Because it is impossible to directly measure “cultural globalization,” or
the extent to which cultural values and ideas are diffused across national
borders, it is necessary to seek out proxy signifiers, which indicate the extent
to which beliefs and values are moving across national boundaries. The most
likely proxy, then, would be the vehicles by which culture is most typically
transmitted. Although there are a number of obvious symbols of globalization,
from Lexus to Starbuck's, we propose that the best manner of measuring cultural
globalization would be to chart the movement of popular media. The reason is
that the media has perhaps more effect than other symbols of globalization,
such as the presence of fast food outlets, on our thinking.
As we have suggested that cultural globalization be measured by consumption
of mass communication products imported from overseas, some likely indicators
would be foreign television programs, films, books, and recorded music. This
empirical choice is consistent with the established wisdom that mass media
have a powerful effect on the development of culture. Nonetheless, it is empirically
infeasible to account for all possible facets of culture: no systematic data
exist for them. In addition, non-media cultural elements are correlated with
the media counterparts, as they typically have complementary relationships.
It seems that there are several key indicators of cultural globalization available.
First, cinematic films. Although it is true that many nations are overwhelmingly
influenced by Hollywood , and most nations tend to demonstrate cultural dependence
more than globalization, it is still a valuable indicator. China 's reluctance
to have more than a handful of American produced films (raised to 20 to accommodate
WTO demands) clearly illustrates a conviction that this particular form of
media can have significant cultural impact. In addition, in highly globalized
nations like Singapore , films from literally around the world play consistently
throughout the nation.
Second, television programming is another useful indicator of globalization
and is less prone to demonstrate cultural dependence. This is because television
production is less costly than feature film production, and thus many nations
do have a local industry. In many cases, these programs can become regionally
important, for example, among Spanish or Chinese-speaking nations. Many more
nations, then, become capable of producing and exporting this form of media,
making the pool of sources much larger for other nations. In addition, this
data is relatively accessible.
A third element of cultural influence would be the volume of imported print
publications, including books, newspapers, magazines, and other periodicals.
This data is readily available, and it is through the transmission of international
newspapers and newsmagazines that one gains access to political and economic
opinions around the world. Likewise, popular interest magazines, including
home decorating magazines, celebrity magazines, sports magazines, and the like
have a reciprocal effect. As they are introduced to a nation, they often prompt
similar local titles, which most typically attempt to emulate the “style” or
formula of the foreign versions. This demonstrates well the way in which these
media types help to create a way of looking at the world that is not bound
by cultural tradition.
Several sources have data available and useful for this empirical exercise,
such as the UNESCO databank, which compiles systematic and comprehensive information
on production/importation of various media products (films, books, etc) and
other aspects of culture. The database covers a large number of countries from
all regions chronologically since 1970. However, the data that is available
is spotty and inconsistent, and thus, we have not been able to include all
of these elements in calculating the Cultural Globalization Index.
Methodology
In calculating this index, we used a method very similar to that of other
elements of the 2003 AT Kearney / Foreign Policy Index. That is, we tallied
up the imports and exports of books and brochures, and newspaper and periodicals
of a given nation, then divided the total by the population size, in order
to normalize the data. The resulting figure provides a basis for ranking in
cultural globalization. This assumes that higher levels of imports of media
products per person indicate a higher level of access of each individual to
global media. Likewise, the export figures reflect a vibrant trade in media,
and also indicate cultural globalization. Thus, the higher the dollar value
of this index is, the more likely an individual in that nation is to receive
foreign cultural products.
We examined the data from the data available through UNESCO, which does not
include data on a number of nations. Although there are other sources for some
types of data, we have only relied upon UNESCO statistics, so as to maintain
consistency. However, as there is no data on film imports for most of the countries,
that is not included, leaving only two indicators for cultural globalization;
books and brochures, and newspapers and periodicals. The UNESCO database includes
data only as recent as 1997, and not for all of the countries on the 2003 GI.
However, even with these limitations, it is possible to determine a reasonable
cultural globalization index.
The lack of systematic data is problematic, as Austria illustrates. According
to data from 1995 and 1996, Austria would rank number 5 and 4 respectively.
But since data is not available for 1997, the nation falls out of the index
completely. Likewise, Belize , which ranked fourth according to 1995 data,
falls out of the index, since data is not available for 1996 and 1997. The
same thing happens to several smaller nations for which data is unavailable.
Methodological Qualifications:
We have already noted the difficulty in obtaining accurate and systematic
data, which is a significant drawback to this method. We also note that there
might be other cultural indicators that we have not included, such as films
and television programming, primarily because of the difficulty of maintaining
consistency in data collection.
There are at least two other methodological issues that need to be addressed.
Perhaps most importantly, since it is mainly the most developed nations that
have significant media industries, to a great extent all developing nations
are dependent upon these few nations for media content. Thus, although both
Hollywood and Bollywood have significant media industries, with Bollywood producing
seven times more movies than the US , it is Hollywood that has the greatest
global impact. UNESCO estimates that 85% of movie screenings world wide are
of Hollywood productions. (Survey
on National Cinematography) Thus, the methodology
we have used does not make a distinction between the extent to which “globalization” differs
from the import of American cultural products.
Second, it is necessary to make a distinction between “globalization,” which
we take to be openness to a variety of international sources for media content,
and what we will call “cultural dependence,” in which a nation, because it
has no significant cultural industry within itself, relies primarily, or even
solely, on one other source, such as the US . In contrast, globalization characterizes
the process by which the activity of a country becomes more interlinked to
many parts of the world. In order to discern the difference, it would be possible
to measure “cultural dependence” by identification of the number of sources
of cultural products. Consider an extreme scenario: Country A has a high level
of integration with Country B, but with no other nation. In this case, country
A is not globalized, but rather dependent on country B. In quantifying globalization,
therefore, a measure that captures the breadth and multiplicity of overseas
cultural artifacts will be more appropriate than one that simplistically differentiates
between the domestic versus foreign categories. Unfortunately, a comprehensive
and systematic source of data for this type of analysis does not yet exist.
Note: further updates on this project can be obtained from the authors at
trkluver@ntu.edu.sg.
