Cultural Economy: An Ideology of Moral and Aesthetic Imperatives in the Wealth and Power Nations (A Culturally Dynamic and Deterministic Theory of Development)

By

Adeniyi Aliu

Virginia, U.S.A.

adealiuade@comcast.net

The mid-twentieth century witnessed the emergence of several countries from the yoke of colonialism with the hope and great promise that self-rule will lead to accelerated economic and social progress. Many  economists excited by the vast natural and human resources of these newly independent states, espoused a slew of development theories to serve as road maps to the promised land. As an undergraduate student of economics, I too felt this excitement of great possibilities for my country Nigeria, for she was blessed with natural resources the kind of which most countries would be envious. After all, if Japan, a country substantially deprived of arable land, petroleum, and iron-ore could attain great prosperity, the more could be said of Nigeria, and other newly independent countries possessing such untapped resources in abundance. Sad to say, these hopes and dreams never materialized for today's underdeveloped economies, which have been mired in economic stagnation and in many cases, economic retrogression.

What happened? Why have development theories failed? Is it a failure of the theories per se or the failure of underdeveloped economies to provide the framework within which these theories could be successfully applied? Development theories are based on the general assumptions and principles that underpin the study of economic theory. Without these assumptions, it would be impossible to study economics in any objective or meaningful manner because economics is the objective study of social interactions between subjective individuals resulting in the exchange of value. Therefore, in order to limit this inherent subjectivity, economic theory has found it necessary to introduce certain assumptions. From economic theory we know two of these underpinning assumptions to be Ceteris Paribus (Latin for ‘other things being equal') and The Economic Man (Rational Man).

However, experience has shown that the applicability and relevance of development theories become questionable when they meet with subjective exogenous human variables in the underdeveloped world. These variables are considered exogenous because they are excluded from the study of classical economic theory – for, how do you quantify and account for pervasive crippling corruption and lack of public integrity in a development model or quantify religious norms, social values, mentalities, and other sensibilities that are inimical to socio-economic progress? These exogenous variables are human elements that are subjective by nature and make nonsense of the objective and worthy goals of economic development models. With the introduction of these exogenous human elements, ‘other things are no longer equal', the ‘economic man' cannot function,  irrationality sets in, the underpinning assumptions of economic theory become undermined and by extension the development theories they support crumble. So, the fault does not lie with the development theories per se, but with the underdeveloped economies that do not possess the framework to support and sustain these theories.

What are the subjective exogenous human elements that render development theories unsustainable?  The exogenous human elements alluded to are aspects of behavior that bear similar representation to what sociologists and anthropologists describe as culture. Culture is the shared system of beliefs, values, customs, organization, language, traditions, behaviors, technology, and ways of thinking (mentality) of a people or society. Culture is the learned behavior of a society in all these aspects and the essential feature of culture is that it is learned and is transmitted from generation to generation in continuity through learning.

This implies that there is nothing genetic or immutable about culture but that it is malleable and changeable. The fact that certain aspects of a society's culture may be detrimental to economic progress is not an indictment of all of the society - people from underdeveloped countries are probably the nicest and most amiable of people, but socio-economic development has little to do with sociability. It has to do with the acquisition of the ethical rigor, and aesthetic depth essential and indispensable to development – it is this ethical rigor, and aesthetic depth that constitute the admired substance, and ethos of a society. The nature of sociability is warm, and soft, while ethical rigor is hard, strict, and cold with a sharp edge. All successful societies are characterized by a hard sharp ethical edge, which has not diminished their sociability. Great Britain as an example, is a successful country with a very high level of volunteerism, charitable-giving, and empathetic welfare system.

While culture is generally accepted to be central in the life of all peoples, its pivotal role in economic poverty or prosperity is not easily discernable.  The subjective cultural situation in underdeveloped countries has not been helped by the field of economics which developed within the context of western intellectual tradition of objectivity and rationality. There is no gainsaying that the devotion of the western world to intellectual curiosity and the resultant knowledge, discoveries, body of law, and inventions have been the major reason for its prosperity. It is axiomatic that a systematic, objective, and rational approach is the hallmark of any intellectual tradition.

