კონფერენცია

∘ Givi Bedianashvili ∘
INSTITUTION CONCEPT FOR CULTURE IN CONTEXT OF STATES SOCIO-ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

Annotation. The research discusses the culture as a concept of informal instituteis introduced. The quantitative characteristics of culture have beenused to investigate the ratio of these indices for Georgia compared with the same indicators of the EU and various world states. Depending on the informal nature of the culture institute, it is noted that the long-term mechanism of culture transformation should be considered together with the institutionalizationprocess as a whole. Within the problem of the institutionalization it is of great importance to ensure the regular ratio of formal and informal institutes in the development of the country’s socio-economic institutional structure. The directions of long-term transformation of cultural values have been identified.

Key Words:globalization, European integration, culture, informal institute, cultural dimensions

Introduction

In modern conditions, it is extremely important for Georgia, on the one hand, due to the country's European orientation, to carry out a systematic analysis of the EU business environment to ensure the full application of the new socio-economic development potential and the country’s effective integration into the Euro-Atlantic structures. On the other hand, the requirements of globalization call for an adequate and systemic understanding of global business environment and the effective use of its capabilities, identification of any possible short and long term challenges, and if necessary, taking appropriate preventive measures [Bedianashvili, 2015; Bedianashvili, 2016].

Global business environment has a complex structure [Harrison, 2014]. In its composition, due to the systematic approach positions, several important components affecting business can be identified: political, economic and legal institutes, socio-cultural, socio-demographic, natural-climatic, scientific-technical and technological factors, as well as social issues and factors. Due to the systemic conceptual positions of Georgia’s (as well as any other country wishing to join the EU) effective and complex social and economic development, logically, the business environment should be considered in the global and European Union context bearing the significant differences between them in mind. It should be taken into account that globalization and European integration processes do not exclude local and other mezoregionul integration processes, but develop critical analysis thereof and where appropriate, make Georgia’s involvement in these processes in any extent more urgent (stimulating and facilitating of international communications of business structures by the state, also, and if necessary, formation and operation of appropriate institutional mechanisms).

Literature review

Generally, the country's socio-economic development, particularly business processes is largely influenced by the significance and the role of socio-cultural factors (for the research of different aspects of cultural phenomenon, see, for example, the scientific papers [Bedianashvili, 2014; Hofstede, 1980; Triandis, 1994; Шварц, 2008; Инглхарт …, 2011; Hall …, 1990; Тромпенаарс …, 2004; Ball …, 2001; Ясин …, 2008; Аузан …, 2011; Gladwin …, 1978; Murdock, 1965; Socio-cultural ..., 2011; etc.]).

Under the current conditions of globalization, we believe, the appropriate development of the culture as an important factor and its effective implementation at different levels is the challenge the modern society faces. Indeed, the well-known phrase, "Culture is important” for any country’s socio-economic development [Культура …, 2002] casts no doubt. Also it is known that the culture plays an important role in international and local business [Barry…, 2011; Luthans…, 2012].

In reviewing the culture theories, George Murdoch's approach, the famous American scientist [Murdock, 1965], should be highlighted. Based on the interdisciplinary research, the author proposed seven fundamental features of culture. Obviously, fundamental and universal features play an important role in the adequate understanding of the culture concept and in tackling a variety of cross-cultural issues. The features are as follows: 1. Culture is transferred through instructions (which means that culture is neither given to a person by birth, nor biologically, though the principles of teaching are generally similar in various cultures); 2. Culture is assimilated through upbringing; 3. Culture is social; 4. Culture is ideational (culture constituent group traditions in most cases are represented by ideal norms or patterns); 5. Culture provides satisfaction (culture necessarily satisfies the basic biological and secondary needs emerged on the basis thereof); 6. Culture is adaptive (it adapts to the environment, in addition, G. Murdoch identifies geographic, socio-cultural, biological and psychological environment of adaptation); 7. Culture is integrative (elements of each culture tend to form a mutually integrated whole, which means that the culture is not strictly a balanced and integrated system).

