Journal of Business Accounting and Finance Perspectives

(ISSN: 2603-7475) Open Access Journal
Rss Feed:
Journal of Business Accounting and Finance Perspectives is no longer published on JAMS (MDPI publishing platform) as of 10.07.2021. Articles remain hosted at jbafp.jams.pub by courtesy of JAMS and upon agreement with the journal owner until the publications are transferred to a new website.

J_Bus_Account_Financ_Perspect 2021, 3(1), 2; doi:10.35995/jbafp3010002

 
Uncertainty Shocks, Cultural Behaviors and Economic Development
Pantelis C. Kostis 1,2
1
Department of Economics, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, PC 10562 Athens, Greece
2
Department of Business Administration, Hellenic Open University, PC 10562 Patras, Greece; [email protected]
How to cite: Pantelis C. Kostis. Uncertainty Shocks, Cultural Behaviors and Economic Development. J. Bus. Account. Financ. Perspect., 2021, 3(1): 2; doi:10.35995/jbafp3010002.
Received: 13 January 2021 / Accepted: 18 February 2021 / Published: 15 March 2021

Abstract

:
The literature regarding cultural background change points out that changes in cultural background can only be slow moving. However, under high uncertainty levels, cultural background may change in the short or medium term as well. In this paper, the effects of uncertainty on cultural behaviors are investigated. Cultural background is captured through the Schwartz’s cultural values, based on the waves provided by the European Social Survey from 2002 up to 2018, performing relative Principal Component Analyses. An Uncertainty Index is constructed based on the volatility of the stock market for all Eurozone countries, from the euro’s adoption in January 2001 up to December 2018. Using an unbalanced panel dataset comprised of 18 Eurozone countries for the time period from 2002 up to 2018, a fixed-effects assessment method, different fixed terms between the examined economies, dummies per wave of the nine total data waves of the European Social Survey and country-specific clustered robust estimates of the standard errors, the main conclusions of the empirical analysis are the following: (a) Uncertainty significantly affects the cultural background of societies and leads to its change; (b) The effects of uncertainty on culture start two years after an uncertainty shock has occurred; (c) The effects of uncertainty on specific cultural values reveals significant effects on all Schwartz’s cultural values. However, the effect is the highest for the dipole “conservatism and autonomy” and the smallest for the dipole “mastery vs. harmony”. (d) When uncertainty is high, this leads to higher levels of hierarchy (authority, humbleness), self-direction (independent thought and action), stimulation (excitement, novelty and challenge in life), affective autonomy (pursuit of actively positive activities: pleasure, exciting life) and mastery (ambition and hard work, daring, independence, drive for success) which means their life’s harmony is disrupted, at least two years later. Thus, countries exhibiting systematically high levels of uncertainty are about to develop a cultural background that is going to hinder economic development, and vice versa.
Keywords:
uncertainty; culture; economic development; financial crisis; COVID-19

1. Introduction

The change of cultural values over time is an issue that concerns, among other things, economic science, as this change is responsible for the reform of the economic, political and social life of societies. Boyd and Richerson (2005) argue that cultural change should be considered an evolutionary process based on Darwin’s theory, in which some cultural values become more common and others are lost.
The general observation about the change in cultural background is that it remains relatively stable over time “under normal conditions”. This conclusion emerges simply if one considers that the cultural dimensions that shape the cultural background remain relatively constant over time (De Jong, 2009; Petrakis and Kostis 2014). The cultural background often appears stable at any given time because cultural mutations occur gradually (Jones, 2006). Research (Johnston, 1996) shows that stereotypes are generally very resistant to change and redefinition. Individuals who have adopted specific cultural characteristics tend to retain them in the process of gathering information. Therefore, they do not show signs of change in existing stereotypes.
Thus, the fact that the cultural dimensions and consequently the cultural background remain stable “under normal conditions” leaves much room for reflection and control of these conditions. Eurozone has suffered much from the crisis and many of its members adopted adjustment programs, significantly changing the function of the economies and the general living conditions.
The aim of the present paper is to investigate the effects of uncertainty on cultural values change. The main hypothesis examined is whether conditions such as those related with the recent global financial crisis of 2008 have led to changes in behaviors and values and, thus, on the cultural background of the societies.
The structure of the paper is as follows: In Section 2, a literature review is presented regarding the factors that may lead to cultural background change. Section 3 presents the data used in the empirical analysis, as well as the methodology employed. Then, Section 4 presents the empirical results. Finally, the basic conclusions of the overall analysis are presented.

