Menu Expand

Kollektivismus, Familismus und ­Nepotismus: Der Einfluss der Intensität von Verwandtschaftsbeziehungen auf die nationale Innovationfähigkeit

  1. Journals
  2. Economics, Finance, Business & Management
  3. Der Betriebswirt
  4. Vol. 65, Issue 2
  5. pp. 93–106

JOURNAL ARTICLE

Cite JOURNAL ARTICLE

Style
Deckert, C., Schomaker, R., Remmler, J. Kollektivismus, Familismus und ­Nepotismus: Der Einfluss der Intensität von Verwandtschaftsbeziehungen auf die nationale Innovationfähigkeit. Der Betriebswirt, 65(2), 93-106. https://doi.org/10.3790/dbw.2024.1461504
Deckert, Carsten; Schomaker, Rahel M. and Remmler, Julian "Kollektivismus, Familismus und ­Nepotismus: Der Einfluss der Intensität von Verwandtschaftsbeziehungen auf die nationale Innovationfähigkeit" Der Betriebswirt 65.2, 2024, 93-106. https://doi.org/10.3790/dbw.2024.1461504
Deckert, Carsten/Schomaker, Rahel M./Remmler, Julian (2024): Kollektivismus, Familismus und ­Nepotismus: Der Einfluss der Intensität von Verwandtschaftsbeziehungen auf die nationale Innovationfähigkeit, in: Der Betriebswirt, vol. 65, iss. 2, 93-106, [online] https://doi.org/10.3790/dbw.2024.1461504
Format
Download

Kollektivismus, Familismus und ­Nepotismus: Der Einfluss der Intensität von Verwandtschaftsbeziehungen auf die nationale Innovationfähigkeit

Deckert, Carsten | Schomaker, Rahel M. | Remmler, Julian

Der Betriebswirt, Vol. 65(2024), Iss. 2 : pp. 93–106 | First published online: July 25, 2025

Preview Login to order (PDF)

Additional Information

Article Details

Publisher Name
Duncker & Humblot, Deutscher Betriebswirte Verlag
DOI
https://doi.org/10.3790/dbw.2024.1461504
Language
German
Pages
14
License
closed-access

Pricing

Individual
€ 19.50 (incl. local VAT if applicable)

Author Details

Carsten Deckert ist Professor für Innovations- und Produktionsmanagement an der Fakultät Maschinenbau und Verfahrenstechnik der Hochschule Düsseldorf (HSD).

Rahel M. Schomaker ist Professorin für Volkswirtschaftslehre und Verwaltungswissenschaft an der FH Villach (Kärnten) sowie Senior Fellow am Deutschen Forschungsinstitut für Öffentliche Verwaltung Speyer.

Julian Remmler ist Masterstudent an der Hochschule Düsseldorf.

