Cultural and Institutional Differences at the National and Regional Levels

Bagrat Yerznkyan; Lily Gassner

doi:doi:10.11648/j.ijefm.20180604.11

| Peer-Reviewed

Cultural and Institutional Differences at the National and Regional Levels

Bagrat Yerznkyan, Lily Gassner

Published in International Journal of Economics, Finance and Management Sciences (Volume 6, Issue 4)

Received: 10 May 2018 Accepted: 7 June 2018 Published: 29 June 2018

Views: Downloads:

Download PDF

Share This Article

Twitter
Linked In
Facebook

Abstract

Culture and institutions are two related phenomena contributing to economic performance. Culture is transmitted via teaching and imitation, while institutions, especially informal ones, come from socially transformed information and as such they are close to culture. The purpose of this paper is to examine the cultural and institutional issues of economic development with emphasis on their differences which may play a key role in understanding the very nature of socio-economic development. In a paper, the influence of culture and institutions on the socio-economic development in relation to the stationary (developed) economy as well as to the non-stationary (developing, transitional) economy is discussed. In addition, varieties of economic systems are considered. Main conclusions: (1) National specificity is superimposed on genetics: on the whole, Western civilizations with their inherent two-valued logic of thinking and the dominance of open access orders in society are more prone to economic exchanges – transactions, while Eastern civilizations, with their multi-valued logic and limited access orders, on the contrary, are more prone to social exchange processes – interactions. (2) The restructuring of the world in American terms is ontologically meaningless and conceptually erroneous, because of universality of the requirement of an inordinate consideration of national characteristics – taking into account that even in the USA the coexistence of heterogeneous political subcultures is a reality that cannot be ignored. (3) The relevance of culture and institutions are of particular importance in reforming the economy. As shows the Russian reforms, political factors, with uncritical import of formal institutions, rather than economic ones played a significantly greater role in changing its trajectory of development.

Published in	International Journal of Economics, Finance and Management Sciences (Volume 6, Issue 4)
DOI	10.11648/j.ijefm.20180604.11
Page(s)	133-138
Creative Commons	This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, provided the original work is properly cited.
Copyright	Copyright © The Author(s), 2018. Published by Science Publishing Group