2. Literature Review

The factors that exogenously influence the creation and shaping of the cultural background of a society are related to specific conditions that prevail in that society. The most serious sources of external influence on the formation of the cultural background are considered to be the available resources, the climate and in general the geographical features (McClelland, 1961; Diamond, 1999; Tavassoli, 2009; Triandis, 2009; Petrakis, 2014). These are factors that do not change or change gradually over time. As these factors create the background for the formation of the cultural background of a society, any change they show affects the prevailing cultural background accordingly.
Globalization is also considered an important factor in changing the cultural values of societies. Two conflicting schools of thought regarding the impact of globalization emerge. The first school of thought is based on the theory of modernization (Inglehart and Baker, 2000), arguing that globalization contributes to the convergence of differences between cultural backgrounds, as political and social forces lead to a change in cultural values. The consequence of globalization is the creation of a network of cultural values (Hermans and Kempen, 1998). This grid is based on common features between different societies that interact with the local cultural background of the societies, ultimately leading to a cultural transformation with high coherence between cultural fields. The second school emphasizes the stability and “resilience” of traditional values to the economic and political changes that are taking place under globalization. DiMaggio (1994) argues that the resistance of traditional values to change stems from the fact that these values are independent of economic change.
The aging of the population is another cause of incremental changes in the cultural background in recent decades. While the greatest differences in personality occur in adolescence (Borghans et al., 2008), significant changes in personality characteristics appear—even to a lesser extent—later in life. As individuals grow older, they become more emotionally stable personalities (Roberts et al., 2006). At the same time, behavior associated with being open to new experiences is something that increases at younger ages and decreases at older populations (Roberts et al., 2006). As people get older, they tend to become more “myopic” in the sense that they appear more oriented in the present while they do not seem to be particularly interested in long-term situations. In addition, older people are considered more politically active, forming the main bulk of the electorate and relying more on traditional and materialistic values.
In addition, developments such as generational replacement, increased access to higher education, urbanization, increasing gender equality and increasing national diversity have led to the shift of cultural values from materialistic to post-materialist, from the 1970s onwards (Norris and Inglehart, 2016, 2019). These developments have also brought about gradual changes in the cultural background.
The above changes in cultural background do not happen suddenly and so can be characterized as incremental. Significant but also sudden are the changes observed in the cultural background after an external shock. It is a fact that crises tend to “give birth” or accelerate cultural changes which, if accepted once because of the crisis, tend to become permanent. Changes of this type can cause high stress in individuals (Eschbach et al., 2001), affecting their psychological adaptation to new conditions and can be a strong shock to the context of cultural values that characterize the societies. In such cases, the result is a change in cultural background, which is usually much faster than the incremental change described above.
An example is the recent financial crisis of 2008, which has affected most economies worldwide. Economic developments significantly affect the cultural background of individuals. Thus, the economic crisis not only affects economies but also societies and more specifically their cultural background (Magee et al., 2013). As a result of the global financial crisis, there were significant economic consequences for economic actors, which led to significant stress and psychological pressure (Eschbach et al., 2001; Petrakis 2011; Sargent-Cox et al., 2011). Casanova (2018) focuses on political culture and values and examines whether it changed after the financial crisis of 2008 in those countries that adopted an adjustment program in Europe, noting that people’s orientation towards politics and democracy got worse in those countries in relevance to the other European countries. Proponents of the insecurity hypothesis argue that the economic stress, insecurity and austerity experienced by individuals as a result of the crisis have changed their cultural values and are responsible for the rise of the populist wave (Norris and Inglehart, 2019; Rodrik, 2019).

