Culture Compatible Public Policy

What is Culture-Compatible Public Policy?

Culture-compatible policy is public policy that is rooted in the cultural ethos of a nation, which takes into account its formative values, history, and aspirations. This compatibility is not simply about adopting policies that are in consonance with the internal cultural ethos of a nation, but also about adopting a certain terminology and behavior even in the implementation of more universalized or global policies. It is distinct from cultural policy, which is to do with culture-specific paradigms and governance of the same. Culture-compatible public policy, however, is the incorporation of cultural considerations into broader economic, legal, social and political policies that might be seemingly unrelated to culture, but in reality could benefit greatly from the infusion of a cultural worldview. Such policies are ideally, not simply about monetizing culture to stimulate economic growth — for instance, policies that directly or indirectly promote the development of cultural industries, such as music, art, crafts, and tourism that generate revenue and export opportunities. However, when we talk about culture compatibility, its intended outcome is that cultural values penetrate domains where they have previously been ignored. For example, rooting environmental policy in Indian cultural norms where rivers, trees and the land itself are sacred, can change the manner in which governments view nature as a resource to be exploited for industrial and economic development.

Rao and Walton in their work ‘Culture and Public Action’ (2002) analyze economic and social polities across multiple countries and suggest the adoption of a ‘cultural lens’ in the framing of policy. In their work, the authors contend that:

‘culture is about relationality— the relationships among individuals within groups, among groups, and between ideas and perspectives. Culture is concerned with identity, aspiration, symbolic exchange, coordination, and structures and practices that serve relational ends, such as ethnicity, ritual, heritage, norms, meanings and beliefs’.

Therefore, there is a need for a ‘cultural turn’ in public policy to lead to the development of more relationally-aware public policy.

Culture at the Root of Policy

Culture is the lifeblood of societies, shaping a people’s identity, values, and aspirations. Beyond the realms of art, music, and tradition, culture encompasses the collective experiences, beliefs, and customs of a community or nation. Recognizing the profound influence of culture on society, it is surprising that not enough policymakers are advocating for its central role in public policy. At Bṛhat, we believe that culture and values must be at the heart of public policy, and drive its long-term vision and intention.

Cultural factors influence economic behavior, political participation, social solidarity and value formation and evolution (Sen, 2002), which are closely linked to how and why public policies develop uniquely in different countries. Governments worldwide are confronted with a common spectrum of challenges encompassing the management of resources such as water and food, the development of infrastructure, healthcare, education, social welfare, economic progress, environmental sustainability, international diplomacy, security, and governance frameworks. Nevertheless, the strategies and methods employed by national governments and other stakeholders to address these fundamental public policy challenges exhibit notable disparities among countries and regions. It is a widely accepted notion that social and cultural factors exert a profound influence on human conduct. Furthermore, it is recognized that a primary objective of public policy is to influence and shape behavior. As articulated by Coyle and Ellis in 1994, “culture influences policy, and policy, in turn, influences culture.”

Given the rise of the phenomenon of the ‘civilization state’ — which is distinct from the notion of a religious, ethnic or national identity — culture, which is at its core, provides an overarching framework for social and political life, and therefore presents a viable and practical alternative to the hegemonic liberalism of the West — an idea explored later on in this essay. This is why many thinkers emphasize the importance of taking a ‘cultural turn’ in the understanding of governance and public policy, and advocate the use of cultural analysis to enrich knowledge of politics, policies and practices. An apparent constraint is that cultural values and practices cannot be fully captured by nationality. Yet, nationality defines the legal, political, social and territorial constraints within which public policies and national institutions function and many nations have historically developed, even if they still comprise minorities that are less integrated.

A diverse society often possesses a wealth of cultural knowledge, traditions, and practices that can be harnessed for economic development. By recognizing and supporting these cultural assets, governments can foster innovation and entrepreneurship. There is also the very purpose of policy-making and implementation - the generation of prosperity and happiness — where culture is uniquely and solely poised to inform us. As Shri Aurobindo wrote:

“True happiness lies in the finding and maintenance of a natural harmony of spirit, mind and body.”

