Divergent Cultures

COMPARATIVE COUNTRY STUDIES

Critical reflection

Divergent Cultures

Overview

Introduction 3

Summary and General Analysis of Article 1 5

Summary and General Analysis of Article 2 6

Criticism and Comparison of Nestor Articles 8 – Criticism 8 – Comparison 11

Critical Reflection and Comparison (with the Nestor articles) of the 12
Additional Articles – Castles F.G., Obinger H. 2008. Worlds, Families, Regimes: Country Clusters in European and OECD Area Public Policy. West European Politics, Vol.31: pg. 321. –
Introduction

In the following paper we, Comparative Country Studies team 15.5, will discuss a series of articles concerning cultural values and cultural clusters. In total four articles will be reflected. Out of these four articles, two were mandatory and presented to us through the Nestor site. The other two are chosen by us, the conditions of the choices are: 1) The articles should have the same topic (cultural values/clusters) as the mandatory articles 2) Both articles should complement to our country factbook.

First, we will give you a definition of cultural values. The definition is derived from the article by Shalom H. Schwartz. From now on the author will be addressed as author, writer, or Schwartz.

“Cultural values represent the implicitly or explicitly shared abstract ideas about what is good, right, and desirable in a society” – Williams, 1970

This definition leaves room for discussion, because many ideas, or values, can fall under the definition. Many ideas are mentioned in the article, and most of them will probably be mentioned in the following paper as well.

As mentioned above, we have to reflect 4 articles. The mandatory Nestor articles are:

1) Schwartz, S.H. (1999), “A Theory of Cultural Values and Some Implications for Work”, Applied Psychology: An International Review, 48, 23-47.

2) Gupta, V., Hanges, P.J. and Dorfmann, P. (2002), “Cultural clusters: Methodology and Findings”, Journal of World Business, 37, 11-15.

The articles we have chosen as a group are the following two:

3) Castles, F.G., Obinger, H. (2008), “Worlds, Families, Regimes: Country Clusters in European and OECD Area Public Policy”, West European Politics, Vol.31, Nos. 1-2, 321-344.
4) Watson, J., Lysonski, S., Gillan, T. and Raymore, L. (2002) “Cultural values and important possessions: a cross-cultural analysis”, Journal of business research, 55, 923-931.

The structure of our paper will be the following. We will start with summarizing in short the first article by Schwartz. Second, we will generally analyze the same article. Following this, we will summarize the article by Gupta, Hanges and Dorfman. (Article will be referred to as Gupta et al.) Fourth, we will generally analyze this article as well. Then, both Nestor articles will be criticized and compared to each other. Furthermore, the other two articles will also be analyzed and compared to the Nestor articles, and we will mention in which ways the articles we chose can complement to our final country factbook. We will end the report with a conclusion of the whole report.

Summary and general analysis of article 1
A theory of cultural values and some implications for work – Shalom H. Schwartz

Since the reflection group of our paper will read the article as well, we believe the abstract gives a better overview of exactly what has been done by Schwartz to develop his article; therefore we choose the abstract over a summary. Also, since most of the critique in the class has been about the papers being too much of a summary, we think that if we develop a summary ourselves, it will at least be one and a half to two pages, since the article by Schwartz is 24 pages long.

Abstract: A theory of the types of values on which cultures can be compared is presented and validated with data from 49 nations from around the world. Seven types of values are identified, structured along three polar dimensions: Conservatism versus Intellectual and Affective Autonomy; Hierarchy versus Egalitarianism; and Mastery versus Harmony. Based on their cultural value priorities, nations are arrayed in a two-dimensional space, revealing meaningful groupings of culturally related nations. Analyses replicate with both teacher and student samples. Implications of national differences in cultural values for differences in meaning of work are explicated. To stimulate research on cultural values and work, hypotheses are developed regarding the cultural value emphases that are especially compatible or conflicting with work centrality, with different societal norms about work, and with the pursuit of four types of work values or goals.

Shalom H. Schwartz is a social psychologist, cross-cultural researcher, and author of several articles and books. He has been a visiting lecturer at several universities in Israel. All of his accomplishments lead us to the conclusion that he is a reliable source of information.