3. Data and Methodology

To investigate the relationship between uncertainty and culture, an unbalanced panel dataset, for the Eurozone countries1 for the period from 2002 to 2018, is used. The choice of the time period under consideration is determined by the availability of data regarding culture, based on the European Social Survey (ESS) waves that have been released during that period.
To examine the effects of uncertainty on cultural background, the following equation is estimated:
Cultur e it = a i +βUncertaint y it + λ t + u it ,
where i denotes the economies of the Eurozone (Nmax = 18) and t is the ESS wave under analysis (Tmax = 9). The dependent variable Culture is a vector of variables that represent the cultural background, Uncertainty is an index of economic uncertainty, ai is a constant term that captures the country-specific fixed effects and which records the country-specific time-invariant heterogeneity. Finally, λt is a set of dummies that control for specific effects per wave that are common to all economies under analysis.
The estimation of Equation (1) is done through the two ways fixed effects analysis (FE), which allows the economy-specific heterogeneity using a different constant term per economy and can be estimated using the standard least squares method (OLS). In addition, time dummies for each wave are included in order to incorporate in the analysis time effects that are common to all countries in the sample. In addition, cluster-robust estimates of the standard errors were taken into account in order to control for the correlation and heteroskedasticity for each economy.
In order to construct the Economic Uncertainty Index, following our previous research work (Petrakis and Kostis, 2014; Kafka et al., 2020), daily data of high capitalization stock indices are used for the countries under analysis. Additionally, as a proxy for global uncertainty, an Index is calculated that expresses the Global Stock Market based on the daily prices of the largest stock markets (USA, Canada, Mexico, Brazil, Eurozone, United Kingdom, Japan, China–Hong Kong, and India) as the weighted average based on the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of each economy (GDP at current prices) as derived from the International Monetary Fund (IMF) World Economic Outlook Database.
Table 1 presents the indices used for each country under analysis, as well as the major stock indices used to construct the global stock market index. This table also presents the descriptive statistics of those indices, after maintaining only the daily prices for which data were available for all countries. All data were obtained using Reuters Datastream.
Then, an Economic Uncertainty Index (UI) is created for each economy by calculating the rolling standard deviation of the previous 30 days of the returns of the main stock index of each economy. To isolate the shocks due to each economy, the monthly average of this index (standard deviation of 30 days) is regressed on its global counterpart and the residuals of each regression are marked as the uncertainty index for each economy. The monthly evolution of the residuals of each regression is the monthly evolution of the uncertainty index of each country from 2001 to 2018. Next, these monthly UI data are converted into biennial data to be compatible with the culture values that get released in waves every two years by the ESS. The climate of uncertainty increases on dates of significant political and economic turmoil. Since the onset of the crisis, most Eurozone economies have been hit by a series of uncertainty shocks.
Regarding the cultural background, the ESS questions are used, which are presented in the second column of Table 2, which concern the way in which the cultural values of Schwartz (1992, 2006) are compiled. The percentage of those who answered “Very Much Like Me” was used in the sentences that appear in the second column. Based on Smith and Schwartz (1997) and Schwartz (2012), the following table is derived, which relates human values to cultural values based on specific questions that are realized in the waves of the ESS.
Table 3 presents the descriptive statistics for the ESS questions through which the Schwartz’s cultural values are captured.
Then, Principal Component Analyses (PCA) are realized in order to capture the cultural values dipoles “Conservatism/Embeddedness vs. Autonomy”, “Hierarchy vs. Egalitarianism”, and “Mastery vs. Harmony” based on the ESS questions that are related with each cultural value. Moreover, a PCA is performed for all ESS questions in order to capture a total measurement of cultural background.

