2. CALIDAD DE LA CARNE
2.1. MADURACIÓN DE LA CARNE
Culture, as defined by Hofstede (2001, p. 9) is:
Culture Ecological factors Social factors Biological factors Enculturation via Family Community Institutions Psychological processes: Attitudes Values Beliefs Opinions Worldviews Norms Behaviours
69
“The collective programming of the mind that distinguishes the
members of one group or category of people from another”.
According to Hofstede (1980; 1991), a culture which guides our daily
practices, starts to be developed within the family, from society, at school, and
later influences behaviour in the workplace. In his earlier seminal work, Hofstede
(1980) used more than 117,000 questionnaires across 50 countries to IBM
employees with four cultural dimensions to explain the differences of culture in
work related values. These dimensions, as suggested by Hofstede (1980), are ‘Power distance’, ‘Uncertainty avoidance’, ‘Individualism-collectivism’ and
‘Masculinity-femininity’. Later, Hofstede (1991) added another dimension, ‘Long
term orientation’ or ‘Confucian dynamism’ based on surveys from Chinese values.
‘Power distance’ is defined as “the extent to which less powerful members
of institutions and organizations within a country expect and accept that power is distributed unequally” (Hofstede, 2001, p. 98). It outlines how a society can accept
the inequality in power distribution and status among members of that society and
is measured with a power-distance index (PDI). In high Power Distance societies,
respect for elders is a basic norm since elders are perceived to have more authority
in decision making and this respect lasts throughout life. In contrast, in low Power
Distance societies every member in the society is treated equally regardless of age.
In terms of education, high Power Distance societies prone to have teacher-centred
education rather than student-centred education applied in low Power Distance
70
The influence from the society and education is then translated in the workplace. Hofstede (1991, p. 4) suggests that “behaviour at work is a continuation
of behaviour learned earlier”; thus, in low PDI countries, decision making in an
organization is less concentrated and staff are treated equally irrespective of their
status. In contrast, in high PDI countries, decision making is more concentrated,
based on the level of authority and status is more likely to be used as the basis to
treat staff (Hofstede, 2001). With regard to taxation, Tsakumis et al. (2007) argue
that high Power Distance countries have higher levels of tax evasion compared to
low Power Distance countries. This is due to among others the high disparity in
income earned by the upper level and lower level classes in society and this income
disparity is further increased by the tax system.
‘Uncertainty avoidance’ is described as the degree to which a society
tolerates ambiguity and uncertainty situations, and is measured using the
uncertainty avoidance index (UAI). Hofstede (1980) argues that societies in low
UAI countries have lower stress, are happier people, more optimistic with regard to
their careers, more trusting and more willing to take unknown risk. In contrast,
societies in high UAI countries are more stressed, less optimistic, more
conservative and feel powerless toward external forces. Societies with a high UAI
index prefer clarity, structure, law and order, and are prone to take only known
risks while low UAI societies are comfortable with ambiguity, more innovative and
more tolerant towards diversity (Hofstede, 2001). Translating these attributes of
UAI into a tax context, Tsakumis et al. (2007) suggest that higher level of tax
evasion is more prevalent in high UAI countries given that people in low UAI
71
2001), thus increases the belief by taxpayers that the government misuses their
tax funds.
‘Individualism-collectivism’ explains the degree of preference for closely-
knit or loosely-knit relationship societies. Hofstede (2001, p. 209) describes individualism as “a society in which the ties between individuals are loose” and
collectivism as “people from birth onwards are integrated into strong, cohesive in-
groups, which throughout people’s lifetime continue to protect them in exchange
for unquestioning loyalty”. It is about the “I” or “We” consciousness (Hofstede,
2001, p. 227), and therefore the decision making in high individualistic society
reflects an individual decision compared to collective decisions in low
individualistic (collective) society.
Another attribute of members of high individualistic society is that they
pursue their own and their immediate family members’ interests only. Conversely,
members in a high collectivist society will pursue the well-being of the society
more than individual interests, and are more likely to work for the success of the
group rather than their own personal success. Hosftede (2001) argues that a
government in a weak or low individualist country (Collectivist culture) has a
greater possibility of dominating with its role in the economic system of the
country, compared to a high individualist country, which is prone to having market
capitalism dominate in its economic system.
Hofstede (2001) also argues that in a high individualist society, law and
rights are perceived to be equal for everyone in the country, but on the contrary, a
72
members of high individualist society are less inclined to evade tax since the law is
universally imposed on everyone without any favouritism to any groups which
result into the lower level of tax evasion (Tsakumis et al., 2007). Apart from
uncertainty avoidance, individualism is another cultural dimension which
significantly explains tax evasion (Richardson, 2008).
