2
بنام خدا
Dear Dr. Roosta Azad:
Salaam. Thank you for sending the excellent PowerPoint document. The document concludes that the difference between poor and rich countries is in “the attitude of the people, framed along the years by the education & the culture.” The document further states that “(w)e are poor because we lack attitude…We lack the will to comply with and teach these functional principles of rich & developed societies.”
Since this topic is very important, it deserves more discussion and dialogue among our colleagues. Undoubtedly, at the individual level, a person’s attitudes and beliefs are vital in uplifting his/her living conditions. We should encourage our students to set higher goals and strive to achieve them using their knowledge, skills, will power and inner strengths. However, in addition to individual attitudes, public policies should also be formulated to create an environment that fosters creativity, innovation, and entrepreneurship.
The key question is: What factors contribute to the formation of the attitudes conducive to socio-economic development? I believe, in addition to individual efforts and will power, we should also look at the social, economic, and cultural forces that shape people’s attitudes and beliefs. There is a saying in sociology that “the state ways determines the folk ways.” Therefore, authoritative public and private institutions have critical roles to play in transforming people’s traditional attitudes and beliefs. For example, let us look at the profile of a country that has emerged from a state of poverty to one of the leaders in manufacturing and exporting of high-technology products: Malaysia. The following is a brief economic profile of Malaysia: 1
Economic Strength:
· Natural resources - oil, gas, tin, timber, palm oil, rubber
· GDP growth - 7.1%
· Gross national savings - 37.1% of GNP
· Current account surplus - 13.4% of GNP
· Debt service ratio - 4.3% of exports of goods and services
· Unemployment rate - 3.5%
· Inflation(CPI) - 1.4%
· Reserves - 8.0 months of retained imports
· Export of manufactured goods - 78.5% of gross exports
Malaysia was considered an underdeveloped country just a few decades ago. The country has emerged as an export-driven economy “spurred on by high technology, knowledge-based and capital-intensive industries.”2 The following are the reasons advanced for the country’s success: 3
“The Malaysian economy has performed remarkably well over the years due to the country’s (1) political stability, (2) the sound financial and economic policies adopted by the government, and (3) the efficient management of its natural resources which include oil and gas…..Malaysia’s rapid industrialization was the result of the country opening itself relatively early in the 1960s to foreign direct investments (FDI).Today, its market-oriented economy, combined with an educated multilingual workforce and a well-developed infrastructure, has made Malaysia one of the largest recipients of FDI among developing countries.The Institute for Management Development (IMD) in its 2004 World Competitiveness Yearbook ranked Malaysia as the fifth most competitive country in the world (for countries with a population of greater than 20 million), ahead of countries such as Germany, United Kingdom, Japan and Mainland China.” (Emphasis added).
A major factor that has contributed to Malaysia’s amazing success is the sound utilization of the country’s social capital. There is a vast literature in sociology of development demonstrating the importance of government policies in promotion of social capital (a country’s human assets) for development. 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 In the case of Malaysia, the following is just one of the examples of how the government taps into and promotes the country’s social capital: 11
“What attracted investors to Malaysia is the government's commitment to maintain a business environment that provides companies with the opportunities for growth and profits. This commitment is seen in the government's constant efforts to obtain feedback from the business community through channels of consultation such as regular government-private sector dialogues. These allow the various business communities to air their views and to contribute towards the formulation of government policies which concern them.”
It seems that there are many factors that influence the destiny of a nation/state. But among the most important factors are: (1) the attitudes of individuals; (2) government policies; (3) the role of educational institutions.
(1) Individual Attitudes: The key attitudes that are conducive to national development and prosperity are listed in your excellent document:
1. Ethics, as a basic principle.
2. Integrity.
3. Responsibility.
4. Respect to the laws & rules.
5. Respect to the rights of other citizens.
6. Work loving.
7. Strive for saving & investment.
8. Will of super action.
9. Punctuality.
10. etc.