4. Empirical Analysis and Discussion

Table 4 presents a correlation matrix between the ESS questions. The questions used in the analysis present high correlation between each other, something that allows for using PCA in order to capture the overall culture measure and the Schwartz’s cultural values.
Moreover, Table 5 presents the PCA for the “Conservatism/Embeddedness vs. Autonomy” cultural value.
The first two principal components are used. The first one has an eigenvalue of 4.42 and is related to 55.28% of total variance. It is positively configured by the following questions: “Important to think new ideas and be creative” and “Important to try new and different things in life”. In that way it is a component that is characterized by self-direction and stimulation.
The second one has an eigenvalue of 1.43 and is related to 17.89% of total variance. It is positively configured by the following questions: “Important to show abilities and be admired” and “Important to be successful and that people recognize achievements”. Moreover, it is configured negatively by “Important to have a good time” and “Important to understand different people”. In that way it is a component that is characterized by affective autonomy.
Table 6 presents the PCA for the “Hierarchy vs. Egalitarianism” cultural value.
The first two principal components are used. The first one has an eigenvalue of 3.07 and is related to 61.43% of total variance. It is positively configured by the following questions: “Important to do what is told and follow rules”, “Important to live in secure and safe surroundings”, “Important that government is strong and ensures safety” and “Important to behave properly”. In that way it is a component that is characterized by power and security and, thus, hierarchy.
The second one has an eigenvalue of 0.76 and is related to 15.40% of total variance. It is positively configured by the question “Important to be rich, have money and expensive things” and negatively by “Important to behave properly”. In that way it is a component that is characterized by power and non-conformity and, thus, hierarchy as well.
Table 7 presents the PCA for the “Mastery vs. Harmony” cultural value.
The first two principal components are used. The first one has an eigenvalue of 4.57 and is related to 65.31% of total variance. It is positively shaped by “Important that people are treated equally and have equal opportunities”, “Important to help people and care for others well-being” and “Important to understand different people”. In that way it is characterized by benevolence and, thus, mastery.
The second one has an eigenvalue of 1.15 and is related to 16.49% of total variance. It is positively shaped by “Important to get respect from others” and “Important to follow traditions and customs”. In that way it is characterized by tradition and, thus, mastery as well.
Finally, Table 8 presents the PCA for overall culture. The first two principal components are used. The first one has an eigenvalue of 9.76 and is related to 51.39% of total variance. The second one has an eigenvalue of 3.02 and is related to 15.89% of total variance.
Table 9 presents the estimation of Equation (1). Each column represents a different estimation of Equation (1) since different depended variables are used. The first eight columns represent the results when uncertainty is used as independent variable, and columns 9 to 18 represent the results when uncertainty with a lag is used as independent variable.
Looking at regressions 1 to 8, no statistically significant effects of uncertainty on culture emerge. However, using a lag in uncertainty the results are completely different (regressions 9 to 16). All regressors are positive and statistically significant, at 1% level of statistical significance, except from the second principal component of the cultural value of hierarchy vs. egalitarianism (regression 10). This means that when uncertainty is higher this leads to higher levels of hierarchy (authority humbleness), self-direction (independent thought and action) and stimulation (excitement, novelty and challenge in life), affective autonomy (pursuit of actively positive activities: pleasure, exciting life) and mastery (ambition and hard work, daring, independence, drive for success), at least two years later.

5. Conclusions

The analysis provided by the present paper concludes that there is significant effect of uncertainty on cultural values in the Eurozone countries during the period from 2002 up to 2018. This means that under conditions characterized by a high level of uncertainty such as the global financial crisis of 2008 or the recent pandemic of COVID-19, the behaviors, the preferences and, in general, the cultural background of the societies is about to change, thus affecting the way decisions are made and economic development.
While cultural background is a slow-moving structure that usually is changed in an incremental way, when uncertainty shocks are present culture can change more suddenly. The empirical analysis provided by this paper revealed no effect of uncertainty within the first two years of presence of high uncertainty. However, after two years of an uncertainty shock all Schwartz’s cultural values as well the overall culture significantly changed.
In addition, the empirical analysis concludes that when uncertainty is high this leads to higher levels of hierarchy (authority, humbleness), self-direction (independent thought and action), stimulation (excitement, novelty and challenge in life), affective autonomy (pursuit of actively positive activities such as pleasure and an exciting life) and mastery (ambition and hard work, daring, independence, drive for success) which means their life’s harmony is disrupted, at least two years later.
In general, the cultural background has a long-term homocyclic effect in many Eurozone countries. In the economic prosperity phase, there are a number of “anti-growth” aspects of social values linked to a lack of openness. However, in times of recession, this social model itself is giving rise to lines of defense linked to inward-looking while, at the same time, opposing its change. Thus, during the crisis, in-group collectivism (family) helps to reduce the negative effects of the crisis. However, the fact that, in the very difficult phase of recession, cultural background works as a “life-saver” gives it the chance to survive, possibly even grow stronger in the development phase where it is now acting as an obstacle. This is known as a cultural anti-growth trap (Petrakis and Kostis, 2021).
These results may be critical for governments and policymakers that face increased uncertainty levels. The cultural background of the societies affects the effectiveness of economic policy, since a society firstly has to approve an economic policy in order to make it more effective (Kafka, 2020; Kafka et al., 2020). Thus, countries exhibiting systematically high levels of uncertainty are about to develop a cultural background that is going to hinder economic development, and vice versa.

Acknowledgments

The author would like to thank Kyriaki I. Kafka for reading the paper and making useful recommendations as well as M. Skotoris for gathering the data from the ESS.

