是否存在文明冲突?跨文明的文化和制度

Q3 Economics, Econometrics and Finance Global Business and Finance Review Pub Date : 2022-06-30 DOI:10.17549/gbfr.2022.27.3.75
Masud Chand
{"title":"是否存在文明冲突?跨文明的文化和制度","authors":"Masud Chand","doi":"10.17549/gbfr.2022.27.3.75","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Purpose: We analyze how countries are similar and different in terms of cultures and institutions and the extent to which they can be grouped into civilizations. This is based on Huntington’s (1993,1996) framework that states there are major cultural and institutional differences between civilizations. \nDesign/methodology/approach: Cultural and institutional data were collected on all available countries. For culture, Hofstede index was used. For institutions, scores were used for the Index of Democracy, the Index of Economic Freedom, Freedom in the World Index, the Global Gender Gap Index, the Press Freedom Index, and the Corruption Perceptions Index. The countries were grouped along the lines of Huntington’s civilizations and their scores analyzed. \nFindings: The results reveal that differences across civilizations are significant and extend across cultures and institutions. Across the nine civilizations, there were significant differences in five of the six cultural dimensions as well as in all the institutions. \nResearch limitations/implications: Cultural differences across civilizations could point to pervasive differences on issues such as values, motivation, and management norms. Institutional differences across civilizations could represent differences in values that societies attach to different aspects of their institutional environment. Future studies using longitudinal data could help build on our findings. \nOriginality/value: The use of both cultural and institutional measures to cluster countries into civilizations is a major contribution of this study. The clash of civilizations framework is analyzed relative to other studies on country clusters contributing to the discussion on supranational cultural clusters. The study would be valuable to cross-cultural researchers, international business academics and practitioners.","PeriodicalId":35226,"journal":{"name":"Global Business and Finance Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-06-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Is there a Clash of Civilizations? Cultures and Institutions across Civilizations\",\"authors\":\"Masud Chand\",\"doi\":\"10.17549/gbfr.2022.27.3.75\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Purpose: We analyze how countries are similar and different in terms of cultures and institutions and the extent to which they can be grouped into civilizations. This is based on Huntington’s (1993,1996) framework that states there are major cultural and institutional differences between civilizations. \\nDesign/methodology/approach: Cultural and institutional data were collected on all available countries. For culture, Hofstede index was used. For institutions, scores were used for the Index of Democracy, the Index of Economic Freedom, Freedom in the World Index, the Global Gender Gap Index, the Press Freedom Index, and the Corruption Perceptions Index. The countries were grouped along the lines of Huntington’s civilizations and their scores analyzed. \\nFindings: The results reveal that differences across civilizations are significant and extend across cultures and institutions. Across the nine civilizations, there were significant differences in five of the six cultural dimensions as well as in all the institutions. \\nResearch limitations/implications: Cultural differences across civilizations could point to pervasive differences on issues such as values, motivation, and management norms. Institutional differences across civilizations could represent differences in values that societies attach to different aspects of their institutional environment. Future studies using longitudinal data could help build on our findings. \\nOriginality/value: The use of both cultural and institutional measures to cluster countries into civilizations is a major contribution of this study. The clash of civilizations framework is analyzed relative to other studies on country clusters contributing to the discussion on supranational cultural clusters. The study would be valuable to cross-cultural researchers, international business academics and practitioners.\",\"PeriodicalId\":35226,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Global Business and Finance Review\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-06-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Global Business and Finance Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.17549/gbfr.2022.27.3.75\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"Economics, Econometrics and Finance\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Global Business and Finance Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.17549/gbfr.2022.27.3.75","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Economics, Econometrics and Finance","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:我们分析各国在文化和制度方面的相似和不同之处,以及它们在多大程度上可以归类为文明。这是基于亨廷顿(1993,1996)的框架,该框架指出不同文明之间存在主要的文化和制度差异。设计/方法/方法:收集了所有可用国家的文化和体制数据。对于文化,采用Hofstede指数。对机构而言,分数用于民主指数、经济自由指数、世界自由指数、全球性别差距指数、新闻自由指数和清廉指数。这些国家按照亨廷顿文明分类,并对其分数进行分析。研究结果表明,不同文明之间的差异是显著的,并延伸到不同的文化和制度。在九个文明中,六个文化维度中的五个以及所有制度都存在显著差异。研究局限/启示:不同文明之间的文化差异可以指出在价值观、动机和管理规范等问题上普遍存在的差异。不同文明之间的制度差异可能代表社会对其制度环境的不同方面所赋予的价值差异。未来使用纵向数据的研究可以帮助建立我们的发现。原创性/价值:使用文化和制度措施将国家划分为文明是本研究的主要贡献。本文将文明冲突框架与其他关于国家集群的研究相结合,为超国家文化集群的讨论做出贡献。本研究对跨文化研究者、国际商务学者和实践者具有一定的参考价值。
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
Is there a Clash of Civilizations? Cultures and Institutions across Civilizations
Purpose: We analyze how countries are similar and different in terms of cultures and institutions and the extent to which they can be grouped into civilizations. This is based on Huntington’s (1993,1996) framework that states there are major cultural and institutional differences between civilizations. Design/methodology/approach: Cultural and institutional data were collected on all available countries. For culture, Hofstede index was used. For institutions, scores were used for the Index of Democracy, the Index of Economic Freedom, Freedom in the World Index, the Global Gender Gap Index, the Press Freedom Index, and the Corruption Perceptions Index. The countries were grouped along the lines of Huntington’s civilizations and their scores analyzed. Findings: The results reveal that differences across civilizations are significant and extend across cultures and institutions. Across the nine civilizations, there were significant differences in five of the six cultural dimensions as well as in all the institutions. Research limitations/implications: Cultural differences across civilizations could point to pervasive differences on issues such as values, motivation, and management norms. Institutional differences across civilizations could represent differences in values that societies attach to different aspects of their institutional environment. Future studies using longitudinal data could help build on our findings. Originality/value: The use of both cultural and institutional measures to cluster countries into civilizations is a major contribution of this study. The clash of civilizations framework is analyzed relative to other studies on country clusters contributing to the discussion on supranational cultural clusters. The study would be valuable to cross-cultural researchers, international business academics and practitioners.
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
Global Business and Finance Review
Global Business and Finance Review Economics, Econometrics and Finance-Finance
CiteScore
1.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
37
审稿时长
16 weeks
期刊最新文献
An Analysis of Key Attributes of Upcycled Food using a Best-Worst Scaling Approach Impact of Accounting Conservatism on the Informativeness of Current Stock Prices for Future Earnings Mediation Effects of Financial Performance between Assets Utilization and the Market Value of Palestinian Listed Firms Structural Relationship between Taste, Price Fairness, and Repurchase Intention of Fast Food: Moderating Effect of Healthiness The Effects of Enterprise Risk Management on the Performance and Risk of Vietnamese Listed Firms: Evidence from Abnormal Enterprise Risk Management Index
×
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