References

  1. Akcomak, I. S./ter Wel, B. (2009): Social capital, innovation and growth: Evidence from Europe. European Economic Review, 53, S. 544–567.  Google Scholar
  2. Alesina, A./Giuliano, P. (2010): The power of the family. Journal of Economic Growth, 15(2), S. 93–125.  Google Scholar
  3. Banfield, E. C. (1958): The Moral Basis of a Backward Society. Glencoe: Free Press.  Google Scholar
  4. Bonetto, E./Pichot, N./Adam-Troian, J. (2022): The Role of Cultural Values in National-Level Innovation: Evidence from 106 Countries. Cross-Cultural Research, 56(4), S. 307–322. DOI: 10.1177/10693971221078087.  Google Scholar
  5. Brodbeck, F. C. (2016): Internationale Führung. Das GLOBE-Brevier in der Praxis. Berlin u.a.: Springer.  Google Scholar
  6. Collins, K. (2004): The Logic of Clan Politics: Evidence from the Central Asian Trajectories. World Politics, 56(2), S. 224–261.  Google Scholar
  7. Collins, K. (2013): The Political Role of Clans in Central Asia. Comparative Politics, 35(2), S. 171–190.  Google Scholar
  8. Deckert, C./Nyssen Guillén, V. I. (2017): Kulturelle Einflüsse auf die nationale Innovationsfähigkeit – Zusammenhang zwischen den Hofstede-Dimensionen und dem Innovationsindex GII. WiSt – Wirtschaftswissenschaftliches Studium, 46(7–8), S. 25–31.  Google Scholar
  9. Deckert, C./Schomaker, R. M. (2019a): Cultural Impacts on National Innovativeness: Not Every Cultural Dimension Is Equal. Cross-Cultural Research, 53(2), S. 186–214. DOI: 10.1177/1069397118799700.  Google Scholar
  10. Deckert, C./Schomaker, R. M. (2019b): Kultur und Innovation – Wie sich kulturelle Faktoren auf die nationale Innovationsfähigkeit auswirken. Der Betriebswirt, 60(2), S. 18–23. https://doi.org/10.3790/dbw.60.2.18.  Google Scholar
  11. Deckert, C./Schomaker, R. M. (2022): Cultural tightness-looseness and national innovativeness: impacts of tolerance and diversity of opinion. Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship, 11(1), S. 29. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13731-022-00219-2.  Google Scholar
  12. Deckert, C./Schomaker, R. M./Albiez, P. (2025): Social Capital and National Innovativeness – The Influence of Trust and Tolerance on the National Capacity to Innovate. Qeios. DOI:10.32388/646CQI.2.  Google Scholar
  13. Doh, S./Acs, Z. J. (2010): Innovation and Social Capital: A Cross-Country Investigation. Industry & Innovation, 17(3), S. 241–262.  Google Scholar
  14. Enste, D. H. (2021): Folgen von Korruption für Wirtschaft, Staat und Gesellschaft. APuZ, 71, 19–20/2021, S. 28–33.  Google Scholar
  15. Ferragina, E. (2009): The Never-ending Debate about the Moral Basis of a Backward Society: Banfield and ‚Amoral Familism‘. JASO-Online, 1(2), S. 141–160.  Google Scholar
  16. Fincher, C. L./Thornhill, R. (2012a): Parasite-stress promotes in-group assortative sociality: the cases of strong family ties and heightened religiosity. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 35(2), S. 61–79.  Google Scholar
  17. Fincher, C. L./Thornhill, R. (2012b): Electronic Supplement 1. Abgerufen am 13.12.2023 von https://static.cambridge.org/content/id/urn:cambridge.org:id:article:S0140525X11000021/resource/name/S0140525X11000021sup001.pdf.  Google Scholar
  18. Florida, R. L./Cushing, R./Gates, G. (2002): When Social Capital Stifles Innovation. Harvard Business Review, 8, S. 20.  Google Scholar
  19. Fukuyama, F. (1996): Trust: The social virtues and the creation of prosperity. New York: Free Press.  Google Scholar
  20. Furman, J. L./Porter, M. E./Stern, S. (2002): The Determinants of National Innovative Capacity. Research Policy, 31, S. 899–933.  Google Scholar
  21. Gelfand, M. J. (2018): Rule makers, rule breakers: How tight and loose cultures wire our world. Robinson.  Google Scholar
  22. Granovetter, M. S. (1973): The Strength of Weak Ties. The American Journal of Sociology, 78(6), S. 1360–1380.  Google Scholar
  23. Greene, J. (2015): Moral Tribes. Emotion, Reason, and the Gap between Us and Them. London: Atlantic Books.  Google Scholar
  24. Haldane, J. B. S. (1955): Population genetics. New Biology, 18, S. 34–51.  Google Scholar
  25. Hamilton, W. D. (1964a): The Genetical Evolution of Social Behaviour I. Journal of theoretical biology, 7, S. 1–16.  Google Scholar
  26. Hamilton, W. D. (1964b): The Genetical Evolution of Social Behaviour II. Journal of theoretical biology, 7, S. 17–52.  Google Scholar
  27. Henrich, J. (2021): The Weirdest People in the World. How the West Became Psychologically Peculiar and Particularly Prosperous. Dublin: Penguin.  Google Scholar
  28. Hofstede, G. H. (2003): Culture’s Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions and Organizations Across Nations. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks u.a.: Sage Publications.  Google Scholar
  29. Hofstede, G./Hofstede, G. J. (2006): Lokales Denken, globales Handeln. Interkulturelle Zusammenarbeit und globales Management (3. Aufl.). München: dtv.  Google Scholar
  30. Hollanders, H./Janz, N. (2014): Scoreboards and indicator reports. In: Gault, F. (Ed.), Handbook of innovation indicators and measurement (279–300). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.  Google Scholar
  31. House, R. J./Hanges, P. J./Javidan, M./Dorfmann, P. W./Gupta, V. (2004): Culture, Leadership, and Organizations: The Globe Study of 62 Societies. Thousand Oaks u.a.: Sage Publications.  Google Scholar
  32. Hruschka, D. J./Henrich, J. (2013): Institutions, Parasites and the Persistence of In-group Preferences. PLoS ONE, 8(5), e63642. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0063642.  Google Scholar
  33. Inglehart, R. (2019): Cultural evolution: People’s motivations are changing, and reshaping the world. Cambridge, New York, NY, Melbourne, New Delhi, Singapore: Cambridge University Press.  Google Scholar
  34. Keeley, B. (2007): Human Capital: How what you know shapes your life. OECD Insights. Paris: OECD Publishing.  Google Scholar
  35. Knack, S./Keefer, P. (1997): Does Social Capital Have an Economic Payoff? A Cross-Country Investigation. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 112(4), S. 1251–1288.  Google Scholar
  36. Lipset, S. M./Lenz, G. S. (2000): Corruption, Culture and Markets. In: Harrison, L. E./ Huntington, S. P. (eds.). Culture Matters. How Values Shape Human Progress, S. 112–124. New York: Basic Books.  Google Scholar
  37. Lubart, T. (2010): Cross-Cultural Perspectives on Creativity. In: Kaufman, J. C./Sternberg, R. J. (eds.). The Cambridge Handbook of Creativity, S. 265–278. New York: Cambridge University Press.  Google Scholar
  38. Mahagaonkar, P. (2010): Corruption and Innovation. In: Money and Ideas, 81–97. International Studies in Entrepreneurship, 25. New York: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-1228-2_5.  Google Scholar
  39. Maynard Smith, J. (1975): Survival through suicide. New Scientist, August 28, 1975, S. 496–497.  Google Scholar
  40. Meyer, E. (2014). The Culture Map. Decoding how people think, lead, and get things done across cultures. New York: Public Affairs.  Google Scholar
  41. Minbaeva, D. B./Muratbekova-Touron, M. (2013): Clanism. Definition and Implications for Human Resource Management. Management International Review, 53, S. 109–139.  Google Scholar
  42. Nyssen Guillén, V. I./Deckert, C. (2021): Cultural influence on innovativeness – links between „The Culture Map“ and the „Global Innovation Index“. International Journal of Corporate Social Responsibility, 6(7). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40991-021-00061-x.  Google Scholar
  43. OECD (2018): Oslo Manual. The Measurement of Scientific and Technological Activities (4th ed.). Paris: OECD.  Google Scholar
  44. Reher, D. S. (1998): Family Ties in Western Europe: Persistent Contrasts. Population and Development Review, 24(2), S. 203–234.  Google Scholar
  45. Schomaker, R. M./Deckert, C. (2020): Wachstum, Entwicklung und Governance: Zur Interdependenz von Regierungsführung und wirtschaftlicher Entwicklung. In: Leschke, M./Otter, N. (Hrsg.), Wachstum und Entwicklung: Globale Instabilitäten und neue wirtschaftspolitische Konzepte. München: De Gruyter (Schriftenreihe zu Ordnungsfragen der Wirtschaft, 106).  Google Scholar
  46. Smith, A. (2003): The Wealth of Nations. New York: Bantam Classics.  Google Scholar
  47. Taylor, M. Z./Wilson, S. (2012): Does culture still matter?: The effects of individualism on national innovation rates. Journal of Business Venturing, 27(2), S. 234–247.  Google Scholar
  48. Thurnherr, S. (2020): Corruption and Innovation Capability: a correlation analysis in 140 countries and its implications in international business. White Paper, Global Risk Profile, Geneva.  Google Scholar
  49. Trantow, S./Hees, F./Jeschke, S. (2011): Die Fähigkeit zur Innovation – Einleitung in den Sammelband, in: Jeschke, S./Isenhardt, I./Hees, F./Trantow, S. (Hrsg.), Enabling Innovation: Innovationsfähigkeit – deutsche und internationale Perspektiven. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer.  Google Scholar
  50. Trompenaars, F. (1993): Handbuch globales Managen: Wie man kulturelle Unterschiede im Geschäftsleben versteht. Düsseldorf: ECON Verlag.  Google Scholar
  51. Trompenaars, F./Hampden-Turner, C. (2020): Riding the Waves of Culture: Understanding Diversity in Global Business. 4th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill.  Google Scholar
  52. Van de Vliert, E. (2011): Climato-Economic Origins of Variation in Ingroup Favoritism. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 42(3), S. 494–515.  Google Scholar

