Dimensions and Dynamics of National Culture: Synthesizing Hofstede With Inglehart

TLDR

Cross‑national studies of culture span many disciplines, yet Hofstede’s dimensional framework dominates psychology and management while Inglehart’s dynamic approach is favored in sociology and political science, each overlooking the other’s key dimension. The authors aim to synthesize Hofstede’s dimensional and Inglehart’s dynamic cultural concepts to overcome their individual limitations and provide a more comprehensive understanding of cultural differences. They analyze 495,011 respondents from 110 countries using European Value Studies and World Values Surveys to track how Hofstede‑style dimensions evolve over time as predicted by Inglehart’s theory. Empirically, the synthesis shows that younger generations are increasingly individualistic and joyful, yet about half of national cultural variation remains country‑specific, driven by enduring historical factors beyond economic development and generational change.

Abstract

Cross-national research on cultural differences across space and time intersects multiple disciplines but the prominence of concepts varies by academic fields. Hofstede's dimensional concept of culture, to begin with, dominates in cross-cultural psychology and international management. Inglehart's dynamic concept of culture, by contrast, prevails in sociology and political science. We argue that this disciplinary division is unfortunate because the two concepts are complementary, for which reason a synthesis rectifies their mutual weaknesses. Indeed, while Hofstede's dimensional concept neglects cultural dynamics, Inglehart's dynamic concept is dimensionally reductionist. We demonstrate empirically that combining these two concepts leads to an improved understanding of cultural differences. Inspired by Hofstede's cultural dimensions, we use data from the European Value Studies and World Values Surveys for 495,011 individuals born between 1900 and 1999 in 110 countries and then show that change on these dimensions proceeds as Inglehart and his collaborators suggest. Most notably, younger generations have become more individualistic and more joyous. But even though economic development and generational replacement drive this cultural change, roughly half of the variation in national cultural orientations is unique to each country, due to lasting intercept differences in developmental trajectories that trace back to remote historic drivers. We discuss the implications for cross-national cultural research.