We believe that Schwartz has delivered a very solid report, a report, which is easily read, has a clear structure and gives clear conclusions and outcomes to further research. We will give further feedback below, under the headline of criticism and comparison of the Nestor articles.

Summary and general analysis of article 2
Cultural clusters: methodoloy and findings – Vipin Gupta, Paul J. Hanges, Peter Dorfman

Again, we believe it is not necessary to summarize the article by Gupta et al. This will, according to our beliefs, lead to an summary of the article instead of a critical analysis and comparison. Once more we will provide the reader with the abstract provided by Gupta, Hanges and Dorfman.

Abstract: There has been almost a half century of effort to identify clusters of societies using the analysis of international-level data. Using the data collected on cultural values and beliefs from 61 nations, GLOBE proposed 10 a priori clusters and used discriminant analysis to confirm the clusters in a split half sample. Cross-validation was performed on the hold out sample. The results provide strong support to the existence of 10 cultural clusters: South Asia, Anglo, Arab, Germanic Europe, Latin Europe, Eastern Europe, Confucian Asia, Latin America, Sub-Sahara Africa, and Nordic Europe.

Vipin Gupta has a Ph. D in Management from the Wharton school in Pennsylvania. He has a highly distinguished academic background.[1] Professor Gupta has taught Strategy and International Business at several American and Indian universities. His research has been in three major areas: 1) Strategic Management, entrepreneurship and leadership, 2) Cross-cultural research, and 3) Technology, techniques and FDI.
Paul J. Hanges has a Ph. D in Industrial/organization Psychology from the University of Akron in Ohio. His research interests are mainly cross-cultural leadership & ethical leadership.[2]
Peter Dorfman has earned his Ph. D at the university of Maryland, and has been with the New Mexico State University for over thirty years. He has also been named Bank of America distinguished professor of NMSU’s college of Business.[3] Also, Dorfman is in the board of Directors of GLOBE (Global Leadership Organizational Behavior Effectiveness). Some of the findings in this article are based on work proposed by GLOBE.
Gupta et al. their article also is a short article. To us, it was not really clear, the structure is all right, however the research and conclusions are simply said unclear. It is partly based on a GLOBE a priori report in which 10 clusters are proposed. Many other articles have been used to come to the findings of this article. Further feedback and criticism etc. will be given below under the headline criticism and comparison of Nestor articles

Criticism and comparison of Nestor articles

Criticism
As we stated above, Schwartz has delivered a solid article, with a good research as a basis. We believe that the author has given to us a report with a very clear structure. Schwartz starts of with a short, however clear introduction of what his intentions are. After this he outlines the theory he is going to use throughout the article. Next he goes on with explaining the structure of the value relations (values being: Harmony, Egalitarianism, Autonomy, both intellectual and affective, Mastery, Hierarchy and Conservatism). After this he starts with the validation and comparisons of the theory, values and cultures. Finally, as he promises in the title of his article, he mentions some implications for work. Another point of positive criticism is that Schwartz has several models in his article. They really help explaining the theory and validation of his article. At a certain point in his article, Schwartz is trying to explain how the 7 different values, the ones we mentioned above, relate to each other. In one of his figures, he puts them all together, and if they are opposite of each other in theory, he also puts them opposite of each other in his article. These are little things, however they help the reader understand his point of view quicker. For instance: Hierarchy and Conservatism relate positively, and thus are put next to each other in the figure.
Autonomy and Conservatism however, are not really related, and thus put in opposite directions of each other in the figure.
[pic]
We do have some critique concerning the article of Schwartz. First, he tries to explain the ‘coplot technique’. This is a technique developed by Adi Raveh. If he really wanted the reader to understand this technique (which really is not that necessary to understand the article) he should have taken some more words to explain it. He tries to explain it without examples, so really it is still impossible to figure out how Schwartz derived his Nation Averages and Group averages from Table 1.
A second point of critique is his ‘scale of importance’. Responses ranged from 7 (of supreme importance) to 3 (important) to 0 (not important) to -1 (opposed to my values)
We find this scale weird, since giving a 7 means of supreme importance to me, and 3 is still important, what does it mean to give a 4,5 or 6? Also, we don’t really get the fact that he wants to have his scale go negative. An 8-point scale would also have been sufficient, if the explanation was a little bit clearer. Another point of critique is that some of the values give examples that we consider ‘strange’. To define strange we will give the example Schwartz has given.

