European Social Survey as a source of new cultural dimensions estimates for regions

Abstract

This article draws attention to the European Social Survey (ESS) database that widens the horizon of cross-cultural studies. The ESS has the potential to overcome several weaknesses of earlier data sets used for cross-cultural analysis -it provides unique opportunities for the analysis of differences between regions within nation states, and the data are representative of entire populations. We aim to develop a measurement tool of cultural dimensions based on the ESS that enables a deeper comparison of European regions besides country-level analysis. For creating ESS-based indicators, the initial indicators were selected based on Hofstede (2001), using the double classification method. Latent variables of cultural dimensions were computed using confirmative factor analysis. The results enable us to evaluate cross-cultural differences between regions inside the nation state as well as to figure out culturally close regions across nation state borders. The results of our analysis confirm that countries may be much more heterogeneous in terms of cultural variation than several cultural studies presume. Cultural heterogeneity varies across countries, and there are some quite homogeneous countries in the meaning of cultural dimensions, but most countries face cultural differences between its regions that have to be taken into account. It is also very important that the deeper the subdivision, the larger the differences. In some cases, border regions are remarkably less similar to the rest of the regions of the country than to the neighbouring regions of another country with a common border. In the case of countries with high cultural homogeneity, the use of nation-level cultural indicators may be justified, but in the case of highly heterogeneous countries a regional approach could be suggested instead.

Culture and Innovation: Evidence from the European Union and Neighbouring Countries

“…In order to describe four cultural dimensions, the indicators were chosen based on Hofstede's () overview of the characteristics and differences of dimension extremes, and also resting on the previous analyses describing these cultural dimensions with the help of data from new surveys (see Kaasa & Vadi ; Kaasa et al . ). Unfortunately, while the aforementioned studies used the data from the European Social Survey, the selection of suitable variables for constructing the indicators of cultural dimensions was different and poorer in the EVS/WVS.…”

International Business and National Culture: A Literature Review and Research Agenda

“…Among others, the studies by Kaasa et al . (), Sasaki and Yoshikawa () and Tung () analyzed the existence of salient cultural differences within country boundaries (at regional/local levels), so that intra‐national diversity is sometimes wider than diversity between countries. Therefore, not only the different and multiple layers of ‘national’ cultures, but also their interrelationships (Kirkman et al ., ) have to be taken into account.…”

“…economic geography, sociology) to recognize that cultures are not necessarily bound by borders and advance in considering the fact that NCs consist of various and differentiated levels (McSweeney, 2002(McSweeney, , 2009Tung, 2008;Tung and Verbeke, 2010). Among others, the studies by Kaasa et al (2013), Sasaki and Yoshikawa (2014) and Tung (2008) analyzed the existence of salient cultural differences within country boundaries (at regional/local levels), so that intra-national diversity is sometimes wider than diversity between countries. Therefore, not only the different and multiple layers of 'national' cultures, but also their interrelationships (Kirkman et al, 2006) have to be taken into account.…”

The Impacts of Leadership Styles and Organisational Cultures on Public Innovations in the Emirates

“…Masculinity (MAS) was positively associated with top down innovation, partially explained by an orientation in masculine societies towards performance, status and achievement based on rewards (Efrat, 2014;Shane, 1993). The lack of relationship with bottom-up innovation and the negative influence on in-out innovation lends some support to the literature which suggests masculinity negatively affects innovation (Kaasa et al, 2013). It may well be that high masculinity cultures due to their competitiveness devote less time to developing internal relationships and the social capital which enable them to identify and utilise the innovation capabilities of employees, and be less likely to reciprocate and build trust.…”