References

  1. Borghans, L.; Duckworth, A. L.; Heckman, J. J.; ter Weel, B. The Economics and Psychology of Personality Traits; (IZA Discussion Paper No. 3333); IZA Institute of Labor Economics, 2008. [Google Scholar]
  2. Boyd, R.; Richerson, P. J. The Origin and Evolution of Cultures; Oxford University Press: Oxford, 2005. [Google Scholar]
  3. Casanova, J. L. Crisis and Cultural Change: The Countries with Adjustment Programmes in the European Union. Comparative Sociology 2018, 17(2), 187–220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. De Jong, E. Culture and Economics: On Values, Economics, and International Business; Routledge: London, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  5. Diamond, J. Guns, Germs, and Steel; Norton: New York, 1999. [Google Scholar]
  6. DiMaggio, P. Culture and economy. In The Handbook of Economic Sociology; Smelser, N. J., Swedberg, R., Eds.; Princeton University Press: Princeton, 1994. [Google Scholar]
  7. Eschbach, D. M.; Parker, G. E.; Stoeberl, P. A. American repatriate employees’ retrospective assessment of the effects of cross-cultural training on their adaptation to international assignments. International Journal of Human Resource Management 2001, 12(2), 270–287. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Hermans, H. J. M.; Kempen, H. J. G. Moving cultures: The perilous problems of cultural dichotomies in a globalizing society. American Psychologist 1998, 53, 1111–1120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Inglehart, R.; Baker, W. E. Modernization, culture change, and the persistence of traditional values. American Sociological Review 2000, 65(1), 19–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Johnston, L. Resisting change: Information-seeking and stereotype change. European Journal of Social Psychology 1996, 26(5), 799–825. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Jones, J. The relative concentration of net maternity in chimpanzees and humans. American Journal of Human Biology 2006, 18(2), 260. [Google Scholar]
  12. Kafka, K. I. Economic Theory and Economic Reality: A Continuously Dialectic Relationship. In Bridging Microeconomics and Macroeconomics and the Effects on Economic Development and Growth; Kostis, P. C., Ed.; IGI Global, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  13. Kafka, K. I.; Kostis, P. C.; Petrakis, P. E. Why Coevolution of Culture and Institutions Matters for Economic Development and Growth? In Economic-Financial Development and Cultural Transformation; Yonk, R. M., Ed.; IntechOpen; ISBN 978-1-78985-938-6.
  14. Magee, C. A.; Miller, L. M.; Heaven, P. C. L. Personality trait change and life satisfaction in adults: The roles of age and hedonic balance. Personality and Individual Differences 2013, 55(6), 694–698. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. McClelland, D. C. The Achieving Society; Van Nostrand: Princeton, 1961. [Google Scholar]
  16. Norris, P.; Inglehart, R. Trump, Brexit and the Rise of Populism: Economic Have-Nots and Cultural Backlash; American Political Science Association, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  17. Norris, P.; Inglehart, R. Cultural Backlash: Trump, Brexit, and Authoritarian Populism; Cambridge University Press: New York, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  18. Petrakis, P. E. The Greek Economy and the Crisis. Challenges and Responses; Springer: New York and Heidelberg, 2011; ISBN 978-3-642-21174-4. [Google Scholar]
  19. Petrakis, P. E. Culture, Growth and Economic Policy; Springer: New York and Heidelberg, 2014; p. 250. ISBN 978-3-642-41439-8. [Google Scholar]
  20. Petrakis, P. E.; Kostis, P. C. Medium term effects of culture, transactions and institutions on opportunity entrepreneurship. Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship 2014, 3, 11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Petrakis, P. E.; Kostis, P. C. The Evolution of the Greek Economy, Past Challenges and Future Approaches; Palgrave McMillan, 2021; ISBN 978-3-030-47209-2. [Google Scholar]
  22. Roberts, B. W.; Walton, K. E.; Viechtbauer, W. Patterns of mean-level change in personality traits across the life course: A meta-analysis of longitudinal studies. Psychological Bulletin 2006, 132(1), 1–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Rodrik, D. What’s Driving Populism? Project Syndicate, 9 July 2019. [Google Scholar]