This tradition has been the dominant force in the advancement of western societies over the centuries from the days of Socrates to the  present. Over time, the intellectuals effecting the course of events and history from the ‘upper echelon' were to a considerable degree, able to order and direct the lives of the general populace through the sheer force of their ideas and inventions in all spheres of human endeavor and inquiry - philosophy, anthropology, chemistry, art, mathematics, literature, botany, anatomy, physiology, geography, law, astronomy, engineering, architecture, physics etc. This top to bottom effect of western intellectual order, resulted in a pervasive societal ethical rigor that provided structure and frame work for the support of the economic assumptions of Ceteris Paribus and the Economic Man.

Rooted in a different cultural tradition, the east took a very different but equally effective path – a pervasive societal ethical rigor of Confucian disciplinary order, which made the assumptions of Ceteris Paribus and the Economic Man viable and sustainable, thereby making it is easy for the east to piggyback on the intellectual and technological achievements of the west to great economic wealth. The ethical rigor of these two very diverse societies (east and west), even though very different in origin, became the bedrock of their ethos and provided the requisite societal discipline critical to socio-economic progress. The intellectual tradition of the west is very deep and without meaning to be melodramatic, can be accurately described as formidable. Similarly, but in a different manner, the Confucian disciplinary order of the east is equally deep and formidable. What are the equivalently formidable cultural traits of the underdeveloped counties? The underdeveloped counties lacking equivalent essentials of western or eastern traditions, have not evolved the requisite ethos of strict ethical rigor that can support and sustain the assumptions of economic theory thereby making the application of development models very difficult, if not impossible.

This being the case, a new paradigm is needed in the study of the economics of underdevelopment.  Enter the ‘cultural' economists who have postulated that the key underlying reason for the economic non-performance of underdeveloped counties is rooted in exogenous cultural factors that severely impede economic prosperity.  The notion of culture being the overriding factor in economic success of societies has been around since the turn of the twentieth century but was eclipsed by the existential struggle between capitalism and communism and the belief that with the end of colonialism, newly independent countries will automatically follow in the footsteps of successful economies. Success happened for South Korea, Japan, Taiwan, Singapore and to a certain degree South Africa.  But why did it not happen for Nigeria, Haiti, India, Bangladesh,  Ghana, Tanzania and Zambia?  The intractable nature of the economic problems of the latter countries has led to a revival of the thesis linking culture to the prosperity or poverty of nations.

And so we come to the crux of the matter and the point to remember: Culture is a dynamic process, but it is also deterministic to the extent that it determines the prevailing societal ethic, and societal aesthetic – and any type of economic development which necessitates the people possessing an ethos incompatible with the prevailing ethic, and aesthetic will not occur; rather the emergence of an economy compatible with and reflecting the prevailing ethic, and aesthetic is inevitable. This is the ironclad law of economic development. In other words, a nation's economic destiny is defined by its cultural values, attitudes, and sensibilities as reflected in the prevailing ethics, and aesthetics.

Therefore, in order to better understand the critical role of culture in development, what will be required is a new construct of a culturally deterministic but dynamic economic model based on selective moral (ethical), and aesthetic imperatives that will serve as predictor variables in the analysis of the prosperity and poverty of nations. The aim is not to be all inclusive with respect to every possible predictor variable, but to sufficiently demonstrate the vital connection between culture and development by identifying selective predictor variables to help us understand the crucial dynamic between culture and development.

There does not have to be a single model emerging from this endeavor. There will be different constructs depending on each modeler's perspective and the weight assigned different cultural factors. Primary independent variables in one model might appear as secondary or intervening variables in another or might not appear at all; the more models are developed, the better will be our understanding of the complex nexus and interplay between culture and economic development.

As an example, the Institute of Human Development (IHENDU) established in Lima, Peru by Octavia Mavila,  has developed its own model for economic progress by identifying ten cultural factors critical to prosperity. These ten factors, termed the "Ten Commandments of Development" are: order, cleanliness, punctuality, responsibility, achievement, honesty, respect for the rights of others, respect for the law, work ethic, frugality. Mavila, came about his model after his many visits to Japan sensitized him to some of the fundamental cultural differences between the Japanese and Peruvian societies and the profound economic consequences resulting from these cultural differences. From Mavila's ten commandments, I might take away a few things and add, intellectual curiosity, and aesthetics – suffice to say, it does not have to be a one-size-fits-all proposition.

