Today there are two leading development strategies in the policy-making world: grow first and create proper structures later, or do the opposite. Any discussion on this subject always mentions the importance of economic and political freedoms, as well the significance of the rule of law. Whichever approach is chosen, people are not focusing enough on culture. That is the reason why so many countries have failed in achieving development. Instead of working with cultures in creating viable strategies and institutions, policy makers have continuously been doing the very opposite. Universalism, instead of “thinking local,” is bound to fail.

A single solution for all problems does not exist. Every country needs to achieve development, but certainly not in a once established way. The results are also most likely going to be different. People from various cultures will live in a different way. Not only is this a matter of preference and choice, but also of the resulting implicit efficiency and suitability. A developmental approach that is embedded in a local culture has a much greater chance to succeed because of its smaller amount of unwanted negative side effects, such as inadequate social structures, disrespect for the law, feelings of alienation, lack of motivation (economic inefficiency) and appreciation for existent economic, as well as political, freedoms. Human values and local perceptions of reality always have to be at the core of any economic development analysis.

Japan is a very good example of a non-western nation that successfully embraced, in a unique way, the free market principles. It is now the world’s second-largest economic power thanks to a strong work ethic, the superior importance of the community (e.g. a firm), the emphasis on education and high savings levels. For years the economic system, deeply embedded in the Japanese culture, guaranteed success and stability. Its symbiosis with the local mentality, which has been developing for centuries, made the transition to a highly sophisticated market smoother and greatly contributed to an impressive period of economic growth.

Singapore is another remarkable example of economic success. Unlike most developed countries, Singapore does not have a democratic system, but rather a relatively complex form of autocratic rule. The government consistently enjoys widespread public support, which many elected leaders are dreaming of. The country offers a remarkably stable, open and corruption-free environment. The economy depends heavily on exports, particularly in electronics and manufacturing. Where does this success come from in such a distinct non-democratic Asian country? Culture is again the answer: work ethic, very strict laws (respected by the people), creativity, accepted form of political stability and willingness to be subject to the ups and downs of the global economy.

Microeconomic success, which is based on culture, can be very well-observed in Israel. It is the only country in the world where living arrangements based on communist principles, the kibbutz, actually have succeeded. Today many Israelis have revenues counted in millions of dollars, not only focusing on agrarian products, but also on electronics and diamond processing. At the same time, they still maintain their ideological socialist foundation. Why did the very same attempts fail elsewhere (e.g. as PGR’s in Poland)? Because only in Israel is the idea built on a culture that allows for success. Zionism, the Jews’ religious obedience to God’s commandments and the entrepreneurial spirit results in everyone’s sense of duty to work on a business that is owned by the community. It is unique that responsibility, efficiency and lack of theft characterizes these living arrangements.

The importance of religion in economic development has been examined numerous times is the past, most notably by the famous German sociologist Max Weber a century ago. People’s beliefs contribute to the creation of a cultural framework within which people operate, even if centuries later some form of atheism, for example, is dominant. Recent research by Luigi Zingales of the University of Chicago shows that, in terms of the values important for economic development, Muslims around the world fall on the low end of the scale. Buddhism, on the other hand, seems to promote the best attitudes toward a free-market system. Christians come in second after Buddhists.

There is a significant relationship between economic performance and culture, but there are no simple answers. This does not mean though that culture may be in any way ignored. It is necessary to look at development through a cultural lens. Policy makers must stop attempting to come up with a one-for-all solution, and instead they should be working with the local people case by case. Generalizations, as tempting as they may be, will cause failure, no matter how tempting they sound. Only by focusing on cultures will we be able to understand why there are so many economic examples in the world that are seen as irrational or anomalies.

Wisniewski is a senior economics and Spanish major and a columnist for The Spectator.