Bin Laden is the symbol of the contemporary and constant war between the West and the Middle East.
Such a war is primarily based on economic matters, especially the oil supply, and it is hidden behind religious conflicts.
Bin Laden’s killing represents a victory for the USA and for all the world, but I only hope that it won’t create even more terrorist outbreaks.
Annamaria
Here I am again to leave my comment on the paper: “Anthropology and Economic Imperialism: the battlefield of culture”, written by Swee-Hoon Chuah.
The text talks about the conflict between two different sciences: Anthropology and Economics.
They diverge because of several aspects: the one that captures my attention by reading the paper is good expressed in the following sentence: “Anthropoligists reject the appropriateness of using a rigourous method derived from the physical sciences to study the less rigourous world of man and his culture….”
I agree with this statement, because the world of a human being and moreover his personal culture could not be studied by using statistical methodologies and calculations. This is not the right approach towards a culture, especially if it is foreign for us.
The same is valid concerning the globalisation and its attempt to create a univarsal way of thinking, acting and purchasing. Even in this field, it’s not the right way the one to analyse the personal and cultural features of a sinlge man, as we are surveying a market target.
I think that economists should learn from anthropologist, in order to better understand the human nature and to find out, this way, the real needs and necessities of their potential customers.
Awaiting for your comments about this topic!
Regards.
Annamaria
Hi to everybody!
I also think that Osama is an important symbol for the terrorism and his death is considered a step forward against terrorism.
My opinion is that Al-Qaeda can’t be considered defeated only because his symbolic chief was defeated. In effect, if we think to Italy, the struggle against Mafia is continuing from a lot of decades and even if some chiefs had been captured Mafia goes on and it is difficult do destroy. The same could happen, and the consequences could be bigger than with Mafia, with terrorism…There are a lot of extremists ready to explode to defend their convictions…I, as everybody, hope that there won’t be such an extremist as Bin Laden was: so much angry with the East to organize a so big attack…!!!
This time I wish to analyse with you the fundamental topic described in the paper “Does culture affect economic outcoms?”.
First of all I think that this argument could represent I right way to conclude this course, because it embodies the essence of what we have learned about culture, language and business and how they all interact in the nowadays society, where we are not able to escpe from globalising tendecies.
The authors of the article mentioned above , give us a precise documentation passing trough three main steps: the first objective is to give an accurate definition of culture; the second one concerns the study of how beliefs and preferences influence economic outcomes; the last goal to be achieved looks at the problem of causality which could come when we deal with such themes.
Such a research is supported by charts and data in order to explain better the main purpose of the study.
The same way we have handled together the lessons of the course, starting from the comprehension of the meaning of culture and language, passing through the relations between culture and economics, coming to the description of the effects culture has on business and globalisation.
I found this course very interesting, stimulating and very useful for my job: everyday I have to deal with foreign people, and now I’ve become more aware about how to relate with them.
Thanks and looking forward of hearing from you soon.
Annamaria
Hi Annamaria!!!
I would also leave my opinion about your comment on “Anthropology and Economic Imperialism: the battlefield of culture”, written by Swee-Hoon Chuah.
I absolutely agree with you! It is impossible, and if done it would be not useful, to base the study of the human beings and behaviors on statistics!
A behavior is affected by a lot of aspects: culture, needs, desires, and so on…..
If statistic methodologies could exactly understand why people act in a particular manner in particular situations, all the other disciplines could be aimless…..even what we’re studying was unnecessary!!!!
Hallo Anna!
I would like to leave my comment on the last paper : “DOES CULTURE AFFECT ECONOMIC OUTCOMES?”, too.
What you’ve said is completely right, the structure of the text seems the same of the one used from us to approach the course.
I’ve been particularly interested by the following sentence: “Until recently, economists have been reluctant to rely on culture as a possible determinant of economic phenomena”…I completely disagree with this theory…
Culture is, in my opinion, a certain determinant of economic phenomena and not only. This is because it affects our behaviours and even if is not simple to understand how culture works and through what it influences our preferences, today a lot of studies have been done in this sense.
I, as Anna, also work in a place in which every day I have to face people from different Countries…Algeria, Kuwait, France, India…..but in our Company there are no manuals explaining how to approach to people from these Countries…This is an incorrect way to manage a so big Company….If I had knew how to behave at best with these people a lot of mistakes (mine and of my colleagues) could had been avoided and those people (Clients of our Company) could have been more happy and satisfied.
The fact that I find culture fundamental, is one of the reasons why I decided to attend this course and, even if it is not simple to work and study contemporary, I’m very happy of this decision….and now, I’m more aware of the fact that when in business with foreign people we have to take care of what we say and to how be behave!
Claudia