Introduction
I've gotten some comments from friends and "others" about the paper on development. See: On Culture and Development. Thanks to them, I am reading new materials and learning more! Thank you for that. I have been treating this blog as a "publishing" forum. I spend a fair amount of time working up a topic, and then publish it like an article But this culture business is pretty complicated. My next version of this is going to be months in the future. I marvel at others that I read - like Jason Lehrer - who can generate something really useful once a week. There are even some that do it daily!
In the interests of carrying on the discussion, I am going to post shorter pieces as I learn things. My hope is to collect them into a more extensive entry at some point, and delete the shorter "notes". So . . . these are notes in progress.
Development and Trust - Egalitarianism as a Means
I found an interesting abstract of a paper on the topic of trust as an essential ingredient of economic development. As part of this study, the author concludes that a government can create a better trust environment by working to reduce inequalities in a society. You can read it here:Article Abstract: All for One: Equality, Corruption, and Social Trust
I like the idea of trust is a key element of economics - it seems to be a key element of "business ethics", and essential to economic development. It seems pretty clear that a fundamental element of economic development is the level of trust in a society. Some think that English / US capitalism is based on the trading practices that the early Quakers developed, because people trusted them absolutely. But I think that the way it works is that a society with a high level of trust moves toward a more egalitarian distribution of assets. I see little evidence that the other approach, government forcing people to a more equal share of wealth, has the ability to create trust. If anything, the few examples we have seen of that attempt in the Communist world destroyed trust. The few in charge profited, and everyone else lost out.
This perspective reflects the a basic world view that wealth is something in short supply, and the way to increase wealth for the poor is to take it somehow from the rich. That is typical of a culture which does not favor development. But it isn't really a competition for wealth - as much as our male dominated societies want to cast it that way. We are all in this together. Wealth is something we create. I am not poorer because Bill Gates is richer. In fact, Bill's genius enabled productivity enhancements that increased the wealth of the planet. I think his rewards are somewhat outlandish, and I would even that playing field a bit with taxes - but it does not hurt the rest of us if he is wealthy. The US is not poorer because China is now richer. In fact, the growth of an attractive Chinese market will increase everyone's wealth. The wealth disparity is a motivator, but not a means.
I think the genius is to change how people think about something - not forcing them to do something. If they opt to do it, it will happen. If it is forced upon them, it has little impact, and may have a major negative response.
More later.
