Yes. An author who has written specifically about the link between cultural values and governance of migration is French anthropologist Emmanuel Todd. Todd focuses on how different values result in different migration policies.

There is an ample literature on this subject about indigeous rights and alternative models of social organization. In Latin America the literatures have blossomed in relation to the theory of the "buen vivir". SInce the person asking the question is Indian, I suggest getting in touch with the "radical ecological development" network that is coordinated by Ashish Kothari, http://radicalecologicaldemocracy.wordpress.com/ ([email protected]) He coordinated a special issue of IUCN's journal "Policy Matters" in 2011.

Do you know if there is literature regarding citizen particpation, collaborative governance and cultural differences (Even within democratic societies)? My question is: How can the cultural background influence the willingness to participate in collaborative governance mechanisms or direct democracy? What are common governance mechanisms regarding economic regulation in less democratic societies? Many thanks for your answers!

Thank you, Luis and David for very helpful answers. I appreciate Uchendu and Philipp for their answers too.

There is a lot of argument particularly from Edward Said onwards, about understanding the political processes that we adopt from our cultural context. A system based the principles of, democracy or socialism or whatever, adopted by any country is only as good as those that the people of the country can understand, accept and absorb. People absorb what their socio-cultural stimulus tells them to seek. I was reading this book "The Challenge in South Asia" (Eds. Ponna Wignaraja and Akmal Hussain, United Nations University, Tokyo, Sage Publications New Delhi, 1989).

In the book, Asis Nandy in his article on The Fate of Ideology of the State in India (pp315-325) makes an interesting observation - "To be a political community a polity must have meaningful communications among its different centres". Communication becomes meaningful when it is relevant to the query and it appeals to the social and cultural values of the person being addressed.

Years before, as an experiment, one of the local governments introduced the syllabi followed in USA for Middle School Math, in the name of modernizing education. The year in which the syllabi was introduced, there were unprecedented failures and parents in that small town literally mobbed the principal because even the usual bright sparks had failed. The question posed by the parents was whether the new system will help their children get better jobs! If so they do not mind having their children repeat one year in the same class. If not, the school better revert to the old syllabi, because it helped many aspirants to write the entrance test for the certificate course for Primary School Teachers!!

In a backward region where living conditions where harsh and per capita income very low, the parents wanted that the system should prepare their children to finds livelihood. Knowledge can wait.

The flip side of the coin is governance: the social, cultural and economic sensitivities of the society must reflect in the policies of the government. When they do not, people become alienated from governance and their government.

Thanks for your views.

Dear Srinivasan, many thanks for your contribution too. I totally agree with you "The flip side of the coin is governance: the social, cultural and economic sensitivities of the society must reflect in the policies of the government". I think this is a vey valid point.

Lately, for me the question came up how can more direct democracy be introduced into political decision making, on the one hand to improve legitimization and to provide new governance mechanisms. But not only how can new mechanisms be introduced but how well are the accepted.

There was an interesting case in Berlin, the capital of Germany. There was a citizen initivate in order to to renationalize the electricity net. It came to voting in the end. BUT, they needed 25% of the total votes to go through with the petition but 0.9% were missing. So the petition was not granted. Surprisingly for me is: Forecasts or questionaires beforehand told, that most people agree with the petition. But when it comes to voting, the citizens did not have enough incentives to do so. Why is that?

During the course of these considerations I asked myself whether and how cultural backgrounds influence active participation in politcal discussions and governance. On the political level this discussion is very vivid in Europe. The EC established a new "mechanism" for citizen participation on the EU level, but it is rarely taken notice of or used.

An interesting question Philipp - " when it comes to voting, the citizens did not have enough incentives to do so. Why is that?"

I would like to present two perspectives (they both are drawn from Indian context):

First, take the instance when Mahatma Gandhi called for Salt Satyagraha, the famous Dandi March, that commenced on the 11th March 1930. People all over India took to the sea shores nearer to them, to make salt and thus defy the British tax on salt, asserting their independence and signalling the Colonial Empire to shed its power over its colony. Gandhi was not merely appealing to defy the British tax, he was appealing to the thirst for freedom from colonial rule. The Dandi March turned into a national movement because people found it mirroring their own aspirations.

Second, take the initiative by Anna Hazare, an old Gandhian who launched a massive agitation against corruption in India's capital New Delhi in April 2011. He was pressing the government to enact a stringent anti-corruption law. Initially, his rank and file swelled because at heart every Indian felt that the levels of corruption that they see around them must go. As they movement progressed, somewhere in the din and roar of media and other 'pressure' groups around him, Anna Hazare lost the verve and spirit. The agitations have vanished now, though Anna continues to make efforts to have his movement renewed. Incidentally, the story of the Anti-Corruption Bill dates back to 1968 from whence it has been tabled eight times in the Parliament. Millions of rupees (INR) have been spent but it is yet to be passed by the Upper House of the Parliament to become law.