Some interesting and well known assumptions on the concept of culture should be outlined. For instance, Geert Hofstede, the famous Dutch scholar, defines the culture as the brain’s collective mental programming, the part of our preliminary definition of the world, which is common to our nation, region, or other members of the group [Hofstede…, 2005]. In essence, the author discusses the culture through the prism of values and norms as a combination thereof and also as Shalom Schwartz, the well-known researcher, says, culture is the foundation of people’s beliefs, rules, practices, symbols, norms and values dominant in the society. He points out, the culture is a latent hypothetical variable that we can measure by means of its specific manifestation and in this respect (the author specifies) culture is not localized in an individual's mind and actions. It (culture) is more outside of an individual and is connected to the pressure that the individual is experiencing because he is living in a definite social system [Hofstede, 1980].

Data and methodology/Analyses

As for the culture and value modeling and quantitative measurement thereof, one of the first and recognized approaches in the world developed by Geert Hofstede is of special importance. The Hofstede model identifies quantitatively measurable individual units of the culture, which in combination represent the community values. The latest version of the model offers the following six units and the indices: Power distance (PDI) shows people's willingness to accept the power hierarchical structure in the community and institutions and the unequal distribution thereof; Individualism vs. Collectivism (IDV), represents people’s (public’s favored characteristic tendencies) choice in the format (the interest priorities of respective groups) of independence and activity under mutual dependence; Uncertainty Avoidance (UAI) shows tolerance level of an individual and the society as a whole to unknown (indefinite) situations; Masculinity vs. Femininity (MAS), is the evaluation of individuals and society as a whole in terms of the features, such as determination, putting ahead business interests, strictness and concentration on success; Long-term orientation vs. Short-term orientation (LTO), indicates the extent how much oriented people and the society are at long-term strategic pragmatic future compared to short-term traditional (operational) orientation; Indulgence (IND), marks the level of self-control and tolerance. The lower the index, the greater the impact of traditions and norms limiting the society’s and people's behavior and vice versa. The greater value of this indicator points to a comparatively higher level of personal impulsive behavior.

The heterogeneity of cultural values not only in the world, but also within Europe and the European Union gives rise to a natural question, what the cultural values are like in Georgia and what are the desired position of these options taking into account the future European integration and globalization processes. Let us look at the developed countries from various regions of the world with clearly different business cultures (US, Germany and Japan) and Georgia based on the recent version of the cultural dimensions model [http://geert-hofstede.com] proposed [Bedianashvili, 2016] by G. Hofstede. (For Georgia the indicators have been evaluated expertly based on the survey of the final fourth year students of Ivane Javakhishvili Tbilisi State University, Faculty of Business and Economics International Business module "EU Business Environment" and "Cross-Cultural Relationships in International Business" carried out during the lectures and seminars of the above disciplines). It has been revealed that as of the current situation ( "As is") in Georgia the long-term orientation (pragmatism) is significantly low (compared with Germany and Japan) as well as the level of individualism (close to Japan though), and as for power distance, while it is slightly different from the Japan’s indicator, Georgia is significantly far (much higher) from German and US levels.

As to the desired position for Georgia ( "As should be"), the same expert evaluation has identified the changes that are needed to be implemented for the transformation of cultural values. For our country this means really urgent strengthening of pragmatism, decrease of power distance and development of individualism features. The comparative analysis with respect to the cultural values of the European countries has revealed that the desired situation for Georgia is very close to the same indicator of Switzerland.

It is known that the qualitative indicators of the culture and the values change slowly, sometimes in the period equal to the generational replacement, which gives it a long-term nature.