Cultural economics is a new and emerging field of inquiry still in its embryonic stage. The aim is to study cultural obstacles to economic development and to proffer solutions to eliminating or mitigating these obstacles. There are several key issues to fleshed out in developing a full-blown ideology and for those whose interest might be piqued by this notion, the following might be areas for further consideration: mutability and amorphous nature of culture, comparative cultural analysis, cross-fertilization of cultures, human resources vs natural resources in economic development (as exemplified by the Japanese experience), adoption of western technology in non-western countries, the two models of economic success (east and west), absorptive capacity of non-western cultures in adopting western technology, cleanliness, sanitation and squalor, corruption and public integrity, discipline, orderliness and decorum, organization, intellectual curiosity, aesthetic  value in; beauty, the arts, cleanliness and order, profundity, ethical rigor and ethos, sensibilities, mentalities, mental orientation and mind-sets, aesthetic and ethical basis of forward vs backward nations, etc. This list is by no means exhaustive but as can be garnered, there is a lot to chew on when it comes to developing this ideology.

It is imperative for underdeveloped countries that the nexus between culture and economics be clearly established so that people can fully understand and appreciate why culture matters and why culture is critical to their economic destiny. In order to further concretely underscore this point, we can begin with an examination of ‘fairly' successful African economies and identify both the dynamic and deterministic cultural undercurrents in these economies.

Earlier on, I had referred to South Africa as a partially successful economy, not by African standards but by western standards. By African standards South Africa is a smashing success. We all know that South Africa is by far the most militarily powerful and economically successful nation on the African continent (Arab countries included). It was the most economically successful African country decades before the end of apartheid in 1994 and today boasts an impressive  GNI per capita of $2,800 compared to Nigeria's declining GNI per capita of $290 (World Bank). At $3,300. Botswana has a GNI per capita higher than South Africa's but a comparatively small and technologically less advanced economy of $5b compared to South Africa's $133b.

While poverty among South African blacks is still a deep and lingering problem, black total income at 52% of total South African income, has now exceeded the total income for whites. Of course, income distribution is still sharply skewed in favor of whites. I have never been to South Africa, but others who have remark on the beauty of the country - and they are not just referring to the natural landscape but to the cities: Capetown, Johannesburg, Pretoria. Nine years after apartheid, South Africa exhibits the highest level of judicial integrity, technological adaptation, and economic efficiency of any country in Africa.

So, what accounts for this unique African success? The deeper you think about it, the more you come to the realization that it is principally due to the presence of the European settlers ( yes, Afrikaners too!) who dominated and directed the economic and political life of the country for practically all of the twentieth century (until 1994 blacks had no say). Can we safely argue that South Africa would be an economic backwater like it neighbors Tanzania, Malawi and Zambia were it not for these European settlers? The anecdotal evidence definitely points in that direction - why would South Africa be any different from any of its neighbors in that region? Think hard about that and be honest with yourself. Remember that South African economic success predates the end of apartheid.

There are many who would hasten to point to the exploitation of black labor in achieving South Africa's unique African success. But is exploitation the real reason or was it the value system, mind-set, and organizational wherewithal (yes, culture) that the European settlers brought with them that made all the difference? Think hard about that and be honest with yourself. True, the Europeans instituted the evil system of apartheid, but you can be evil and still be super-efficient and well organized. The evil of state sanctioned racism and Jim Crow did not prevent America from becoming the most powerful nation during the time these practices were in effect.

Ivory Coast comes to mind as another example of a country that was economically positively impacted by the presence of a non-indigenous culture - the French. Before Ivory Coast plunged into its hellish civil war, it was without doubt the most highly rated West African economy with a GNI more than triple that of Nigeria. People spoke of pre-civil war Abidjan, the capital city, as beautiful with first-world amenities comparable to some European cities and the country possessing an outstanding infrastructure for a developing country. We also know that Ivory Coast had a heavy presence of French expatriates before the war - 50 to 60 thousand strong for a non-white population of only 16 million. The economy was so successful that 33% of the non-white population was made up of immigrants from neighboring countries.

With their strong presence, the French commanded the top management positions in the civil service and private sector. The French influence was such that indigenous Ivorians were said to have imbibed certain French attitudes and even the mode of dress. Was this a good or bad thing? To the extent that the indigenes were acquiring attitudes for greater efficiency and better organization, yes it's good. But to the extent that they were forgoing their native attire - I wouldn't go that far. With the French controlling the top management positions in pre-civil war Ivory Coast, the evidence is more than anecdotal that it was their presence that was chiefly responsible for Ivory Coast's unique West African success. What did the French bring to the table that made all the difference? Their attitude, sensibility, mentality, value system, and organizational skill. In other words, their culture. Mind you, I'm not advocating a heavy expatriate presence for African countries. I'm only pointing out the Ivorian experience.

