In just a few decades, Europe wealth had rapidly surpassed that of all other regions. The Great Divergence, as it is called, helped spawn the discipline of economics as we know it today. In the twentieth century, cultural explanations for wealth inequality between nations began to lose their popularity with economists. There were two main reasons for this. The other was the growing prevalence of data, which gave rise to more quantitative theories for the explanations of markets as well as economic explanations of sociology.
For example, basic economics was used to explain family decisions, such as the participation of women in the workforce and fertility choices, ignoring cultural influence. Now, the dial has swung back once again. A different perspective Towards the end of the twentieth century, economists began to see the pitfalls of imposing economic policies without paying heed to culture.
The Washington Consensus, for example — a set of neoliberal policies presented to the International Monetary Fund in — is broadly seen as having failed to achieve its goal of bringing prosperity to Latin America. In the thirty years after the Washington Consensus was implemented, Latin America grew less than 1 percent per year per capita terms, compared to 2. There are many scenarios where economics alone cannot account for the behaviour of a certain group.
For example, immigrants and their children often exhibit different behaviour despite being in the same economic environment as other citizens. What is essential is how to take culture into account both scientifically methods and data and practically. Because people do not commit themselves to a development undertaking unless that undertaking corresponds to their deeply felt needs, people should be able to derive the means and motivation for their development; the paper further stressed.
Keywords : development, culture, modernity, traditional, challenge, compatibility, process etc. If women see staying at home and bringing up children as their primary role, they will often have more children than those who work. This is not necessarily a problem, but fewer children can bring benefits for development.
What is interesting is that the countries where this has happened are often those where women do not play a role in business or society. When women are educated and given a choice, some will stay at home and look after children, and others will pursue careers or start small businesses. This is an important factor, as some countries have seen their population double or triple without their economies keeping pace.
That leaves more mouths to feed, and just not enough to go around. The answers lie in access to family planning, and in the empowering of women and girls so that everyone can make a good decision for themselves and their families. It stagnated, or even went backwards, for centuries.
This the far end of the spectrum, but culture works in subtler ways too. Some cultures believe in a greater good, in unity, in the rule of law.
They are optimistic, hopeful, ambitious and ready to pull together. Others can be paranoid, fragmented, uncertain of their place in the modern world, angry, resistant to change. Rich countries can be overconfident and brash. Poor countries can see themselves as victims and become despondent. The limits of cultural interpretations At the same time, cultural influences on development are notoriously hard to call from the outside. Hinduism was often cited as one of the reasons why India would never develop.
Because everyone accepts their place in the world, it was assumed that Hindus would lack the ambition required to innovate and do business on an international stage. So did Korean culture change, or was the writer simply being superior? Making assumptions about other cultures has at times been a tool of colonialism and oppression.
All kinds of racism and abuse was legitimised this way. We understand each other better than ever in our globalized world, but our language and traditions are still full of little prejudices that imply we are better than others, and that our neighbours are lazy and dirty and uncouth. A Malagasy friend once joked that in Madagascar, every tribe believes that every other tribe eats cats.
In short, culture no doubt plays a role in development, but we have to watch our own biases as we seek to understand why some countries succeed and others fail. I think that in many parts of the world religious beliefs can lead to poverty.
Religious viewpoints that are essentially fatalistic would have an empoverishing effect. Certain Eastern religions would see poverty and human suffering as a consequence of wrong deeds committed in a previous existence. According to such an ideology, to act to alleviate poverty in those situations would result in even greater misery in a future life. A striking example of the empoverishing effects of religions convictions can be seen amongst the Tandroy of Southern Madagascar.
Traditionally a man will spend his days building as large a herd of cattle as he can, to be slaughtered and sent with him to the grave upon his death. His surviving relatives will spend years constructing a huge ornately decorated stone tomb to house his remains, while they themselves live in ramshackle wooden huts. The landscape of the Antandroy territory is dotted with these huge edifices.
Enormous quantities of aid and investment have been poured into this area of Madagascar, but nothing ever seems to change. The wealth poured in seems to just trickle away into the sand, or maybe, get buried in the tombs.
Yes, I think religious factors probably are important in development. The God I know has his priorities the other way up. I quite agree with the fact that descrimination is a major bedrock to underdevelopment of many communities. I wish many developing countries can come to the understanding of this fact and cease from ethnic, religious and other forms of strife which constitutes a serious clog in the wheel of progress. I think this is a very recourceful website. The information is prompt, and the site states facts.
I do think that the discrimination of the poor has a major affect on how much the country will be productive. It is also true that the role of women overall is affecting the country greatly. Now, I know that some women may have jobs, but of course not many. It is a privilege that women should be able to have jobs. References Duncan, B. N; West, J. Of course, societies will differ in the ways and the extent to which they have internalized some of these values in their policies, their traditions and their institutions.
Acceptance of the desirability of gender equality, for instance, does not mean that inequalities and injustices based on gender—deeply entrenched in all our cultures, to a greater or lesser extent—will suddenly disappear. But few would disagree with the thesis that gender disparities are out of step with modernity and that their presence retards human progress.
Development is not only about reducing poverty and expanding opportunities against the background of rising incomes. References: Landes, David. Easterly, William, and William Russell Easterly. Penguin, Sachs, J. Notes on a new sociology of economic development. Culture matters: How values shape human progress, Murdock, George Peter. Culture and Society, University of Pittsburg Press. Woolcock, Michael. Policy Research Working Paper Washington: The World Bank. Harrison, Lawrence E. Culture Matters, Basic Books.
0コメント