Economy Are some countries doomed to high unemployment due to their genetic pool ?

I was reading in The Economist that "many of society's ills, from economic stagnation to poor social mobility, could be solved by creating a more entrepreneurial society." The timing couldn't be better as I had been thinking about that very issue lately. Why is it that northern European countries, especially Germanic ones, have for so long had a lower unemployment rate than other countries, regardless of the economic climate ? I believe this indeed has something to do with the fact that northern European people are a particularly entrepreneurial bunch. Not only are they less afraid of taking risks, they are also more individualistic and independent than almost any other cultural group on the planet. Northern Europeans are therefore more likely to be self-employed or to start their own company.

Eight years ago I wrote about individualism vs collectivism and the five cultural dimensions used by IBM psychologist Geert Hofstede to compare working cultures around the globe. The two most interesting dimensions are individualism and uncertainty avoidance.

Individualism is a trait shared by ethnically Celtic and Germanic countries. For instance, North Italy (Celtic) is very individualistic, while South Italy (Greek) is far more collectivist. All non-European cultures are strongly collectivist. Collectivist-minded people like to feel part of a group and are much more likely to become employees or civil servants. That is why in a country like Japan (Asian therefore collectivist), as developed as it is, people will almost always choose to work for a company (the bigger the better) rather than be self-employed. Even professionals like doctors, lawyers and architects prefer to work in shared offices or firms than have their own office as they would in northern Europe.

Uncertainty avoidance is a slightly more difficult concept to grasp. People with a high uncertainty avoidance will take all the measures they can to limit risks and have things under control at all time, trying to foresee any eventuality. They would plan a trip well in advance, booking their hotels ahead and knowing exactly where they would be going. Ideally they prefer to travel in organised tours rather than by themselves. It's safer and more comforting. Individuals with a low uncertainty avoidance will take a last minute flight without knowing exactly where they would be going and adjusting their plans on the spot.

Even legal systems reflect the level of uncertainty avoidance. Roman and Napoleonic legal system (high uncertainty avoidance) trying to codify every possible infringement of the law. In contrast, English common law is much more compact and flexible, privileging a case-by-case approach at the judge's discretion.

Like for collectivism, the "default" (or ancestral) human nature is a high uncertainty avoidance. According to Hofstede's scores, only the Scandinavians, Brits, Irish, Chinese and Vietnamese have a low uncertainty avoidance (the lowest being the Danes). There is surely a genetic factor too, since neighbouring populations (the Dutch, Finns, Southeast Asians) have an average score, and all other nationalities have a high score (even the Germans, who are more Celtic or Slavic in that regard).

When I was a student, I backpacked for a few months around Australia, and I was quite baffled by the fact that out of the hundreds of other backpackers I met, about 40% were English (not British as I only met one Scot and no Welsh), 30% were Dutch (but not a single Fleming), 20% were Scandinavian (mostly Danish), and the remaining 10% covered all other nationalities (mostly Japanese, German, Irish and French with a few occasional American, Canadian). Wherever you go around the world, you will always meet English and Dutch people. They have travel in their blood. The more out-of-the-beaten-track and adventurous the destination, the higher their proportion to other nationalities. I talk from experience, having myself travelled to about 50 countries.

I haven't met a single southern European backpacker in Australia and very few in India or Southeast Asia. I think that tells a lot about the cultural difference between northern and southern Europe. Interestingly, England and the Netherlands have the lowest combined scores for uncertainty avoidance and collectivism. In other words, English and Dutch people are individualistic, independent risk-takers. It is no surprise that they are so entrepreneurial too, and that they spawned vast colonial empires developed almost solely by private entrepreneurs (East & West India Companies) as opposed to state-sponsored expeditions like in the case of France, Spain, Germany or Japan.

Why do you think it is that English colonies fared so well ? Because more people migrated there to populate them ? Yes, but why ? British people having a low uncertainty avoidance, more individualistic and entrepreneurial, they were less afraid of leaving everything behind and migrate to the new colonies to start a new life. They were more successful at it too. In contrast, the Spaniards conquered the Americas in search for gold, silver and precious stones. They were motivated by greed, then usually came back to Spain to spend the fortune they had acquired. Others just went to convert the pagans (religious zeal). The most ethnically European former Spanish colonies today are Uruguay and Argentina, which both have big non-Iberian communities (French, Italian, German), mostly from 20th century immigration (far less adventurous than in past centuries). French colonies were almost only settled by the King's soldiers to protect the state's interests, but didn't attract a lot of immigrants. English colonies were not commissioned by the state, by individual enterprises, and each colony was completely independent from the next.

