> The examples of China, Japan and the USA suggest the exact opposite. (Actually I do not know an example that would support the authors claim.)
What? Japan adopted representative democracy, human rights, capitalism, fractional reserve banking, the metric system, and even western attire. China is more authoritarian, but has made many of the same changes. Their economic prosperity is highly correlated with these changes.
And I'm flabbergasted that you think the USA doesn't prove his point. The original American culture was from the native Americans. Once it was replaced with British culture, the economy of north america flourished. In places where native culture was replaced with others (Spanish/native culture in Mexico, Portuguese/native culture in Brazil, etc), the people haven't had the same level of success. Similarly, Spain and Portugal haven't had the same prosperity as the UK. When it comes to per capita GDP, the effect of culture is vastly underestimated.
> [Citation needed] and so on, and so on...
He links to a citation in the sentence after your quote.[1] The paper is a study of the differences in cotton mill productivity in various countries. The author accounts for varying levels of technology, training, and other factors. He finds that the biggest factor affecting productivity is culture.
Honestly, I think you're reading this far too uncharitably. It's a blog post, not an academic paper. If the author took the time to address the objections in this thread, it would have been 10x as much work.
I am currently reading Guns, germs and steel by Jarred Diamond, and he would probably disagree, that the primary reason for greater productivity of European settlers compared to native inhabitants of Americas would be culture. If I would simplify one of the theses of that book, it might be, that culture and sucess of various civilization might be just a by-product of the interaction of their available technology and resources within their geography.
On the other hand, I'd like to see more in-depth investigation into cultures role into prosperity of people. For example, I would really like to see the reasons why in certain states it is culturally acceptable to accept bribes.
> the primary reason for greater productivity of European settlers compared to native inhabitants of Americas would be culture
More likely, simple domestication. The "culture" of cities are born of the variety of euro-domestication. Horses, Sheep, etc. (https://youtu.be/JEYh5WACqEk?t=387)
On the US and Japan, Japan did industrialize first, prior to WWII, and adopted some aspects of western culture afterwards. Similar the US did become independent first and then largely developed what is nowadays called western culture. Both actually used force instead of submitting.
My understanding of China is more limited, but it seems they will become a developed nation first before adopting things like representative democracy, human rights etc.
> He links to a citation in the sentence after your quote.[1]
Indeed I overlooked that link, so I should have chosen a different claim that needs a good argument. ( The claim that education became more rigid as a general trend in history seems dubious for example.) However, looking very quickly through the paper, it does not seem to claim that culture as most important factor is well understood, instead he seems to build an argument that local factors are very important and suggests that culture may be the most important local factor.
> Japan did industrialize first, prior to WWII, and adopted some aspects of western culture afterwards.
Except for voting and human rights, Japan adopted all the things I listed before WWII. The Meiji era was full of westernization.
I don't think people realize just how insanely dysfunctional other cultures can be. Plenty of poor countries lack concepts we consider basic. Take Haiti, for example. I'll quote a couple paragraphs from a doctor who volunteered there after the earthquake[1]:
> It has proven hard for me to appreciate exactly how confused the Haitians are about some things. Gail, our program director, explained that she has a lot of trouble with her Haitian office staff because they don't understand the concept of sorting numerically. Not just "they don't want to do it" or "it never occurred to them", but after months and months of attempted explanation they don't understand that sorting alphabetically or numerically is even a thing. Not only has this messed up her office work, but it makes dealing with the Haitian bureaucracy - harrowing at the best of times - positively unbearable.
> Gail told the story of the time she asked a city office for some paperwork regarding Doctors Without Borders. The local official took out a drawer full of paperwork and looked through every single paper individually to see if it was the one she wanted. Then he started looking for the next drawer. After five hours, the official finally said that the paper wasn't in his office.
I hope that gives an idea of the culture gains Robin Hanson is talking about. Such concepts only seem obvious to us because we were raised in a culture that already had them.
Unfourtunatly I don't have much time at the moment, so just a too brief answer; if you view culture as broad enough to encompass the example, then I agree. I would view the lack of alphabetical sorting as more akin to a lack of technology, rather than as a feature of culture.
Well, I did expand the claim several times when writing the comment. The thing is, if you look at the world of the 1780ies, then there is only one democracy ( for comparison, France is still an absolute monarchy, Britain has some democratic elements but is mostly a monarchy). So it is probably some hyperbole and certainly glosses over all details, especially that cultures are interconnected, I think it is not a too strong statement.
What? Japan adopted representative democracy, human rights, capitalism, fractional reserve banking, the metric system, and even western attire. China is more authoritarian, but has made many of the same changes. Their economic prosperity is highly correlated with these changes.
And I'm flabbergasted that you think the USA doesn't prove his point. The original American culture was from the native Americans. Once it was replaced with British culture, the economy of north america flourished. In places where native culture was replaced with others (Spanish/native culture in Mexico, Portuguese/native culture in Brazil, etc), the people haven't had the same level of success. Similarly, Spain and Portugal haven't had the same prosperity as the UK. When it comes to per capita GDP, the effect of culture is vastly underestimated.
> [Citation needed] and so on, and so on...
He links to a citation in the sentence after your quote.[1] The paper is a study of the differences in cotton mill productivity in various countries. The author accounts for varying levels of technology, training, and other factors. He finds that the biggest factor affecting productivity is culture.
Honestly, I think you're reading this far too uncharitably. It's a blog post, not an academic paper. If the author took the time to address the objections in this thread, it would have been 10x as much work.
1. http://faculty.georgetown.edu/mh5/class/econ489/Clark-Why-Is...