Mastery: A cultural emphasis on getting ahead through self-assertion (ambition, success, daring, competence). Affective Autonomy: A cultural emphasis on the desirability of individuals independently pursuing affectively positive experience (pleasure, exciting life, varied life).

We consider the examples in Italic and Bold to be obvious. We find it hard to believe; from whichever culture an individual comes, that someone would not give a high grade to values such as pleasure, exciting life, success etc.

We will now continue with the article by Gupta, Hanges and Dorfman. As we stated above, Gupta et al. have presented us with a short article. The intention of the authors is clear, and the paper is structured as follows: Gupta et al. start with an introduction, to identify their intentions and goals of the paper; the introduction is followed by the clustering of societies. The clustering is based on an a-priori list, made available by GLOBE. After this, the clusters are empirically tested through several tables made available in the paper. Again, we will provide you with some criticism concerning the article by Gupta et al. The paper gives, according to us, unclear explanation of several things. For instance, table 2 gives the average discriminant probability of classification into clusters, how the research team has come up with the probabilities however, is not mentioned. They just state the facts, and do not give sources. The same applies for table 3. It presents us “eta squares” of the society and cluster effects. Again, from our point of view, random numbers could have been put in the table. As a reader, you are supposed to just believe what they state in their tables. Since the academic background of the writers is highly proficient, we can believe that the facts in the tables are true. Still, since there is no real explanation of how the numbers are computed and what they exactly mean. Because of this, you can state that the tables do not give extra meaning to the article. Another point of criticism is that the article is mostly related on other articles and the GLOBE research. These are two examples of what we previously stated:

Due to space limitations, we will only provide a brief explanation of the methodology and the results of the clustering of GLOBE societies. The complete treatment of the subject is provided in the upcoming GLOBE book

As a result of our analysis, we proposed that the 61 GLOBE nations can be grouped into 10 distinct clusters. Due to space limitation, we will only provide a listing of the countries in these clusters in Table 1. A detailed examination of each cluster is provided in the upcoming GLOBE book.

Because of these arguments, the relevance of the article is much less. Since we do not have a copy of the GLOBE book, and it probably is a couple of hundred pages, it is not possible for us to get the essence of the book, and thus the relevance of the article is declined.
Still, without the tables, the article gives some additional insight in the cultural clusters.

For example, Southern Asian, Latin American, and Arab societies tend to highly value collective goals, futuristic orientation, and rule-based structures. In contrast, Nordic European societies tend to highly value individual goals, shorter-term orientation, and uncertainty-oriented structure.
Facts such as these, can give us the information needed to make several comparisons between the two Nestor articles.
Comparison
In this last part on the Nestor articles we will provide a couple of comparisons between the articles. The comparisons are not definitely equalities; they can also be contradictions between the two articles. Though not labeled the same, both use some of Hofstede’s cultural dimensions. Schwartz labels for instance:

Issue 1: the first basic issue confronting all societies is to define the nature of the relation between the individual and the group.

Gupta simply uses Hofstede’s individualism-collectivism.
Another equality between the two articles is that the clusters both articles come up with are (relatively) equal. For instance, in Schwartz’s article Latin America consists of Brazil, Venezuela and Mexico. All of these countries are represented in Gupta et al.’s as well. Also, the English-speaking cluster has many similarities with the Anglo-cultures. E.g.: Canada, NZ, USA & Australia.
Another comparison between the two articles is that the conclusions of their research are quite the same. Nordic European societies tend to highly value individual goals, shorter-term orientation, and uncertainty-oriented structure. – Gupta et al.

Sweden and Denmark, located very close in the space of the right centre of the figure, illustrate similar national value cultures. Their importance profiles on all seven value types are almost identical: very high Egalitarianism, Intellectual and Affective Autonomy, moderately high Harmony, moderately low Mastery, very low Hierarchy and Conservatism.

From these observations, we can conclude that the articles have similarities in their conclusions.