The Dutch colonisation of South Africa is the one rare other example of a major European colony founded by a group of people just leaving their homeland of their own will to create a new colony of their own without seeking fortune or thinking of extending their country's dominion. Actually the Dutch, Danes and Swedes all had minor colonies in North America that were all later absorbed by the mass of British migrants. This included New Amsterdam (now called New York), and what would become the states of New Jersey and Delaware (New Sweden).

I am convinced that entrepreneurialism, like individualism and uncertainty avoidance, is deeply rooted is one's genes. One cannot choose if he/she is individualistic or not, no more than he/she can choose if he is a risk-taker or not. The ugly truth behind this is that countries where the gene pool has a high percentage of entrepreneur-minded, independent ("self-employed-minded") people will naturally have a lower unemployment in equal circumstances compared to a country of collectivist-minded people with a high fear of risk. This is undoubtedly why northern European countries as well as Canada and Australia, founded mostly by risk-taking entrepreneurs from northern Europe, will always cope better in the adversity than southern European countries (or most non-Western countries). When the economy is bad, employees and civil servants get fired and less people are hired to replace those who retire. You can't lose your job if you are self-employed. You don't have to worry about being hired if you start own your business.

Instead of waiting for a company or the government to recruit them, the 50% of unemployed Spanish youths should try doing something useful and start their own businesses, instead of blaming society or the economy. Unless they just can't because their genes is preventing them, riddling them with fear. But who is to blame then ?
 
Eastern Slavs are very individualistic,compared even to Scandos,who seems to be most individualistic from Europe.

Romanians,even if Romance speakers,especially those from Moldavia,are very individualistic .
Believe or not,but being a team worker is something that is very appreciated in Scandinavia and in Great Britain.
And this (team working) brings much better results.
As for being a team worker or not,is not about genes,but about education.
Eastern Europeans are like that because of the hardships they got here.
What is weird is that Greeks are not like that,I mean individualistic.
And this individualistic attitude brings a raise in un-employment for the simple reason that people are rather putting someone they know to work more,or refuse to get more jobs,rather than employ new people.
I know these things very well,since I live in Romania.
As for Greeks and Italians,the un-employment is high because of the education.
The education they got was not one to praise work.
So you can see that in Romania and Ukraine and Russia and other pure Eastern European countries (like Belarus,Poland is not pure Eastern European mentality country) most people are willing to work,even if for low earnings and bad conditions but they do not find what.
Why?
Simple,because of individualism of others and anti-social attitude of people on high positions,who determine if someone will be hired or not.
I suspect the high individualism of Scandinavians and their anti-social attitude is not a Germanic trait,but something inherited from their Eastern neighbours,that is Baltic people and Slavic people.As for Finnic people,they seems to be different from Slavic and Baltic people.
I mean Great Britain people are well known to be one of the most tolerant and open minded people,who are not discriminating against strangers,just because they are strangers etc.
And Great Britain education is for sure mostly Germanic.
However,Germany population is not Germanic anymore,Germany was born from mixing of old Germans from there with Old Prussians,who were Baltic people and this thing is clearly shown by admixture tests.
They also seems to mixed with Slavs in significant numbers.
 
South-eastern, strictly speaking :).

Moldavia is no way South_Eastern,they are fully Eastern.
As physical look,is very hard to distinguish between Ukrainians and Moldovans,same about Moldovans from Romania.
 
That is emotional intelligence. If one has high emotional intelligence but lacks empathy will use it for the purposes that you mentioned. So for eg Gandhi had high EQ but he also had empathy, that most of us would recognize it as wisdom, while Hitler and others alike (dictators) had high EQ but lacked empathy. All the leaders (in whatever category, business, political or social) have high EQs, the difference for better or for worse is in the empathy. Stephen Covey explains this perfectly in his 8th habit.

Well, if the definition empathy="knowing what others feel" holds, then empathy is a necessity to have a high EQ. But if Covey is right, then all autists should be psychopaths, but they aren't.
I hope I'll find time eventually to read some of Covey's explanations, just in case I missed something. I hope he writes something about sadists and bullies too, and whether they are empathic or high EQ or not. Because I wonder how someone could be sadist without the ability to feel his victim's misery. But again I'm a hobbyist thinker only and maybe I'm missing something. Thanks again for the literature reference.
 
Moldavia is no way South_Eastern,they are fully Eastern.
As physical look,is very hard to distinguish between Ukrainians and Moldovans,same about Moldovans from Romania.