Namibia serves as yet another African example of the dynamic effects of cultural determinism on the economy of a country. At first glance, Namibia appears to be a forbidden inhospitable place completely covered by the Kalahari desert, and the driest desert on earth, the Namib. Hot and arid, with sparse rainfall, Namibia is practically devoid of forest, and arable land. Given this hostile environment, life should be grueling in Namibia. But it is not, Namibia is by African standards a prosperous country with, a GNI of $1,790 (World Bank) – more than six times Nigeria's GNI of $290. Unlike the epileptic supply of electricity in Nigeria, Namibia enjoys uninterrupted power supply and more than 80% of its population is supplied with fresh water despite the country's very limited fresh water resources and prolonged periods of drought. In fact, Namibia boasts one of the most technologically advanced water recovery systems in the world and the country's infrastructure is world-class. Namibia's capital of Windhoek and other cities such asWalvis Bay, and Swakopmund are clean, well planned, and beautiful – visit http://www.windhoekcc.org.na  and be amazed  at the level of organization of the capital city of Windhoek. Again we ask, what is responsible for the prosperity of this seemingly forbidden desert country? And again we come to the same conclusion as in the case of South Africa and Ivory Coast - a substantial presence of Europeans comprising 6% of the population, and who for decades held the top level jobs in the civil service and private industry. Clearly, the cultural wherewithal, mentality, sensibility, and organizational ability the Europeans brought with them have been the major reason for the prosperity enjoyed by Namibians today. Again, I'm not advocating a heavy expatriate presence for underdeveloped countries. I'm only pointing out the Namibian experience.

From the preceding examples of South Africa, Ivory Coast and Namibia, an irrefutable and unambiguous pattern emerges. We see cultural determinism in action and appreciate the deep and enduring impact of values, attitudes, mentalities, and sensibilities in the economic destiny of nations. If we are going to reverse the economic fortunes of undeveloped countries, it is imperative that we remain intellectually honest and assess observable facts for what they are. In other words, we should be willing to make rational, objectifiable inferences from a set of observations without coloring our judgements with cultural pride or embarrassment. There are those who unwilling to deal with the truth, will fall back on the tired and worn-out argument of colonialism and exploitation as the reasons for underdevelopment. That argument is indicative of an unwillingness to accept self-responsibility for the economic failure of African states. After several decades of independence, it is self-serving to continue to blame colonialism for the self-inflicted problems that plague African countries. Can one set of cultural properties be more conducive than another for economic development? The unequivocal answer is yes.  

Turning our attention to ethics on the home front Nigeria –  I'm sure you all remember Buhari's and Idiagbon's war against indiscipline. What was that all about? Was that not a tacit admission at the highest level of government that all was not well with the culture and that if you were going to build a successful economy a modicum of discipline, decorum, and orderliness is required? Did Nigeria meet that modicum requirement? Clearly not. Otherwise, why would Buhari and Idiagbon have deemed it fit to introduce the program? What did Olusegun Agagu mean when as then Minister of Power and Steel he said that the problem with Nigeria was that we were undisciplined in our homes, our schools and at work? Is that not alluding to a detrimental cultural trait? Is Obasanjo's war on corruption not yet another attempt to rid the country of this deeply ingrained cultural problem? Why has Governor Tinubu of Lagos State deemed it fit to declare war against indiscipline with his newly introduced "Kick Against Indiscipline" campaign? – Yet another indictment of the culture.

On aesthetics – The tale of endemic refuse in Nigerian cities is never ending. Surveying the rotting mounds of refuse in Lagos, Bola Tinubu was moved to say "We are very dirty and uncaring for our environment". Is that not an indictment of the culture? I will not even bother to discuss the shocking conditions of stench and unsanitariness in Nigeria markets, where we buy the food we ingest. Just imagine, Nigeria a country of more than 130 million without a modern sewage system anywhere - open odoriferous gutters everywhere! As an oil rich nation we built the newest city in the world (Abuja) but did not think to install a proper sewage system or provide it with running water. What does all this say about our aesthetic sensibility? Is aesthetic sensibility not an important component of culture and economic development?