  24. Sargent-Cox, K.; Butterworth, P.; Anstey, K. J. The global financial crisis and psychological health in a sample of Australian older adults: A longitudinal study. Social Science and Medicine 2011, 73, 1105–1112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Schwartz, S. H. Universals in the content and structure of values: Theory and empirical tests in 20 countries. In Advances in experimental social psychology; Zanna, M., Ed.; Academic Press: New York, 1992; Vol. 25, pp. 1–65. [Google Scholar]
  26. Schwartz, S. H. Les valeurs de base de la personne: Théorie, mesures et applications [Basic human values: Theory, measurement, and applications]. Revue Française de Sociologie 2006, 47, 249–288. [Google Scholar]
  27. Schwartz, S. H. An Overview of the Schwartz Theory of Basic Values. Online Readings in Psychology and Culture 2012, 2(1). [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Smith, P. B.; Schwartz, S. H. Values. In Handbook of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 2nd ed.; Berry, J. W., Segall, M. H., Kagitcibasi, C., Eds.; Allyn & Bacon: Boston, MA, 1997; Vol. 3, pp. 77–118. [Google Scholar]
  29. Tavassoli, N. T. Climate, psychological homeostasis and individual behaviours across cultures. In Understanding Culture: Theory, Research and Application; Wyer, R., Chiu, C., Hong, Y. Y., Eds.; Psychology Press, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  30. Triandis, H. C. Ecological determinants of cultural variation. In Understanding Culture: Theory, Research and Application; 2009; pp. 189–210. [Google Scholar]
1
Malta not included in the analysis due to unavailable data regarding cultural background.
Table 1. Descriptive statistics of stock market indices.
Table 1. Descriptive statistics of stock market indices.
IndexCountryNMed.Avg.St.Dev.MinMax
AS51 IndexAustria10454804.14705.01071.12744.06929.0
BEL20 IndexBelgium10453000.93047.5705.01527.34749.5
CYSMFTSE IndexCyprus1045332.6385.2423.932.61864.8
TALSE IndexEstonia1045663.4655.6348.5110.71316.3
HEX25 IndexFinland10452450.12568.5861.01106.14354.0
CAC IndexFrance10454397.34444.6926.92534.56813.7
DAX IndexGermany10456851.77451.92891.92403.213,483.3
FTASE IndexGreece10458327.910,064.88092.81194.129,400.0
ISEQ IndexIreland10455459.25319.31716.31949.69963.4
FTSEMIB IndexItaly104522,652.925,973.28768.212,740.049,355.0
RIGSE IndexLatvia1045423.5487.9258.7106.91073.2
VILSE IndexLithuania1045399.7373.2187.264.0726.1
LUXXX IndexLuxembourg10451421.81441.0380.3651.52578.2
MALTEX IndexMalta10453524.93673.3954.91755.56552.6
AEX IndexNetherlands1045422.6430.0107.7199.5695.2
PSI20 IndexPortugal10456710.67270.32312.54362.114,822.6
SBITOP IndexSlovenia1045824.4940.8428.5501.32674.7
SKSM IndexSlovakia1045247.7266.1109.270.2501.3
IBEX IndexSpain10459600.49785.12003.35499.215,823.7
SPX IndexUSA10451360.71578.0590.3683.43265.4
SPTSX60 IndexCanada1045708.0695.5176.1330.41025.7
MEXBOL IndexMexico104531,834.128,833.815,320.75087.951,564.6
IBOV IndexBrazil104551,940.747,842.524,199.98715.9117,706.7
SX5E IndexEurozone10453156.53254.7706.21817.25450.2
UKX IndexUK10455951.45886.51018.13491.67778.8
NKY IndexJapan104513,774.514,256.54432.07173.124,120.0
HSI IndexChina–Hong Kong104520,668.819,681.85736.38409.033,154.1
SENSEX IndexBombay104516,859.716,999.310,697.32600.141,681.5
Table 2. Linking Schwartz’s values to relevant European Social Survey (ESS) questions.
Table 2. Linking Schwartz’s values to relevant European Social Survey (ESS) questions.
Human ValuesESS QuestionsCultural Values
Self-directionImportant to think new ideas and be creativeConservatism/Embeddedness vs. Autonomy
StimulationImportant to try new and different things in life
Important to have a good time
Important to seek adventures and have an exciting life
Important to seek fun and things that give pleasure
Embeddedness
HedonismImportant to understand different peopleIntellectual Autonomy
AchievementImportant to show abilities and be admired
Important to be successful and that people recognize achievements
Affective Autonomy
PowerImportant to be rich, have money and expensive things
Important to do what is told and follow rules
Hierarchy vs. Egalitarianism
SecurityImportant to live in secure and safe surroundings