Culture in its essence is an informal institute [Bedianashvili, 2014] and naturally, its (culture) long term transformation mechanism should to be reviewed within the entire process of institutionalization (see about the informal institutions, for example, [North, 1994; Тамбовцев, 2014]). In turn, among the institutionalization issues it is most important to provide the systemic ratio of formal and informal institutes in order to ensure the effective functioning of the country’s socio-economic system and the development of the main structural components of the dynamics complexity [Bedianashvili, 1995].

Discussion of results

Studies have shown a huge role of informal institutes in the economic development of the country. Namely, it has been found that the high level of formal institute development with the lower level of informal institutes corresponds to the decrease of per capita gross domestic product (GDP), while in the countries with higher level of informal institute development and low level of formal institutes –per capita GDP value [Williamson, 2009] is higher. Among the indicators of informal institutes used in this study, trust and respect should be noted, which have been reflected, for example, in the World Values Survey (WVS) project files [http://www.worldvaluessurvey.org/WVS DocumentationWV6.jsp].

As is known, this project explores the culture in terms of two categories: 1) Traditional / Secular-Rational Values and 2) Survival / Expression Values. The works are carried out in five-year intervals. They explore the link between the economic and technological development of countries and the values and motivations of societies. So far, seven cycles (waves) of work have been provided. They include developed and developing countries.

It should be noted that according to the latest seventh cycle surveys, "Survival" values in Georgia have improved and visibly shifted towards the "Self-expression" values (although the values remain between -1 and -0.5, that is, still in "Survival" value zone as in all other post-communist countries). At the same time, there has been no change to the direction of "Rational" value in Georgia, on the contrary, the importance of "Traditional" values have slightly strengthened.

Conclusions

For the provision of appropriate conditions for our country's rapid socio-economic development in the modern globalization in respect of value transformation, we should take into account the fact identified through the empirical observations that the high speed development in the respective countries is preceded first of all, by the change of the cultural characteristics such as decrease of power distance, increase of individualism level and strengthening of long-term orientation (pragmatism) [Hall, 1990; Ball, 2001]. In addition, the gradual strengthening of the above rational and self-expression values is also crucial.

We believe that along with other matters, training of decision-makers involved in the state management structures and prospective business managers and the process of formation their business culture should be significantly improved. Certainly, this refers not only to the higher education system, but also the whole cycle complex involved in the formation of the human’s culture - the family, pre-school education and the school as well. In addition, it should be noted that, as mentioned above, the relevant time period is approximately the same as the generational change. Definitely, actions for steady systemic change of cultural values should be reflected in the country's long-term socio-economic development strategy.