Another conclusion we can make is that the article by Gupta et al. does not concern the implications for work as the article by Schwartz does. Because of this, we cannot compare the last part of the article of Schwartz to Gupta et al.
Critical reflection and comparison (with the Nestor Articles) of the additional articles

Additional Article 1: Castles F.G., Obinger H. 2008. Worlds, Families, Regimes: Country Clusters in European and OECD Area Public Policy. West European Politics, Vol.31: pg. 321.

The first article we have chosen to reflect is an article written by Francis G. Castles and Herbert Obinger. The article was first published in the ‘West European Politics’ journal, a journal that is used for comparative politics focusing on Western Europe. The article ‘focuses on the notion that the policies and politics of states and nations constitute distinct worlds or clusters’[4]. We think that this will provide us with additional insight in the concept of divergent cultures, thus complementing the two Nestor articles. Furthermore, since the West European Politics journal is an often consulted journal regarding comparative politics of Western Europe, we think that this article will help us in our comparative country report in which we will compare the countries the Netherlands and Belgium.

The Article:
In the article the authors will investigate the presence of distinct worlds (=clusters), of public policy. Castles and Obinger recognize four main clusters that have been in use since the post-World War II decades: the English-speaking cluster, the Scandinavian cluster, the continental European cluster and the Southern Europe cluster. The two main questions the authors will try to explore are: . Will the four policy clusters continue to exist in the first decade of the twenty-first century, taking into account the diminishing cross-national policy differences and the influence of the expansion of the EU (thirteen new EU members and the formation of the Central and East European cluster)? . Are the four traditional clusters that characterized Europe in the post-war decades being modified or superseded, either because of the formation of new clusters or because of the disappearance of the traditional ones? The authors came to a few conclusions: first of all, the families or clusters of nations have become more distinct over time. However, the continental and Southern European clusters experienced diminishing distinctiveness. The expanded EU is now joined by an even more distinctive post-Communist family, sub-divided in a Baltic and Eastern-European cluster, while all four traditional clusters do still exist. Furthermore, though the level of cross-national integration between EU member states has increased leading to more alike member states, policy differences between different groups (=families) still exist, partly due to aspects of territoriality. Nations that share the same language, culture, history and geography have such a strong link that these clusters will remain intact over time, and these nations will maintain the same policy outcomes and antecedents.

Critique:
First of all, the authors do not state which nations belong to which cluster throughout the given time periods, apart from looking at the figures. This makes it difficult for the reader to identify changes in geographic cluster boundaries over time. For instance, in the first dendrogram (figure 1) Ireland is not part of any cluster. However, in the second dendrogram (figure 2) they are considered to be in the English-speaking cluster. So what is the added value of clusters if the boundaries of the clusters are constantly changing? Also, according to figure 1 and 2, Finland is not part of the Nordic cluster anymore. Their ‘case number’ compared to the other Nordic/Scandinavian countries (Norway, Sweden and Denmark) changes from about three in 1960-75 to twenty in 2000-2004. So, what does this imply for the remaining Nordic/Scandinavian cluster? And for Finland?
Furthermore, the value of the x-axis is not explained anywhere. If you compare France to Canada in figure 1 for instance, they are linked to each other up to ‘case 15’. However, why the authors chose these values, or what the implications of these numbers are is completely unclear.
In addition, in table 1 some ambiguities arise as well. In the explanation on page 332, it is said that all variables indicated by an asterisk (*) are significant for assessing differences between clusters. The difference between the fertility rates (1.7, 1.4, 1.6) is relatively smaller than the difference between the unemployment rate (5.2, 7.7, 5.7). How come the fertility rates are apparently important for assessing differences, but these unemployment rates are not? And it is not explained by the authors why some variables are more important than others.
A disadvantage the authors mention themselves is that it is not clear how much each variable contributes to the distinctiveness of a cluster. We agree. For instance, according to Figure 1 on page 330, the UK and Finland differ from the Netherlands to exactly the same extent. Because the dendrogram does not show which variables are responsible for these differences and to what extent, it is unclear to the reader on which aspects the UK and Finland differ from the Netherlands, and whether it are the same aspects for the UK and for Finland. The dendrograms provide a very basic overview of which nations belong in which cluster, but the information is not useful for extensive research on cluster comparison because the link between various clusters is not elaborated upon. For example, the authors could have provided a table for every variable, putting the twenty nations on the x-axis and the y-axis, and then providing a direct link between any two specific nations by means of filling in the table.
An example of such a table can be found below. In this simplified table the differences between taxes and other revenues as a percentage of the GDP is showed. This is also one of the variables accounted for in the dendrograms of Castles and Obinger. For the Netherlands this percentage is 45.7%, for Finland it is 52.4% and for the UK this is 40.9%[5]. Putting these numbers in a table, showing the difference in those percentages between the countries, it will look something like this:
| |Netherlands |Finland |UK |
|Netherlands |X |-6.7% |4.8% |
|Finland |6.7% |X |11.5% |
|UK |-4.8% |-11.5% |X |

