As the reader proceeds from one essay to the next, differences emerge, a valuable editorial choice. Some authors argue that culture is a factor, some that it matters a lot, and some, as if grasping for a magic wand, that culture is the only game in town.
The first problem that emerges is that each author has his or her own idea of development. Although Harrison in his introduction lists literacy, life expectancy, the status of women, infant mortality, democracy and human rights, most contributors limit development to economic development, and economic development to the sum total of 'things' produced or possessed. The issue of how people in general acquire these 'things' is largely avoided.
The second problem is that there is a crusade to ignore history. David Landes writes that, through observing cultural characteristics, one could have easily predicted the economic rise of West Germany, Japan, Taiwan and South Korea. Apparently all that money we spent in those places to hold back the Soviet Union, Red China and North Korea was wasted. They would have done it anyway. Mariano Grondona's historical and theological analysis of the role of religions is incredibly uninformed and simplistic. (You ought to be able to state someone else's position correctly before criticising it.) He even claims that, "Martin Luther was the religious pioneer of intellectual pluralism." And George III was Thomas Jefferson's best friend.
More general is the dismissal of the colonialism/dependency "myth". The authors believe it's fair to attribute democracy and human rights to the United States, and criticize other countries for their lack of democracy and penchant for military governments. However, the United States overthrew or helped overthrow freely, democratically elected governments in Iran (and brought the Shah to power), Guatemala (leading to 50 years in which tens of thousands of people were massacred), the Congo (we're still living with this one), Haiti (and this), Chile, Nicaragua, El Salvador, etc. etc. The U.S. trained and funded the militaries in Latin America about which these authors now complain. Why don't they know this?
Most importantly, almost all of these authors (Barbara Crossette and Orlando Patterson excepted) treat culture as if it were timeless, monolithic and outside history. There are subcultures, family cultures, rural cultures, city cultures, town cultures and class cultures (for a start). Cultures change. Cultures adapt. Cultures are ambigous. The most precise the writers in this book get is the distinction between North and South Italy.
It is good, I have learned, to ask a few questions about books like this. Who is speaking? Whose voice is heard? (It's not always the speaker's.) Whose voice isn't heard?
Most important here are the voices not heard. As far as I can tell, not one of these authors grew up poor or lived with the people he (she) now wants to advise. Sad, but not surprising. As close as anyone comes is the mention of liberation theology, which is totally mischaracterized. (The authors who criticized it cannot have read a liberation theologian.) No one asks the poor what they think would help.
There are excellent books for those interested in the view from the bottom: Nancy Scheper-Hughes, "Death Without Weeping"; Roslyn Arlin Mickelson, "Children on the Streets of the Americas"; Jim Yong Kim et al, "Dying for Growth"; and Veena Das et al, "Violence and Subjectivity". For a critique of seeing-from-above, see, James C. Scott, "Seeing Like a State".
Most dangerous is the pervasive concept that if someone is poor, it's their fault. Herrnstein and Murray argued in "The Bell Curve" that the difference was genetic. "Culture Matters" is one step over. It's still their fault, but they can change. I am not arguing that all cultures are equal. I am arguing that it is taking the easy way out to treat a culture as if it were not the product of centuries of internal actions and reactions, its history and geography, as well as interactions with other cultures, histories and geographies. Blame is a slippery slope. As one U.S. Government Agent said about Native Americans, "If they cannot be made like us, they must be killed."
The sadest mistake of all in this book is this. Britain did not free the American colonies. Slave owners did not end slavery. Corporations did not invent rising wages. Democracy, human rights and development are the products of insurrection. Democracy, human rights and development are the achievements of revolutionaries, radicals and union organizers. We can join with those of other cultures who are working for these things. We can even ask their help bringing democracy, human rights and development here, right where we live.
The majority of essays defend the idea that culture directly affects the ways economic development and prosperity operate in human societies. Although some essays present counter agruments, these serve primarily to provide a framework for the debate.
First, some thoughts on criticisms of this book. The book is Eurocentric - no. The book is academic and focuses on economic development. While economic strategies vary from country to country, there are fairly well understood strategies that are common to all countries that prosper in a global economy.
Cultural values can't be changed without being destroyed. What idiocy! Cultures, including Western cultures, change all the time. England is no longer feudal, Sweden is no longer Lutheran, Germany is no longer militaristic and I can and do vote even though I am female.
All cultures deserve equal appreciation. Even though some cultures promote values (like female genital mutalation) that appear "bad" to outsiders, these values are good for "insiders". No. Just because a value or practice has been around a long time doesn't make it good (although it may become tolerable). Female illiteracy is widely tolerated but it's not good.
One of the things this book does well to point out the incongruous attitudes prosperous people hold about non-prosperous people. The flip-side of cultural relativism is frankly evil. It states that it's perfectly okay for people with "traditional" values to starve, multilate, rape and kill each other if "it's right for them".
Another great thing these essays show is that cultural values that promote human well-being can be found in many cultures. Confucian values that underly the success of Chinese immigrants are similar to the Protestant values that propelled Northern Europe (and the USA, Australia, etc.) into prosperity. The Japanese and immigrant Sikhs both know more than a little about how work ethics shape material success.
Read this book to balance out the current bias toward cultural romanticism. The world is getting too small to let some people fall out of the lifeboat just because "it's right for them".
Westerners who have the option of 'choice' accuse Huntington et al of cultural imperialism and racism. Let the periphery-dwellers speak out - for the thesis that culture values progress is reasonably debated in this collection of essays.
Don't get caught up in the romanticism of the 'other':
"a society in which magic and witchcraft flourism today is a sick society ruled by tension, fear, and moral disorder" (Daniel Etounga-Manguelle, Culture Matters, p73).