On August 5, Fareed Zakaria published an op-ed entitled "Capitalism, not culture, drives economic growth". In his article he discusses the comment made by President Romney about how culture factors in to a nation's ability to be economically prosperous. Mr. Zakaria takes the position that history has shown us that culture must not play much of a role in predicting a nation's economic success given that two of the fastest growing economies at this point in time are China and India, two nations that many believed were doomed to lackluster economic performance.
This is not to say that culture doesn't play ANY role in the economic success of a society. The Puritans who landed in New England brought with them a belief in the importance of public education as well as a belief in the virtue of labor. This is not to say that American must then undeniably be the shining city on a hill, but the influence of our culture can not be so easily discounted.
There is a joke that has become popular in China in recent years about an American woman and a Chinese woman who have both recently passed away and met in heaven. The Chinese woman tells the American woman "before I died I was finally able to afford a house" the American woman responds and says "yeah, before I died I was finally able to pay off my mortgage."
The joke, while it may seem insignificant and unrelated, is an interesting way to look at the idea that culture influences economy. If western historians want to argue that the prosperity of the west was partially due to a cultural pre-disposition to hard work and organization, then they must also concede that those same cultural influences helped fuel the real estate bubble, the 2008 market crash, and the unbelievably high levels of personal debt a majority of Americans are in.
Culture is a hard thing to pinpoint, because we all cherish our own, but many fear the culture of others. Sometimes they are afraid because they have been misinformed, but more likely just because it is alien and different. To say that there are certain aspects or beliefs within a culture that could help the economic standing of a nation is not really in question. What remains ridiculous, however, is the notion that culture is the main difference between two nations when there have clearly been institutional advantages for one. Capitalism isn't the only thing that produces economic growth, so does luck. Being in the right place in the right time with the right environment and the right resources helped create western power as much as any other single factor.
recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
print
Comments: 4
Romney's "culture" comment was racist and dull witted.
That's not a "prejudiced" or "bigoted" statement. It's just an observation of irrefutable facts.
There are other countries in this world that have or have had access to just as much (or more) resources than did the U.S. and Britain from the era of the "Industrial Revolution" to today. The difference was that the political systems of the U.S. and Britain allowed for the free expression of the creative energies of individuals, and the free movement of labor and capital, and free exchange of goods and services (the qualifier "at least relatively" may be placed before the word "free" in every instance of the preceding sentence).
If western historians want to argue that the prosperity of the west was partially due to a cultural pre-disposition to hard work and organization, then they must also concede that those same cultural influences helped fuel the real estate bubble, the 2008 market crash, and the unbelievably high levels of personal debt a majority of Americans are in.
Nonsense. Neither the attributes of hard work and organization, nor the cultural predispositions that foster them, had anything to do with the real estate bubble, market crash, or high levels of personal debt. All of those phenomena are attributable solely to the institutionalized fraud known as fractional-reserve banking, and especially the institution of state-sanctioned central banking monopoly that exists solely to sustain fraudulent banking practices and to diffuse the burden of the inevitable crises and losses amongst the general public.
Fractional-reserve central banking is not an ihnerently "capitalist" institution. In fact, it is profoundly anti-capitalist. The rationale behind it is rooted in socialist orthodoxy, not anything remotely "capitalist"; it is a state-enforced monopoly with exclusive control of the supply of money, it engages in price-fixing and is in fact a macreconomic central-planning bureaucracy.
And it is the antithesis of the regime of free social cooperation via contract and exchange that forms the philosophical underpinning of the capitalist society. It is not an inherent aspcect of, but rather a deleterious parasite upon, the capitalist social economy.
"If western historians want to argue that the prosperity of the west was partially due to a cultural pre-disposition to hard work and organization, then they must also concede that those same cultural influences helped fuel the real estate bubble, the 2008 market crash, and the unbelievably high levels of personal debt a majority of Americans are in."
To me that is sort of like saying; If one thinks that hard work and organization are needed to build a house, then they must also concede that those same attributes are needed to strike a match, light the house on fire, and collect the insurance . .
It is far easier to destroy than to create, which can give a false impression of the intelligence and industry that goes into destruction, I think.
I am not sure how luck is defined in this discussion. There is that view that is simply random and beyond anything the individual or country can do, while there is a version that suggest the smart one works the more often they find luck. Bill Gates was fortunate to be born in the time and place he was but is there a reason why he succeed when no others at that time and place (country) did not have the same success. Was it luck that formed the USA or was it work and sacrifice that created it and a community culture that encourage that effort?
The exposure to all cultures is much greater today than ever before. We hear how old cultures are disappearing and a more homogunous one is appearing. IN that transition what elements are we see being utilized that promote fiscal success and what cultures are they coming from?
Culture does seem to matter and if there is an is a ethnic element in it why is that wrong to acknowledge it?