Cross-Culture

How the West will meet and ultimately accommodate the BRICS challenge

The awesome emergence of the BRICS union, comprising nations representing 4 major engines of global economic growth, backed by half the planet’s population already produces nearly 50% of world GDP. The continued expansion of this group – Brazil, Russia, India and China – would eventually relegate into second place the once indefatigable “west” both in terms of production and consumerism. As China consolidates her position as “the factory of the world”, as India could soon outrank all rival consumers, would not this union (drawing on seemingly limitless supplies of Brazilian, Russian and ultimately purchased African commodities and agricultural assets) begin to relentlessly dominate world trade patterns?

The rapidly increasing world population and improving incomes in large countries will double or treble middle class consumerism in due course. This will be particularly noticeable in India and China, but Indonesia, Nigeria and Brazil, as well as a dozen other large nations, will seek the same benefits. The increase in demand will be an eastern phenomenon, but we must not forget that consumer demand will not abate in the west. Americans have historically displayed reluctance to lower their standard of living and the current economic difficulties in the Eurozone and elsewhere have failed to dampen enthusiasm for betterment of conditions, even when it is clearly risky in the middle and long term. Street protests against austerity in Spain, Italy, Greece and France have demonstrated clearly that the ‘haves’ are not willing to be bullied into being “have-nots”.

At this particular point in history (the 2013-2014 “tipping point”), the west is in danger of playing second fiddle (in the coming decade) to the resurgent East as to dictating the terms of production, pricing, supply and demand, even choice of available products, fashions, tastes. (We manufacture more cheaply than you do, faster and on a bigger scale, and, as we are also the biggest customers, we have the last say). If the BRICS were able to speak in one voice and if dozens of other poor or semi-emerging nations were to buttress them, western abilities to influence trading terms, product manufacture, distribution mechanisms, trends and fashions, financial services and globalisation maxims would come under pressure. In the 19th and 20th centuries western powers had the strength, resources and historical momentum to bully other nations. They created empires, acquired assets and set trading terms. Globalisation was alive and well in the decades leading up to the First World War. But it was globalisation on British, American, French, Portuguese and Dutch terms. That is now history. How can you bully a world where one person in five is Chinese, where India is the biggest market and where the majority of the world’s agricultural and mineral assets are in Africa, South America and Russia?

This writer is not levelling criticisms at the western powers’ dominance of political and economic events that took place in the previous two centuries. These nations did no more than accept the historical opportunities which beckoned. One would not wish to waste time today questioning the exigencies of the Persian, Roman or Ottoman Empires. Neither can we blame the BRICS if, with their potential followers, they attempt to dictate economic and ultimately political terms to the west. History may well have designed it this way. Every nation, group of nations or civilisation is entitled to its timely destiny. The British certainly exploited to the full their opulent coal seams! The BRICS must, and will, press home their advantages. I discussed in my last article the question of who will lead this union. Russia, with her largely European heritage, could be a key player. But we cannot discount China with her huge population, work ethic and financial reserves.

Neither should we discount the resistance of the west. Prophets of doom on the subject of the Decline of the West have a plethora of statistics to support their line of reasoning. The current European squabbles, lack of unity and band-aid solutions, as well as the stuttering US economy and its endemic social, welfare, educational and immigration problems give rise to a pessimistic view of progress for the rest of the decade. This writer, however, is of the opinion that it has always been difficult to forecast historical events in economic or military terms. Who would have forecast, in 1900, the emergence of Japan as the world’s second economic power? Who would have backed the Allies, in 1940, to utterly destroy the German and Japanese nations in five short years? Economic and military power tend to be cyclical. The Fortune 500 list of 1914 has only 4 survivors today. The mighty Austro-Hungarian empire of 1914 no longer exists. A nation’s culture, however, is not so whimsical. National culture changes slowly – not in decades, hardly in centuries, sometimes not for millennia. No student of the cultural histories of China, India or Russia could fail to foresee their eventual rise to major roles in world affairs. By the same token, national cultures will play an important role in the interplay between the four BRICS nations.

The West will not take diminishment of their influence on world trade lying down. They can and will resist in a variety of ways; again, cultural considerations will feature to a large degree in their reaction and comportment. Democracies are deceptive in the way they act and defend themselves. Dictators and totalitarian regimes have a tendency to brandish power, by means of military (goose-stepping) parades (Fascist Germany and Italy) or overt threats of aggression (North Korea). They are often quick to act, regardless of risk (Pearl Harbor, Hitler’s Anschluss and occupation of Czechoslovakia, Galtieri’s move into the Falklands). If we contrast these events with America’s tardy intervention in two world wars or the current use of soft power wielded by the European Union, we perceive a different kind of strength, perhaps better described as resilience. Victor Davis Hanson, in his book “How the West Has Won”, gives a convincing account of democratic triumphalism throughout history. Democratic regimes tend to “go through the gears” before attaining momentum (e.g. British “muddling through”) and often delay action until they are seriously under siege. Then at some point they consolidate their power and resources. In the long run, they often prevail.

If we consider that the power of the BRICS and other emerging states will soon put the West under economic siege, in what manner and to what extent can the latter consolidate, and/or achieve equilibrium? Given the slowness of democratic deliberations, how much time do they have? Is the current western economic decline too late to reverse? Where can one find seeds of western optimism?

For a start, let us scrutinize the semi-miracle of the emerging powers’ growth. It was spectacular in China most of all. In the first decade of this century, China established herself as the first global mega-trader since Britain in her imperial hey-day. Double-digit growth was taken for granted; India, Russia and Brazil, though less prolific, were almost as successful. What were the reasons for this decade of growth, which elevated the BRICS’ share of world GDP from 30% to 50%? What enabled 73% of developing countries to outpace growth in the United States? To begin with, population increase made available a huge pool of cheap labour; global poverty decreased, creating more customers; costs of shipping and communication tumbled, resulting in more rapid delivery of goods on a world-wide scale. Interconnectivity made even more cheap labour available: emerging economics added 900 million non-farm jobs between 1980 and 2010. Chinese demand for commodities drove up prices sky-high, enabling fellow-BRICS Russia and Brazil to share the boom.

This startling period of growth set a historical precedent which is unlikely to be repeated, as emerging economies mature and the “catch-up” period comes to an end. In 2013 (the tipping point year for eastern countries) a deceleration of growth in the BRICS quartet is already visible. The four major powers continue to grow at a healthy rate, but the rates of growth have declined. Chinese growth has dropped from 10% plus to 7.5%. India now 5%, Russia and Brazil at around 2.5%. As far as trends go, the writing is on the wall and it is largely pictographic (though also Cyrillic, Hindu and Latin). Nevertheless, the BRICS powers have amassed reserves of almost $5 trillion.

The BRICS economic growth will continue. The boom may be over, but a bust will not necessarily follow. Russians and Chinese are also resilient people. But the threat to the west is being countered in various ways. China faces demographic problems (fewer workers, more pensioners). India and Brazil are experiencing serious inflation; declining commodity prices are affecting Russian income (and America’s shale industries will soon drive down oil and gas prices even more). Mexico is reversing its policy of barring foreign energy companies from exploiting its huge oil (and shale!) reserves, a change that favours the West more than the East. Renascent American ingenuity must sooner or later achieve technological breakthroughs in making energy cheaper, enabling people and companies to save more.

In palpable terms, Obama’s push towards the creation of the Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership is the first highly visible move towards Western consolidation. The conclusion of this deal planned for 2014 would establish a huge free-trade zone balancing approximately half of the world’s GDP against that of the BRICS. Nominally a bloc uniting the resources of the United States and the European Union, it is in reality heavily dependent on Germany and the strengthening of her ties to the US. Germany is by far Europe’s main engine of growth with her prolific exports and renowned advanced industries and pool of skilled workers. Allied to this dynamic economic core will be Britain, France, Italy, Spain, Poland, Austria, Slovakia, the Czechs and the four Scandinavian countries – modest contributors in comparison with the BRICS powers – but substantially outweighing the West’s opponents in Venezuela, Cuba, North Korea and elsewhere.

The eventual success of the Trans-Atlantic Partnership will materialise only if the 30-odd states involved achieve a significant degree of cultural harmony. (The BRICS powers face a similar challenge). Were cultural differences to be reconciled (and the EU is not finding this easy) then the increased economic opportunities are breathtaking. Washington’s aim of doubling US exports and increasing investment and consumption would be facilitated as American shale gas, biotechnical devices, computers, micro-processors and IT accessories would pour into Germany and other European countries. These would themselves export German cars, machine tools, medical equipment, British financial services, Italian and Scandinavian designs to the US. Economists calculate the creation of over one million jobs over a decade and at least 0.5 per cent increase in GDP on both sides of the Atlantic. Business amounting to $30 trillion would be achievable. China, despite her different economic agenda, will nevertheless continue, for years to come, to be the West’s star customer. In order to pay for the 10 million barrels of oil she uses every day, as well as for technologies she does not yet possess, she will need to export massively, mainly to the West. This is in itself a guarantee of a degree of continued peaceable relations with China.

In the end, culture will play a decisive role. Both the BRICS and the West have a jig-saw-like puzzle to solve. The cultural gaps are more awesome in the former case, but the Europeans have to deal with 28 different national aspirations, not to mention languages. Western leaders, particularly in recent economic crises, have hardly starred in shows of reconciliation – they will have to improve. Paradoxically, however, leadership in democratic states, as well as understand-thy-neighbour motivation, often emanates from the society itself. A totalitarian state usually has a powerful interventionist government and strong families, with sparse social fabric in between. China and Cuba, Mussolini’s Italy are good examples. Democratic countries have limited-power governments, weaker family structures, but a vigorous social fabric in between. These are largely voluntary associations such as charities, music and drama groups, parent-teacher associations, Boy Scouts, clubs (tennis, golf, martial arts), church-goers, Red Cross, YMCAs, Rotary, Lions, professional and trade groups arts and craft societies, private schools etc. This body of societal fabric is, as a whole, vibrant, active, positively-oriented, moral, and, ultimately influential. It embodies what we referred to earlier as Western resilience. It is also persuasively durable and self-perpetuating. This middle-class phenomenon, particularly visible in the US, Britain, Canada, Finland, Germany, Australia, the Netherlands, Belgium, Switzerland and the Scandinavian countries, will ultimately guide the West in its amicable accommodation with China, Russia and the other BRIC members and supporters.

