The Swiss Vote (culture differences in the news 4)

The Swiss vote banning minarets is not at all surprising, when you consider: 1) Swiss culture scores 58 on Uncertainty Avoidance (UAI) in research; 2) the campaign against the minarets portrayed the "invasion" of Muslims as a terrible threat, mimicking the style of Nazi propaganda against Jews, and the reaction was "a vote of fear" (in the words of the French foreign minister); 3) research shows that the Swiss score low on Power Distance and high on Individualism, meaning they tend towards decentralized government and are resentful of any federal government initiatives, which they tend to see as an interference on local autonomy. Since the federal government was against the minaret ban, the natural attitude of the population majority was to be in favor of it, expressing their counter-dependence to federal authority; 4) research data also show the Swiss culture as being "normative" and focused on "what you are not allowed to do", so a ban is always quite appealing; 5) research shows the Swiss strongly valuing performance over caring for others, so the appeal about "freedom of faith" falls on deaf ears: it's about working hard and conforming to the norm, the rest is less important.

The polls prior to the vote painted a different picture. Most respondents said they would vote against the ban. This is misleading when the issue at stake is discrimination. As demonstrated during the presidential election in the US, people who discriminate do not admit in polls that this is what they do. There is a fear of expressing their discriminatory attitude in polls, because they fear being discriminated against for expressing an "anti-social" attitude. So people lie in polls and discriminate when voting. It happened in the US, it happened in Switzerland. There seems to be a "Swiss Connection" emerging with the US.

A huge debate has been revived all over Europe about discrimination. The findings of Hofstede's research (culture changes very little, very slowly, over centuries) are again confirmed: there was strong discrimination in many parts of Europe, a century ago. There still is. The irony is that, previously, it was against the Jews. Now, it is against the Muslims. Jesus Christ would be ashamed of these "false Christians" who are so hateful and intolerant of their brothers.

Moderates and advocates of freedom should not be silent or indifferent to what is happening. The silence of moderates allowed the rise of Nazism and Fascism almost a century ago. Let's not allow that tragedy to be enacted once again.

Fear breeds on ignorance. Stereotypes breed on ignorance. We need to foster knowledge, information, education, learning, interaction. Those are the only ways to avoid a slippery slide towards destruction and chaos. We need to promote cross-cultural understanding and build bridges across cultures. A bridge has just been bombed in Switzerland; let's re-build it.

Culture Differences in the news 3

In the International Herald Tribune today (Nov. 25), David Brooks writes that the debate in the US over healthcare is actually a debate about values... Indeed! Perhaps the coin is dropping at last.

The people inbedded in a culture are the last ones to realize the underlying values that shape it, so it is no wonder that Brooks says that the values in question are "vitality" and "security". Actually, he is not that far off the mark. Research shows that the dilemma in the American culture is between "performance" (and the status assigned to it) versus "caring for others & quality of life". It is what Hofstede labeled as "Masculinity" versus "Femininity", two terms that most Americans have issues with, because they immediately link them to "macho" behaviour and "feminist" issues.

Research shows (not my opinion, nor anybody's opinion, this is simply research data) that the US culture scores higher on "performance" over "caring". No wonder it has taken them so long to adopt universal health care (and the discussion is not over)... In the American culture, performing and being a "winner" is much more important than caring for others or than leading a life of quality rather than quantity. It's all about competing to win.

By contrast, the Dutch and Scandinavian cultures (according to research) favor "caring" over "performance", and they've had universal health care for many decades.

Brooks urges Americans to "make a choice" about what kind of country does the US want to become, and he puts it bluntly about choosing between becoming more "vibrant" as an economy or providing more healthcare. He talks about having to decide between allocating funds either to stimulate the economy or to care for "the elderly" and "the vulnerable".

If you look a bit deeper, however, you can see that the US has actually managed to have the worst of all worlds: its healthcare system is the most expensive in the world AND it does not provide full coverage. How come? How is it possible that The Netherlands, the Scandinavian countries, and even England (an Anglo-Saxon culture like the US) are all able to provide universal healthcare, yet at a lower cost?

Perhaps because America has unwillingly combined the worst bits of "savage capitalism" into its current healthcare model. By allowing a lot of freedom to private enterprises, which in the US culture (more than anywhere else) means "making the most money at the expense of all else" because "performance" and "the bottom line" is all that matters, America has created a "monster" in which healthcare PRICES are artificially high. Prices are not exactly the same as costs.

Yes, in theory it is possible to extend healthcare to everyone in the US AND to lower the overall cost. However, this would require to rein the healthcare companies who are making too much money in the current situation. There lies the hard part of this dilemma, because it goes against the cherished value of freedom of competition in a free marketplace. Many people in the US fail to realize that "freedom to compete" should not be equal to "freedom to rip off" the population who have a health concern. "Ripping off" means overcharging, but it also means over-prescribing, over-testing, prescribing testing and treatment beyond what is really needed.

The right-wing shouts "rationing", but there should be a way to reconcile this dilemma.

The American culture will not change. OK, maybe in a hundred years, when there are more immigrants living in the US coming from other cultures and they have influenced the way children are being brought up. So we can discuss it again at the beginning of the 22nd Century.

