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 ?
 
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.

They are Balkans as well. Like other Balkan people the steal, cheat and are lazy.
But to their credit they have good taste for art and architecture. Bucharest is the jewel of the east.
 
O'RLY? You don't really know Romanians on the internetwebz. Now they think that they are Central-Eastern Europeans because they live North of the Danube river. I know it's funny and at the same time they are always badmouthing their southern neighbours like Bulgarians and Greeks. There must be something wrong in Romania.
 
Roma-nia is such an advanced country.

Corruption in Europe.

_72724992_eu_corruption_labels_624map(3).gif


Investments in innovation

innovation-performance-2014.jpg
 
"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. "

They also have high disposable incomes and relatively long annual holidays comparing to most others, including people from the US.

"I haven't met a single southern European backpacker in Australia and very few in India or Southeast Asia."

I have travelled to more than 70 countries due to my line of work. During the golden (bubble) years of economic growth in Greece (2000-2009), I was impressed by the number of Greek travellers I met in some of the world's most remote destinations. 5 years into the crisis, my compatriots have returned to their traditional holiday destinations, in other words the Greek islands and the mountainous villages of the mainland. There is a very strong correlation between foreign holidays and economics.

It is not a coincindence that throughout our history we have been seafarers and up to this date shipping is one of our biggest industries, therefore I seriously doubt that we lack the urge to travel and take risks, despite being southern Europeans.

As for individuallity and enterpreneurship, although it is hard to measure, I believe that the number of SMEs in an economy is a good indicator. It is interesting that SMEs are the workhorse of the economy both in non neighbouring countries such as Greece and Germany, while countries in between differ.
In any case, I do not think this is a genetic issue. I am more inclined to believe that it has to do with social, cultural and historical reasons. For instance, former communist countries show greater collectivism. The difference between West and East Germany is a good example.
 
Maciamo I doubt it very much, social-cultural circumstances and the genepool, looks not close to me. Especially because the genetic differences within a region are mostly bigger then between regions... Of course some phenotypes can be more dominant in a region. But the fact that I've blond hair doesn't make me an entrepreneur, does it?
When it comes to individualistic, entrepreneur behavior I can see a loose connection with the free independent peasant of Germanic, Northwestern Europe. The churl in Old English, see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Churl
But look at Amsterdam one of the hatchery's of modern, entrepreneur capitalism. Due to the Dutch revolt (1568-1648), Amsterdam became a safe haven and free mind spirit (before that not very obvious it was a small fisherman's town, very catholic devoted, pilgrims place). But due to a diversity of genes, Sefaridim (and ex-Sefaridim like Spinoza) from Southern Europe, Protestant and Catholic Westfalians and Rhinelanders, Anabaptist from anywhere in Europe, Calvinist from France and Belgium, you name it....al with a very big entrepreneur element within it!. New Amsterdam euhm York inherited this culture and made it over the top! But certainly not due to a particular gene pool.
Look at Wallonië in the nineteenth century very industrialized, one of the wealthiest places in Europe, more advanced than Flanders. Nowadays certainly not, but the people are more or less the same....And in France is Nord Pas de Calais the most "Germanic" of France but not the most entrepreneurial.
So I tend to say the gene pool has not a close connection with things as unemployment and entrepreneurship. If then nowadays the other way around: the more prospered, the more wealth, the more gene diversity (let's the take the gene pool of Sillicon Valley ;)
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/apr/11/powerful-indians-silicon-valley
 
Last edited:
I'm surprised someone like Maciano would ponder on such question, given that he takes establishment positions on nearly everything. Genes clearly matter. An obvious one, no has asked, and I'll be the first: how come all the scientific breakthroughs seem to be have brought to us by men who belong to haplogroup I?
 
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 ?
I usually like your work. But in this case - I have to tend to disagree. Everyone of every nation is different. I once heard the claim that people with haplogroup I2 have unusually lower IQ's. While that may be true; it does not necessarily mean they are dumb.

But I suppose, some haplogroups are genetic markers that show predetermination for genetic diseases and such. Mitochondrial. Could that be the reason why older Y haplogroups are dying out? Such as haplogroup C? In the future, it seems I2 will become about almost as rare as G2a or something. Bosnia carries it the highest; and nobody is having children.
 
I'm surprised someone like Maciano would ponder on such question, given that he takes establishment positions on nearly everything. Genes clearly matter. An obvious one, no has asked, and I'll be the first: how come all the scientific breakthroughs seem to be have brought to us by men who belong to haplogroup I?

Would you care to elaborate on that? Which scientists are known to belong to haplogroup I? There are lots of politicians, writers and singers among hg I, but to my knowledge there isn't any famous scientist in the list yet.

Famous scientists/tech entrepreneurs whose haplogroup is known are either R1b (Copernicus, Darwin, James Wilson, Craig Venter), Q1b (Oppenheimer), J2b1 (Anthony Pople) or E1b1b (Harvey, Einstein, Steven Pinker, Larry Page). We only know the Y-DNA of a few inventors: the Wright brothers (E1b1b) and Nikola Tesla (R1a). Of course we only know the haplogroups of only a tiny fraction of renowned scientists and tech people, so it's probably not representative.
 
I usually like your work. But in this case - I have to tend to disagree. Everyone of every nation is different. I once heard the claim that people with haplogroup I2 have unusually lower IQ's. While that may be true; it does not necessarily mean they are dumb.

Who claimed that I2 people had lower IQ's? I2 is one of the rare haplogroups defined by a mutation known to affect brain function, but the I2 people I know tend to be intelligent and particularly methodical and meticulous. I have I2 relatives who are engineers and a maths professor at a renowned university.
 
I think any genetic signal for traits like entrepreneurship will get buried by things like a nations legal system, religion, culture, recent history etc. When it comes to the north-south divide, the link with welfare systems seem much stronger. Basically, a good welfare system that lets you pick yourself up and try again after failure (and I believe most new businesses fail) without massive consequences for your family encouranges entrepreneurship far more than a setting where you and your family may be ruined for life by failure.

There are presumably other factors affecting entrepreneurship, but social mobility do seem to be the highest in places with strong welfare systems and lowest in places like the US with weaker setups.
 

This thread has been viewed 219987 times.

Back
Top