By Richard D. Lewis

This article first appeared in The St. Petersburg Times

Russia’s role in the BRICS union

The BRICS union – comprising Brazil, Russia, India and China (with South Africa tagging along) – was partly the brainchild of Jim O’Neill, the recently retired chief economist at Goldman Sachs.  It is a powerful union, commanding half the world’s population and nearly 50% of world GDP.  These figures, as seen by the West, are daunting enough, but, with further analysis, their significance increases sharply in connection with their relation to the expansion of global growth.

The year 2013 may well represent a tipping point for the global economy.  For the first time since the Industrial Revolution galvanized Britain to dominate world trade in the 19th century, emerging economies will produce the majority of the world’s goods and services.  The inhabitants of the rich, advanced countries are about to become less important, in terms of both production and consumerism, than the masses of people living in the planet's poor and middle class income countries.  

This is no surprise, either to economists or governments.  Emerging nations have enjoyed greater growth for at least the last 25 years.  The centre of gravity of world economic growth has been moving steadily eastwards during the second half of the 20th century.  According to the McKinsey Global Institute, it was balanced for centuries between Europe and Eastern China, located somewhere near present-day Pakistan.  As Europe and North America industrialized, it moved northwest to a point between Iceland and Greenland about 1950, then quickly east with the rise of Japan and then China, finding itself in northern Siberia in 2010 and forecasted to be near Novosibirsk by 2025!

The former titans of the world economy – Britain, USA, Germany, France, Italy – are all rapidly dropping out of the top 10 producers and consumers as far as expansion is concerned.  By 2020, only the US stands a chance of qualifying.  By that year, the whole of the EU may well contribute only 5-6% of global economic expansion.  China and India will represent half of it.

China is, of course, a clear leader of growth, already starring for nearly 20 years with figures of 10% and more, but the other BRICS countries were not far behind and even non-BRICS states like Mexico and Indonesia made the top 10 around 1995.  The fastest-growing countries in 2013 included South Sudan (31%), Libya (20.2%), Mongolia (14%), Paraguay (11%), Panama (9%) and Mozambique (8.4%).  These figures are in some cases affected by political developments, but such “minnows” may well be inclined to follow BRICS leadership in the future in dealing with the West.

There is a clear link between rapid economic growth and huge populations.  Population growth in the West has been stagnating or, at best, increasing slightly.  It is a different story elsewhere, where large populations exist in countries such as Nigeria, Ethiopia, Turkey, Egypt, Vietnam, Pakistan, Bangladesh  (like aforementioned Mexico and Indonesia) and continue to show healthy growth.  The BRICS themselves cover half the globe.  If their union proves effective, their leadership might be useful for other aspiring areas, including Africa and South America.  Who will lead the BRICS?

One could answer quickly that China will.  The recent meeting between Obama and Xi Jinping gave rise to rumours of a planned joint hegemony – a world of bi-polar character – where a more amicable relationship between the US and China would increase their chances of leading, certainly influencing, initiatives of world significance in political, commercial and eventually cultural spheres.  This remains to be seen.  Of some certainty, however, is China’s leading role in industrialization and trade, not to mention her current financial strength.  Will she “call the tune” for the other three major BRIC powers?  This is by no means certain.

There is no doubt about the immense power (and especially the potential) of the BRIC bloc.  How will they “roll this out”?  What are they currently asking for?  They seek a meaningful dialogue with the West about the running of the IMF, the World Bank, the WTC and similar institutions.  Though international, these bodies are seen by the BRICS as Western creations and structures, designed to perpetuate the West’s influence and ability to “run the planet.”  There is little doubt that such an argument exists.  BRICS requires a greater voice in the running of such institutions.  Whose voice will it be?  The language used may be English, but what will be the tone?  Voluble, emotional Indian, fluid, charismatic Brazilian, reserved (often ambiguous) Chinese, or resolute, determined Russian? 

The question of “voice” – let us say effective communication – is only one issue.  Just as the four major BRICS nations communicate differently, their values are equally divergent.  Hindu philosophy and Roman Catholic doctrine have little in common with Chinese Buddhism and Confucianism or with Russia’s mix of Orthodoxy and secular beliefs.  Yet the BRICS' aims and aspirations will have to be expressed, pursued and strengthened in the next few years.  These nations cannot wait long – there is so much at stake – they will want to move forward, and convincingly.  Who will lead the pack?  

In communication terms, some questions arise.  China’s reserve, ambivalence and bouts of ambiguity, Brazil’s habitual euphoria and charisma (but lack of follow up), India’s Victorian rhetoric and rambling volubility are likely to prove less effective with Americans and Northern Europeans than Russians’ resolute, determined negotiating style.  These Anglo-American-Germanic fortresses will not be ceded easily.

Historians may remind us that in her very long history, China has never formed a long-lasting close relationship with any other power.  Her historical inclination is not to do so, and this complicates her attitudes towards inclusion or accommodation with Western countries (which in the course of history did her few favours)!  This complexity hinders her ability to lead the BRIC countries, with whom she is also likely to have internal cultural differences.

India?  With her technical brilliance, command of English and daring, risk-taking attributes, India would seem well-qualified to act as intermediary vis-à-vis the powerful Anglo-Saxon ingredients in the Western line-up, were it not for her inherent and persistent weaknesses in infrastructure, hygiene, gender issues, regional patchiness and stop-and-start leadership.

Brazil – a nation “whose time has come” (if there ever was one) – has had a transformation in national growth, drive and aspirations; she is asset-rich in the extreme, but traditionally sputters in advancement, habitually seeking the next “El Dorado” instead of pursuing process.  Geographically, too, she is out on a limb where essential BRICS close cooperation is concerned.

Which leaves us with RUSSIA – ubiquitous in land, active in 3 oceans (Atlantic, Pacific and Arctic), asset-rich beyond dreams, familiar with European, Asian and North American mentalities, aware of her past glories of Empire and civilisation, militarily adequate and confident, humanistic in her breadth of vision and in international affairs.

When it comes to involvement, Russia is in a unique situation.  If the US decided to pursue an isolationist course with regard to the rest of the world, it would be easier for her than for most other nations.  Defended by two giant oceans on her eastern and western coasts, she only needs to make some amicable arrangements with friendly neighbour Canada and have a little more patience with lively Mexico.  Only two land borders. 

With Russia, no such luxury exists.  With 14 common international terrestrial frontiers, not to mention her extensive maritime and oceanic presence, it will never be possible, let alone advisable, for Russia to isolate herself or even detach herself, from outside influence or observation; by the same token, she is inevitably involved with bilateral relations, interaction, initiatives and understanding with 14 other cultures.  History (and particularly geography) offered her no such escape route.  Good neighbourliness, perchance leadership, are opportunities that beckon.

These considerations lead us to think of BRICS leadership.  Is Russia a candidate?  In Western eyes she holds strong cards.  Her massive mineral assets, including oil and gas, are enduring.  The expansion and distribution of these (boons for humanity) inevitably signify substantial influence, soft power, steady solvency.

Her artistic record (ballet, opera, literature, theatre, the arts) unarguably qualify her to stand and speak with dignity among advanced, creative nations.  Her cultural structure – Eurasian, but largely basically European in theological, philosophical, artistic, historical and humanistic terms, places her closer to western thinking, outflanking even Brazil in geographic proximity and depth of sophistication.

Additionally, the quality of some of Russia's leading economists – those who paid off Russia's debts and stabilized the rouble in the years 2000 – 2011 – stand her in good stead to negotiate competently and adroitly with Western movers-and-shakers in the IMF, World Bank, WTC etc.

Finally, Russia's overpowering geography – the only extensive, unquestioned land bridge between East and West – gives her unique advantages in mediating geographical, financial, economic and ultimately political issues that might arise, not only with the West, but inside the BRICS structure too.

The BRICS concept is an immensely powerful one.  We are still in early stages.  If this union, with its impressive membership, can tighten their own team and succeed in exerting leverage on how world finances are organized, the nature of globalisation would change drastically.  Put together China as the No. 1 economy, India and China as the world's biggest consumers, Brazil with its unending supply of commodities and Russian assets of land, minerals and energy resources, and the bloc's influence would be immeasurable.  The economic clout is indisputable, but how durable is their union from a cultural point of view? 

The multi-faceted Russian Federation, with her Eurasian breadth of vision, could be a key player.

By Richard D. Lewis

This article first appeared in The St. Petersburg Times

Myanmar / Burma 2013

In March I was able to spend some time in the remote and mysterious land of Burma, the last major country in Asia that I have got to know.  I say ‘major’ for Burma, or Myanmar as it is now called, is no tiny appendage to the Asian megapowers of China, India, or Japan.  It is a huge variegated land mass of 673,000 square kilometres, bigger than Britain and France combined, comfortably peopled by over 60 million sturdy inhabitants.  It features a bustling capital of 6 million citizens – Yangon (formerly Rangoon in the days of the British Empire) and boasting an impressive array of national assets such as oil, natural gas, minerals (jade, sapphires, rubies, emeralds), gold, timber (especially teak) as well as agricultural products like rice (until recently the world’s leading exporter), maize, beans, tea, jute, tobacco, betel nuts, cotton and sugar cane. 

After a few days in Burma, one realises that, in spite of its atmosphere of poverty, backwardness and lack of urgency, it is in reality a rich country of untapped wealth, blessed geographically by a horseshoe formation of mountain ranges guarding the vast interior plains around the Irrawaddy from invasion, whether from India, China or Thailand.  Her northern border with China is flanked by the Tibetan range of mountains, where passes are rarely lower than 3000 metres above sea level and which contains South-East Asia’s highest peak – Hkakabo Razi (5900 metres or 19,000 feet).