Checking the longitudes, Moldavia is in the South-eastern quarter as Romania is. And I'm surprised to hear that Ukrainians resemble Romanians by physical look.
Most part of Ukraine is fully eastern though, that's true I agree.
 
Sorry, you're correct. The countries I mentioned are, strictly speaking, Eastern Europe.
No problem. Anyway I was loosely referring to longitudinal position, more in relative terms. Generally speaking, the more north one goes, one can find less emotional people, the more south one goes, the more emotional people are. On other hand I don't think there is any significant difference in IQ among european countries, giving same level of education.
 
Well, if the definition empathy="knowing what others feel" holds, then empathy is a necessity to have a high EQ. But if Covey is right, then all autists should be psychopaths, but they aren't.
I hope I'll find time eventually to read some of Covey's explanations, just in case I missed something. I hope he writes something about sadists and bullies too, and whether they are empathic or high EQ or not. Because I wonder how someone could be sadist without the ability to feel his victim's misery.
Psychopaths or sadists have "reversed" empathy, a negative empathy. They don't feel compassion, but instead they feel pleasure when seeing other's misery or suffering. I suspect a faulty wiring between visual cortex and amygdala where the emotions are located in our brains.
Sadists hurt people on purpose to get pleasurable excitement, to get high, often connected to sexual one.
Autistic people hurt others accidentally because without empathy they don't know they hurt others.
 
I'm surprised that nobody has yet mentioned the most obvious cultural reason for differences between northern and southern Europe, which is religion. The northern countries are mostly protestant whereas the southern countries are mostly catholic or orthodox. Protestantism encourages independent thinking and individual initiative. At its most rigid, it can also encourage anger and selfishness, as seen in the religious right in the U.S. However, liberal protestants and agnostics/atheists from a protestant background are generally in favour of honesty and fairness, so protestant countries generally have less corruption and their people tend to favour having good social structures. Whereas a more authoritarian religious structure such as catholicism or orthodox systems seem to breed corruption and dependency, with people having strong family ties in order to survive but having far less initiative. That's my opinion, anyway.
 
Germany is Catholic,Italy is Catholic,however,Germany is much more developed that Italy.
What is the difference?
Corruption.
Italy is very corrupt,while Germany have very few problems with corruption.
From where this corruption was inherited?
I think from Roman Empire times.
 
Germany is Catholic,Italy is Catholic,however,Germany is much more developed that Italy.
What is the difference?
Corruption.
Italy is very corrupt,while Germany have very few problems with corruption.
From where this corruption was inherited?
I think from Roman Empire times.


Germany is about 50/50 protestant and catholic, with the protestants more common in the more industrial north. France is nominally catholic but religion has been discouraged by government there for a long time, whereas catholicism is still very powerful in Spain, Portugal and Italy. And in the Balkans, it's divided between catholic, orthodox and moslem. If the Croats and Serbs were honest, they'd admit that they're basically the same people but Croats are catholic and Serbs are orthodox. Centralized religions make societies stagnate, IMO.
 
Germany is about 50/50 protestant and catholic, with the protestants more common in the more industrial north.

Actually not anymore. Today it's clearly the south which is the industrial one. Bavaria as the most strictly catholic province is second wealthiest today, right after Baden-Würtenberg, which is part-catholic. The northern protestant provinces (except Hamburg) today are almost all among the poorest. The northernmost provinces are also the most agricultural and Bremen is close to bankruptcy, even worse than most east-german towns (east Germany has a special recent history as we know).
But for the past you are right, it was the protestant north, in particular the north-east (Prussia, Saxony, Silesia) which was the most modern and industrial.
 
No problem. Anyway I was loosely referring to longitudinal position, more in relative terms. Generally speaking, the more north one goes, one can find less emotional people, the more south one goes, the more emotional people are. On other hand I don't think there is any significant difference in IQ among european countries, giving same level of education.

I made the often fatal mistake of taking a web site at face value.:0
 
Germany is about 50/50 protestant and catholic, with the protestants more common in the more industrial north. France is nominally catholic but religion has been discouraged by government there for a long time, whereas catholicism is still very powerful in Spain, Portugal and Italy. And in the Balkans, it's divided between catholic, orthodox and moslem. If the Croats and Serbs were honest, they'd admit that they're basically the same people but Croats are catholic and Serbs are orthodox. Centralized religions make societies stagnate, IMO.
Republic of Ireland,which is mostly Catholic,got a higher GDP/capita than Great Britain,which is mostly Protestant.
Austria,which is also Catholic,got a very high GDP per capita.
 