Keywords

Culture, Institution, Region, Nation, Market-Oriented Reform

References

[1]	Yerznkyan, B., Gassner, L., Kara, A. (2017). Culture, Institutions, and Economic Performance. Montenegrin Journal of Economics, 13, 2: 71–80.
[2]	Aoki, M. T (2001). Toward a Comparative Institutional Analysis. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
[3]	Amable, B. (2003). The Diversity of Modern Capitalisms. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
[4]	Boyd, R., Richerson, P. J. (1985). Culture and the Evolutionary Process. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
[5]	North, D. C. (1990). Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
[6]	North, D. (1981). Structure and Change in Economic History. New York: Norton.
[7]	Kleiner, G. B. (2009). A New Theory of Economic Systems and Its Application to Economic Policy Studies. Hitotsubashi [University] Invited Fellow Program. Discussion Paper Series, 14.
[8]	Yerznkyan, B. H. (2016a). The Influence of Culture on the Economic Behavior. Theory and Practice of Institutional Reforms in Russia / Collection of scientific works ed. by B. H. Yerznkyan. Issue 35. Moscow: CEMI RAS, 78–87.
[9]	Yerznkyan, B., Gassner, L. (2017). On the Measurement of Institutions and Culture. Theory and Practice of Institutional Reforms in Russia / Collection of scientific works ed. by B. H. Yerznkyan. Issue 39. Moscow, CEMI RAS, 73–82.
[10]	Fukuyama, F. (1999). The Great Disruption: Human Nature and the Reconstitution of Social Order. New York: Free Press.
[11]	Yerznkyan, B. H., Delibasic, M., Grgurevic, N. (2014). Institutsionalnoe povedenie: teoreticheskie voprosy i prakticheskie proyavlenia [Institutional Behavior: Theoretical Issues and Practical Realization], Ekonomicheskaya nauka sovremennoy Rossii [Economics of Contemporary Russia], 4: 19–30.
[12]	Yerznkyan, B. H. (2013a). V prostranstve rynochnykh I nerynochnykh vzaimodeystviy: individualnye, organizatsionnye I natsionalnye otlichiya [In the Space of Market and Non-Market Interactions: Individual, Institutional, and Country-Level Differences], Ekonomicheskaya nauka sovremennoy Rossii [Economics of Contemporary Russia], 3: 37–58.
[13]	Yerznkyan, B. H. (2013b). Institutsionalnye osobennosti rynochnykh I nerynochnykh transaktsiy/interaktsiy [Institutional Features of Market and Non-Market Transactions/Interactions], Zhurnal institutsionalnykh issledovaniy [Journal of Institutional Studies], 5 (4): 58–77.
[14]	Keizer, P., Spithoven, A. (2009). Cultural Foundation of Distribution of Income: The Dutch Case. Journal of Economic Issues, 43 (2): 513–522.
[15]	Lijphart, A. (1968). Politics of Accommodation: Pluralism and Democracy in the Netherlands. Berkely and Los Angeles: University of California Press.
[16]	Putnam, R., Leonardi, R., Nanetti, R. Y. (1993). Making Democracy Work. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
[17]	Alesina, A., Giuliano, P. (2013). Culture and Institutions. NBER Working Paper No. 19750. Cambridge, MA, 67.
[18]	Evstigneeva, L. P., Evstigneev, R. N. (2011). Novye grani mentalnosti: Sinergeticheskiy podkhod [New Sides of Mentality: Synergetic Approach]. Moscow: LENAND.
[19]	Elazar, D. J. (1966). American Federalism: A View from the States. New York: Harper & Row.
[20]	Wirt, F. M. (1991). “Soft” Concepts and “Hard” Data: A Research Review of Elazar’s Political Culture. PUBLIUS: The Journal of Federalism, 21 (2): 1–13.
[21]	Boeckelman, K. (1991). Political Culture and State Development Policy. PUBLIUS: The Journal of Federalism, 21 (2): 49–81.
[22]	Stiglitz, J. E. (2003). The Roaring Nineties. Seeds of Destruction. London: Penguin.
[23]	Lvov, D. S. (2005). O reformatsionnom potentsiale ekonomicheskoy nauki [On Reformation Potential of Economic Science] / Preprint WP/2005/185. Moscow: CEMI RAS.
[24]	Kolodko, G. V. (2000). Ot shoka k terapii (politicheskaya ekonomiya postsotsialisticheskikh preobrazovaniy) [From Shock to Therapy (Political Economy of Post-Socialistic Reforms)]. Moscow: Expert.
[25]	Martishin, E. M. (2015). Evolutsionno-institutsionalnye osnovy sovremennogo reformirovania [Evolutionary-Institutional Grounds of the Modern Reformation]. Theory and Practice of Institutional Reforms in Russia / Collection of scientific works ed. by B. H. Yerznkyan. Issue 34. Moscow, CEMI RAS: 20–27.
[26]	Arkhipov, A. Y., Yerznkyan, B. H., Martishin, E. M. (2015). Anatomy of the “Economic Miracle”. European Research Studies, 18 (3): 7–20.
[27]	Stiglitz, J. E. (2002) Globalization and Its Discontents. London: Allen Lane. The Penguin Press.
[28]	Vardanyan, A. (2011). China and India: Major Differences of Doing Business. Theory and Practice of Institutional Reforms in Russia / Collection of scientific works ed. by B. H. Yerznkyan. Issue 20. Moscow: CEMI RAS, 105–109.
[29]	Yerznkyan, B. H. (2014). Kognitivnye aspekty institutsionalnogo razvitiya sotsialnykh system [Cognitive Aspects of Institutional Development of Social Systems]. Terra Economicus, 12 (1), 53–72.
[30]	Rutland, P. (2009). Post-Socialist States and the Evolution of a New Development Model: Russia and China Compared. Post-Communist transformations: the countries of Central and Eastern Europe and Russia in comparative perspective / ed. by Hayashi Tadayaki and Ogushi Atsushi. Sapporo: Slavic Research Center, Hokkaido University (Slavic Eurasian Studies; No. 21), 49–71.