 

Heterogeneous

In spite of its size, natural wealth and advantageous geographical location, Burma has never been a totally homogenous nation. In fact, one has to stretch one’s imagination to call Myanmar a state.  Actually, it consists of seven regions (or divisions) plus seven separate states (Kachin, Shan, Chin, Kayin, Kayah, Mon and Rakhine).  Each state has different histories and traditions, costumes, philosophies, agendas and aspirations.  The biggest state (Shan) has nearly 5 million inhabitants, its area of 60,000 square miles forming Burma’s eastern border with China, Laos and Thailand.  Kachin State in the north (population 1.2 million) is currently at war with the Myanmar government!

 

Burmans – the common core

In spite of striking regional differences, anomalies and conflicts, the biggest tribe – the Burmans themselves – form a visible national core.  Burmans count 70% of Myanmar’s population.  They would not be described as ardent nationalists, but speak of their country with some pride, though in humble terms.  Certain features are common to all the area’s inhabitants, even the outlying states.  These are the wearing of the longyi by both men and women, the use of thanaka yellow cosmetics on cheeks, betel and lapet (pickled tea), peasants’ carts drawn by twin oxen, weaving and lacquerware, ubiquitous monks in the countryside and in the streets of the cities, groups of nuns, novice monks (children) carrying rice-bowls, millions of Buddhist structures – pagodas, shrines, statues, images of Buddha, frequent festivals and processions, numerous monasteries and nunneries dotting the landscape. 

 

Preoccupation with religion

The foreigner is inevitably impressed by the friendly nature of the people, their humility, their relaxed serenity, their slow, steady tempo of activity, the simple beauty of the countryside, the challenging flow and breadth of the Irrawaddy River, the stunning colourful dawns and sunsets.  Most of all, one is amazed at the intensity of the people’s preoccupation with religion.  As the founders of Theravada Buddhism, Burmese regard themselves as champions of the creed, influencing Buddhist followers in neighbouring countries.  Burmans of all ages seem to devote one or two hours daily to religious pursuits – prayers, worshipping, maintaining millions of Buddhist structures – statues, shrines, pagodas, monasteries etc.  On the Sagaing hill cluster, overlooking Mandalay, there are no fewer than 554 monasteries and nunneries; there are over 4,000 pagodas in Bagan alone, while near Monywa, where the world’s tallest Buddha (424 feet) is visible from a distance of ten miles, there are 500,000 almost identical images and life-size statues of Buddha lined up in a cemetery-like array over several acres.  It is evident that the scrupulous maintenance of these structures and the support of the huge monastic population imposes heavy demands on the national economy, yet society seems to expect nothing in return save the merit gained through their religious devoutness and the guardianship of the monks.  Building pagodas guarantees better reincarnation in the next world, while imposing considerable financial hardship in this one!  This search for merit is observable in practically every aspect of Burmese daily life.  With the advent of globalisation (and Burma has, until recently, been one of the last strongholds of its exclusion) one asks oneself: what is the future of this long-hidden land? Continued pre-occupation with religious pursuits or a switch to concerns of economic progress?  Comforting spiritual seclusion or international integration?

 

Signs of change

At the time of writing, there are some signs of change (it has been described as ‘a fragile opening’).  Aung San Suu Kyi’s long struggle and repeated periods of house arrest has borne some fruit.  The junta of generals resigned in March 2011.  Parliamentary rule was established and the multi-party elections held in October 2010 had resulted in the government party winning a rigged contest.  The Prime Minister of the former military government, Thein Sein, became the new civilian President in March 2011 and began to initiate courageous reforms in August.  His first meeting with Aung San Suu Kyi took place the same month and her party, the NLD was allowed to stand in the elections the following April.  She and her party won 43 of the 45 seats up for election.  Hillary Clinton, David Cameron and UN Chief Ban Ki-Moon visited Myanmar in the following weeks.  Some American sanctions against Burma were lifted.  Thein Sein is currently touring Western countries to establish better relations.  It remains to be seen if Aung San Suu Kyi will be given a meaningful government role in the near future. 

 

Asian re-orientation

This modest opening of the political system can have a much greater significance.  Over the next few years, Asia’s geography will see a fundamental re-orientation, bringing China and India together in an unprecedented manner.  For millennia these two countries have been separated by near impenetrable barriers: jungle, deadly malaria, the Himalayas, the high wastelands of the Tibetan plateau, the difficult terrain of North Burma.  For the last decade India and China have united many of their commercial aims and aspirations for greater power by creating, along with Russia and Brazil, the significant union BRICS, an alliance which embraces 4 states with nearly 50% of the world’s population and soon to surpass more than half of the planet’s GDP.  Rivalling the influence of the developed West (USA, Britain and Western Europe), they seek greater clout in such organisations as the World Bank and IMF, based on their size and rate of growth.  What they currently lack is smooth coordination, hampered by incomplete geographical proximity and differences in cultural make-up.  Brazil is out on a limb, though Russia and China have a long border.  Dr. Thant Myintu has written about the proposed new configuration of the East, where Asia’s last great frontier can disappear and Asia can be woven together as never before.  At the heart of this change lies Burma.  China refers to the ‘Malacca Dilemma’ where 80 percent of her vital oil imports have to pass through Strait of Malacca near Singapore.  She is now building a pipeline across Burma, which will significantly shorten oil routes.  Along new Burmese highways, China will be able to export her own goods directly to European markets, bypassing the Indian Ocean route.  India foresees a busy, profitable overland trade route from Calcutta to the Yangtze basin.  Both China and India can help develop Burma’s raw materials riches, particularly useful for the industrial development of China’s southwest.  Some experts predict the making of a new Silk Road like the one that in ancient times coupled China to Central Asia and Europe. 

 

A new Tiger?

However things come to pass, it seems likely that Myanmar’s key location will cause her to be increasingly involved in the movements of her giant neighbours.  Tourism is already exploding, but the prospect of bilateral treaties and industrial development may rapidly transform this conservative land into something quite different during the course of the 21^st century.  The four Asian Tigers – Korea, Hong Kong, Taiwan and Singapore – have undergone their transformation and prospered.  Myanmar’s territory is more than five times as big as all the Tigers combined.  Her area is almost as extensive as the whole of Indo-China (Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia).  Will Myanmar figure, along with Vietnam, as one of the next bunch of Asian Tigers?  Sandwiched between two ambitious BRICS, will she be carried to prosperity in tandem with them?  

By Richard D. Lewis

Normal is crazy enough: four things you need to know about doing business with the Dutch

On April 30 or ‘Queen’s day’, Queen Beatrix abdicated in favour of her son Willem-Alexander. And although the entire nation went slightly crazy – painting itself and everything within sight in the brightest orange available, the Dutch motto when doing business is: “Act normal – that’s crazy enough”.

Even if it is not said out loud, it is always top of mind for the Dutch. Appreciate its importance and doing business with the Dutch will be much easier. Here are a few other things you should know about doing business in The Netherlands:

‘Linear-active’ is the way to go

In 2002 our new King Willem-Alexander married his Argentinian wife, Princess Màxima, who stems from a Catholic family.

At first glance there may seem nothing too extraordinary about this match. However, only 50 years ago in 1964 Princess Irene, sister of our now Princess Beatrix, caused quite a stir when she secretly turned Catholic and later that year married a Catholic: Carlos Hugo de Bourbon Parma (a disputed heir to the Spanish throne).

Part of the Protestant population of The Netherlands was not amused, to say the least, about Princess Irene’s conversion. This was one of the reasons (the political sensitivity of the groom’s position another) why her mother Queen Juliana could not attend the wedding in Rome. Nor could her father and sisters for that matter. The wedding also had to take place outside The Netherlands because of the sensitive nature of this liaison.

Why was this sensitive in The Netherlands at the time? To truly understand a big part of the Dutch mindset it is important to realise that the Kingdom of The Netherlands has its roots in the Reformation, and the liberation from the Spanish King Fillip II who had many people in The Netherlands persecuted, tortured and killed for the sole reason of turning Protestant.

The division between Catholics and Protestants is one of the reasons why The Netherlands and Belgium did not manage to stay united and became two independent nations in 1839.

Even though the division over religion is no longer strongly felt in The Netherlands, it is not that long ago that it would have been unthinkable for our at the time still Crown Prince Willem-Alexander to marry a Catholic lady, which Princess Màxima remains today. Their wedding service may have been a Protestant one, their three daughters may have been baptized in a Protestant Church; Princess Màxima still is of Catholic faith.

The Reformation, initiated by Calvin and Luther, strongly influenced the mindset of the Dutch, including the many Catholic people living mainly in the south of The Netherlands. It is from Calvin’s ideas that the Dutch love for “Act normal that’s crazy enough” stems.

How will this affect your doing business in The Netherlands? Looking at the Lewis model with its three cultural categories, we find The Netherlands in the linear-active category, together with many other countries that show strong Protestant influences.

They will interrupt you. Often.

The Dutch habit to often interrupt their interlocutors is a multi-active trait that takes them up a little in the Lewis model towards the multi-active category.

“Two hundred years free and united by equal rights and duties”

The Dutch feel everyone should have equal rights (and duties!).

As a result Dutch organisations tend to be flat, with leadership based on merit, competence and achievements. For those stemming from more hierarchical cultures it is sometimes difficult to see who is boss in a Dutch company as authority may be disguised. In The Netherlands, equality also leads to managers consulting their subordinates in long debates seeking seemingly mandatory consensus.

These so-called ‘Dutch debates’ understandably frustrate foreigners used to quick decision-making processes with a strong leader in charge. The upside to these long consultation rounds is that once consensus is achieved plans will be implemented fairly quickly and with little resistance throughout the rank and file. Behaving like a strong boss may cause other members of staff to think “Act normal that’s crazy enough”.