As becomes clear now, the percentage in the Netherlands is 6.7% lower than in Finland and 4.8% higher than in the UK. Now it is clear to what extent both Finland and the UK differ from the Netherlands, regarding taxes and other revenues as percentage of the GDP. By adding all the countries, and then making tables for all sixteen variables accounted for in the dendrograms, much clearer results will emerge, although this will take quite some time.

Comparison with Nestor articles
This article provides the reader with a view on the formation of clusters and their continuing existence. In relation to the articles provided by Nestor, this article provides a different kind of insight on the subject of divergent cultures. Therefore, this article is complementary to the Nestor articles.
Conclusion

In this part we will conclude our thoughts regarding the Nestor articles. We believe that Mr. Schwartz has delivered an article that’s better than Gupta, Hanges and Dorfman’s article. This is because of the following reasons: 1) Gupta et al have an article that is written for GLOBE. Since we are not able to read the book, it is not possible to understand the article to full extent. 2) Gupta et al. do not present us with a clear explanation concerning the tables. 3) Schwartz has done his own research, which is well structured, and well written. 4) Schwartz presents the readers with tables and figures that can be seen as guidelines, it makes the article easier to read and more easy to understand. 5) The conclusions written in Schwartz’s article can be used more easily than the conclusions provided in Gupta et al.’s paper.
Simply stated: Shalom H. Schwartz has delivered a better research report, since the research, explanation and conclusion are more extensive.
Regarding the first additional article, especially the figures and tables used by the authors lack clarity in some aspects. Although the article does provide the reader with a somewhat clear vision of which nations belong to which cluster, much clearer information is not presented to the reader. Therefore, it is still unclear to us which variables influence the differences between nations and thus are responsible for the cluster formation of these nations.
Furthermore, the article applies some theoretical dimensions that can be helpful in composing our comparative country studies report. One of the variables used in the dendrograms is the female labour force as percentage of the female population. Another variable is the male labour force as percentage of the male population. This will give an insight in the masculinity vs. femininity dimension in the Hofstede five dimensions model[6].

Summary and general analysis of second additional article.

The goal of this article is to focus on the value differences between countries and how these affect possessions. The authors choose to conduct their study on two countries, New Zealand and the United States. They choose for these countries because they are quite similar and can see if the method they use is working well. This article is derived from the question if the world values are converging or not. International marketing failures contradict this, with this article the cultural values of two countries are being studied. This can also been found in the abstract:

The logic behind globalized advertising appeals is based on the premise that cultural value systems are converging. Yet, there is no clear agreement regarding the superiority of standardized campaigns vs. localized ones. One reason for this lack of agreement deals with the extent to which various cultures share similar values. The goal of this study is to apply a relatively new framework dealing with value differences developed by Schwartz [Adv. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 25 (1992) 1.] to New Zealand and the USA by looking at the connection between these values and possessions. The hypotheses received mix support. The results confirm that New Zealanders are higher in Harmony and Affective Autonomy, and these values did, in part, affect possessions and reasons for owning them. New Zealanders’ most valued possessions were for environmental reasons, but they were no more likely to mention enjoyment reasons than Americans. New Zealanders also did not mention recreational possessions as more important, contrary to one of the hypotheses. Nonetheless, the similarities between NZ and the USA were much greater than the differences. The study provides valuable insight into how the meanings of important possessions differ across cultures and illustrates the need to understand these differences when designing marketing communications and positioning products in foreign market