Abstract

Collectivism, family and nepotism: the influence of the intensity of relationship relationships on national innovation ability

For cultural reasons, kinship relationships vary in intensity in different countries. For example, there is a significant distinction between individualistic and collectivistic cultures, i. e. cultures with rather loose ties and cultures with a strong sense of belonging to a group. Kinship selection leads to in-group preferences and in-group favoritism. This favors nepotism and corruption in a society. It also weakens trust in individuals outside the family or in out-groups and leads to the exploitation of out-groups. However, it is precisely the weak connections to people outside the in-group that are essential for cooperation and innovation in a society and therefore make a decisive contribution to economic development.

The following article examines the influence of the intensity of kinship ties on national innovative capacity. Our empirical results suggest that a high intensity of kinship ties in a society leads to a low degree of innovativeness. The main reasons for this appear to be nepotism and corruption in interplay with weak political institutions.

Table of Contents

Section Title Page Action Price
Carsten Deckert / Rahel M. Schomaker / Julian Remmler: Kollektivismus, Familismus und ­Nepotismus: Der Einfluss der Intensität von Verwandtschaftsbeziehungen auf die nationale Innovationfähigkeit 93
1. Einleitung 94
2. Intensität von Verwandtschaftsbeziehungen 95
3. Verwandtschaft und Innovation 97
4. Empirische Ergebnisse 98
5. Fazit 102
Literaturverzeichnis 103

Contact

Duncker & Humblot GmbH Carl-Heinrich-Becker-Weg 9 12165 Berlin, Deutschland T: +49 30 790006-0

Quick Navigation

2025 Duncker & Humblot GmbH

Powered by CloudPublish

We use cookies to ensure that you get the best experience on our website. Learn more about how we use cookies.