“Act normal that’s crazy enough” means a dislike for pretentiousness and grandiose. This dislike for the grandiose may be difficult to get to terms with if you are French (who tend to love grandiose) and you find yourself enduring a ‘working lunch’ with rolls brought into the meeting room together with milk (very Dutch) and orange juice so the meeting will not be interfered with too much.

Three hour luncheons are exceptional in The Netherlands; it is considered a waste of time and money. The latter also accounts for a lack of expensive company cars, which are generally frowned upon because it is not seen as “acting normal”. This attitude explains the Dutch image of frugality or even stinginess.

Another important Dutch value is truth-telling. As Fons Trompenaars, Dutch himself, explains in his books on cross-cultural communication Universalists reason: “What is good and right can be defined and always applies”.

According to Trompenaars this originates from Protestants relating to God through the Bible; The Lord’s written word on earth. For Protestant believers there is no intermediate between God and His people, therefore they need to rely on the Bible to understand what is right and what is wrong. This still influences the generally Universalist Dutch in being a law-abiding people.

Take the law seriously, because the Dutch do

The law is another form of written rules and regulations that need to be taken seriously. The Dutch therefore highly value written contracts, although the system of Dutch law does not require lengthy contracts, like Anglo-American companies tend to draw up. The Dutch love for truth-telling, together with a desire to avoid uncertainty, explains their direct style of communication. They say what they think, what they believe is right or wrong, often unasked for and in clear words, thus coming across as opinionated or rude.

After living in the UK for several years I understand this attitude may cause offence to others who value maintaining face. The understanding of face, a value mainly found in the third category in the Lewis-model; the reactive cultures, is an important value for the British as well. The positive thing about this directness is that with the Dutch you will rarely have to guess where they stand. This is likely to make the process of negotiating business deals easier.

The Dutch are also not easily shocked or offended by your opinions as they separate the opinion from its giver. Keep in mind another Dutch value is that we are all free to say what we think. This freedom is more important than social niceties like being polite as the Dutch’ ancestors truly had to fight for their freedom of religion. Beating around the bush or over-carefully sharing your opinion also may be seen as the opposite from “act normal that’s crazy enough”.

Don’t be loud, fast or ill-informed

Approaching the end of this article I will give you some tips on presenting your company or services to a Dutch audience:

• Arriving and starting on time tells them they can trust you
• They dislike loud and fast presentations
• They need fact-based information
• The speaker needs to be well-informed, well-prepared and competent as your name and charisma are not enough to convince them
• Do not waste their time, as they have “other things to see to”

Bearing these points in mind, especially number 2 will help you avoid clashing with “act normal that’s crazy enough”. Do not take such a clash lightly; “not acting normal” will influence negatively your credibility in their eyes. If you do not manage to gain credibility you may lose the business deal before you have even got it.

With this article I tried to shed some light on a couple of truly important Dutch values. The values of equality and truth-telling you will no doubt encounter quickly when dealing with the Dutch. Of course there is much more to say about the Dutch and not every Dutch man or woman fits this generalized picture.

You may have seen some footage of the celebrations of the investiture (indeed: investiture, not a coronation) of King Willem-Alexander on April 30^th. You will get a glimpse of the Dutch breaching their “act normal that’s crazy enough” rule as they are dressed in orange, wearing silly orange hats and facial decorations as they do on King’s day, formerly Queen’s day, and when the national football team are playing.

The ceremony itself on the other hand was executed in a sober manner and therefore adhered to “act normal that’s crazy enough”. You may also have seen how close the Dutch Royal Family actually are to their people, as they are approachable (read: equal) when appearing in public.

By Marianne Mol

Marianne Mol is the founder of Munro Coaching & Training. She delivers leadership and team development tracks that improve effective co-operation throughout the organisation. Marianne lived and worked in the U.K. for a number of years, where she gained a wealth of cross cultural experience through coaching team leaders from various cultural backgrounds with NCR Ltd. a global American corporation. Marianne is a Licensed Partner with Richard Lewis Communications, a leading organisation in the field of cross cultural awareness, knowledge and skills. Find Marianne Mol on Twitter, LinkedIn and Whiteboardmag.

Brave Cypriots tackle financial crisis head on; but what does the future hold for them?

I have been working in the world of global professional education for the past seven years, developing new markets to enhance the level of professional skills in Asia and Europe. The results have been impressive and it is encouraging to see the growing appetite for these skills as the need for transparency and accountability has become so crucial in today’s global economy. Our student population has been growing worldwide at a healthy pace, but of all the markets I have worked in from Pakistan to Luxembourg, the place which has most impressed me has been Cyprus. The well-educated professional class is now going to play a vital part in helping Cyprus recover from its current economic crisis.

Often holiday destinations don’t turn out to be the easiest places to do business; however this is not the case in Cyprus. This beautiful and extremely hospitable Mediterranean island has seen enormous growth in its financial services sector over the past decade and its ability to support this has been due to investment in professional skills and the creation of a formidable professional workforce. Added to this, Cyprus had an attractive tax regime for foreign investors with 10% corporation tax, which made the island appealing to many international organisations. In particular there has been enormous Russian investment over the past few years and Limassol now boasts a significant Russian community, which sits alongside a stable tourist industry. This has produced an unexpected cultural alliance in the current financial climate: both nations value close knit communities, share the Orthodox religion and are driven financially. The attractions of Cyprus as a financial centre were significant for the Russians. Business was booming until the current global economic crisis started to affect Cyprus, culminating in the move to ask the EU for a bailout in June 2012 and resulting in the financial chaos seen in recent weeks. 

Cyprus is now in financial meltdown, facing its worst economic crisis in recent history, since the events of 1974. As the latest in the series of countries that have applied for a bailout from the EuroGroup, the Cypriot government have made a bold and brave move in trying to address the severe financial situation they find themselves in. A serious banking crisis caused by exposure to Greek government bonds and poorly managed public finances, have reportedly created a black hole of up to €16bn. To help solve the crisis, Brussels is prepared to release a loan of €10bn, but only if Cyprus agrees to raise €5.8bn themselves. This radical approach has put the nerves of many Europeans on edge and the Cypriots are in shock. Unemployment is now at an all-time high of 11%, with over 30% unemployment among the 18-25 age group. How the Cypriots respond will be an enormous cultural test and so far I have been impressed by their ability to tackle the problem professionally, intelligently and with dignity.

The recently elected 66 year-old lawyer, President Nicos Anastasiades, is clearly determined to face these issues head on to ensure confidence is restored, but he has a mighty challenge ahead. He and his government have been embroiled in talks with the EU and to a similar degree with the Russians, trying to find a financial rescue package for the island nation.

The political and economic situation in Cyprus is clearly in the European spotlight as its credibility as a financial centre is under the microscope. Culturally too, the Cypriots are in the media gaze as they deal with the shocking news of how bad the crisis is and what the implications might be for them. Understandably they are very angry. The future direction of the economy hinges on the success of the government’s austerity measures, measures for economic growth, the effective capitalisation of newly-found gas reserves and further developments in Greece and the Eurozone.

By nature Cypriots are conservative and hard-working so austerity measures will come as a real blow to the overwhelming majority of the population, who have played by the rules and may now incur additional taxes. As a nation where family loyalty and protection is paramount, they will see this as a collective challenge.

In spite of these difficulties, the Cypriots are well placed to fight back with their well-educated and professionally trained workforce and they have come back from crises in the past. None more famously than in 1974 when the conflict with the Turkish Cypriots reached a climax and resulted in a divided territory. This split resulted in two communities: the Green Line separating the Greek Cypriot-controlled south from the Turkish Cypriot-controlled north. This dispute led to many Cypriots losing their properties overnight and inevitably the effects of this are still felt.

The direct result of this affected their approach to education. The Greek Cypriots took the view that whatever life throws at you and in particular the loss of material wealth, the one thing you cannot take away is education. This approach has now passed through generations as Cypriot families have worked hard to give their children the best education. More often than not this has meant sending them to excellent universities worldwide and in particular in the UK and US.

In return their children have not let them down. They haven’t taken this privilege for granted, they have worked hard and performed to the highest level in a second language, rising to the challenge and seeking out opportunities. Cypriot students haven’t been satisfied with just passing exams, they have wanted to be the best, often pursing professional qualifications and MBAs after their first degrees. In the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England & Wales (ICAEW) Professional Stage exams in 2012, 4 out of the 5 overall winners were Cypriots from over 1,300 students and nearly 8,000 exams taken from around the world.

The professional reputation of Cyprus is all the more important in this economic climate, where high ethical and professional standards are essential for steering a path to recovery and securing its long term future as a successful financial centre. It is also important to remember these are not challenges faced by Cyprus alone, as similar questions are being asked in the UK and the rest of Europe. Those in prominent roles such as the regulators, law enforcement agencies and other government bodies are being forced to instigate and influence positive change. A cultural shift is taking place in professional behaviour throughout Europe.

In this climate of austerity where job security is fragile, students are doing everything not only to secure their own futures but also that of their country. By maximising their professional potential and performing at the top of their game, they are doing everything possible to ensure that Cyprus will recover from this economic crisis and that it will be in very good hands in the future to come. Collectively the Cypriots will fight back, overcome these challenges and strive to re-build a brighter future. Without doubt they will also remember who was there in their hour of need and this will inevitably shape the cultural alliances of the future.

By Kate Holroyd-Smith

Kate Holroyd-Smith is Senior Business Development Manager at ICAEW where she develops professional education markets in Western Europe.

Blossoming Russia

From the 20-25 January 2013 I visited the city of St. Petersburg, giving lectures in two prominent academic institutions – the University of Humanities and Social Sciences and the European University at St. Petersburg. During and after my stay, I was left with the following impressions:

St. Petersburg is one of Europe’s most beautiful cities, either under its mantle of white, crispy snow in February, or even more so in the soft late evening glow of June – a period known as the “White Nights”, when inhabitants stay out sunbathing on the tidy, sloping banks of the Neva river until almost midnight. 

