Highlighting ‘within country’ difference
In the past few decades, globalization and technological advancements have brought about many cultural and value changes, leading politicians, economists, businesses and sociologists around the world to debate the question of “value change” with fervor. Overall, we have witnessed the growing impact of the western values globally (or convergence). At the same time, we have debated the enduring influence of local cultural values worldwide (i.e. divergence) as well as the emergence of global cultures. While, scholars and practitioners primarily focused on value changes and shifts across nations in analyses, relatively little attention, has been paid to value differences withincountries. For example, while NY City, Washington DC, and Tokyo may have appeared to be globalizing, smaller segments within these bigger cities or other smaller cities, in fact, stayed in the shadows. Gradually, cities and communities started growing apart. Over the course of time, we (as management scholars) concluded that societies change the way they want to and at a pace that in unique to them (thus establishing the idea of crossvergence). True. However, we mostly adopted an outside perspectiveand viewed cultural change as broad and macro phenomenon- thereby neglecting the within-country differences,which continued to widen. For example, if you think about the American culture and how it has evolved for the past few decades, it is important take generations, educational levels, gender, race, Midwest, East coast, West coast and Southern states into account?
Based upon my research and observations, I believe that we can identify at least four cultural groups at the global level (Khilji, 2017). These groups highlight the “within country’ differences that I have just mentioned- and are very relevant to the overall divergence, convergence and crossvergence debate. Quite paradoxically, these cultural groups are also illustrative of what we consider to be the ‘irreversible’ impact of globalization. Distinct value systems of each group clearly demonstrate existence of tensions withincountries, which have begun to play out in politics and economics quite significantly:
- The first cultural group, which I refer to as the Global Elite, is the highly skilled and educated individuals who are globally mobile. They are global citizens, partake in the knowledge transfer globally and contribute to the phenomenon of brain circulation. They are advocates of integration of worldwide markets. Research indicates they have financially, intellectually and culturally benefitted from the recent phase of globalization.
- I refer to the second group as the Global Eager. These are the growing middle-class mostly in emerging economies, which has also benefitted financially from the globalization. Their standard of living has been raised. They aspire to continue to advance their skills and raise healthy progressive families.
- I refer to the third group as the Global Angry. These individuals have lost their jobs to low-wage workers elsewhere and are feeling lost. They may also be angry because of loss of their identity and ways of living. Milanovich’s (2016) elephant curve clearly identifies this group.
- I refer to the final group as the Global Neglected. These are the poorest of the poor, living below US$ 1 a day. Although globalization promised to lift these people out of poverty but has failed to do so. They are also referred to as the BoP communities.
The rise of populism is fueled by the global angry (for example) in France, and USA as elsewhere. Their expectations, experiences and values appear to be in direct contrast to those of the global elites in their own countries. I believe it is disconnects among these groups that has been fueling internal tensions, influencing policies, moving politics and making headlines. What is interesting that the global angry in USA may have a lot more in common with the global angry in Russia and Saudi Arabia. I think this commonality is worth making a note of- because journalists, oftentimes, highlight a very angry anti-global and anti-all-other sort of rhetoric from them.
For full paper and comments, please contact at sekhilji@gwu.edu
