文化、收入与幸福的相对论

IF 0.4 Q4 ECONOMICS Journal of Interdisciplinary Economics Pub Date : 2021-01-01 DOI:10.1177/0260107921989905
Tobias F. Rötheli
{"title":"文化、收入与幸福的相对论","authors":"Tobias F. Rötheli","doi":"10.1177/0260107921989905","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The concepts of cultural relativism (introduced by Franz Boas) and hedonic relativism introduced by Richard Easterlin are reference points of a theory that addresses international differences in per capita incomes and variations in the contribution of income to happiness. The pivotal concept in this study is diligence. Painstaking effort, that is, diligence, is needed to produce high quality goods and services. The downside of such efforts lies in the psychological burden that comes with the necessary high level of self-control of the individual worker and the required organisational feedback mechanisms in firms. We present two competing views concerning the determination of diligence. The first, anthropologically inspired, hypothesis states that a society’s cultural forces such as cognitive styles, organisational traditions and religion determine the level of diligence. One implication of this perspective is that societies can have income levels that are either too high or too low relative to the welfare optimum. The second view holds that diligence is determined in a maximising way, balancing the gains and pains of diligence in the economic realm. Cross-country data are studied in order to assess the two competing views. The econometric evidence indicates that it is the maximising view that can explain key aspects of the data. JEL: D63, P5, Z1","PeriodicalId":42664,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Interdisciplinary Economics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/0260107921989905","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A Theory of Relativity of Cultures, Incomes and Happiness\",\"authors\":\"Tobias F. Rötheli\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/0260107921989905\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The concepts of cultural relativism (introduced by Franz Boas) and hedonic relativism introduced by Richard Easterlin are reference points of a theory that addresses international differences in per capita incomes and variations in the contribution of income to happiness. The pivotal concept in this study is diligence. Painstaking effort, that is, diligence, is needed to produce high quality goods and services. The downside of such efforts lies in the psychological burden that comes with the necessary high level of self-control of the individual worker and the required organisational feedback mechanisms in firms. We present two competing views concerning the determination of diligence. The first, anthropologically inspired, hypothesis states that a society’s cultural forces such as cognitive styles, organisational traditions and religion determine the level of diligence. One implication of this perspective is that societies can have income levels that are either too high or too low relative to the welfare optimum. The second view holds that diligence is determined in a maximising way, balancing the gains and pains of diligence in the economic realm. Cross-country data are studied in order to assess the two competing views. The econometric evidence indicates that it is the maximising view that can explain key aspects of the data. JEL: D63, P5, Z1\",\"PeriodicalId\":42664,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Interdisciplinary Economics\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/0260107921989905\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Interdisciplinary Economics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/0260107921989905\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"ECONOMICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Interdisciplinary Economics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/0260107921989905","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

文化相对主义(由弗朗茨·博阿斯提出)和享乐相对主义(由理查德·伊斯特林提出)的概念是一个理论的参考点,该理论解决了人均收入的国际差异和收入对幸福贡献的变化。本研究的关键概念是勤奋。生产高质量的商品和服务需要艰苦的努力,即勤奋。这种努力的不利之处在于,在企业中,个体员工必要的高度自我控制和必要的组织反馈机制带来了心理负担。我们就勤勉的确定提出了两种相互矛盾的观点。第一种假说受到人类学的启发,认为一个社会的文化力量,如认知方式、组织传统和宗教,决定了勤奋的程度。这一观点的一个含义是,相对于最优福利,社会的收入水平可能过高或过低。第二种观点认为,勤奋是以一种最大化的方式决定的,在经济领域平衡勤奋的收益和痛苦。为了评估这两种相互竞争的观点,我们研究了跨国数据。计量经济学证据表明,最大化观点可以解释数据的关键方面。Jel: d63, p5, z1
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
A Theory of Relativity of Cultures, Incomes and Happiness
The concepts of cultural relativism (introduced by Franz Boas) and hedonic relativism introduced by Richard Easterlin are reference points of a theory that addresses international differences in per capita incomes and variations in the contribution of income to happiness. The pivotal concept in this study is diligence. Painstaking effort, that is, diligence, is needed to produce high quality goods and services. The downside of such efforts lies in the psychological burden that comes with the necessary high level of self-control of the individual worker and the required organisational feedback mechanisms in firms. We present two competing views concerning the determination of diligence. The first, anthropologically inspired, hypothesis states that a society’s cultural forces such as cognitive styles, organisational traditions and religion determine the level of diligence. One implication of this perspective is that societies can have income levels that are either too high or too low relative to the welfare optimum. The second view holds that diligence is determined in a maximising way, balancing the gains and pains of diligence in the economic realm. Cross-country data are studied in order to assess the two competing views. The econometric evidence indicates that it is the maximising view that can explain key aspects of the data. JEL: D63, P5, Z1
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
14
期刊介绍: The explosion of information and research that has taken place in recent years has had a profound effect upon a variety of existing academic disciplines giving rise to the dissolution of barriers between some, mergers between others, and the creation of entirely new fields of enquiry.
期刊最新文献
Dynamic Evolution Analysis of Cryptocurrency Market: A Network Science Study Green Transitions in Developing Countries: Perspectives on Women’s Political Leadership Can Cryptocurrencies Provide Better Diversification Benefits? Evidence from the Indian Stock Market A Bibliographic Review of Illusion of Knowledge in the Financial Field Assessment and Forecasting of the Military, Economic and Demographic Impact of the Russian–Ukrainian War on the National Economy of Russia
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1