To further buttress the critical role of cultural determinism in economic destiny, I will quote verbatim from the convocation speech delivered by the Nigerian Finance Minister, Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala, at the University of Port Harcourt sometime ago. The title of the speech was "We Must Reform Our Values Too". According to Iweala –

"...However, this lecture cannot be complete without considering another issue which is just as important as the faithful implementation of the reform process(economic reform process). Here I am talking about our values and behaviours as a people. Without a change in this important area we cannot make any enduring progress as a society. This is because our values constitute the super-structure, the skeleton upon which the flesh - that is economic reform and other policies - rest. If we don't have the right kind of values and if these values are not strong enough, it does not matter how good our plans are, they simply will not last. They would unravel sooner than later, leaving our dreams in the dust. Without fundamental change in our value system, there is no real success for us as a society.

I will start by saying that something terrible has happened to this nation especially in the last two decades. It actually started after the civil war with the advent of easy oil money which led to easy wealth and loose morals. Overnight, things which formed the bedrock of society started giving way. The process accelerated from the early eighties when the economic decline which has held the nation in its grip since, began. Today, we are in what I can only describe as the cesspit of moral degradation. Never in our history have we faced the kind of moral crisis we are facing today.

The degradation in our morals is mirrored by the degradation in our environment. Have you traveled the Aba-Port Harcourt road lately? Have you noticed the piles of garbage on the highway? Sometime ago I asked someone why the streets of a certain city in Nigeria are full of rubbish and why citizens didn't get together to clear it if the local government was incapable. The reply I got was: "What piles of rubbish?" I was shocked. Some of us have become so immune to what is bad that we don't even see it!..."

So there you have it. Straight from the lips of the number one person tasked with reforming the Nigerian economy. What was Iweala alluding to? The critical nexus between culture and economic development? Of course, and if that is not cultural determinism, then I don't know what is. Iweala has no illusions about the foundation - "the super-structure, the skeleton",  as she calls it – that will be critical to economic prosperity. Remember the iron-clad law of economic development previously stated – "Any type of economic development which necessitates the people possessing an ethos incompatible with the prevailing ethic, and aesthetic will not occur; rather the emergence of an economy compatible with and reflecting the prevailing ethic, and aesthetic is inevitable". If cultural determinism determines our economic destiny, are we then doomed, can we escape it? Of course we can because that which is deterministic is also dynamic, because culture is not an innate but an acquired trait and if I may illustrate –

I recall the author of my Sociology 101 text asking that we imagine the Queen of England and the wife of a poor Welsh coal miner giving birth in the same hospital and the babies being inadvertently switched at birth. Both these babies will grow up to be individuals with different mind-sets because of their circumstance and socialization. All things being equal, the coal miner's child will grow up with ‘royal sensibilities' while the Queen's child will grow up with a ‘coal miner's sensibilities'. Similarly, a child born in Nigeria and taken to Sweden shortly thereafter, will grow up with ‘perfect' Swedish mentality and vice versa for a child born in Sweden and taken to Nigeria shortly after birth. What is responsible in these situations for the individuals  ending up with mind-sets different from their parents'? Acculturation - the socialization through culture. You get your hardware (genes) from your parents but it is your cultural environment that provides the software program for character, values, sensibilities, and mentality. The hardware is a fixed and unchanging quantity but the software to run the hardware is infinitely modifiable and interchangeable. And of course, individuals who have  cognition can change their software by say, reading Voltaire or listening to jazz and Mozart.

This software programing is akin to cultural determinism in many ways. In fact, cultural determinism is so powerful that white Americans found it difficult to reintegrate back into their community, white adults who had been captured as children by Indians.  The freed adults had become Indian in every sense of the word. But as I stated earlier, culture is also dynamic, malleable and changeable because as I said, the essential feature of culture is that it is learned behavior that is passed on from generation to generation in continuity through learning. If culture were static we all would still be living in caves. The cross-fertilization of cultures is a never-ending process and what Africa needs is not an IMF or World Bank structural adjustment program, but a comprehensive cultural adjustment program that would evolve the requisite value system, sensibility, and mind-set conducive to socio-economic progress – a goal to be achieved through the pursuit of an ideology of ethical rigor and aesthetic depth.