‘Masculinity-femininity’ addresses the issue of the dominant gender role
pattern in society. Hofstede (2001, p. 297) defines masculinity as “a society in
which gender roles are clearly distinct” and femininity as “a society in which social gender overlaps”. Arguably, in a high masculine society, males are seen as superior
to females, have high egoism and there is the practise of gender orientation in their
work and personal lives. Members in a masculine society also regard highly
material achievement, performance and competition. In contrast, in a highly
feminine society, it is expected that people are treated almost equally irrespective
of gender, there is low egoism and priority is placed on the quality of life and
relationship with people. In tax context, a feminine society believes in providing a
minimum quality of life for everyone and tax fund is used to subsidize lower class
people (Hofstede, 2001). Therefore, it is postulated that tax evasion is less apparent
in feminine society compared to masculine society (Tsakumis et al., 2007).
The ‘long term versus short term orientation’ is described as “fostering of
virtues oriented towards future rewards, in particular perseverance and thrift”, and
“fostering of virtues related to the past and present, in particular respect for
tradition, preservation of ‘face’ and fulfilling social obligations” (Hofstede, 2001,
p. 359). In a high long term orientation society, their members emphasize
73
members are eager for quick results and personal stability. In a tax context, Yong
(2011) found that long term orientation societies in New Zealand tend to update
their record keeping regularly and thus have lower tax payment problems to avoid
tax penalties compared to short term orientation society.
Hofstede’s (1980; 1991) National Cultural Dimensions have been widely
used in social science studies and have contributed to explain the cross-cultural
differences in business practices probably due to a number of reasons. First, Hofstede’s (1980; 1991) dimensions are independent except for Power Distance
and Individualism-Collectivism dimensions, which are interdependent (De Mooij,
2004). Secondly, applications and replications of Hofstede (1980; 1991) studies on
matched and non-matched samples with different samples and at different period of
time have confirmed that Hofstede’s dimensions are still valid (Hofstede, 2001; De
Mooij, 2004). A recent meta-analysis study by Taras et al. (2012), on 451 empirical studies which used Hofstede’s Values Survey Module (VSM) for three different
period of time (1980s, 1990s and 2000s), found that despite Hofstede’s (1980;
1991) National Cultural Dimension scores decreasing since the 1980s, the
dimensions are still relevant in explaining culture. Indeed, more recent accounting
studies such as Patel (2003) and Tsakumis (2007) suggest that even a sub-group of
the society (the accountants), such as in the US, Australia, India and Malaysia, all
represent their respective national culture.
Thirdly, Hofstede’s (1980; 1991) National Cultural Dimensions are the
most influential work of classifying cultures, and reviews have found that in general Hofstede’s (1980; 1991) framework is relevant for cross-cultural research
74
Dimensions were empirically developed based on a survey using IBM employees,
capturing a number of countries, while other cultural constructs remain in the
conceptualization phase (Yoo et al., 2011). Finally, Hofstede’s cultural dimensions
have been widely applied to explain the effect of culture in various areas of social
science studies (Taras et al., 2010). This is also supported by the number of citation index in refereed journal articles, of which 2700 articles cited Hofstede’s work
(Hofstede, 2001).
Despite being applied and replicated in many studies, Hofstede’s (1980;
1991) National Cultural Dimensions are not free from criticism. Roxas and
Stoneback (1997) commented that national boundaries do not necessarily coincide with culture, Hofstede’s (1980; 1991) measurements are out of date, and many
developments have occurred since his seminal work in 1980. Therefore, the authors
argue that the rankings are no longer relevant and the results may not be accurate
since they do not consider sub-cultures, industry differences, and organisational
culture. McSweeney (2002) critically argues that the methodology and assumptions
used by Hofstede (1980) are flawed. Specifically, Hofstede’s (1980) survey ignores
the differences in organisational culture across IBM, his questionnaire is almost
restricted to workplace issues, the response from one organisation cannot be used
for generalizing to the whole nation, and the assumption that national culture is
homogenous is invalid.
Hofstede (2002) responded to the foregoing criticisms by stressing that the
dimensions in his work do not measure causality, the studies are carried out to find
differences between national cultures, and thus “any set of functionally equivalent samples from national populations can supply information about such differences”
75
(Hofstede, 2002, p. 2). Furthermore, Hofstede (2002) argues that the matched data
of IBM branches can provide support for his claims since IBM operates in many
countries and thus the difference is only with respect to nationality. Hofstede
(2002) further reiterates that even though the data is considered as old and
outdated, the cultural dimensions have centuries-old roots and many studies from
different areas subsequent to his initial work have provided consistent validity.