References

Bedianashvili G. (1995). State, Power Structure and Socio-Economic Reforming of Society. Pasta Gugushvili Institute of Economics of the Georgian Academy of Sciences. Tbilisi: Metsniereba. (Geo.).
Bedianashvili G. (2014). Culture as an Institute in the context socio-economic Development of Country and International business. The Journal "The Economist", Ivane Javakhishvili Tbilisi State University, P. Gugushvili Institute of Economics, №6, p. 6 - 16. (Geo.).
Bedianashvili, G. (2015), The EU Business Environment and the Institutional Factors of Country's Socio-Economic Development: Macro system aspects. Collection of Works of Georgian Academy of Economic Sciences. Volume 12, Tbilisi. P. 143-159. (Geo.).
Bedianashvili G. (2016). The Global Business Environment, European Integration and the Cultural Potential of Social-economic Development of Georgia. Journal “Globalization and Business”. European Teaching Uniмersity:Tbilisi. .№ 1. P. 19-25. (Geo.).
Harrison, A. (2014). Business Environment in a Global Context. Oxford University Press.
Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture's Consequences: International Differences in Work-Related Values. - Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.
Triandis, H. (1994). Culture and Social Behavior. - N.Y.: McGraw-Hill.
Шварц, Ш. (2008). Культурные ценностные ориентации: природа и следствия национальных различий/ Психология. Журнал Высшей школы экономики, Т. 5, №2.
Инглхарт, Р. Вельцель, К. (2011). Модернизация, культурные изменения и демократия. Последовательность человеческлого развития. М.:Новое, издательство.
Культура имеет значение. Каким образом ценности способствуют общественному прогрессу (2002). Под редакции Л. Харрисона и С. Хантингтона. М.
Hall, E., Hall, M. (1990). Understanding Cultural Differences.- Yarmouth ME: Intercultural press.
Тромпенаарс, Ф., Хампден-Тернер Ч.(2004).Национально-культурные различия в контексте глобального бизнеса. Минск.
Ball R., Individualizm (2001). Collectivism and Economic Development // Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science.Vol. 573.
Ясин, Е. (2008). Исследование культурных ценностей - общее дело социальных наук. Психология. Журнал Высшей школы экономики. Т. 5, №2.
Аузан, А. и др. (2011). Культурные факторы модернизации. М., Санкт-Петербург.
Тамбовцев, В. (2014). Экономическая теория неформальных институтов. М.:РГ-Пресс.
North, D.C. (1994). Economic Performance through Time //American Economic Review. Vol. 84. No. 3.
Gladwin, Т. N. and Terpstra V. (1978). Introduction in Cultural environment of international business / Ed. by V. Terpstra, Cincinnati: Southwestern. P. XIV.
Murdock G. P. (1965). Culture and Society. University of Pittsburgh Press.
Hofstede, G. & Hofstede, G.J. (2005). Cultures and Organizations. Software of the Mind (2nd edn). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Barry J. Tomalin B. (2011). Cross-Cultural Communication: Theory and Practice.
Socio-cultural environment of international business (2011). International scientific conference materials. Tbilisi. (Geo.).
Luthans F., Jonathan P. (2012). International Management: Culture, Strategy and Behavior.
http://geert-hofstede.com.
Williamson C. R. (2009). Informal institutions rule: institutional arrangements and economic performance // Public Choice. Vol. 139.
http://www.worldvaluessurvey.org/WVSDocumentationWV6.jsp

Ivane Javakhishvili Tbilisi State University Paata Gugushvili Institute of Economics International Scientific C O N F E R E N C E S "ECONOMY – XXI CENTURY"