In both the cases quoted above, technically, the following are common grounds:

1. There is a genuine public cause involved in both the cases

2. People want the change, in both instances

3. Massive street-side opinion support is present for both the causes and action plans

One succeeded and other failed. As we accept the commonalities and go deeper into the reason for success and failure, we see a sudden clarity - leadership.

In the case of Salt Satyagraha, people saw their own aspirations reflected in the cause. They also saw a committed leadership that they implicitly believed will lead them to their objective, come what may. Gandhi was not known to vacillate.

In the case of anti-corruption bill, people saw their aspirations reflected too. Initially they thought they have a committed leadership which will weather all odds to take them to their ideal. But the leadership became embroiled in controversies. It got lost in peripheral issues in the process of which it became a short time sensation. People lost interest - not in the cause but in the movement.

In case two, people still abhor corruption. They would want it to go, but now they do not see a committed leadership to follow to their end. Somewhere else I had come across a caption that reads: A good leader does not take his followers to where he wants to go; he takes them to where they want to reach.

The answer probably lies in enlightened leadership, which is also an essential component of good governance.

Perhaps you may want to re-examine your Berlin issue from this perspective.

Thank you for provoking me to think!!

I'm just researching the impact of political culture on the management features in Russia. Compare with other countries. I explore the connection of political culture to political control. Scientific paper to be published in the journal, this December 2013. I advise you to read the research of the American sociologist Ronald Inglehart.

Thanks Sergey for the input. Appreciated.

In fact, at least in India, political leaders cite cultural heritage and such other sentimental issues to get votes necessary to form governments. In this way, in India, cultural heritage does have an indirect effect on governance. However, cultural heritage and such other matters are not really given importance once the elections are over.

Interesting point, Dr Hemanta Baruah, thank you. I would like to add one more question then. If the people vote on the appeal of culture but subsequently the elected representative does nothing to promote the cultural values that he had used as an election appeal, why should they vote for the same person or party again in the next elections? In case you have come across any study on the connection between culture and political appeal, I would be grateful for the reference.

Thank you. Have a great day!

The question about the influence of culture on governance is complex. As many comments suggest, culture clearly influences attitudes, citizen participation, and so on.

Yet culture is also influenced by political institutions. During the dictatorship of Francisco Franco, the two sides that had fought the Civil War contested the meaning of the Civil War that at once bought down the Second Republic and bought Franco to power. Each side blamed the other.

During the democratization period in Spain following the death of the Franco, the view of the Civil War changed dramatically to one of a national tragedy in which both sides had part of the blame.

Through a series of elite bargains, most of the important groups gained from the new constitution, and Spain became a stable democracy with a new political culture. Similar changes have happened elsewhere in the move to stable democracy.

So part of the answer about the influence of culture is how it interacts with institutions, and what are the circumstances under which major changes in institutions can affect a nation’s culture. Undoubtedly the answer is also wrapped up in the nature of the existing culture.

Are there any studies that focus on how the culture of a particular society forges its character? Are there any tools or measures that can help us understand or evaluate this?

See my volume on Denmark: Campbell, John L., John A. Hall, Ove K. Pedersen, editors. 2006. National Identity and the Varieties of Capitalism: The Danish Experience. Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press. (Nationalism and Ethnic Conflict Series, edited by Sid Noel.)

Thank you for this wonderful question! There is a substantial literature on cultural values, voting, and governance, especially in the US and Europe. I would echo Sergey's advice to look at Ron Inglehart's 1990 book, Culture Shift, which is a classic in the field and is international in scope. For the US, the big books were Fraser and Gerstle's 1989 edited volume The Rise and Fall of the New Deal Order and Ben Wattenberg's 1995 piece, Values Matter Most. There is a famous debate, also on the US context, between Thomas Frank, who wrote What's the Matter with Kansas? (2004) and Morris Fiorina et al (2005), who responded with the book, "Culture War?" For a different take on the politics of cultural heritage in the US, India, and Turkey, see my article with Manali Desai and Cihan Tugal, "Political Articulation" in Sociological Theory, which is available on my researchgate website. I hope this helps. Best of luck, Cedric

Thanks Cedric. The entire genre of postcolonial studies (subaltern studies), particularly the pioneering work by Gayatri Spivak of Columbia Univ and Ranajit Guha have good inputs with reference to India.