Important that government is strong and ensures safety
Hierarchy
ConformityImportant to behave properlyEgalitarianism
TraditionImportant to get respect from others
Important to follow traditions and customs
Mastery vs. Harmony
BenevolenceImportant that people are treated equally and have equal opportunities
Important to help people and care for others’ well-being
Important to be loyal to friends and be devoted to those nearby
Mastery
UniversalismImportant to care for nature and the environmentHarmony
Table 3. Descriptive statistics of ESS questions on cultural background.
Table 3. Descriptive statistics of ESS questions on cultural background.
ΝMed.AvgStdevMinMax
Conservatism/Embeddedness vs. AutonomyImportant to think new ideas and be creative11819.519.25.77.735.8
Important to try new and different things in life11613.714.44.25.829.4
Important to have a good time11812.513.96.53.331.5
Important to seek adventures and have an exciting life1185.55.82.21.514.3
Important seek fun and things that give pleasure11413.212.15.41.527.0
Important to understand different people11719.619.76.54.832.7
Important to show abilities and be admired1169.810.55.53.028.8
Important to be successful and that people recognize achievements1148.79.74.83.829.4
Hierarchy vs. EgalitarianismImportant to be rich, have money and expensive things1162.23.12.30.412.2
Important to do what is told and follow rules1169.29.53.53.621.3
Important to live in secure and safe surroundings11624.025.511.53.663.7
Important that government is strong and ensures safety11625.728.011.59.167.6
Important to behave properly11615.217.16.76.733.4
Mastery vs. HarmonyImportant to get respect from others11810.010.16.42.135.1
Important follow traditions and customs11816.218.09.82.148.4
Important that people are treated equally and have equal opportunities11332.333.69.814.957.6
Important to help people and care for others well-being11625.125.08.78.748.8
Important to be loyal to friends and devote to people close12035.533.610.010.552.4
Important to care for nature and environment11631.431.48.013.254.6
Table 4. Correlation matrix of the ESS questions.
Table 4. Correlation matrix of the ESS questions.
C1C2C3C4C5C6C7C8C9C10C11C12C13C14C15C16C17C18
Important to think new ideas and be creativeC11
Important to try new and different things in lifeC20.741
Important to have a good timeC30.440.521
Important to seek adventures and have an exciting lifeC40.580.670.251
Important seek fun and things that give pleasureC50.640.660.340.621
Important to understand different peopleC60.730.670.550.400.471
Important to show abilities and be admiredC70.410.530.210.640.530.261
Important to be successful and that people recognize achievementsC80.360.400.040.510.360.120.661
Important to be rich, have money and expensive thingsC90.200.14−0.040.520.120.000.480.621
Important to do what is told and follow rulesC100.350.42−0.140.370.270.310.340.410.421
Important to live in secure and safe surroundingsC110.460.420.140.470.360.410.500.540.440.491
Important that government is strong and ensures safetyC120.460.460.070.590.410.440.680.650.530.470.671
Important to behave properlyC130.590.720.410.610.550.650.660.390.290.490.590.761
Important to get respect from othersC140.500.470.240.620.510.400.790.770.630.460.680.790.701
Important follow traditions and customsC150.470.40−0.020.540.660.410.650.590.450.490.560.800.650.721
Important that people are treated equally and have equal opportunitiesC160.760.730.520.430.500.830.390.190.080.400.430.540.760.470.441
Important to help people and care for others well-beingC170.740.610.310.480.580.820.420.290.050.350.460.580.690.500.580.781
Important to be loyal to friends and devote to people closeC180.600.440.600.260.380.820.210.03−0.050.090.280.360.470.290.320.650.711
Important to care for nature and environmentC190.540.630.410.400.430.730.360.390.080.360.510.570.690.490.490.670.6480.62
Table 5. Principal Component Analyses (PCA) for Conservatism/Embeddedness vs. Autonomy.
Table 5. Principal Component Analyses (PCA) for Conservatism/Embeddedness vs. Autonomy.
PC1PC2
Important to think new ideas and be creative0.40−0.19
Important to try new and different things in life0.42−0.11
Important to have a good time0.26−0.47
Important to seek adventures and have an exciting life 0.380.23
Important to seek fun and things that give pleasure0.380.04
