Why Nations Develop Differently.

Cultural values may hinder or accelerate human progress.

Having good climate, good natural resources, and good policy advice may not be enough to make a nation succeed. Scholars are now looking seriously at the role of having a good culture for improving prospects for national prosperity.

At the end of World War II, much of Western Europe and Japan lay in ruins. Yet, today these regions are once more among the richest and most powerful on earth. Marshall Plan money and America's benevolent example and protection get much of the credit for these postwar economic miracles. But massive aid and well-intentioned guidance have not produced comparable results in Latin America, Africa, and elsewhere-including pockets of poverty within the highly developed nations themselves. Why not? What went wrong?

Clearly geography plays a role. Climate, raw materials, farmland, fresh water, access to the sea, and other factors all help a nation grow and prosper. History, too, has an influence. In nations with established traditions of political independence, democracy, social mobility, and a relatively free market, people are generally more efficient and less corrupt--and thus better able to use foreign aid for its intended purpose.

Geography and history alone do not explain why some countries flourish and others lag behind. In 1960, for example, the economies of South Korea and Ghana were roughly equal; today, only Korea has developed into a global economic power. Even within nations different areas develop unevenly. Northern Italy, for example, has prospered more than the south, and certain mi

norities within the U.S. population remain relatively poor.

Sociologists and scholars now look for other factors to explain obvious differences in development among nations and within them. One intriguing area of interest is "culture"-defined as the prevailing

values, attitudes, beliefs, and underlying assumptions about life held by majority or minority groups in a society.

A new book, Culture Matters, explores possible links between cultural values and human progress. As co-editor Lawrence E. Harrison points out, "The world at the end of the twentieth century is far poorer, far more unjust, and far more authoritarian than most people at midcentury expected it would be." Coeditor Samuel P. Huntington, author of The Clash of Civilizations, notes that scholars are beginning to explore "how political and social action can make cultures more favorable to progress."

A Closer Look at Culture

Two basic ideological concerns crop up repeatedly in papers included in the volume: (1) Are some cultures truly "better" than others? That is, do certain sets of beliefs and practices offer distinct advantages in dealing with life's challenges? and

(2) If existing cultures can be changed to promote progress, who should do the changing, and how?

Mariano Grondona, a writer and scholar from Argentina, identifies 20 specific factors that appear to make cultures more conducive to economic and social development. These include trust in the individual and a concept of wealth that emphasizes not what exists now, but what future potential may be realized from the product of work and investment.

Grondona notes that religion can influence progress, as well: Systems of belief that tend to praise or value poverty as a benefit to salvation and spiritual progress (Buddhism, Catholicism) may make economic development difficult "because the poor will feel justified in their poverty, and the rich will be uncomfortable because they see themselves as sinners." In contrast, cultures that treat poverty as a test to be endured or a condition to be overcome (Confucianism, Protestantism) encourage poor and rich alike to improve their condition and celebrate their success.

Co-editor Harrison concludes with a top-10 list of cultural attitudes or mind-sets that appear to help promote progress:

1. Time orientation: Progressive cultures emphasize the near future, while static cultures focus on the past or the far future.

2. Work is valued for its own sake in progressive cultures, but viewed as a burden in static cultures.

3. Frugality is respected as prudent in progressive cultures, but viewed with suspicion as selfishness in static cultures.

4. Education is ideally offered to all in progressive cultures; it is the exclusive privilege of the elite in static cultures.

5. Merit is considered the only proper basis for advancement in progressive cultures, while family and connections matter more in static cultures.

6. Community is more broadly defined in progressive cultures, which tend to trust and identify with many groups; in static cultures, individuals feel closely bound only to their own family or nearest neighbors.

7. Ethical codes are more rigorous in progressive cultures, which tend to be less corrupt than static cultures--though there are notable exceptions.

8. Justice and fair play are held as universal ideals in progressive societies, but more cynically perceived in static cultures as dependent on wealth and influence.

9. Authority tends to be more widely dispersed in progressive cultures; it is more concentrated and exercised from above in static cultures.

10. Religion's influence on civic life tends to be small in progressive cultures; in static cultures, religious institutions often exercise substantial influence in public affairs.

These traits may not be universally beneficial, since changing world conditions can turn advantages into liabilities and vice-versa. Certainly cultural traits change over time. And efforts to include ethics and values training in the public schools demonstrate the widespread belief that such changes can be brought about through direct action.

But critics of cultural interference have a point, too. It is unlikely that Western standards of utility and moral behavior can be imposed from outside to change a nation or a group's beliefs. Even military action seems to have had little impact on the aims and values of citizens or their leaders in "rogue" nations.

Lasting changes arise from within a culture; to achieve progress the value of these changes must be clear even to those who focus exclusively on local needs and interests, which may not necessarily be identical with global priorities and norms.