Both Peter the Great and Catherine the Great laid out their city with detailed care and great taste. They employed Italian and other European architects from the top drawer and created an urban wonderland of matchless allure. This city competes confidently with Paris, Versailles and Rome in its bold geometric layout, its imposing white façades and its attractive clear-cut canals (second only to Venice). The subtle sprinkling of Russian churches, especially the Church of Spilled Blood, remind one that one stands on Russian soil, so easy to forget in this celebration of Italianate splendour. 

The city’s amenities match its beauty. Few galleries or museums offer as much as the Hermitage, few theatres compare with the Mariinsky Ballet. My hotel – the Ambassador – left nothing to be desired in terms of room quality and services. 

If I seem to enthuse over the physical aspects of the visit, I would not like it to relegate to second rank my impressions of my hosts and of other personal encounters during my stay. I had visited the city in the Soviet time and, though I was charmed unequivocally by the town then, I was struck by the transformation of Leningrad of the 1980s into 21^st century St. Petersburg. My chief host, Professor Alexander Zapesotsky, the President of Humanities, is arguably Russia’s leading interculturalist – a devoted disciple of the legendary Likachev. He invited me to speak on “Cross-cultural competence is the basis for success in international business.” The audience consisted of 80 graduates and post-graduate students as well as professors. As my remarks were extended over a 2-day period, it was more of a seminar than a lecture, involving healthy participation by those present. My second workshop, a 4-5 hour session with a similar audience in the European University, evoked another keen participatory response. Oleg Kharkhordin, Rector, and Kirill Bykov, Director for GR, were affable hosts.

In both universities I was impressed by audience quality, in marked contrast to those I had addressed in earlier times in Moscow. Soviet-epoch audiences listened dutifully, but their reactions were restrained, smiles guarded, feedback almost non-existent. The audiences I now addressed in St Petersburg were warm, sympathetic listeners, showing keen interest in other cultures. The age group was about 22-50; they all evinced willingness to ask questions. Their responses indicated that they were knowledgeable, though many of them had not crossed national borders. Their questioning was open and without any evident bias.

Russia, with its vast land expanses, shares frontiers with many nations. Consequently Russians all around the perimeter are familiar with the habits of a considerable number of other peoples and consequently inherit a certain amount of intercultural insight.

Russia is in fact one of the most multi-cultural countries in the world (alongside Canada and the United States) therefore cross-cultural discussions are of great interest and very meaningful for Russians.

The more I interacted with them, the more I realised that they possess the totality of what I would consider essentially European characteristics – generosity, courtesy, compassion, love of learning, sense of humour, eloquence, etc. They also possess a few sterling Asian traits such as adaptability, self-sacrifice and stoicism in adversity. In summary, I sensed strongly their breadth of vision – a quality that must serve them well in the future.

What is their future? What indeed is Russian cultural identity? From what I have seen of Russians over the last couple of years, I am optimistic for them. On top of the wealth of qualities that I have outlined above (and which must imply capacity for leadership in both European and Eurasian contexts), the country is reputed for its rich and comprehensive artistic history (literature, music, ballet, opera, theatre, painting, architecture) as well as its advances in the fields of science and space technology. The nation’s extensive assets in oil, gas and minerals should provide a steady improvement in standards of education and living in general. Russians have already begun to travel abroad in large numbers, thereby broadening their knowledge and worldview from year to year. It would be a mistake to underestimate or discount Russian influence in the coming decade.

by Richard D. Lewis 

Monochromatic and Polychromatic Cultures

There are several hundred well-documented cultures in the world, most of them belonging to major nation-states – France, Germany, Russia, Japan, etc. Thus we refer to French culture, Italian culture, Chinese culture and so on. We may also talk about cultures with a wider, non-national basis, such as Amazonian Indian, Sub-Saharan, Muslim, Confucian, Pacific-island, etc. However, as major decisions on how people are expected to comport themselves are made at national level, in accordance with historical custom or, indeed, law, it is nation-state cultures which attract most attention, study and comparison.

All cultures differ at national level, though many of them display remarkable similarities to others.  Examples  are German and Dutch, Italian and Spanish, Finnish and Estonian. Cultural experts such as Edward Hall, Hofstede and Trompenaars have gone to great lengths to classify or categorize national cultures, not least in order to facilitate the study of them. It is difficult, probably impossible, for a student of culture to enter convincingly into a hundred or more mindsets. 

Edward Hall was an early ‘categorizer’ and in his books promoted a significant classification by dividing humans into two main groups – monochronic and polychronic. Hofstede and other culturalists used these terms frequently and they were certainly well-established by the 1970s. Germans typified the monochronic  group – people who did one thing at a time, usually well, and in a planned order.  Italians were classically polychronic, often attempting many tasks simultaneously, displaying more spontaneity, though less process, than their Teutonic neighbours.

Though a follower of Hall, my own research and experience led me to believe that categorisation of cultures needed to be at least tripartite, as there was clearly a large group of people who fitted neither into the monochronic nor polychronic classifications. These were Asians, to whom I had been extensively exposed during my years in Japan and in neighbouring countries. This group – less decisive than monochronic people, but more focussed than polychronics – rarely initiate action, but prefer first to hear the other side’s position and then react to it at their own tempo. 

In the Lewis Model I created three categories: linear-active, multi-active and reactive. The first two match Hall’s monochronic and polychronic. I felt the terms linear-active and multi-active afforded a fuller description of the two types, not being linked only to time. Asians I classified as reactive. This model has in the last 20 years been adopted by a large number of universities and commercial enterprises around the world and has been used extensively by the World Bank for training and team building since 2004. It was also accepted as a paper in the International Journal of Knowledge, Culture and Change Management in 2009 – “Use of the Lewis Model to analyse multicultural teams and improve performance by the World Bank: a case study.” 

Linear-active (monochronic) and multi-active (polychronic) cultures are diametrically opposed in nearly all that matters – punctuality v unpunctuality, calm v emotion, logic v intuition, facts v feelings, scientific v flexible truth, loquacity v taciturnity, restrained v unrestrained body language.  Almost all areas of activity clash with or irritate exponents of the other category. In global business, these differences are frequently sources of profound misunderstanding and there is little doubt that linear-active ‘powers’ (albeit with 50% of global GDP) often lose customers among the 5 billion multi-actives and reactives who are the major markets of the future.

Linear-active sense of superiority

Linear-active behaviour is an Anglo-Germanic phenomenon originating in north-western Europe and rolling out through colonisation to North America, South Africa, Australia and New Zealand. Among non-Germanic peoples, only Finns have joined this category and even they are partly reactive. Two continents – North America (minus Mexico) and Australasia – are completely linear-active. The strikingly different destinies of North and South America (the latter colonized by multi-active Spaniards and Portuguese) are an indication of the yawning behavioural gap between the two categories. How history would have been different if Columbus had continued on a north-westerly course to Florida or if the Pilgrim Fathers had been blown off course (like Cabral) and settled North-eastern Brazil!

It is important to note that, through a quirk of fate or historical accident, the Anglo-Germanic bloc from the 18^th century onwards began to regard itself as superior in efficiency, both in commerce and ability to rule, than other cultural categories. This conviction of superiority, with its accompanying drive, may have had its roots in cold climate competence and energy, Protestant reforming zeal or German thoroughness. It certainly blossomed subsequent to the English Industrial Revolution, the rapid development of British and American manufacturing (fuelled by abundance of coal) and the continuous existence of democratic institutions in the Anglo and Nordic communities. However this may be, the linear-active “powers” leading up to and after the two world wars, emerged with de facto world leadership based on military might and, even more significantly, over 50% of global GDP.

This sense of pre-eminence, particularly in the English-speaking world, but also shared in no small measure by Germans, Dutch, Swiss and Nordics, has not yet subsided. The BRIC quartet are showing rapid gains in manufacturing, technology, financial muscle, access to commodities, and market share (China the star performer), but Western complacency has not yet been eroded. There is still a lingering notion among the linear-active countries that our systems of governance, our concepts of justice, our attitude to human rights, our intellectually vibrant societies, our cocktail of work and leisure, our right to lead and instruct others, our business methods and our ability to maintain our levels of production and high living standards are viable in the future. We may be right about everything but the last two or three. We are content with our way of life and world view. We feel we have got it right, the others not yet.

Cultural seduction

It is worthy of note that members of linear-active or monochronic cultures, though often complacently retaining a sense of playing leading roles in world affairs, are periodically seduced by multi-active or polychronic cultures. We live and work in our own countries with their comforting assets – democratic society, reliable institutions, sturdy housing and sanitation, punctual transport, steady jobs, pensions, health schemes, insurance, regular electricity and so on. Yet we look to other, shakier countries for pleasure, excitement, romance. We admire the efficiency of Germany, the tidiness of the Netherlands, the safety of Scandinavia, the probity of the United Kingdom, but we succumb to the allure of colourful Spain or Mexico, exuberant Brazil, the beaches of Portugal, the Argentinian pampas.

Do we go for our holidays in Birmingham, Sunderland, Dortmund, Eindhoven or Antwerp – or, perhaps Venice, Rome, Marbella, Macchu Pichu, Montenegro, Santorini, Rio de Janeiro or the Maldives? Do we prefer a foreign posting in Warsaw or Lisbon? Retirement in Oslo or the Dordogne? It is not the polychronic nature of these locations that attracts us (often that is seen as a drawback or irritation). A better description would be polychromatic. Germany, Holland, the UK and Northern France are not only monochronic, but they are monochromatic. The terms ‘monochromatic’ and ‘polychromatic’ have to do with colour but not just the colour absorbed by our retinas or the constituents into which light can be separated as in a spectrum or rainbow. In this sense, Mexico, India and Greece are colourful countries, but other cultures are polychromatic for different reasons. In the case of the South of France, the Canary Islands and Costa Rica the allure is primarily climatological. We are drawn to other cultures by their sound (Spanish flamenco, Argentinian tango, African drums). We love Italy for many reasons; food is not the least of them.  Breathtaking scenery in Switzerland and South America leaves us enthralled; in Paris, Granada and Accra we are wooed by the architecture (Tour Eiffel, Alhambra, Taj Mahal). Quaint customs and folkloric traditions attract us (carnival in Rio, Spanish bull fights, Japan’s matsuri, cherry blossoms in Kyoto, fishermen’s coloured boats in Nazare).  Some countries attract us by their very light – Greece for painters, Venice with its translucence and iridescence, a dappled city, tremulous and flickering, where sunlight shimmers gently beneath the bridges.

