Subbacultcha

Robert Samuelson reviews Gordon Clark's "A Farewell to Alms," and I guess it's a favorable review, since Samuelson summarizes the book without ever disputing any part of it. The main point of the book is that culture - not economics or the environment or biology - is the reason why some nations get rich and others stay poor. To sum it up in a nutshell:

Modern technology and management are widely available, but many societies can't take advantage because their values and social organization are antagonistic. Prescribing economically sensible policies (open markets, secure property rights, sound money) can't overcome this bedrock resistance.

Actually, this thesis is neither new nor revolutionary. In fact, it's the single most common explanation I hear for economic phenomena.

"Why can't most women get good jobs in Japan?" "Sexist Japanese culture."

"Why is China growing so fast?" "The Chinese culture of hard work."

"Why was Europe stagnant in the 90s?" "The anti-capitalist culture."

Etc.

Now, actually, if you look at these societies, all those "answers" seem obviously true. Japanese businessmen tend to have sexist attitudes; Chinese people tend to work hard; and Europeans tend to be more hostile to capitalism than their American counterparts.

But which is cause and which is effect? Japanese businesses take their all-male work teams to hostesses (basically, prostitutes) to foster male bondng; women in the workplace would put an end to that little perk (and meanwhile, the govt. shelters most companies from competition, allowing them to get away with hiring only men). China's economy is fast-growing, and working hard is both necessary and effective in getting ahead. Europe has smothering bureaucracies that, until recently, protected most people from the need to embrace freewheeling capitalism, but also prevented them from reaping its benefits.

Another problem with the "culture" explanation: Cultures change. In 1950, American women married young and didn't work; today they're among the most economically successful women in the world. In 1950, Japanese parents obsessively managed their children's lives and dished out corporal punishment; nowadays, laissez-faire parenting ("houninshugi") is the norm.

If there's some bedrock core of British culture that allowed Britain to launch the Industrial Revolution, why did it happen in the 1800s and not the 1700s? Or the 1600s? Either British culture changed (in which case Africa could change today), or culture isn't sufficient for economic development. Similarly, if China's culture is what's allowing it to grow at 11%, where was that culture in 1960? Or 1900, for that matter?

Basically, I don't buy it. Not one bit. Of course social systems are important to economic growth, but these social systems are not fixed. To ascribe economic progress to culture is to confuse proximate causes with fundamental causes. Culture causes economics like lightning causes rain. Put that in your pipe and smoke it, Robert Samuelson.