A culture-compatible policy will finally enable the vital turn towards this true happiness, without which any civilization is one of matter alone, and never of mind and spirit.

Culture as a Constitutive Part of Development

The furtherance of well-being and freedoms that we seek in development cannot but include the enrichment of human lives through literature, music, fine arts, and other forms of cultural expression and practice. To have a high per capita GDP but little music, arts, literature, etc., stemming from a specific value system, would not amount to much developmental success. Specifically, within the Hindu worldview, the pursuit of puruṣārtha would serve as a doctrinal basis to guide policy making, encompassing holistically, economic, social and spiritual aims, apart from setting the ethical and moral tone. In one form or another, culture engulfs our lives, our desires, our frustrations, our ambitions, and even the freedoms that we seek. The freedom and opportunity for cultural and religious endeavors are among the most basic of freedoms. the enhancement of which can be seen as constitutive of development.

Policy Effectiveness

Policy is likely to be better received, and therefore far more effective in the long term if compatible with local culture and values, which are often the reason for policy effectiveness and if in contravention, the reason for its ineffectiveness.

Policy makers can strategize and draw plans on paper, but all of it is a house of cards if there is cultural incompatibility, and the people or institutions behave in such a way so as to undermine it. Policy outcomes are driven by implementation at the lowest levels, and a top-down imposition or central instruction is not always well-received by implementers that often form part of the executive. Policy must foster social cohesion rather than being at loggerheads with it or striving to incorporate reform — policy that is not consonant with culture can not only create deep fissures amongst various ingroups but also, cause friction between the people and the state.

Culture, Behaviour and Genetic Heritability

Evidence from diverse scientific fields is now revealing how finely-tuned our psychological adaptations for cultural learning are. The list includes domains of distinct evolutionary importance, such as food preferences, mate choices, and technological adoptions, as well as social motivations related to altruism and fairness. Muthukrishna et. al in their work on genetic heritability of culture and behavioral paradigms have suggested that cultural markers and behaviors are heritable. This has broad, far-reaching implications for policy-making, especially in the long term. On a fundamental level, if in fact cultural behaviors and markers are encoded in the genetic makeup of communities and societies, this has far-reaching implications for policy design.

Regardless of the differences in these conceptualizations of culture, it is widely agreed that culture is a collective phenomenon and a result of learning linked to the construction of meaning in a shared social environment (physical, social, and religious). Considering the important role that learning in a social environment plays in the development and manifestation of culture, Hofstede (1991) remarked that culture is ‘the collective programming of the mind that distinguishes the members of one category of people from others’, which is made up of core values and practices that are linked to rituals, heroes, symbols and stories.

Cultural factors also strongly influence economic behavior, even though some economists would like to believe that all human beings behave in much the same way (for example, relentlessly maximize their self-interest defined in a thoroughly insulated way), there is plenty of evidence to indicate that this is not universally applicable. Cultural influences can make a major difference to aspirations, work ethic, responsible conduct, management, entrepreneurial initiatives, willingness to take risks, and a variety of other aspects of human behavior which can be critical to economic pursuits.

Isomorphism and the Rise of Western-style Institutions

The sociological concept of isomorphism is the molding of institutions after one another. In the context of globalization, it is the idea that institutions respond to environmental and sociological change and external pressures through a process of homogenisation. There is considerable empirical evidence on the globalization and uniformization of rational institutions, in particular with respect to education (Meyer et al. 1992). This evidence corroborates the basic idea of neo-institutionalism (an approach to the study of institutions that explores how institutional structures, rules, norms, and cultures shape the actions of individuals that are a part of that institution). Indeed, this is descriptive of the manner in which modern Western and bureaucratic organizations tend to spread around the world along similar structural lines.

There is a remarkable asymmetry of power between the West and the other countries, and this asymmetry often translates into the subsumption or destruction of local cultures and traditions — a loss that often culturally impoverishes non-Western societies within a generation. Given the constant cultural bombardment from the Western megapolis through mainstream media, there are genuine fears that native traditions will be drowned out. Infusing culture with policy is a reliable antidote for the homogenizing effect of technology, globalization and other forces that are far more dominant.