To summarize, most linear-active (monochronic) people live in cold, grey climates (except Australia) for most of the year, work hard at material pursuits and inhabit what we might term monochromatic cultures. As a release, they are periodically tempted to transfer to polychromatic cultures, seduced by better climates, tastier food, exciting sounds and movement, light, colour and texture, exquisite architecture, spectacular scenery and sensual environments. 

The major linear-active (most monochronic) cultures of the world are: USA, Germany, UK, Netherlands, Belgium, Canada, the Baltic States, Australia, New Zealand, Switzerland, Finland, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Northern France and North Russia. Of these cultures only the United States and Switzerland could be called polychromatic.

The major multi-active (polychronic) cultures are: Spain, Italy, Mexico, Brazil, Argentina, India, Egypt, Nigeria, Senegal, Portugal, Peru, Indonesia, Romania and Dalmatia (Croatia, Montenegro). For a variety of reasons, they all qualify as polychromatic cultures. To these could be added a large number of smaller countries and locations such as Guatemala, Bolivia, Panama, Tahiti, Maldives, Costa Rica, etc.

The seduction of members of the monochromatic cultures by polychromatic locations is borne out by tourism statistics. In these statistics the preponderance of the United States, in both attracting visitors and ‘escaping’ themselves is evident, on account of their size and opulence.  With the Americans, the top ten tourist spenders per capita (‘escapers’) are: Germans, Britons, French, Canadians, Swedes, Norwegians, Russians, Dutch and Koreans. The top ten countries in tourist receipts per capita (2011) were: France, Spain, Italy, Thailand, Greece, UK, USA, Mexico, Switzerland and Malaysia (all polychromatic cultures except UK).

These figures vary little from year to year. France, Spain, Italy and the United States are easy winners, annually, though China attracts more visitors on a steady basis. The UK attracts many tourists on account of its strategic location between the US and Europe (also Scotland – in a way polychromatic – must take credit). The USA, though essentially monochronic in structure and inclination is irresistibly polychromatic with its staggering scenery, traditions of entertainment and variety of climate.

Is the (annual) exodus one-way? Are polychromatic cultures seduced by monochromatic environments? The answer is largely negative. Multi-actives flock to the US or the UK for purposes of immigration, education or work experience. Apart from the immigrants, they usually return home to what they consider more congenial environments. The great majority of French people visit England once or twice. Britons head to France (often on the way to Italy or Spain) regularly.

If linear-active cultures are principally monochromatic and multi-active cultures polychromatic, where do reactive cultures fit in? Interestingly, the East Asian cultures, as well as partly-reactive ones such as Canada, Finland and Turkey, seem to merit a separate chromatic classification. I am tempted to call them pastel-shade cultures. Canada is the United States in pastel shades. China, Japan, Korea, Vietnam, Laos and the Philippines certainly attract seekers of leisure, but are less vividly colourful than Mexico or Brazil, less persistently seductive than France, Spain and Italy. Grim industrial areas in China, Japan and Korea lessen their allure. Only Burma and Cambodia among reactive cultures are thrillingly polychromatic.

Just as all cultures are innately hybrid – Indonesia, the US and Russia are good examples – the chromatic appeal of some countries varies greatly according to area or district (Kyoto v. Kawasaki, Rio de Janeiro v. São Paulo, Lille v. St. Tropez, Milan v. Capri). Even Venice has its Marghera. It may also vary according to the individual. The temples of Angkor Wat and Mandalay attract a different type of human than do the beaches of southern Spain. A third type revels in polychromatic Antarctica!

by Richard D. Lewis

Civil War in Spain? Catalunya pulls back from the brink

On 11 September 2012 over a million people took to the streets of Barcelona in a huge demonstration in favour of independence from Spain.

Just two weeks later, building on the impetus for self-government, the Catalan President Artur Mas brought forward regional elections by two years, pledging to hold an early referendum on Catalunya's political status and possible independence.

Shortly after in October, in the Basque Country, two separatist parties dominated the elections to the Basque Parliament by winning two thirds of the seats.

Facing the constitutional crisis of a possible breakaway of two of its Regional Autonomies, Spain waited with apprehension. The sabre-rattling ripostes and political condemnation were not long in coming:

• Ex-Army officer, Colonel Alaman publicly calls for military intervention in Catalunya;
• In a counter demonstration against independence for Barcelona, right arms are seen raised in the classic Fascist salute;
• In late November in the editorial of the official Army Magazine 'Ejercito', General Pontifas Deus denounces President Mas for his 'more than outrageous plans for self-government';
• In Brussels, Spain's Partido Popular Minister of Defence denies any knowledge of any 'Movement' in the Military, or any use of the Military as a mouthpiece for others;
• There are calls for the arrest of President Mas, possibly for treason.

With hindsight perhaps there was an over-reaction to the crisis. But for the Right and many traditionalists in the country, the unity of Spain is sacrosanct. Even today.

This concept of a united Spain has long been a challenge for Catalans, especially those whose language and family roots are Catalan. They have an intense sense of pride in their Catalanism, which combines within it an almost spiritual love of their language and culture and historical identity, within Spain but not necessarily of it. Catalans feel different, and in their history there is much to confirm this.

Having been settled firstly by the Greeks, Catalunya became the most completely romanized region of Iberia and had the least contact - at most 80 years - with the Moors during the seven centuries of Moorish occupation of the majority of the peninsula. From the 12th to the 14th centuries, Catalans, in a sophisticated confederacy with the Aragonese, dominated large parts of the Mediterranean, ruling Sardinia, Corsica and most of present-day Greece, and controlling the gold trade with Sudan.

But one of the most surprising aspects of this empire was the political and administrative structure that supported it. From the early 13th century Catalunya had a three-chamber form of parliament, the Corts, which passed all legislation and the Generalitat, which organised tax raising and expenditure. It was a very good time to be Catalan. When Queen Isabella in the beginning of the 16th century banned the Catalans from trading with the New World of the Americas, domination by Spain or the Central Government was to become their destiny for the next five centuries.

Every country has an event or events in its past which by repetition over the years form an emotive part of their historical identity and the date is familiar to all. For the English, 1066, the Battle of Hastings and the start of the Norman Conquest is the one we remember. For the Catalans it is 11 September 1741, during the War of Spanish Succession. After a year's siege Barcelona was finally captured by the French and Spanish armies who raised a third of the city to the ground. The 11 September is now the National Day of Catalunya and was also the date of Barcelona's latest demonstration for Independence from Spain.

But is it possible that what might most colour Catalunya's view of their relationship with Madrid are events in the 20th century, still within living memory of older citizens? In 1939, the final defeat of the Republican Government by Franco's Nationalist troops took place in Barcelona. It was effectively the end of the Civil War. The campaign against the Catalan language culture and people unleashed on Franco's victory was devastating. Any public use of the language was banned and any books in Catalan including priceless and irreplaceable private collections were destroyed. Street and town names were given Spanish names. Catalan went underground.

This discrimination damaged the language but what caused far more linguistic damage longterm were the 'tidal waves' of Spanish-speaking immigrants, mainly from Andalucia and mostly semi-literate: a quarter of a million in the forties, half a million in the fifties, and almost a million in the sixties. Absorption into the local population as had happened with previous immigrants was almost impossible as the new immigrants often lived in their own 'barrios' speaking Spanish which was also the language used in education. Spanish increasingly became the language of preference for domestic use, even in Catalan homes. Figures for 1975 show that Catalan was spoken in only 39% of homes in Barcelona.

So do these figures have any relevance in 2012? To some extent certainly. Girona's mayor, Carles Puigdemont identifies the original source of the desire for separatism: "We have our own language, our own culture, it's in our DNA." he might have been heartened to see flags of Andalucia among the Catalan pro-separatist flags fluttering from the balconies. Other pro-separatist politicians, seeing the huge increase in the movement of workers following the EU open border policy, must be asking themselves how this is affecting voting patterns. Without the DNA will those recent citizens be ready to take the risk of supporting Independence?

Carme Chacon, a Catalan, a dynamic politician and former Defence Minister in Zapatero's Socialist Government, sees it from a broader perspective. She favours the concept of smaller states within a Federal Europe, "different but united."  She sees herself as one of the many Catalans who have roots in other regions of Spain. Her father came to the north from Andalucia and her grandfather was an anarchist from Aragon. She declares "I am a Catalan, a Spaniard and a European. And I do not want anyone to oblige me to choose."

If her views are shared by many in Catalunya, could it be that Catalanism or cultural identity is not what has provoked this present independista crisis?  It is certainly underpinning it, but as Bill Clinton said, in another place and at another time, "It's the Economy, stupid."

It is difficult to believe, on the face of it, that this could be the case with Catalunya. Its reputation as the powerhouse of Spain for its industrial and commercial success, are supported by the statistics. It provides 20% of Spain's GDP, 25% of Spain's tax revenue, 35% of Spain's exports including 45% of high-tech exports, and 25% of Spain's tax revenue (2009 figures). In spite of this, Catalunya is €42 billion in debt. And the root cause of this situation lies in Catalunya's political State of Autonomy and its fiscal relationship with Madrid.

For Spain, though composed politically of regions with autonomy, has a centralised tax collection system. It was formulated in 1978 in the difficult days of Spain's fledgling democracy which followed 40 years of repressive dictatorship under General Franco, after the Civil War in the late 1930s.  Only the Basque Country and Navarre were allowed to raise their own taxes, a traditional right with its roots in the fueros of medieval times.