E ISSN 2587 - 4691	∘ Givi Bedianashvili ∘ INSTITUTION CONCEPT FOR CULTURE IN CONTEXT OF STATES SOCIO-ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Annotation. The research discusses the culture as a concept of informal instituteis introduced. The quantitative characteristics of culture have beenused to investigate the ratio of these indices for Georgia compared with the same indicators of the EU and various world states. Depending on the informal nature of the culture institute, it is noted that the long-term mechanism of culture transformation should be considered together with the institutionalizationprocess as a whole. Within the problem of the institutionalization it is of great importance to ensure the regular ratio of formal and informal institutes in the development of the country’s socio-economic institutional structure. The directions of long-term transformation of cultural values have been identified. *Key Words:globalization, European integration, culture, informal institute, cultural dimensions* Introduction In modern conditions, it is extremely important for Georgia, on the one hand, due to the country's European orientation, to carry out a systematic analysis of the EU business environment to ensure the full application of the new socio-economic development potential and the country’s effective integration into the Euro-Atlantic structures. On the other hand, the requirements of globalization call for an adequate and systemic understanding of global business environment and the effective use of its capabilities, identification of any possible short and long term challenges, and if necessary, taking appropriate preventive measures [Bedianashvili, 2015; Bedianashvili, 2016]. Global business environment has a complex structure [Harrison, 2014]. In its composition, due to the systematic approach positions, several important components affecting business can be identified: political, economic and legal institutes, socio-cultural, socio-demographic, natural-climatic, scientific-technical and technological factors, as well as social issues and factors. Due to the systemic conceptual positions of Georgia’s (as well as any other country wishing to join the EU) effective and complex social and economic development, logically, the business environment should be considered in the global and European Union context bearing the significant differences between them in mind. It should be taken into account that globalization and European integration processes do not exclude local and other mezoregionul integration processes, but develop critical analysis thereof and where appropriate, make Georgia’s involvement in these processes in any extent more urgent (stimulating and facilitating of international communications of business structures by the state, also, and if necessary, formation and operation of appropriate institutional mechanisms). Literature review Generally, the country's socio-economic development, particularly business processes is largely influenced by the significance and the role of socio-cultural factors (for the research of different aspects of cultural phenomenon, see, for example, the scientific papers [Bedianashvili, 2014; Hofstede, 1980; Triandis, 1994; Шварц, 2008; Инглхарт …, 2011; Hall …, 1990; Тромпенаарс …, 2004; Ball …, 2001; Ясин …, 2008; Аузан …, 2011; Gladwin …, 1978; Murdock, 1965; Socio-cultural ..., 2011; etc.]). Under the current conditions of globalization, we believe, the appropriate development of the culture as an important factor and its effective implementation at different levels is the challenge the modern society faces. Indeed, the well-known phrase, "Culture is important” for any country’s socio-economic development [Культура …, 2002] casts no doubt. Also it is known that the culture plays an important role in international and local business [Barry…, 2011; Luthans…, 2012]. In reviewing the culture theories, George Murdoch's approach, the famous American scientist [Murdock, 1965], should be highlighted. Based on the interdisciplinary research, the author proposed seven fundamental features of culture. Obviously, fundamental and universal features play an important role in the adequate understanding of the culture concept and in tackling a variety of cross-cultural issues. The features are as follows: 1. Culture is transferred through instructions (which means that culture is neither given to a person by birth, nor biologically, though the principles of teaching are generally similar in various cultures); 2. Culture is assimilated through upbringing; 3. Culture is social; 4. Culture is ideational (culture constituent group traditions in most cases are represented by ideal norms or patterns); 5. Culture provides satisfaction (culture necessarily satisfies the basic biological and secondary needs emerged on the basis thereof); 6. Culture is adaptive (it adapts to the environment, in addition, G. Murdoch identifies geographic, socio-cultural, biological and psychological environment of adaptation); 7. Culture is integrative (elements of each culture tend to form a mutually integrated whole, which means that the culture is not strictly a balanced and integrated system). Some interesting and well known assumptions on the concept of culture should be outlined. For instance, Geert Hofstede, the famous Dutch scholar, defines the culture as the brain’s collective mental programming, the part of our preliminary definition of the world, which is common to our nation, region, or other members of the group [Hofstede…, 2005]. In essence, the author discusses the culture through the prism of values and norms as a combination thereof