Huntington then observes: “How could this extraordinary difference in development be explained? Undoubtedly, many factors played a role, but it seemed that culture had to be a large part of the explanation. South Koreans valued thrift, investment, hard work, education, organization, and discipline. Ghanaians had different values. In short, cultures count.”<sup>20</sup> The problem with this formulation is that it quickly suggests that Ghanaians live beyond their means, are lazy and uneducated, disorganized and undisciplined. Such a message does not provide a very auspicious basis to start a dialogue with Ghana as to how they could catch up with Korea. Not surprisingly, while not necessarily rejecting the importance of culture in shaping a nation’s political and economic development, international financial organizations, bilateral donors and others have tended to shy away from framing the debate in terms of cultural norms. But this is not all. Beyond issues of presentation or packaging, or the particular way in which one frames the debate, it is possible that “culture”, in fact, disguises other forces at work, that what appears to be culture is actually something else, more amenable to change, less fixed in a nation’s “genetic” code, as many might think laziness and disorderliness to be.

Another problematic example is that raised by comparing Chile and Argentina, two countries sharing a border actually longer than that between the continental United States and Canada and a broadly similar culture, with strong Catholic underpinnings. Over the past quarter century Chile has had sustained, fast economic growth—its recent admission to the OECD, the rich-country club, is explicit recognition of its success in implementing credible economic and institutional reforms that have reduced poverty faster than anywhere else in Latin America and in giving the country the highest credit ratings in the region. By way of contrast, Argentina was a G10 power in the first part of the 20<sup>th</sup> century and had the best scientific and higher education infrastructure in Latin America by the 1950s<sup>21</sup> , but has since _regressed_ , in the wake of decades of economic mismanagement, to an economy with all the characteristics of Michael Porter’s factordriven stage of development (1990). This regression was caused, in particular, by an undue reliance on exports of primary commodities as the principal source of economic growth, high levels of corruption and, in an unusual recent turn, the gradual disappearance of reliable statistics, as a result of authoritarian, state-sponsored tampering and manipulation.<sup>22</sup> The widely divergent development paths of Chile and Argentina can be explained on the whole by differences in economic policy and choices made by successive governments in both countries to introduce coherent and well-formulated reforms (in Chile) or quite otherwise in Argentina, of which the cooking of economic data is perfectly emblematic. No need for “cultural” explanations to grasp these countries’ recent economic histories.<sup>23</sup>

> 20 Huntington, p. xiii.

> 21 Until relatively recently Argentina was the only country in Latin America whose citizens have earned Nobel prizes in science, with three awards going to Messrs. Houssay (Physiology or Medicine), Leloir (Chemistry), and Milstein (Physiology or Medicine).

> 22 See, for instance, “Hocus-pocus: The real world consequences of producing unreal inflation figures.” _The Economist_ , 14 June 2008, p. 56. A more recent assessment by _The Economist_ , commenting on mid-term elections suggests that inflation figures are worth little because: “Mr Kischner put stooges in the statistics office and they massage the numbers.” (See: “A chance to change course.” 20 June 2009)

> 23 On the Chilean experience see López-Claros (2004).

12