Max Weber already noticed the mushrooming of Western rationalist culture, embodying Protestant values, through bureaucratic institutions around the globe. He observed how different cultures developed along different religious worldviews, with occidental and oriental cultures taking a very specific developmental path. Modern Western ideas of individualism, capitalism, and means–ends rationality were not necessarily appreciated or compatible with other cultural traditions. Culture has a legitimizing foundation of legal and bureaucratic authority, societies/states based on lineages as the fundamental units of social organization is the response toward rectification of transgressions. Modern institutions operate sine ira et studio, without particular social obligations and emotion, in contrast to societies based upon kinship, mutual interdependence, and collective interest.

Social order based on extended kinship groups was historically the norm rather than the exception, not just in Eastern societies but also in certain northern European nations, for instance, Scotland and Ireland. After occidental rationalism became unleashed in the West, however, capitalism and institutionalized bureaucracies emerged in an astonishingly short historical period. Although there are certain positive aspects of this development, such as scientific and technological progress, robust civil rights and liberties in liberal democracies, the flipside is bureaucratically organized atrocities, mass exploitation, and rampant environmental deterioration. In a political climate that incentivizes and approves of only one model of state organization, culture-infused policy has the potential to combat the homogenizing effects of technology and globalization. Culture can be an important moderator of the global diffusion and institutionalization of educational and political systems.

Notably, collectivist cultures have evolved a suite of behaviors that are well adapted to combat epidemics, material and food insecurity, and other pressures that required avoiding individualistic behaviors that threatened group welfare. The cultural basis of behavior may be studied and emulated by the state in order to act in consonance with historical considerations and collective interest.

Beyond its intrinsic value, culture fosters social cohesion, fuels economic growth, and can enhance a nation’s global standing through cultural diplomacy. The evidence suggests that countries that prioritize culture in their policies reap numerous benefits, ranging from economic prosperity to international influence. As the world becomes more interconnected and diverse, embracing culture as a central pillar of public policy is not only a wise choice but also a necessary one to navigate the challenges and opportunities of the modern and future centuries.

References

• Alasuutari, P. and Kangas, A., 2020. The global spread of the concept of cultural policy. Poetics, 82, p.101445.
• Coombs, H. C. “THE ROLE OF NATIONAL CULTURE IN SHAPING PUBLIC POLICY: A REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE KATHERINE DANIELL.” (2014).
• Muers, Stephen. “Culture, values and public policy.” Inst Policy Res (2018).
• Muers, Stephen. Culture and Values at the Heart of Policy Making: An Insider’s Guide. United Kingdom: Policy Press, 2020.
• Uchiyama, Ryutaro, Rachel Spicer, and Michael Muthukrishna. “Cultural evolution of genetic heritability.” Behavioral and Brain Sciences 45 (2022): e152.
• Windzio, Michael, and Kerstin Martens. “Isomorphism,‘Cultural Spheres’, and Education Systems: A Brief Summary and Concluding Remarks.” Global Pathways to Education: Cultural Spheres, Networks, and International Organizations (2022): 285-302.
• Hruschka, Daniel, Charles Efferson, Ting Jiang, Ashlan Falletta-Cowden, Sveinn Sigurdsson, Rita McNamara, Madeline Sands, Shirajum Munira, Edward Slingerland, and Joseph Henrich. “Impartial institutions, pathogen stress and the expanding social network.” Human Nature 25 (2014): 567-579.
• Long Read: Cultural Evolution, Covid-19, and Preparing for What’s Next’. Michael Muthukrishna (LSE Business Review, 29 April 2020), accessed 20 September 2023
• Sen, A. (2002) How does culture matter? In: Rao, V. and Walton, M. (eds) (2002) Culture and Public Action: Understanding the Role of Culture and Development Policy in an Unequal World, mimeographed, World Bank, 37-58.