Moreover, while there is possibility that the cultural dimensions scores of
the countries have changed over time, past studies such as De Mooij (1998) and
Merritt (2000), support the stability of Hofstede’s (1980) cultural dimensions. In
his attempt to validate his earlier findings, Hofstede (2001) also compares rankings
and indexes of other studies which apply his cultural dimensions and found support
for his cultural dimensions. In addition, other cross-cultural studies, such as
Trompenaars (1993), Schwartz (1994) and House et al. (2004) also used a survey
instrument to understand the culture. The use of a survey to understand culture is
considered as acceptable since culture could be examined from the emic (inside
perspective) and etic (outside perspective) (Hofstede, 1998).
Baskerville (2005) summarizes five common critiques of Hofstede (1980;
1991) National Cultural Dimensions. First, it is not appropriate to use a survey in
examining cultural differences; secondly, nations are not the best variable to study
culture; thirdly, a study on a subsidiary of a company cannot represent a whole
nation; fourthly, the IBM data is obsolete and old; and finally, four or five cultural
dimensions are not sufficient to measure culture. Matsumoto and Juang (2008),
however argue that since countries are determined by specific boundaries which are
76
which are related to culture, therefore using national boundaries to explain culture
is acceptable.
A number of accounting based studies have attempted to examine culture from the perspectives of Hofstede’s (1980; 1991) National Cultural Dimensions.
Gray (1988) for example, suggests that the degree of professionalism is more
prevalent in high Individualism, low Uncertainty Avoidance and low Power
Distance. In another study, Roxas and Stoneback (1997) covers nine countries that come from different groupings in Hofstede’s (1980) rankings, and suggest that
Power Distance has the most significant effect compared to the other dimensions.
The study also concludes that irrespective of whether the classification of culture is
made based on the accounting system or cultural dimensions, culture has an
influence on the ethical decision making.
In management accounting studies, Williams and Seaman (2001) support
the claim of Hofstede (1980) on the existence of Power Distance by examining
manufacturing firms in Singapore. Their findings demonstrate that within firms in
high power distance nations there is likely to be a greater concentration of authority
at higher levels. A recent study by Mir et al. (2009) comparing the voluntary
disclosure in financial reporting between New Zealand and Indian companies
indicates that Indian companies disclosed more compared to New Zealand
companies. The authors conclude that the findings do not support Hofstede’s
(1980) National Cultural Dimensions to explain the influence of culture in the
77
In tax studies, the use of Hofstede’s (1980; 1991) cultural dimensions in
explaining the influence of culture in complying with the tax law is limited.
Tsakumis et al. (2007) for instance, used secondary data to examine the association
between cultural dimensions and tax evasion in 50 countries. Richardson (2008)
operationalized Hofstede’s (1980) cultural dimensions to examine the relationship
between culture together with legal, political and religious factors with the level of
tax evasion. Using interviews, a recent study by Yong (2011), for example, looked
into the influence of intra-cultural ethnicities with tax compliance by small-
medium business operators in New Zealand. All of these studies provide some support to Hofstede’s (1980; 1991) cultural dimensions to represent the culture in
tax compliance studies.
The limitations in Hofstede’s (1980) National Cultural Dimensions suggest that Hofstede’s (1980) ranks and scores for countries cannot be perceived as
absolute standards. However, based on the support for Hofstede’s (1980) National
Cultural Dimensions in prior studies suggests that a comparison between two
countries on any dimensions is possible provided that the two countries are totally
different on any one dimension (Hofstede, 2001). Regardless of the various
criticisms, to date there is no other study that has attempted to examine culture in so much detail and that covers so many countries which suggests that, Hofstede’s
(1980) cultural dimensions remain applicable in many cross-cultural setting studies
(Roxas & Stoneback, 1997).
In addition to that, other cultural framework such as Trompenaars (1993)
and House et al. (2004), were essentially built up from Hofstede’s (1980; 1991)
78
has more credibility, compared to the other two cultural frameworks. Furthermore, the discussions also indicate that the credibility of Hofstede’s (1980; 1991) to
explain culture has been tested and proven in many areas of studies.
This study employs Hofstede (1980) National Cultural Dimensions to
explain the influence of culture in the tax compliance behaviour of tax agents in
Malaysia and New Zealand after considering its limitations and potential scope from the earlier discussions. The discussions of Hofstede’s (1980) National
Cultural Dimensions in this section also suggests that due to the differences in the
attributes of national culture, there is a possibility that members of different
national culture have a distinct concept of what comprises ethical and unethical
behaviour.