Important to understand different people0.34−0.44
Important to show abilities and be admired0.340.43
Important to be successful and that people recognize achievements0.270.55
Eigenvalue4.421.43
Var55.28%17.89%
Note: In bold are presented those values above 0.4 or below −0.4, since there are the ESS questions that more significantly shape the principal components.
Table 6. PCA for Hierarchy vs. Egalitarianism.
Table 6. PCA for Hierarchy vs. Egalitarianism.
PC1PC2
Important to be rich, have money and expensive things 0.370.81
Important to do what is told and follow rules0.410.17
Important to live in secure and safe surroundings0.48−0.09
Important that government is strong and ensures safety0.51−0.15
Important to behave properly0.46−0.53
Eigenvalue3.070.76
Var61.43%15.40%
Note: In bold are presented those values above 0.4 or below −0.4, since there are the ESS questions that more significantly shape the principal components.
Table 7. PCA for Mastery vs. Harmony.
Table 7. PCA for Mastery vs. Harmony.
PC1PC2
Important to get respect from others0.300.62
Important to follow traditions and customs0.310.60
Important that people are treated equally and have equal opportunities 0.41−0.15
Important to help people and care for others well-being 0.42−0.08
Important to be loyal to friends and devote to people close0.38−0.38
Important to care for nature and environment0.39−0.03
Eigenvalue4.571.15
Var65.31%16.49%
Note: In bold are presented those values above 0.4 or below −0.4, since there are the ESS questions that more significantly shape the principal components.
Table 8. PCA for Overall Culture.
Table 8. PCA for Overall Culture.
PC1PC2
Important to think new ideas and be creative0.25−0.16
Important to try new and different things in life0.25−0.13
Important to have a good time0.14−0.32
Important to seek adventures and have an exciting life0.240.12
Important seek fun and things that give pleasure0.23−0.04
Important to understand different people0.24−0.32
Important to show abilities and be admired0.230.22
Important to be successful and that people recognize achievements0.190.34
Important to be rich, have money and expensive things0.130.39
Important to do what is told and follow rules0.170.18
Important to live in secure and safe surroundings0.220.16
Important that government is strong and ensures safety0.260.20
Important to behave properly0.28−0.02
Important to get respect from others0.260.24
Important follow traditions and customs0.240.19
Important that people are treated equally and have equal opportunities0.26−0.24
Important to help people and care for others well-being0.26−0.19
Important to be loyal to friends and devote to people close0.19−0.34
Important to care for nature and environment0.24−0.15
Eigenvalue9.763.02
Var51.39%15.89%
Table 9. Estimation of Equation (1) using different independent variables.
Table 9. Estimation of Equation (1) using different independent variables.
Dependent VariableUncertainty without LagUncertainty with a Lag
Independent Variables(1)(2)(3)(4)(5)(6)(7)(8)(9)(10)(11)(12)(13)(14)(15)(16)
Hierarchy vs. Egalitarianism—PC10.000
(−0.00)
0.003 ***
(2.68)
Hierarchy vs. Egalitarianism—PC2 0.000
(0.71)
−0.001
(−0.60)
Conservatism/Embeddedness vs. Autonomy—PC1 −0.001
(−0.95)
0.004 ***
(2.82)
Conservatism/Embeddedness vs. Autonomy—PC2 0.001
(0.67)
0.001 ***
(2.61)
Mastery vs. Harmony—PC1 0.001
(0.07)
0.003 ***
(2.45)
Mastery vs. Harmony—PC2 0.001
(0.70)
0.002 ***
(3.45)
Overall Culture—PC1 −0.001
(−0.41)
0.007 ***
(3.00)
Overall Culture—PC2 0.001
(1.00)
0.002 **
(1.93)
N111111109109111111107107103103101101104104100100
R20.01%15.99%1.86%2.80%15.54%2.40%3.61%19.21%8.38%12.14%15.00%8.70%22.80%14.19%17.87%18.03%
F-stat0.088.66 ***0.841.288.37 ***1.121.6310.34 ***3.80 **5.73 ***7.15 ***3.86 ***11.90 ***6.95 ***8.70 ***8.80 ***
Notes: The t-statistics values are displayed in parentheses. ** and *** represent statistical significance at 10%, 5% and 1% significance level, respectively. Each column represents a separate regression. All regressions have included the effect of the time variable (taking into account the effects common to countries in each wave), different constant terms (to take into account the effects on each economy separately) as well as corrections to standard errors (clustered robust standard errors).