Dr. Lysonski has a Ph. D in marketing from the Syracuse University New Zealand. He has been on the faculty at the University of Rhode Island, Copenhagen School of Business and Economics, and the University of Canterbury in New Zealand. He has published over 60 refereed and has presented papers at more than 50 national and international conferences. He is awarded more than once for business research. Tamara Gillan has earned her Masters of Commerce in Business Administration, Marketing and Consumer Behaviour at the Cantebury University in New Zealand. Dr. Watson has a Ph.D. in Business Administration (Marketing) received from The Pennsylvania State University. He is awarded multiple times for his articles. Leslie Raymore has also a Ph. D. in Marketing and consumer behavior.
The authors have made a sound article about differences in cultural values. Their goal was clearly explained so as their methods to receive their goal. They had a clear structure with their introduction, background, hypothesis, research and conclusion.

Criticism and comparison with Nestor articles

The first criticism, a positive one, is about the clear structure that is used by the authors. They started with explaining why this article is written by providing background information. Then they identified their goal by coming up with hypothesis for their analyses. After that, the methods to compare the different cultural values were discussed and explained. This was followed up by the results and an explanation of the results. At the end a conclusion was drawn.

The second criticism, also a positive one is about the very detailed description of the method that is being used to compare the cultural values of countries. This method, the Value inventory of Schwartz that measures the importance of the seven culture-level value types, is very useful for comparative country studies. This is the description that was given:
2.1. Schwartz’s cultural-level values
Schwartz (1992) proposed that values represent a struc- ture of interacting belief systems, the collection of which constitutes culture. Undergirding this conceptualization, Schwartz (1994a) developed a theory of conflicts and compatibilities among seven value types as follows:
1. Conservatism: maintenance of the status quo, proprietary and restraint of actions that might disrupt group solidarity and traditional order (e.g., social order, respect for tradition, family security).
2. Intellectual Autonomy: independent ideas and the rights of the individual to pursue his/her own intellectual directions (e.g., curiosity, creativity, broad mindedness).
3. Affective Autonomy: individual pursuit of affectively positive experiences (e.g., pleasure, exciting life, a varied life).
4. Hierarchy: legitimacy of an unequal distribution of power roles and resources (e.g., social power, authority, humility, wealth).
5. Egalitarian Commitment: transcendence of selfish inter- ests to interests, which serve the common good (e.g., equality, social justice, freedom, responsibility and honesty).
6. Mastery: getting ahead through self-assertion (e.g., ambition, success, competence).
7. Harmony: fitting harmoniously into the environment (e.g., unity with nature, protecting the environment).
Smith and Schwartz (1997, p. 86) postulated that each value type has ‘‘psychological, practical and social conse- quences that may conflict or be compatible with the pursuit of other types.’’ For example, if Autonomy is emphasized within a culture, the importance of Conservatism (its oppos- ite type) is depressed. ‘‘This is necessary in order to ensure consistent socialization and reinforcement of behavior and to foster smooth institutional functioning’’ (Schwartz 1994a, p. 98).
Schwartz (1994a) developed an instrument to measure cultural-level values by selecting specific values to represent each value type; these were drawn from previous research, including Rokeach’s (1973) value survey and from religious and philosophical writings found in different cultures. By consulting survey instruments developed in other cultures (Braithwaite and Law, 1985; Chinese Culture Connection, 1987; Hofstede, 1980), Schwartz (1994a) avoided imposing a Western-imposed etic. The Schwartz approach provides a cross-culturally validated instrument for measuring cultural- level values and a comprehensive, near universal set of value types for studying cultural differences. Data collected in 54 countries from approximately 44,000 subjects con- firmed the theorized content and structure of the cultural- level value types (Smith and Schwartz, 1997). In addition, Schwartz ranked nations on each of the seven values. This approach can identify cultural values; these values then can be used to understand the meaning that people attach to products
After the explanation of the comparison’s method theory the authors explained how they have practiced this theory in real life. A survey was being held according to Dillman’s Total Design Method, which was further not explained. The comparison instrument asked respondents from the survey to rank and then rate 45 values. The instrument then measured the 45 items into the seven value types: Hierarchy, Mastery, Affective Autonomy, Intellectual Autonomy, Egalitarian Commitment, Harmony, and Conservatism. After some statistical analysis the results were presented.