Put rather simplistically, Madrid levies the taxes and returns to each autonomy a percentage in services and investment. The difference between these two sums is the fiscal deficit. In the case of Catalunya, Madrid raises 95% of the taxes, and Catalunya raises 5% to cover its Social Services, including Healthcare and Education.  Figures from the Generalitat show that between 1986 and 2009 the fiscal deficit ran on average at 8% of GDP per annum and in that last year Catalunya contributed €16.4 billion (8.4% of GDP) more in taxes than it received from Madrid in state services and investment. Alternatively one could say that amongst the autonomies, Catalunya was the third highest contributor of taxes to central government, but was eleventh highest in what it received back from Madrid.

To put into perspective the damage this causes to the Catalan economy, the Cercle Catala de Negocis has cited a telling analogy: Japan's Tsunami Disaster caused an estimated loss of 3.6% - 5.7% of its GDP.

The strain that the increase in the fiscal deficit has placed on relations between Madrid and Catalunya was exacerbated by the sense of anger and betrayal felt by the Catalans over the fate of their new Statute of Autonomy of 2006. After four years of negotiations, this had been approved by the Catalan Parliament in September 2005, by the Spanish Congress in March 2006 and ratified in Catalunya by a majority vote in a referendum. It gave Catalunya extensions of rights in the Judicial system, Catalan language status, immigration controls, taxes and access to loans, and the right for Catalunya to be referred to as a nation.

The frustration felt then when an appeal to the Spanish Constitutional Court was filed by the conservative Partido Popular party was as nothing compared to the severe shock delivered by the Court's ruling in 2010 when the appeal was upheld. Fourteen articles of the Statute had been abolished and twenty-six were to be seriously amended: these changes struck at the very structure of civil, political and judicial administration in Catalunya. And as for the Autonomy's right to Nation status? It was deemed unconstitutional.  For Catalans, this was insult added to injury.

Of course many in Central Government and in the rest of Spain have a different perspective on the Catalan position. Barcelona is seen as an avant-garde, vibrant city rich in Art and Culture with a thriving port. As an autonomy, it is able to take advantage, as a gateway to Europe, of its geographical location on Spain's north-east Mediterranean coast, sharing a border with France. It is famous for its tourism, but respected and somewhat envied for its highly successful commercial and industrial sectors especially textiles, biotechnology - and wine production.  Whereas other Spanish autonomies with much lower GDPs, perhaps traditionally more rural and sometimes disastrously less well developed, have not only seen their budgets shredded, social programmes slashed, mounting redundancies in local government and private sectors, and rocketing unemployment especially among the young, all causing real poverty. Many therefore are tempted to see Catalans as 'spoilt children' trying to hold onto their 'goodies', exploiting their role as perennial victims of the wicked Central Government. Madrid seems to see its present fiscal policy towards Catalunya, however contentious, as trying to maintain the 1978 concept of regional autonomies, offering them 'cafe para todos'. This tends to be seen then (amongst other less altruistic motives) as an opportunity for radical wealth redistribution in favour of poorer regions of Spain, especially in the light of the euro crisis and diminishing EU funding.

But the Catalans are also suffering.  With their lack of fiscal control, faltering GDP and high tax rates, including the highest income tax rate of 56%, they share increasingly with other autonomies and European countries many of the problems referred to above.

So was the constitutional crisis all media hype?

The regional elections on 25 November took place with no military coup, but also without the President Artur Mas winning the outright majority he needed for his party, the CiU, to call for a referendum. Even worse, voters' support for the CiU dropped 8%, and their representation in the 135-seat parliament dropped from 62 seats to 50. They are still the largest party, but only in coalition can they function.

An anti-climax perhaps? Not necessarily if one examines the voting pattern. Naturally enough the Partido Popular leader Mariano Rajoy with schadenfreude was predictably scathing in his judgement of the Catalan President - perhaps he wished to divert attention from two very unpalatable facts.  Firstly that just under two thirds (87) of parliamentary seats are now held between four parties who either support at least a referendum on independence or those who openly campaigned on a more radical independista policy, such as Oriol Junqueras. He is leader of the party Esquerra Republicana Catalunya (ERC) which doubled their seats at the elections to become the second largest party. The high turnout of voters, 68%, more than two thirds of eligible voters, confirms the strength of the wish for constitutional change, which many political commentators feel Madrid should not ignore.

However, instead of compromise, Madrid appears to favour the policy of attack being the best form of defence.  The Minister for Education, José Ignacio Wert, is advocating much of Michael Gove's proposals for English education: league tables, privatisation, etc. But what has caused enormous offence to Catalunya is his attack on bilingual education policy, downgrading the status and use of Catalan to a specialist subject, and conversely defining Spanish as the main language of education.

Opposition is widespread and strong: 71% against in a December poll, but the most scathing appraisal is the article by internationally renowned Fernando Vallespin (Professor of Political Science and Administration and Director of Political Theory at Madrid's Universidad Autonoma) in El Pais on 7 December 2012. He says:

"Faced with the state of the current situation in Catalunya, what could be more rash than to aggravate them on the question they are most sensitive about, the defence of their language...What it shows is that (Madrid) has not bothered to find out absolutely anything about what is happening there, nor has it understood the basic message coming from the ballot box."

[Spanish original: "Ante la situación que estamos viviendo en Cataluña, ¿cabe algo más imprudente que tocarles en el punto más sensible, la defensa de su lengua?...Significa no haberse enterado de nada de cuanto está ocurriendo allí, ni haber entendido el mensaje fundamental emanado de las urnas."]

He also urges that party politics should be put aside…this circumstance demands a renewal of the constitutional agreement, seeking those outside politics who are capable of generating the maximum possible consensus. He concludes with these words:

"The Government is far too arrogant and doctrinaire and it lacks the will and ability to encourage efforts to be made towards a grand State plan. It has chosen the opposite option and we shall all pay the price."

[Spanish original: "Al Gobierno le sobra soberbia y doctrinarismo y le faltan la voluntad y la capacidad para adicionar fuerzas en torno a un gran proyecto de Estado. Ha elegido la opción contraria y lo pagaremos todos."]

He is the expert, but will they listen to him.

So will Catalunya pull back from the brink? Perhaps if Malta and Estonia can pull off being small independent countries in the EU, this ancient Catalan region will be encouraged to take that leap to escape their present near-impossible relationship with Madrid and Spain.

But Brussels has just confirmed that Scotland's exit from the United Kingdom would mean also giving up its EU membership. To renegotiate entry could be long and costly. Catalans have a reputation for being financially canny and having great common sense - an honourable compromise may yet be reached. For the whole is often worth more than the sum of its parts. Good Luck, Spain.

by Sheila Profit

Going for Gold – reasons for the UK to celebrate!

Expect the worst, hope for the best – while I would not go as far as calling this a national motto in the UK, nevertheless it accurately reflects a trait which seems to run deep in the national psyche. This almost cheery pessimism may help to explain many of the mysteries observed by overseas visitors. Why do British people not object to paying up to twice the European average for train tickets when they often end up sitting on the (not terribly clean) floor? Why is it that when the same road is dug up five times in a month by different utility companies, we respond with a shrug? Why do we not seem outraged or even particularly surprised when our airports grind to a halt after two inches of snow when other European cities seem to operate without trouble under two feet (or should that be 0.6m)?

And yet, ironically, in this country where strangers rarely speak to each other, it is when things go wrong that we begin to communicate. How many conversations have sprung up between strangers about the absence of summer or the lateness of a train or bus (I expect it is “leaves on the line” we say with wry humour, referring to a standard excuse used by train operators to explain delays, rivaled only in its ridiculousness by “the wrong kind of snow”)?

It is not that we don’t have high standards or hopes – it is more that we are resigned to the fact that they will rarely be met, and in the unlikely event that they are, we enjoy being pleasantly surprised.

So the prospect of London hosting the Olympics and Paralympic Games in 2012 was greeted by many Brits with cynical (sometimes verging on gleeful) predictions of shambolic organisation, security risks and traffic chaos. Rumours circulated that the opening ceremony would consist of “a bit of grass, a few sheep and some country dancing”; in stark contrast, it was feared, to the stunningly choreographed spectacle presented to the world by Beijing in 2008.

Even presidential hopeful Mitt Romney felt emboldened to question whether London would be able to run the Olympics smoothly, during his first foreign tour in July. His publically expressed doubts triggered a phenomenon not uncommon among the British – we tend to be modest and self-deprecating until challenged, at which point we may quickly rally around and counter-attack. David Cameron was quick to point out that the 2012 Olympics would be taking place in a busy city and not  “in the middle of nowhere” – widely seen as a reference to the 2002 Winter Games in Salt Lake City, which Romney organised. It could be said that the tide of public opinion towards the Olympics began to turn at that moment.

Of course there were still doubters and causes for concern in the run up to the great event. Mere weeks before the Games began, it emerged that G4S – the official security provider – had failed to recruit enough staff, leaving a shortfall which meant having to draft in 18,000 military personnel at very short notice. Special lanes reserved for members of the ‘Olympic Family’ (dubbed ‘Zil lanes’ after the former Soviet Union habit of reserving lanes for senior officials) were also the fuel for much criticism. However, when it came down to it, Brits were confronted with facilities that were completed on time and on budget. Recently, the government has announced that in fact the cost of hosting the Games was £377m under budget.

Not only that, but it transpired that the startlingly original Opening Ceremony ‘Isles of Wonder’, designed by film director Danny Boyle, managed to pull off that most elusive of ambitions – appealing to almost all sections of the diverse population that makes up the UK. With its seamless juxtaposition of high-brow and low-brow, vivid story-telling and inspiring music, it provided a dramatic showcase for many British achievements, including the Industrial Revolution and the much-maligned but secretly treasured NHS. The event, which became the most-viewed Olympic opening ceremony in both the UK and the US, included moments of quirky hilarity, as Mr Bean joined the London Symphony Orchestra in a rendition of Chariots of Fire and an unforgettable cameo appearance by the Queen herself, escorted to the venue by our very own James Bond (aka Daniel Craig), before apparently parachuting out of a helicopter into the stadium.