(2) Government Policies: there is also a vast literature documenting the importance of the government policies in socio-economic development (For example, “Entrepreneurial State: The Role of Government in the Economic Development of the Asian Newly Industrializing Economies.”).12
(3) Educational Institutions: In an intriguing international study conducted by the Center for Higher Education, Research and Information titled: “The Role of Universities in the Transformation of Societies,” it was observed that universities play critical roles in the cultural transformations of societies.13 Similarly a World Bank Report identified the four essential functions of higher education in supporting knowledge-driven economic growth:
“(1) The capacity to train a qualified and adaptable labor force – including high level scientists, professionals, technicians, teachers for basic and secondary education, as well as future government;
(2) The capacity to generate new knowledge;
(3) The capacity to access existing stores of global knowledge and adapt it to local use;
(4) The transmission of norms, values, attitudes and ethics as the foundation of the social capital necessary to construct healthy civil societies and cohesive cultures.” (emphasis added).
I hope during the upcoming research week or in the future events we stress the importance of these factors by establishing forums/workshops to: (1) cultivate entrepreneurial attitudes; (2) discuss, evaluate, and propose innovative government research-investment policies to promote socio-economic development, and (3) discuss the responsibilities of the higher education institutions in not only promoting science and maintaining a strong link with the industry and government but acting as agents of cultural change. As the author of the document you forwarded to us rightly observes: “the attitude of the people, (are) framed along the years by the education & the culture.”
Thank you very much for sharing such and excellent document.
Best regards,
Ahmad Sharbatoghlie, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor and Associate Dean of Research
Graduate School of Management and Economics
Sharif University of Technology
Azadi Ave., Tehran
P.O. Box 11365-8639
Tel: +98-21- 6022755 - 8
Fax: +98-21- 6022759
Email:
References:
1 Why Malaysia, see http://www.mida.gov.my/beta/view.php?cat=1&scat=23, Accessed: November 5, 2006.
2 Ibid.
3 Ibid.
4 Source: The World Bank Group, the Social Capital, see, http://www1.worldbank.org/prem/poverty/scapital/home.htm, accessed November 5, 2006.
5 Boix, C., Posner, D. (1998), Social capital: Explaining Its Origins and Effects on Government Performance, British Journal of Political Science 28(4), 686-695.
6 Evans, P. (1996), Government Action, Social Capital and Development: Reviewing the Evidence on Synergy, World Development, 24(6), 1119-1132.
7 Rothstein, B., Stolle, D. (2002), How Political Institutions Create and Destroy Social Capital: an Institutional Theory of Generalized Trust, Paper prepared for the 98th meeting of the American Political Science Association in Boston, Ma.
8 Stolle, D. (2003), The Sources of Social Capital, in Hooghe, M., Stolle, D. (eds) (2003), Generating Social Capital: Civil Society and Institutions in Comparative Perspective, New York, Palgrave.
9 Svendsen, G.L.H, Svendsen, G.T. (2005), The Creation and Destruction of Social Capital. Entrepreneurship, Co-operative Movements and Institutions, Cheltenham, UK, Edward Elgar Publishing.
10 Uslaner, E. (2003), Trust, Democracy and Governance: Can Government Policies Influence Generalized Trust?, in Hooghe, M., Stolle, D. (eds) (2003), Generating Social Capital: Civil Society and Institutions in Comparative Perspective, New York, Palgrave.
11Why Malaysia, see http://www.mida.gov.my/beta/view.php?cat=1&scat=23, November 5, 2006.
12 Tony F. Yu, “Entrepreneurial State: The Role of Government in the Economic Development of the Asian Newly Industrializing Economies,” Development Policy Review, Volume 15,Page 47,March 1997.
13 John Brennan, Roger King and Yann Lebeau, “The Role of Universities in the Transformation of Societies: An International Research Project Synthesis Report, Center for Higher Education, Research and Information, November 2004.
14 World Bank (2002), Constructing Knowledge Societies: New Challenges for Tertiary Education, Washington DC: The World Bank.