- 1
- 2
The Global Poverty Trap
It's Clark's answer that convinces him of the supremacy of culture in explaining economic growth. Traditional theories have emphasized the importance of the Scientific Revolution and England's favorable climate: political stability, low taxes, open markets. Clark retorts that both China and Japan around 1800 were about as technically advanced as Europe, had stable societies, open markets and low taxes. But their industrial revolutions came later.
What distinguished England, he says, was the widespread emergence of middle-class values of "patience, hard work, ingenuity, innovativeness, education" that favored economic growth. After examining birth and death records, he concludes that in England—unlike many other societies—the most successful men had more surviving children than the less fortunate. Slowly, the attributes of success that children learned from parents became part of the common culture. Biology drove economics. He rejects the well-known theory of German sociologist Max Weber (1864-1920) that Protestantism fostered these values.
Clark's theory is controversial and, at best, needs to be qualified. Scholars do not universally accept his explanation of the Industrial Revolution. More important, China's recent, astonishing expansion (a fact that he barely mentions) demonstrates that economic policies and institutions matter. Bad policies and institutions can suppress growth in a willing population; better policies can release it. All poverty is not preordained. Still, Clark's broader point seems incontestable: culture counts.
Capitalism in its many variants has been shown, he notes, to be a prodigious generator of wealth. But it will not spring forth magically from a few big industrial projects or cookie-cutter policies imposed by outside experts. It's culture that nourishes productive policies and behavior.
By and large, nations have either lifted themselves or have stayed down. Societies dominated by tribal, religious, ideological or political values that disparage the qualities needed for broad-based growth will not get growth. Economic success requires a tolerance for change and inequality, some minimum level of trust—an essential for much commerce—and risk-taking. There are many plausible combinations of government and market power; but without the proper cultural catalysts, all face long odds.
© 2007
- 1
- 2
Loading Menu
Member Comments
Posted By: kamalik @ 12/28/2007 2:30:31 AM
Comment: I tend to agree with the role of culture in economic growth. But then culture is not static; it keeps evolving under the influence of various factors, may it be political, religous or environmental. There was a marked difference in the pre and post industrial revolution culture of England. In addition to culture there are certain historical events which change the entire course of history. In our present day history, 9/11 is such an event afterwhich world was never the same. Similarly the process of colonization started by Britain seems to be the main factor for accumulation of wealth and giving a boost to the economy.
Posted By: russellcole38 @ 11/09/2007 3:56:31 AM
Comment: This is an interesting thesis. However, rather than simply cultural factors that are proliferated according to biological determinants, a much simpler explanation for England's industrialization consists, simply, of the presence of a wool trade, which effectively precipitated the closure of the commons, leading to displacement among agraians from their traditional manorial existences and communities. Further, wool was related to the textile trade that, in turn, attracted rural agraians from the countryside into the centers of this early industrail mode of production. this is not to say that culture had no role in the transformation into an industrial capital economy. However, the interplay of culture and the material conditions of the economy are more complex than explanations where one cites either culture or materialism as the antecedent to the other. This is to say that the economist who has proffered this thesis fails to understand the recursive relations between culture and economy: culture may produce an economic mode of production, but vice versa economics affects the condition of culture.
russ cole
http://www.midwest-populistamerica.com
Posted By: brogowski @ 11/01/2007 3:36:09 PM
Comment: Please...The reason we have such incredible economic growth is due to our hedonism. We look no farther than today so we are using up all of our resources very quickly. We are overfishing the oceans, and abusing the soil. This is all without mentioning the horrors of global warming. Let's stop using so much stuff!
Lee Anne Brogowski