Rose Macaulay: el pes feixuc de la història

I use four measures of institutions to help isolate institutional norms in societies. In the first study I dichotomize a small sample of countries into formerly Communist (=1), and otherwise free market (=0). In the second study I do not look at institutions. In the third study, I measure social institutions, political institutions and a rough grouping of historical institutions across a large number of the advanced democracies of the world. I specifically measure social institutions using an axis of individualism. In the 1960s and 70s, Hofstede pioneered a way to investigate various social norms across most of the advanced nations of the world by surveying working individuals. His work with an International Business Machines survey of its workers provided multiple dimensions of cultural consequences for organizational practices (Hofstede 2001). He developed a way of cross-nationally comparing cultures along specific dimensions. The data was comparable based on survey design and translation and the fact that the surveyed workers were performing similar tasks albeit in different countries. His individualism places

normative importance on active individual achievement of goals as opposed to reliance on collective coordination and incentives for goal achievement. Critical research in cultural psychology finds that there are various types of individualism and collectivism and each is a measure on its own, and societies might have a high or low degree of both (Oyserman 2006). Hofstede's measure captures individualistic values in particular, however, greater individualistic values should crowd out a collectivistic approach to problem solving, therefore I utilize this measure as a proxy of part, but not all possible kinds, of collectivism. Higher scores at the country-level indicate higher levels of individualism.

I measure political institutions on an axis of corporatism. This measure is taken from the work of Lijphart and Crepaz (1991) who constructed a standardized scale based on 12 expert measures of corporatism in advanced democratic societies. It is thus a scale of scales, i.e. an averaging of expert definitions. The broad idea of corporatism is more regulation of society by the state. In particular, the expert scales often include the degree to which the state itself organizes and coordinates interests (e.g. workers, profit seekers, lobbies, and so forth). If these interests are left to coordinating themselves outside of state institutions, then this is known as pluralism and is the opposite of corporatism. Lijphart and Crepaz do not measure corporatism for Portugal and Spain, therefore I engage in imputation for these two countries, see Technical Appendix Three, Table 45. The imputed values put Spain above average and Portugal at about average in corporatism. Although, these two countries are known in Europe as less-organized economies in the traditional sense, there is evidence that since the 1980s, globalization and alternative forms of coordination are imposing change giving these two countries surprisingly strong neo- corporatist institutions. Their imputed scores reflect this, placing them far above the US

and other pluralist systems yet below the most corporatist systems of Northern Europe; therefore I see the imputed measures shown in Table 3 as adequate (Royo 2002).

Finally, I measure English-speaking countries (=1) based on available spending and opinion data, to include Australia, Canada, Ireland, Japan, New Zealand, Great Britain, and the US, and European (=0) as Austria, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden and Switzerland for use in my third study in Chapter 6. Japan is a questionable case amongst the English-speaking nations but I leave it there for consistency and a close post-war linkage with English-speaking reconstruction, plus the overwhelmingly positive adoption of Japanese business to English-speaking institutional norms, and the fact that others tend to place it in that group (Ralston et al. 1997; Dore, Lazonick, and O’Sullivan 1999; Hall and Soskice 2001; C. Brooks and Manza 2007). Based on the discussion in Chapter 2.4.3, I do not make this family of institutions measurement linked to any specific causal mechanism, but instead throw a very broad net to collect countries into two groups which have some historical institutional commonalities. I restrict my sample to include only advanced democratic countries in the ISSP. Table 3 presents the scoring of individualism, corporatism and English-speaking institutions for all of these countries.

Table 3. Institutional Measures by Advanced Democracy

a_{Portugal and Spain corporatism scores imputed, see Technical Appendix Three, Table 45}

On a final note, many studies measure norms at the individual level. In fact this is often the only way to get at an institutional norm (i.e. as with aggregating attitudes to get public opinion). Thus, I do not take a strong stance on the difference between ideology and norm. Institutional norms are basically chronically repeated ideologies. Individuals may subscribe more or less to these ideologies. Individual ideology taken at its mean reflects institutional ideology in many cases. However, norms are sometimes heuristic, or difficult to capture in a survey. In fact Hofstede's measure required dozens of questions and it was only through cross-national comparison of the responses did institutional patterns emerge. Thus, using Hofstede's cultural measure and the corporatist measure of

Social Political Family of

Institutions Individualism Corporatism English-speaking

Australia 90 -1.025 1 Austria 55 1.600 0 Canada 80 -1.335 1 Denmark 74 0.518 0 Finland 63 0.427 0 France 71 -0.725 0 Germany 67 0.480 0 Ireland 70 -0.528 1 Italy 76 -0.851 0 Japan 46 0.053 1 Netherlands 80 1.006 0 New Zealand 79 -1.106 1 Norway 69 1.531 0 Portugal 27 -0.030a 0 Spain 52 0.477a 0 Sweden 71 1.396 0 Switzerland 68 0.505 0 United Kingdom 89 -1.341 1 United States 91 -1.025 1

Lijphart and Crepaz helps to identify institutional level norms (i.e. ideologies) that are not simply the averaging of individual responses to the surveys that I analyze.