Cite This Article

Plain Text BibTeX RIS

APA Style

Bagrat Yerznkyan, Lily Gassner. (2018). Cultural and Institutional Differences at the National and Regional Levels. International Journal of Economics, Finance and Management Sciences, 6(4), 133-138. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijefm.20180604.11

Copy | Download

ACS Style

Bagrat Yerznkyan; Lily Gassner. Cultural and Institutional Differences at the National and Regional Levels. Int. J. Econ. Finance Manag. Sci. 2018, 6(4), 133-138. doi: 10.11648/j.ijefm.20180604.11

Copy | Download

AMA Style

Bagrat Yerznkyan, Lily Gassner. Cultural and Institutional Differences at the National and Regional Levels. Int J Econ Finance Manag Sci. 2018;6(4):133-138. doi: 10.11648/j.ijefm.20180604.11

Copy | Download

@article{10.11648/j.ijefm.20180604.11,
  author = {Bagrat Yerznkyan and Lily Gassner},
  title = {Cultural and Institutional Differences at the National and Regional Levels},
  journal = {International Journal of Economics, Finance and Management Sciences},
  volume = {6},
  number = {4},
  pages = {133-138},
  doi = {10.11648/j.ijefm.20180604.11},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijefm.20180604.11},
  eprint = {https://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.ijefm.20180604.11},
  abstract = {Culture and institutions are two related phenomena contributing to economic performance. Culture is transmitted via teaching and imitation, while institutions, especially informal ones, come from socially transformed information and as such they are close to culture. The purpose of this paper is to examine the cultural and institutional issues of economic development with emphasis on their differences which may play a key role in understanding the very nature of socio-economic development. In a paper, the influence of culture and institutions on the socio-economic development in relation to the stationary (developed) economy as well as to the non-stationary (developing, transitional) economy is discussed. In addition, varieties of economic systems are considered. Main conclusions: (1) National specificity is superimposed on genetics: on the whole, Western civilizations with their inherent two-valued logic of thinking and the dominance of open access orders in society are more prone to economic exchanges – transactions, while Eastern civilizations, with their multi-valued logic and limited access orders, on the contrary, are more prone to social exchange processes – interactions. (2) The restructuring of the world in American terms is ontologically meaningless and conceptually erroneous, because of universality of the requirement of an inordinate consideration of national characteristics – taking into account that even in the USA the coexistence of heterogeneous political subcultures is a reality that cannot be ignored. (3) The relevance of culture and institutions are of particular importance in reforming the economy. As shows the Russian reforms, political factors, with uncritical import of formal institutions, rather than economic ones played a significantly greater role in changing its trajectory of development.},
 year = {2018}
}

Copy | Download

TY  - JOUR
T1  - Cultural and Institutional Differences at the National and Regional Levels
AU  - Bagrat Yerznkyan
AU  - Lily Gassner
Y1  - 2018/06/29
PY  - 2018
N1  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijefm.20180604.11
DO  - 10.11648/j.ijefm.20180604.11
T2  - International Journal of Economics, Finance and Management Sciences
JF  - International Journal of Economics, Finance and Management Sciences
JO  - International Journal of Economics, Finance and Management Sciences
SP  - 133
EP  - 138
PB  - Science Publishing Group
SN  - 2326-9561
UR  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijefm.20180604.11
AB  - Culture and institutions are two related phenomena contributing to economic performance. Culture is transmitted via teaching and imitation, while institutions, especially informal ones, come from socially transformed information and as such they are close to culture. The purpose of this paper is to examine the cultural and institutional issues of economic development with emphasis on their differences which may play a key role in understanding the very nature of socio-economic development. In a paper, the influence of culture and institutions on the socio-economic development in relation to the stationary (developed) economy as well as to the non-stationary (developing, transitional) economy is discussed. In addition, varieties of economic systems are considered. Main conclusions: (1) National specificity is superimposed on genetics: on the whole, Western civilizations with their inherent two-valued logic of thinking and the dominance of open access orders in society are more prone to economic exchanges – transactions, while Eastern civilizations, with their multi-valued logic and limited access orders, on the contrary, are more prone to social exchange processes – interactions. (2) The restructuring of the world in American terms is ontologically meaningless and conceptually erroneous, because of universality of the requirement of an inordinate consideration of national characteristics – taking into account that even in the USA the coexistence of heterogeneous political subcultures is a reality that cannot be ignored. (3) The relevance of culture and institutions are of particular importance in reforming the economy. As shows the Russian reforms, political factors, with uncritical import of formal institutions, rather than economic ones played a significantly greater role in changing its trajectory of development.
VL  - 6
IS  - 4
ER  -

Copy | Download

Author Information

Bagrat Yerznkyan

Central Economics and Mathematics Institute, Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow, Russian Federation
Lily Gassner

Human Resources, Hewlett-Packard Enterprise, Roseville, USA

Download PDF

Sections

Plain Text BibTeX RIS

APA Style

Bagrat Yerznkyan, Lily Gassner. (2018). Cultural and Institutional Differences at the National and Regional Levels. International Journal of Economics, Finance and Management Sciences, 6(4), 133-138. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijefm.20180604.11