and also as Shalom Schwartz, the well-known researcher, says, culture is the foundation of people’s beliefs, rules, practices, symbols, norms and values dominant in the society. He points out, the culture is a latent hypothetical variable that we can measure by means of its specific manifestation and in this respect (the author specifies) culture is not localized in an individual's mind and actions. It (culture) is more outside of an individual and is connected to the pressure that the individual is experiencing because he is living in a definite social system [Hofstede, 1980]. Data and methodology/Analyses As for the culture and value modeling and quantitative measurement thereof, one of the first and recognized approaches in the world developed by Geert Hofstede is of special importance. The Hofstede model identifies quantitatively measurable individual units of the culture, which in combination represent the community values. The latest version of the model offers the following six units and the indices: Power distance (PDI) shows people's willingness to accept the power hierarchical structure in the community and institutions and the unequal distribution thereof; Individualism vs. Collectivism (IDV), represents people’s (public’s favored characteristic tendencies) choice in the format (the interest priorities of respective groups) of independence and activity under mutual dependence; Uncertainty Avoidance (UAI) shows tolerance level of an individual and the society as a whole to unknown (indefinite) situations; Masculinity vs. Femininity (MAS), is the evaluation of individuals and society as a whole in terms of the features, such as determination, putting ahead business interests, strictness and concentration on success; Long-term orientation vs. Short-term orientation (LTO), indicates the extent how much oriented people and the society are at long-term strategic pragmatic future compared to short-term traditional (operational) orientation; Indulgence (IND), marks the level of self-control and tolerance. The lower the index, the greater the impact of traditions and norms limiting the society’s and people's behavior and vice versa. The greater value of this indicator points to a comparatively higher level of personal impulsive behavior. The heterogeneity of cultural values not only in the world, but also within Europe and the European Union gives rise to a natural question, what the cultural values are like in Georgia and what are the desired position of these options taking into account the future European integration and globalization processes. Let us look at the developed countries from various regions of the world with clearly different business cultures (US, Germany and Japan) and Georgia based on the recent version of the cultural dimensions model [http://geert-hofstede.com] proposed [Bedianashvili, 2016] by G. Hofstede. (For Georgia the indicators have been evaluated expertly based on the survey of the final fourth year students of Ivane Javakhishvili Tbilisi State University, Faculty of Business and Economics International Business module "EU Business Environment" and "Cross-Cultural Relationships in International Business" carried out during the lectures and seminars of the above disciplines). It has been revealed that as of the current situation ( "As is") in Georgia the long-term orientation (pragmatism) is significantly low (compared with Germany and Japan) as well as the level of individualism (close to Japan though), and as for power distance, while it is slightly different from the Japan’s indicator, Georgia is significantly far (much higher) from German and US levels. As to the desired position for Georgia ( "As should be"), the same expert evaluation has identified the changes that are needed to be implemented for the transformation of cultural values. For our country this means really urgent strengthening of pragmatism, decrease of power distance and development of individualism features. The comparative analysis with respect to the cultural values of the European countries has revealed that the desired situation for Georgia is very close to the same indicator of Switzerland. It is known that the qualitative indicators of the culture and the values change slowly, sometimes in the period equal to the generational replacement, which gives it a long-term nature. Culture in its essence is an informal institute [Bedianashvili, 2014] and naturally, its (culture) long term transformation mechanism should to be reviewed within the entire process of institutionalization (see about the informal institutions, for example, [North, 1994; Тамбовцев, 2014]). In turn, among the institutionalization issues it is most important to provide the systemic ratio of formal and informal institutes in order to ensure the effective functioning of the country’s socio-economic system and the development of the main structural components of the dynamics complexity [Bedianashvili, 1995]. Discussion of results Studies have shown a huge role of informal institutes in the economic development of the country. Namely, it has been found that the high level of formal institute development with the lower level of informal institutes corresponds to the decrease of per capita gross domestic product (GDP), while in the countries with higher level of informal institute development and low level of formal institutes –per capita GDP value [Williamson, 2009] is higher. Among the indicators of informal institutes used in this study, trust and respect should be noted, which have been reflected, for example, in the World Values Survey (WVS) project files [http://www.worldvaluessurvey.org/WVS