At a time now I read in some articles and heard some talk shows the old question of how cultural factors influence the economy, or more specifically, the level of development (wealth, in short) in various countries.
Given the economic climate crisis and the recent troubles in Spain and other countries in the group of PIGS their debt, these "acute" ideas have proliferated in the media. I highly recommend that you read this article from El Pais: " Economics little understanding of gods", because even if the treatment is rather superficial and frivolous, brings to the table several interesting issues and summarizes the views of several economists and sociologists regard.
The question is whether religion (and more generally, cultural aspects of a society) have as much weight as to condition the economic development of countries. This topic has been discussed for some time, at least since Max Weber defended the supposed advantages of morality against the Catholic Protestant when doing business. Other times, however, and somewhat in contradiction with the above, has spoken of the advantages of religions "Western" interventions and materials on the East (Buddhism, Confucianism ...) rather push an individual toward the withdrawal, introspection and rejection of the material, thereby deducting the eastern countries would never become economic powers, and would always overwhelmed by the pressure of the West.
My position on this is clear: not accept explanations that serve to explain everything, and therefore explain nothing . For starters, there are many exceptions to the thesis that religion affects the wealth of nations: there are now, and has been at almost any time in history when we can think of "taking the picture." Among other things, for the economic development of most countries has been changing steadily since the Industrial Revolution, albeit unevenly and with acceleration and braking in under what historical moment and in what geographic location ... but with a tendency overall growth (with the exception of sub-Saharan Africa). Well, to paraphrase economist Sala i Martin, " you can not explain something that changes rapidly by factors that either no change or do so very slowly " (such as religion and culture). Incidentally, the terms "culture" or "cultural factors" are sufficiently vague to accommodate them anything.
Today there are many countries that are richer Catholics than Protestants in their environment. And the economies of Japan, Hong Kong, Taiwan or South Korea and increasingly China, also contradict the thesis of "Eastern religions."
Why, then, is so pervasive the idea that religion and culture influence the wealth of nations? Very simple: because it's an easy explanation, very handy for those who do not want to do hard work, scientific work ... it seems that naturally explains everything, but does not explain anything, that is, just as pseudoscience. narrative is easily understood by everyone and also feeds our prejudices : the Irish are drunken bums and compared with the British, the Anglo-Saxon Protestants are industrious and enterprising as compared to Catholics Mediterranean, more likely to resignation and silly soup, the Muslims are fanatics and given to treachery Orientals are submissive and lacking in leadership and creativity ... and, finally, blacks are less intelligent but have a member
long ... Take for example the argument put forward by the sociologist Enrique Gil Calvo on European countries in the linked article: the three "degrees of being" (Nordic / social democratic-liberal Anglo-Saxon and continental-Democrat), the illustrious professor directly related to religion (Lutheran, Calvinist, Catholic), mixing in the shaker also the "degree tolerance for corruption. " Not seem to mind putting the PIGS in the behavior group "continental" Democrat "even though no one is continental (Ireland) and some non-Catholic (Greece). I said, anything goes if it confirms our prejudices. Because when the PIGS were doing well, (particularly well to Ireland and Spain) I guess it was because its citizens stopped going to church.
Is it possible to give some alternative explanation for the crisis of Pigs, which do not fall into the "easy solution" of religion and culture? Well, we can make the attempt ... for example, I recommend this article Javier Andrés NEG's blog about global imbalances.
thinkers have to say that I respect more than Gil Calvo also point to a long time "argument culture." As an example, read this article economist Jeffrey Sachs on growth in the "Buddhist economics" of Bhutan, which is indeed a beautiful story. You can find similar success stories (although rare) in other countries that seem to stand little bit about the dismal fate of its neighbors: the first that come to mind are Costa Rica, Central America, and Botswana, sub-Saharan Africa . What can you say to explain your success? Well, people would say that is dedicated to studying development economics, the problem is that you can say very little, or at least be very cautious when it comes to explaining why some countries succeed and others do not ... we must observe, collect data, linking variables, build a model and test it. I know it is not easy. How easy is to use religion, race, to black culture, the cruelty of the colonial past ... But if we are more careful, if we take into account all factors that can influence, and we can see even in the article Bhutan Sachs (though he prefers Buddhism as ultimate explanation), see how they arise analysis of issues related to good governance, market opening, the intelligent use of your natural resources or other advantages, institutional stability, etc ... and ultimately, making the correct political and economic decisions that transcend ( fortunately) culture, religion and to some extent, the geographical environment that has touched you.
course, the answer to the question of why the wealth of nations is far from clear: it is an exciting research field of development economics. And as this field of research that eventually could be assigned a role to cultural or religious. My own opinion is not to deprive them entirely of a role: I think these aspects, the best, " modulate" a society's response to certain policies. That is, could influence the degree and ease of implementation of certain policies and therefore explain small differences in the "way to grow" from one country to another. But not to the point of influencing its success or failure. But this is a hypothesis which, like all others, must be subjected to empirical trial.
Meanwhile, flee from easy explanations on matters that are far from being resolved.
UPDATE: An interesting study related to the topic of the post you can see it in the blog Neoconomicón said: "Democracy storm."
