文化、收入和幸福的相对性理论

Tobias F. Rötheli
{"title":"文化、收入和幸福的相对性理论","authors":"Tobias F. Rötheli","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3421441","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Cultural relativism (Boas, 1887) and hedonic relativism (Easterlin, 1974) are reference points of a theory that addresses international differences in per-capita incomes and variations in the contribution of income to happiness. The pivotal concept in this analysis is diligence. Painstaking effort, i.e., diligence, is needed to produce high quality goods and services. The downside of such efforts lies in the psychological burden that comes with the necessary high level of self-control of the individual worker and the required organizational feedback mechanisms in firms. We present two competing views concerning the determination of diligence. The first, anthropologically inspired, hypothesis states that a society’s cultural forces like cognitive styles, organizational traditions and religion determine the level of diligence. One implication of this perspective is that societies can have income levels that are either too high or too low relative to the welfare optimum. The second view holds that diligence is determined in a maximizing way balancing the gains and pains of diligence in the economic realm. Cross-country data are studied in order to assess the two competing views. The econometric evidence indicates that it is the maximizing view that can explain key aspects of the data.","PeriodicalId":330048,"journal":{"name":"Macroeconomics: Aggregative Models eJournal","volume":"13 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-07-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A Theory of Relativity of Cultures, Incomes, and Happiness\",\"authors\":\"Tobias F. Rötheli\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/ssrn.3421441\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Cultural relativism (Boas, 1887) and hedonic relativism (Easterlin, 1974) are reference points of a theory that addresses international differences in per-capita incomes and variations in the contribution of income to happiness. The pivotal concept in this analysis is diligence. Painstaking effort, i.e., diligence, is needed to produce high quality goods and services. The downside of such efforts lies in the psychological burden that comes with the necessary high level of self-control of the individual worker and the required organizational feedback mechanisms in firms. We present two competing views concerning the determination of diligence. The first, anthropologically inspired, hypothesis states that a society’s cultural forces like cognitive styles, organizational traditions and religion determine the level of diligence. One implication of this perspective is that societies can have income levels that are either too high or too low relative to the welfare optimum. The second view holds that diligence is determined in a maximizing way balancing the gains and pains of diligence in the economic realm. Cross-country data are studied in order to assess the two competing views. The econometric evidence indicates that it is the maximizing view that can explain key aspects of the data.\",\"PeriodicalId\":330048,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Macroeconomics: Aggregative Models eJournal\",\"volume\":\"13 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-07-17\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Macroeconomics: Aggregative Models eJournal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3421441\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Macroeconomics: Aggregative Models eJournal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3421441","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

文化相对主义(Boas, 1887)和享乐相对主义(Easterlin, 1974)是一种理论的参考点,它解决了人均收入的国际差异和收入对幸福贡献的变化。这个分析中的关键概念是勤奋。生产高质量的商品和服务需要艰苦的努力,即勤奋。这种努力的不利之处在于,在企业中,个体员工必须具有高度的自我控制能力,而企业需要有组织的反馈机制,这给员工带来了心理负担。我们就勤勉的确定提出了两种相互矛盾的观点。第一种假说是从人类学角度出发的,它认为一个社会的文化力量,如认知方式、组织传统和宗教,决定了勤奋的程度。这一观点的一个含义是,相对于最优福利,社会的收入水平可能过高或过低。第二种观点认为,在经济领域中,勤奋是以平衡勤奋的收益和痛苦的最大化方式决定的。为了评估这两种相互竞争的观点,我们研究了跨国数据。计量经济学证据表明,它是最大化的观点,可以解释数据的关键方面。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
A Theory of Relativity of Cultures, Incomes, and Happiness
Cultural relativism (Boas, 1887) and hedonic relativism (Easterlin, 1974) are reference points of a theory that addresses international differences in per-capita incomes and variations in the contribution of income to happiness. The pivotal concept in this analysis is diligence. Painstaking effort, i.e., diligence, is needed to produce high quality goods and services. The downside of such efforts lies in the psychological burden that comes with the necessary high level of self-control of the individual worker and the required organizational feedback mechanisms in firms. We present two competing views concerning the determination of diligence. The first, anthropologically inspired, hypothesis states that a society’s cultural forces like cognitive styles, organizational traditions and religion determine the level of diligence. One implication of this perspective is that societies can have income levels that are either too high or too low relative to the welfare optimum. The second view holds that diligence is determined in a maximizing way balancing the gains and pains of diligence in the economic realm. Cross-country data are studied in order to assess the two competing views. The econometric evidence indicates that it is the maximizing view that can explain key aspects of the data.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信