DocumentationWV6.jsp]. As is known, this project explores the culture in terms of two categories: 1) Traditional / Secular-Rational Values and 2) Survival / Expression Values. The works are carried out in five-year intervals. They explore the link between the economic and technological development of countries and the values and motivations of societies. So far, seven cycles (waves) of work have been provided. They include developed and developing countries. It should be noted that according to the latest seventh cycle surveys, "Survival" values in Georgia have improved and visibly shifted towards the "Self-expression" values (although the values remain between -1 and -0.5, that is, still in "Survival" value zone as in all other post-communist countries). At the same time, there has been no change to the direction of "Rational" value in Georgia, on the contrary, the importance of "Traditional" values have slightly strengthened. Conclusions For the provision of appropriate conditions for our country's rapid socio-economic development in the modern globalization in respect of value transformation, we should take into account the fact identified through the empirical observations that the high speed development in the respective countries is preceded first of all, by the change of the cultural characteristics such as decrease of power distance, increase of individualism level and strengthening of long-term orientation (pragmatism) [Hall, 1990; Ball, 2001]. In addition, the gradual strengthening of the above rational and self-expression values is also crucial. We believe that along with other matters, training of decision-makers involved in the state management structures and prospective business managers and the process of formation their business culture should be significantly improved. Certainly, this refers not only to the higher education system, but also the whole cycle complex involved in the formation of the human’s culture - the family, pre-school education and the school as well. In addition, it should be noted that, as mentioned above, the relevant time period is approximately the same as the generational change. Definitely, actions for steady systemic change of cultural values should be reflected in the country's long-term socio-economic development strategy. References Bedianashvili G. (1995). State, Power Structure and Socio-Economic Reforming of Society. Pasta Gugushvili Institute of Economics of the Georgian Academy of Sciences. Tbilisi: Metsniereba. (Geo.). Bedianashvili G. (2014). Culture as an Institute in the context socio-economic Development of Country and International business. The Journal "The Economist", Ivane Javakhishvili Tbilisi State University, P. Gugushvili Institute of Economics, №6, p. 6 - 16. (Geo.). Bedianashvili, G. (2015), The EU Business Environment and the Institutional Factors of Country's Socio-Economic Development: Macro system aspects. Collection of Works of Georgian Academy of Economic Sciences. Volume 12, Tbilisi. P. 143-159. (Geo.). Bedianashvili G. (2016). The Global Business Environment, European Integration and the Cultural Potential of Social-economic Development of Georgia. Journal “Globalization and Business”. European Teaching Uniмersity:Tbilisi. .№ 1. P. 19-25. (Geo.). Harrison, A. (2014). Business Environment in a Global Context. Oxford University Press. Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture's Consequences: International Differences in Work-Related Values. - Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications. Triandis, H. (1994). Culture and Social Behavior. - N.Y.: McGraw-Hill. Шварц, Ш. (2008). Культурные ценностные ориентации: природа и следствия национальных различий/ Психология. Журнал Высшей школы экономики, Т. 5, №2. Инглхарт, Р. Вельцель, К. (2011). Модернизация, культурные изменения и демократия. Последовательность человеческлого развития. М.:Новое, издательство. Культура имеет значение. Каким образом ценности способствуют общественному прогрессу (2002). Под редакции Л. Харрисона и С. Хантингтона. М. Hall, E., Hall, M. (1990). Understanding Cultural Differences.- Yarmouth ME: Intercultural press. Тромпенаарс, Ф., Хампден-Тернер Ч.(2004).Национально-культурные различия в контексте глобального бизнеса. Минск. Ball R., Individualizm (2001). Collectivism and Economic Development // Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science.Vol. 573. Ясин, Е. (2008). Исследование культурных ценностей - общее дело социальных наук. Психология. Журнал Высшей школы экономики. Т. 5, №2. Аузан, А. и др. (2011). Культурные факторы модернизации. М., Санкт-Петербург. Тамбовцев, В. (2014). Экономическая теория неформальных институтов. М.:РГ-Пресс. North, D.C. (1994). Economic Performance through Time //American Economic Review. Vol. 84. No. 3. Gladwin, Т. N. and Terpstra V. (1978). Introduction in Cultural environment of international business / Ed. by V. Terpstra, Cincinnati: Southwestern. P. XIV. Murdock G. P. (1965). Culture and Society. University of Pittsburgh Press. Hofstede, G. & Hofstede, G.J. (2005). Cultures and Organizations. Software of the Mind (2nd edn). New York: McGraw-Hill. Barry J. Tomalin B. (2011). Cross-Cultural Communication: Theory and Practice. Socio-cultural environment of international business (2011). International scientific conference materials. Tbilisi. (Geo.). Luthans F., Jonathan P. (2012). International Management: Culture, Strategy and Behavior. http://geert-hofstede.com. Williamson C. R. (2009). Informal institutions rule: institutional arrangements and economic performance // Public Choice. Vol. 139. http://www.worldvaluessurvey.org/WVSDocumentationWV6.jsp