Copy | Download

ACS Style

Bagrat Yerznkyan; Lily Gassner. Cultural and Institutional Differences at the National and Regional Levels. Int. J. Econ. Finance Manag. Sci. 2018, 6(4), 133-138. doi: 10.11648/j.ijefm.20180604.11

Copy | Download

AMA Style

Bagrat Yerznkyan, Lily Gassner. Cultural and Institutional Differences at the National and Regional Levels. Int J Econ Finance Manag Sci. 2018;6(4):133-138. doi: 10.11648/j.ijefm.20180604.11

Copy | Download

@article{10.11648/j.ijefm.20180604.11,
  author = {Bagrat Yerznkyan and Lily Gassner},
  title = {Cultural and Institutional Differences at the National and Regional Levels},
  journal = {International Journal of Economics, Finance and Management Sciences},
  volume = {6},
  number = {4},
  pages = {133-138},
  doi = {10.11648/j.ijefm.20180604.11},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijefm.20180604.11},
  eprint = {https://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.ijefm.20180604.11},
  abstract = {Culture and institutions are two related phenomena contributing to economic performance. Culture is transmitted via teaching and imitation, while institutions, especially informal ones, come from socially transformed information and as such they are close to culture. The purpose of this paper is to examine the cultural and institutional issues of economic development with emphasis on their differences which may play a key role in understanding the very nature of socio-economic development. In a paper, the influence of culture and institutions on the socio-economic development in relation to the stationary (developed) economy as well as to the non-stationary (developing, transitional) economy is discussed. In addition, varieties of economic systems are considered. Main conclusions: (1) National specificity is superimposed on genetics: on the whole, Western civilizations with their inherent two-valued logic of thinking and the dominance of open access orders in society are more prone to economic exchanges – transactions, while Eastern civilizations, with their multi-valued logic and limited access orders, on the contrary, are more prone to social exchange processes – interactions. (2) The restructuring of the world in American terms is ontologically meaningless and conceptually erroneous, because of universality of the requirement of an inordinate consideration of national characteristics – taking into account that even in the USA the coexistence of heterogeneous political subcultures is a reality that cannot be ignored. (3) The relevance of culture and institutions are of particular importance in reforming the economy. As shows the Russian reforms, political factors, with uncritical import of formal institutions, rather than economic ones played a significantly greater role in changing its trajectory of development.},
 year = {2018}
}

Copy | Download

TY  - JOUR
T1  - Cultural and Institutional Differences at the National and Regional Levels
AU  - Bagrat Yerznkyan
AU  - Lily Gassner
Y1  - 2018/06/29
PY  - 2018
N1  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijefm.20180604.11
DO  - 10.11648/j.ijefm.20180604.11
T2  - International Journal of Economics, Finance and Management Sciences
JF  - International Journal of Economics, Finance and Management Sciences
JO  - International Journal of Economics, Finance and Management Sciences
SP  - 133
EP  - 138
PB  - Science Publishing Group
SN  - 2326-9561
UR  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijefm.20180604.11
AB  - Culture and institutions are two related phenomena contributing to economic performance. Culture is transmitted via teaching and imitation, while institutions, especially informal ones, come from socially transformed information and as such they are close to culture. The purpose of this paper is to examine the cultural and institutional issues of economic development with emphasis on their differences which may play a key role in understanding the very nature of socio-economic development. In a paper, the influence of culture and institutions on the socio-economic development in relation to the stationary (developed) economy as well as to the non-stationary (developing, transitional) economy is discussed. In addition, varieties of economic systems are considered. Main conclusions: (1) National specificity is superimposed on genetics: on the whole, Western civilizations with their inherent two-valued logic of thinking and the dominance of open access orders in society are more prone to economic exchanges – transactions, while Eastern civilizations, with their multi-valued logic and limited access orders, on the contrary, are more prone to social exchange processes – interactions. (2) The restructuring of the world in American terms is ontologically meaningless and conceptually erroneous, because of universality of the requirement of an inordinate consideration of national characteristics – taking into account that even in the USA the coexistence of heterogeneous political subcultures is a reality that cannot be ignored. (3) The relevance of culture and institutions are of particular importance in reforming the economy. As shows the Russian reforms, political factors, with uncritical import of formal institutions, rather than economic ones played a significantly greater role in changing its trajectory of development.
VL  - 6
IS  - 4
ER  -

Copy | Download