In the meantime, the US has to find a way to reconcile its moral preference for "performance" with the need to provide at least minimum health care for the masses. You don't have to go very far. In South America, most countries provide low-cost, low-standard universal health care. And the wealthy are free to be ripped off by the providers of their choice when they want high-standard medical services. It is socialism for the poor majority and market capitalism for the rich minority.

However, this collides with the American value of "equality". In the US it is not morally acceptable to have a "privileged minority" entitled to better medical care, co-existing with an "underprivileged majority" that has no access to that. This makes it more difficult to reconcile the dilemma between "performance" and "caring".

The paradox is that, over time (in the past 30 years), income distribution in the US is becoming more concentrated, while in Brazil (for instance) it is becoming less concentrated (see "The Economist" of last week). Perhaps in the 22nd Century the situation will be reversed... The US will have a "de facto" unequal society, while in South America people will enjoy the economic equality that was a 20th Century ideal.

Actually, that is not very likely. Culture changes much more slowly than in a century. What IS likely is that the US will eventually adopt a healthcare system that will continue to combine the worst of "savage capitalism" with the emphasis on "performance", thereby increasing prices and overall costs, leading to a slow deterioration of the American competitiveness and "market share" in the global economy. The US will still be one of the large economies on the planet, (second to Europe) but less dominant than in 1970 (when Europe was still fractioned) and more interdependent with the BRIC countries.

Like in the rental car ads of the seventies, the motto will shift from Hertz ("We're Number One, we're the best!") to Avis ("We're Number Two, we try harder!").

Culture Differences in the News 2

Should people be vaccinated against Swine Flu? Apparently culture has something to do with the issue...

In the Netherlands (low Power Distance, high Individualism) only 25% of nurses have agreed to take the vaccine soon to be made available. The overwhelming majority (75%) are suspicious of any "government-led" initiative, according to Radio Netherlands. "“For a start it is very difficult to really protect yourself against flu. Every flu jab targets a certain virus. And there are hundreds going around, so you are not protected at all. The side effects can be really serious. And it seems like there is a lot of panic-spreading going on. It is only the pharmaceutical industry that stands to benefit from it," said Ute.

Nannet van der Geest, company doctor at a Nijmegen hospital, is not keen on compulsory vaccination campaigns like the one in the United States. Instead she believes in providing the medical staff with the right information so they can make their own choices.

These opinions are typical of cultures scoring very high on Individualism and low on Power Distance. People show less dependent behavior and value dissenting opinions.

Meanwhile, in Brazil (high Power Distance, low Individualism) people are complaining that "the Government is not providing enough medicine against Swine Flu and the vaccination campaign is coming too late!" Typical of the Brazilian culture is to consider that it is the Government's responsibility (whether Federal or Regional) to "take care of the population". The vaccination campaign is perceived as "needs to be compulsory, otherwise people will not take the responsibility to be vaccinated. They need to be told!"

Very different approaches are needed to design public health policies...

Culture Differences in the News 1

Barack Obama (whom I admire) made the effort to go to Copenhagen and pitch for the Chicago candidacy to host the 2016 Olympics. He demonstrated how a culture bias can wreck the best of intentions. His plane landed at 7:00 AM. He spoke to the IOC at 8:30, and left for the airport soon after, taking off before noon. When the first voting results were announced, he was already airborne.

This was published by the International Herald Tribune: "former IOC member, Kai Holm, told the Associated Press that the brevity of his appearance may have hurt. Mr Holm called it 'too business-like. It can be that some IOC members see it as a lack of respect.' "

Obama acted in a typical Anglo-Saxon way, going straight to the point, and then leaving. He forgot that, out of 97 IOC members, less than a dozen come from Anglo-Saxon cultures. The vast majority of the world have cultures that value relationships far more than "the bottom line".

No wonder Chicago got the least votes of the four candidate-cities and was the first to be dropped from the competition.

Kevan Gosper, IOC member from Australia (one of the "less-than-a-dozen" Anglo Saxon cultures) said "I'm shocked. To have the president of the United States and his wife personally appear, then this should happen in the first round is awful and totally undeserving."

Well, well, Mr. Gosper: what would be more deserving? To have the president of Brazil personally appear and Rio be dropped? Or to have the prime minister of Japan appear and Tokyo be dropped? Or perhaps to have the king of Spain personally appear, and Madrid be dropped?

In Chicago, news anchors were questioning whether the IOC was "anti-American"... That is not the issue.

My dear friends, welcome to a multilateral world, the reality of the 21st Century is just beginning. America deserves the same respect as other nations, no less, no more. The Anglo-Saxon culture is as important as other cultures, no more, no less.

Bear in mind that the population of Anglo-Saxon, Dutch-Scandinavian and Germanic cultures represent 9% of the world's population. The remaining 91% are "Solar-System", "Family" and "Social Pyramid" cultures (Japan stands on its own, but that is another story).

No culture is "better" than another, but those belonging to cultures which are minoritarian in the world stage should at least try to understand what is going on in the other cultures. Or risk other unpleasant surprises in the years to come.

If you can't do anything useful...

A wise man dispenses advice to his son:

Go out and do something useful to make this a better world, my son.

If you can't do anything, become a Manager.

If you can't Manage, become a Consultant.

If you can't consult, write a book.

If you can't write a book, become a blogger!

...and keep me updated on Twitter.