It is reported that, when asked for permission to use her image in the film, Her Majesty not only said that she would like to play the part herself, but questioned whether the type of helicopter the director planned to use would actually be able to fly under Tower Bridge. Whether you support the Royal Family or not, it is hard to avoid a frisson of pride at being reigned by a monarch, who was not only ‘game’ enough to star in such a film but was also able to offer expert advice on helicopters.

The other notable feature of the Opening Ceremony was the way in which it involved young people, from dancers and choirs to the seven promising young athletes who were given the role of lighting the spectacular Olympic cauldron, created by the coming together of 204 individual copper ‘petals’ (one to represent each of the competing nations).

And then suddenly, it felt as if the whole country was united behind this noble sporting endeavour; those who had decried the waste of public money at a time of economic crisis were scrambling on the internet to find tickets for any event they could get their hands on.

As if this wasn’t enough, we were then treated to outstanding performances by Team GB athletes – among them Jessica Ennis, Bradley Wiggins, Sir Chris Hoy, Laura Trott, Ben Ainslie, Andy Murray and Mo Farah. And the medals kept coming, leading to a final tally of 65 medals, with the UK finishing in third place after the US and China – and of these a staggering 29 were gold.

Winning all these medals felt like a bonus, and it reminded us that we are – and always have been – a nation passionate about sport. As IOC President Jacques Rogge said in his speech at the opening ceremony, “In a sense, the Olympic Games are coming home tonight. This great sports-loving country is widely recognized as the birthplace of modern sport. It was here that the concepts of sportsmanship and fair play were first codified into clear rules and regulations.”

Other British traditions in evidence during the games included support for the underdog, as witnessed by the crowd of 20,000 cheering on Djibo Issaka from land-locked Niger who had only taken up rowing three months earlier; even the announcer cried, “You can do it!” as he crossed the finishing line a full minute and 40 seconds behind the winner.

Our ‘volunteer spirit’ was also strikingly demonstrated by the army of 70,000 Olympic and Paralympic Games Makers – unpaid helpers who made an invaluable contribution to the success of the event. Easily distinguishable in deep purple uniforms, they always seemed to be on hand to guide people, answer questions and even give first aid.

The Paralympics were as high profile and well-attended as the Olympics, another achievement for a country that is sometimes attacked for being overly ‘politically correct’ but that has slowly and patiently introduced policies to combat discrimination in many different areas to the point where we take the expectation of equality for granted in most aspects of life.

So in the end, we not only “muddled through” but really did “carry it off quite well.” Far from being crowded and chaotic, some parts of London were virtually empty, the public transport system worked flawlessly and in spite of that complete strangers could be seen speaking to each other – there was nothing to moan about, they were simply caught up in the sheer exhilaration of our golden summer.

London 2012 showed that the British people, when they put their mind to something, can still deliver. It was our moment in the sunshine, a chance for us to rediscover a pride and patriotism that is not about power, elitism and empire but energy, innovation and diversity.

by Caroline Lewis

Caroline Lewis is a Trainer and Coach in Cross Culture at Richard Lewis Communications. Email [email protected]

Is there such a thing as the French Dream?

When my British friends and family tell me “you’re practically French now,” I have to say, I am still a little surprised. It’s true that I think that having lived in France for most of my adult life after spending my childhood and student years in the UK, I don’t consider myself as either British or French. I’m certainly more European than anything and my culture is a real mixture of Anglo thinking and Mediterranean living.

It’s true that as I go about my daily life in France I have the impression that my “Englishness” goes practically unnoticed. I am able to blend into the physical Mediterranean landscape and on a good day my Anglo lilt is often mistaken for some other accent whose origins are anywhere north of Provence.

I have embraced French life and culture as though it was my life’s vocation and I remember dreaming about life in France since I was a teenager. But as I move towards the half-way mark (i.e. more of my life spent away from the UK than in it), I ask myself whether the French dream has – and does – live up to expectations.

Along with the lifestyle, climate and culture, France has a good economic flag to fly and I can quote any number of projects and achievements that makes me delighted to live in the country. I still marvel with admiration every time I step on the TGV in Aix en Provence to arrive only 3 hours later in the capital.  

And then there’s the people themselves. When I hear the French talking about the French, they often mention how much they complain. “It’s an essential part of our culture,” one of my friends tells me. And it is true that the appointment of a new government, a new football manager or a new boss is often an open invitation to criticism.  I revel in the passionate discussions I hear (and participate in) at dinner tables and admire how the French are fervent debaters in whatever is the subject of the moment.

Yet, does all this discussion exist just for discussion’s sake or is it part and parcel of their natural resistance to change? Keeping what you have is a very strong French value and I have witnessed many battles on this subject fought and lost over the years. But having an opinion and expressing it is as important a part of French culture as is resisting whatever law, rule or idea is put down in front of them. So when you combine these three aspects of the culture, you get what some people perceive as “French arrogance”. I see it more as a way of being heard, included and participating in the change process without feeling that they have been subjected to it. It doesn’t mean that things don’t change, they just take a whole lot more time to do so than many other cultures are used to.

And change is definitely on France’s agenda. The recent electoral swing to the left has generated new hope for many, in spite of many of the unpopular changes and reforms that Hollande and his government are about to put into place.

Irrespective of their political beliefs, most of my entourage is relieved to see the back of Sarkozyism and as one person put it, unlike Sarkozy, Hollande actually went to political school so he knows how to govern. This is one of the first cultural gulfs I had to deal with when arriving in France that bounces back at me time and time again. In other words, if you went to the right school, you’re fit for the job. You can have all the potential in the world, but if you don’t have the qualifications, your skills and experience are worth little unless you are given the opportunity to prove otherwise.

And in the employment context I think this still rings very true today. An American friend of mine went for an interview recently at a recruitment agency. When asked what kind of job she would like to apply for, given her experience in a number of senior positions spanning over a 20 year career in France, she explained that there are any number of positions she could fill. Launching into a justification of the unstable job market today the recruiter explained: “employers are taking fewer and fewer risks and are therefore clinging more and more onto the qualifications of their potential employees as a reliable form of employability. And because of this you don’t really fit into any one particular position.”

Contrary to many of my French counterparts, as I was growing up, I was encouraged to seek out 3 or 4 different careers throughout my lifetime and challenge and variety is still something I cherish today. With my go-out-and-get-it attitude, at 16 I began my retail Saturday job career. But today’s young French have not been brought up in the same way. Work experience from an early age is a rarity, but becoming a necessity. The degree in the pocket is not enough to secure the long term employment that their parents or grandparents were guaranteed.

Many are seeking opportunities overseas as one alternative. In France, instead of falling into jobs that are the perfect match for their qualifications, many youngsters are obliged to work for virtually (and sometimes) nothing to gain the experience and improve their chances of being a better candidate than the other thousands applying for the same job. And that’s if the job hasn’t already been ear-marked for someone who knows someone who knows someone…

This may seem a pretty gloomy outlook, but France is still advocating the merits of its education system as the key to employment success. Last week Le Monde was still encouraging the diploma route by headlining articles such as “a degree is still the best employment guarantee” (Le Monde 05 July 2012) and  “job opportunities are more and more rare without qualifications” (Le Monde 14-16 July 2012). But this clearly isn’t enough for young people seeking jobs in France today.

It is not as simple as saying it’s all about where you went to school or who you know, but this is definitely a factor that is still influencing the French job market today. Over the years I have learned the art of successful networking in France and most of my work today is based on referrals. You may argue that this is the case in many countries, but the “who-you-know” aspect is still very prevalent.

When a friend of mine explained to me recently that she has bid for 5 big tenders this year and won none of them, she later discovered that the work had been allocated before the bid was published. I can’t help asking myself in France today where the emphasis lies between striving for excellent results and building excellent relationships.

Living in the South of France, the latter is so often the most natural option. Some of my most successful business meetings have taken place in sites of natural beauty, or whilst sharing some gastronomic moment with a client. This aspect of French culture lends itself so well to relationship building and it’s no surprise that it has been one of the more popular ways of enticing inward investment over the years. But for how long can it ride on its epicurean lifestyle, sublime climate and exquisite scenery?

I am actively involved in the Mediterranean Anglo-American Business Network where for the past 5 years we have been holding monthly networking events in English. We attract many French native speakers who like the refreshing alternative to doing business. And we are successful because we have taken the best of all of our cultures.  We have combined the qualities of the French culture (relationship building, good food, drink, climate, etc…) and put them into an Anglo business context (sociable, casual, no-fuss straight-talking) to produce what seems to be an attractive way for the French to do business.

The success of our events brings me back to the question of the French dream. I think that it is still worth pursuing, albeit a little bit differently. Living and working in France has brought me so many challenges on a practical level, especially running my own business. But in spite of the difficulties many of us are facing today in France, “enjoying life” still holds very strongly as a French value. It hasn’t hindered but helped my business. It has helped me live my dream on both a personal level and professional level and I have learned so much from both the culture and its people. It’s what brought me here all those years ago, and, if change is on the agenda for France, it’s one thing the French should never change.

by Rebecca Penna

 

Having spent the first twenty years of her life in the UK, Rebecca has gone on to spend the majority of her career in France where she settled in the early 1990s after graduating from Sussex University.

With an Anglo-European upbringing she has accumulated many years of personal and professional intercultural experience, particularly in service related industries and always in multicultural environments. She has also used this experience elsewhere in the retail and tourist industries both in the UK and in France. 

Rebecca spent over ten years working for the British Embassy and UK Trade & Investment (the UK's international trade department), combining diplomacy and international business, two very distinct environments relevant to her work today. She occupied a number of Consular and Commercial positions to later become Vice-Consul (Commercial). 

In 2007 she decided to create her own company and naturally moved into the field of cultural diversity where today she enjoys designing and delivering tailor-made training programmes and events (in French and English) in cross-cultural communication, managing diverse teams and working effectively across cultures.

See www.refervescence.com