A Negative point about the explanation is that there is no real explanation about the statistical measurement that is being held. Suddenly some numbers appear, which might confuse the reader how they got there. It keeps the reader in the dark about what exactly happened in the ending fase of the comparison.

Another negative point is that this article was specifically focused on two countries. (Which were already quite similar to each other) Because of this the items they compared to each other did not really differ a lot. That is why you cannot see if the instrument is really working well. It would be better if more countries were involved and some with really different cultures.

The last criticism, which is negative, is that the article is part of a marketing project and is therefor really narrowed to a specific point. Because of that not all parts of the article have value for comparative country studies. Especially the first hypothesis fits the CCS perfect, however the other two just apply partly because they elaborate on the first hypothesis. The part that is useful is fundamental for the research though, without this part there would not be a research. That is why we think this article can be very useful for our own project even though it is just partly focused on it.
Comparison
This article has a lot in common with Schwartz’s article, in fact in this article the fundaments of the research are completely based on Schwartz’s seven culture-level model. In Schwartz’s article the theory of his is exactly described and explained, it also gives us a model, which shows how the countries are culturally divided.
This article shows us the implication of Swartz’s model focused on two countries in a real project. It can be said that Schwartz article provides the model and that this article applies it in real life. The difference between the articles is that this article just partly focuses on the seven-value model. After getting satisfying results, the research narrows down even more.

Guba’s article and this one do not show many similarities. This is because the models that are presented have different objectives. The only thing in our eyes that the two articles have in common is that both models use certain criteria to measure different countries. However the criteria are totally different from each other. That is because Guba’s model is developed to select countries and categorize them into clusters. These clusters of countries have more or less the same cultural values. Schwartz’s model is not intended to categorize and cluster countries, it is simply intended to compare the countries on their differences and similarities in cultural values. In short, Guba’s model shows which countries differ in their values and Schwartz model shows what the differences are in their value.

Conclusion
This article gives us a solid report about how the Schwartz’s seven-value model works.
The methods are clearly explained and performed. This article can be seen as the elaboration of the first Nestor article. As in school, college and university you always start with the theory and then try to practice it on your own. We have similar thoughts about this article, the first Nestor provided the theory and this article gave us a perfect example how it worked.
We can conclude that this article provides us with a highly useful model, however since it is the same model as in the first Nestor article it would not be necessary to use this article for our own purpose. The Nestor article provide us with enough information to use the model, when the Nestor article is not clear to somebody then this article is perfect to explain how the model works.

General conclusion.

In general we believe that the first Nestor article (Schwartz) is the best of the four. The research conducted is clearly described and the model has proven to be a useful tool to help comparing countries. The second article elaborate on this model but since it does not bring something new, except that you can see how the implication of the models works, is it not as useful as the Nestor article.
The second article has an interesting model, however it references much to other books and articles. That is why it even less relevance than the previous discussed articles.
Regarding the first additional article, especially the figures and tables used by the authors lack clarity in some aspects. Although the article does provide the reader with a somewhat clear vision of which nations belong to which cluster, much clearer information is not presented to the reader. Therefore, it is the least useful article to us.

-----------------------
[1]
[2] http://vipingupta.net/bio.htm

[3] [4] http://www.bsos.umd.edu/psyc/hanges/

[5] [6] http://business.nmsu.edu/2009/07/13/dorfman-named-bank-of-america-distinguished-professor-at-nmsu/

[7] [8] Castles F.G., Obinger H. 2008. Worlds, Families, Regimes: Country Clusters in European and OECD Area Public Policy. West European Politics, Vol.31: pg. 321.
[9] CIA The World Factbook, Country Comparison: Taxes and Other Revenues: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2221rank.html
[10] Hofstede G., model of five dimensions, http://geert-hofstede.com/dimensions.html