Thomas C. Cochran

Cultural Factors in Economic Growth

Attempts to accelerate economic growth in less developed areas have met with little success, partly because economic theory deals with short-run analysis and because the effects of culture cannot be quantified. The study seeks to understand the importance of cultural factors in explaining the behavioral differences between Puerto Rican and U.S. entrepreneurs. This comparative study is based on about 70 interviews with Puerto Rican entrepreneurs, supplemented with other sources. Among the cultural values of upper class Puerto Rican businessmen: inward-looking or egocentric individualism that asserts ones personality against the group; evaluation of situations on the basis of personal feeling; passivity or resentment toward organizational activities; sensitivity to personal or face-to-face relationships; preference for the abstract or spiritual; acceptance of leadership by subalterns; acceptance of paternalistic responsibilities by the leader; and distrust of innovation. U.S. businesses persons, however, regard situations rationally, prefer common sense and the practical, and believe in the value of material progress and innovation. Business life in Puerto Rico is organized on family and friendship bases; shared information is personal, rather than technical. Owners prefer paternalistic control and shun delegating to middle managers. The concept of dignity makes supervision and discipline more difficult than in the United Srates. The preference for a comfortable, dignified living (along with general scarcity of capital) helps explain lesser interest in competition and expansion of business. The Puerto Rican individualism conflicts with use of modern technology, consultants, large-scale operations, and teamwork; businesses are unwilling to merge firms. From studying interactions of U.S. businesspersons in Puerto Rico, it was found there was little intermingling of the groups socially; the Puerto Ricans perceived the U.S. businessmen as lower in social status. Summarizes that certain traits in Puerto Rican culture have made timing and direction of economic growth different from that in the United States. (TNM)

The American-Hawaiian Steamship Company, 1899–1919

At a time when American shipping generally was finding it difficult to compete in international trade, certain American shipping groups were profiting largely. The strength of the American-Hawaiian Steamship Company derived from conservative financial policy, bold but not reckless expansion, astute analysis of trading opportunities, skillful handling of competition, and decisive adaptation to emergencies. A closely knit group of owner-managers held the reins of control. Internal strength permitted optimum realizations from a favorable commercial environment and even helped to make that environment favorable.

K. AUSTIN KERR. American Railroad Politics, 1914-1920: Rates, Wages and Efficiency. Pp. viii, 250. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1968.

tics, 1914-1920: Rates, Wages and Efficiency. Pp. viii, 250. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1968.

7.95

7.95. Since the mid-nineteenth century, Americans have been so opposed in principle to government ownership of industrial enterprises that there has been little study of the politics and economics of government control. The host of European ventures of this kind have not inspired a large literature of comparative history in the United States. This makes Professor Kerr’s careful study of the problems of private railroad operation and wartime federal control an important book. His research has been thorough, including the use of relevant manuscript collections as well as a large quantity of government documents. Refusing to make

Aalbert Lauterbach. Enterprise in Latin America: Business Attitudes in a Developing Economy. Pp. xviii, 207. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1966.

the-culture&dquo; (p. 14; cf. pp. 8, 20, et passim). Professor Gordon does not specify how Latin America would presumably have fared with its mixture of high cultures, such as the Incan, Mayan, and Aztec and of savage tribes, but without foreign influences. Nor does he explain how outside influences, such as the Greek and Roman, did not spell the end of development for the Celts, Huns, Goths, and others in Europe. These questions are vacuities, being either insoluble or at least

6.75:

as well as Europeans and Americans; there are Communists and Confucians and Buddhists and Brahmins and Mohammedans and Jews as well as Christians (outside of Franco’s Christian Spain and Christian Vichy France and Christian Fascist Italy). They are right, because they are on our side. Yet Mr. Perry’s specifications of this world ignore them and their differences from him, and center all the virtues of the past and future of civilization in the term &dquo;Christian.&dquo; Once more the dynamic behind the &dquo;disinterested and sympathetic spectator&dquo; is the power and disposition of