In assessing culture as a driving factor in the economic and social development of modern-day states, I think it is important to not fall prey to taking an easy answer to a highly complex question. This question of course being, why do some countries achieve more success and stability (financial, political, and in turn social) than others? When trying to address this question I believe one naturally feels compelled to believe it is something other than the “culture” of a place. It seems wrong, almost inherently racist to believe that the culture of some places is more conducive to good economic relations and strong democratic institutions. I think that this viewpoint is not only wrong, but also very misunderstood. When looking at culture, one cannot boil it down to any single element of a society. A country’s cooking, music, and songs are all part of its culture as culture has been defined, but these factors can hardly be said to be the driving force behind a country’s modernization or ideas about government. Rather culture is a considerably more complex beast than it has previously been understood. I believe that the culture of a country is in fact one of the main factors in how a country develops, but I also believe that culture is not static and is in fact itself evolving all the time due to the forces of globalization. David Landes and Lawrence E. Harrison made some very interesting points about their feelings on the effects of culture, but I do not agree necessarily with their very definition of culture. I think that their views lean too heavily on the inherited, social aspects of culture and not enough on culture as a by-product of other, outside forces.
In formulating my opinions on the role of culture in a country’s overall development I looked at three texts by three authors: “Culture Makes Almost All the Difference” by David Landes, “Culture Matters” by Lawrence E. Harrison, and “The Man in the Baghdad Café”. Overall, I felt that Landes perhaps defined...