The cultural wealth of nations
A basic result from ecology is that species aren’t evenly distributed across the planet. They cluster in resource-rich areas, and thin out in resource-poor ones. In nature, diversity and wealth are closely tied.
Now, a new study in Nature argues that cultural diversity in human societies follows the same sort of distribution—rich areas are culturally diverse, poor areas are homogeneous. (See a summary here).
But one big difference is the source of wealth. For species, it comes from natural resources. For humans, it comes from expanding trade and markets.
That means we’d expect places with more extensive markets—like Manhattan—to have more cultural diversity than places with thinner markets—like Butte, Montana. Which is exactly what we do see.
Interestingly, one way of viewing the study is as a restatement of Adam Smith’s famous insight that the division of labor is limited by the extent of the market, to include the realm of cultural specialization.
Overall, I’d say that’s bad news for those who argue globalization necessarily leads to cultural homogenization.
Posted by Andrew on Friday March 19, 2004 | Feedback?