I see that the protestant/catholic = rich/poor does not always hold, but

Republic of Ireland,which is mostly Catholic,got a higher GDP/capita than Great Britain,which is mostly Protestant.

Ireland experienced a boom bubble right before the financial crisis. Now Ireland is considered part or the "PIIGS countries".
It was actually the only time when Ireland experienced some wealth since the middle ages. Else it was much of the time europe's poorest country.

By the way, the now rich Bavaria which is very catholic was also the poorest and backward region of Germany until few decades ago.

Austria,which is also Catholic,got a very high GDP per capita.

That's true. Austria has a stable wealthy society and was an empire in the past. On the other hand, catholic Spain and Portugal were once the biggest world empires too.
 
Well, if the definition empathy="knowing what others feel" holds, then empathy is a necessity to have a high EQ. But if Covey is right, then all autists should be psychopaths, but they aren't.
I hope I'll find time eventually to read some of Covey's explanations, just in case I missed something. I hope he writes something about sadists and bullies too, and whether they are empathetic or high EQ or not. Because I wonder how someone could be sadist without the ability to feel his victim's misery. But again I'm a hobbyist thinker only and maybe I'm missing something. Thanks again for the literature reference.

The correct definition would be: empathy="feeling what others feel (for e.g. feeling hurt almost the same way as the other person hurts, whoever they may be"; while EQ = "ability to read emotional data in me and in others therefore being able to manipulate (manage) my feelings and of others"

We can build empathy by finding our noble goal, people that have a noble goal in their lives are empathetic.

For the autistics maybe we could start another thread to discuss the issue...
 
Last edited:
I am afraid there could be some genetic predisposition for the Balkan countries at least. The Balkans so far have not been able to employ their own people. Lack the work ethics and desire to work.
The anecdote that circulates in Albania is like this: A German goes to the library and stays 5 Hours inside, an Italian goes inside comes around but does not stay, an Albanian looks from the window who is inside.
Been small countries is a big minus as well. Inadequate schooling system. No country has been enriched by agriculture alone. Time will tell.
 
Been small countries is a big minus as well. Inadequate schooling system. No country has been enriched by agriculture alone. Time will tell.

Actually it is easier to manage a small country than a large one. In Europe the most developed, educated and peaceful countries are typically small (Switzerland, Austria, Benelux, Scandinavian countries, Finland, Ireland).
 
I am afraid there could be some genetic predisposition for the Balkan countries at least. The Balkans so far have not been able to employ their own people. Lack the work ethics and desire to work.
The anecdote that circulates in Albania is like this: A German goes to the library and stays 5 Hours inside, an Italian goes inside comes around but does not stay, an Albanian looks from the window who is inside.
Been small countries is a big minus as well. Inadequate schooling system. No country has been enriched by agriculture alone. Time will tell.

It might be weather related, in harsh cold climates or deserts you have to be somewhat driven and motivated in order to survive (you better take things seriously when it is -20 C and you have no proper shelter). The same goes for places with extremely high population density and competition (ex:Japan). However if you want to go the genetic route, someone might speculate that these "motivated" people might have a problem relaxing and having fun, or making real friendships (since it is always about stuff...). In places like equatorial Africa, you can just wear a leaf and live in a tent all year around.
 
Actually it is easier to manage a small country than a large one. In Europe the most developed, educated and peaceful countries are typically small (Switzerland, Austria, Benelux, Scandinavian countries, Finland, Ireland).



There is a social laboratory to test the genetic deficiency of people from around the world.
That is USA. All people start from equally social conditions to better themselves. The only one who have distinguished themselves are the Jewish. My observation is that South Europeans distinguish themselves in arts and sports. Hollywood without Southerns is dead.
Southern Europeans have the same share in percentage terms of rich, poor and middle class people as Northers.
Small Nordic countries economies function as a complementary of bigger ones. They have started to feel the disadvantage of being small. Finland was once the biggest producer of phones. Lack of manpower led to shortages of engineers and eventually Nokia went bust. Many other industries will follow. So did Sweden's car building industry. Irish had not been for the financial aid from Britain would have been on the boats by now, on the way to Boston.Nothing has gone bust in Germany. So, yes being small its a disadvantage in economic terms.
 
Romanians over these forums badmouthing Southern Europeans/Balkanites and especially Italians, make me laugh hard. Is the level of self hate among these self declared "Romans" really so high?

Do I really need to post some links about how Romanians behave in Western Europe and everywhere they go? LOL.
 

This thread has been viewed 219888 times.

Back
Top