Public Organiz Rev (2014) 14:3550

DOI 10.1007/s11115-012-0204-9

Cultural Differences: A Cross-cultural Study of Urban

Planners from Japan, Mexico, the U.S., Serbia-Montenegro,
Russia, and South Korea
Alejandro Rodriguez & Alvin Brown

Published online: 1 November 2012

# Springer Science+Business Media New York 2012

Abstract This study evaluates the efficacy of Hofstedes indexes of national culture
in the context of public planning agencies across six countriesUS, Mexico, SerbiaMontenegro, Russia, Japan, and South Korea. We surveyed 343 planning employees
and computed separate one-way, between groups analyses of variance to test for
overall differences in Hofstedes indexes. We found that public planning officials
across countries are significantly different on all five dimensions of culture. We
comment on how cultural differences might factor into urban planners attitudes
toward advocacy and social equity planning, market-based planning, citizen participation, rational planning, and other issues relevant to planners roles.
Keywords Culture . Values . Hofstedes culture dimensions . Urban planning . Cultural
differences

Introduction
In a rational world public officials would be fully informed, value-neutral,
utility-maximizing decision-makers. Such a rational world would demand goal
congruence, (both individual and organizational goals) measurable and precisely
defined goals. This rational comprehensive decision-making model and its
machine-like vision of public officials assume cultural homogeneity: officials
devoid of values must all share the same culture. This dystopian image of
public administrators is no longer seriously supported.

A. Rodriguez (*) : A. Brown

School of Urban and Public Affairs, University of Texas at Arlington, P.O. Box 19588, Arlington, TX
76019, USA
e-mail: aro@uta.edu

36

A. Rodriguez, A. Brown

The purpose of this study is to expand on cross-cultural research efforts

involving public officials. This study offers empirical evidence that national
culture differences affect public officials decision-making. This will be accomplished by focusing on several key methodological and theoretical components,
which we believe strengthens the validity of cross-cultural research on public
officials.
Theoretical framework
This study is theoretically anchored on Hofstedes (2001) seminal model of culture.
Hofstedes research across more than 50 countries based on multivariate analysis and
theoretical reasoning found that all countries in the study could be ordered along five
cultural dimensions (Individualism-Collectivism; Power Distance; MasculinityFemininity; Uncertainty Avoidance; and Long-Term Orientation) reflecting their
respective dominant value systems. The dominant value systems affect organizational
and societal behavior in ways that are, to some extent, predictable (we will return to
measuring cultural differences and definition of the five cultural dimensions). Thus,
using Hofstedes (2001) model of five-dimensional national culture, we ask whether
public officials from different nations are affected differently by their respective
national cultures. Are these differences in any way connected to their work and role
as public officials?
Kaufmans (2000) three-country study of urban planners is so far the most
extensive cross-national study involving public officials. By contrast, this study
examines whether public officials from six countries are significantly different along
Hofstedes (2001) five dimensions of culture.
Values have been persistently confused with attitudes. This is in part due to the
unclear definition of the values construct. Rohan (2000) cites Campbells (1963) list
of 76 concepts related to values as a way of supporting the claim that the term values
are abused and misused by researchers and laypersons alike. For this study we
assume values to be more stable and enduring than attitudes because they guide
behavior and are the building blocks of culture. Thus, we use Hofstedes 1994 Values
Survey Model (VSM 94), a 26-item questionnaire developed for comparing culturally
determined values across countries or geographic regions. The VSM 94s validity
stems principally from its theory-based construction. Validity of the VSM 94 is also
based on the findings of over 140 cross-national studies that support one or more of
Hofstedes culture dimensions (Hofstede 2001). While these studies were not true
replications of Hofstedes study, the constructs being studied were conceptually
related and generally supportive of the culture dimensions. Sondergaard (1994, cited
in Hofstede 2001) reviewed 61 studies that attempted, with varying degrees of
success, to replicate Hofstede 1980 study and found that overall the studies confirmed
the culture dimensions and that support for the individualism dimension was almost
universal.
Following this introduction, we briefly discuss values and their importance to
understanding how culture affects decision-making. Next, we discuss the measurement of culture by the use of the 1994 Values Survey Model. The methodology and
results sections follow. We end by commenting on how cultural differences might
mediate the urban planners roles and their work.

Cultural Differences: A Cross-cultural Study of Urban Planners

37

Values as mediators of urban planning

In reviewing the literature on values and urban planning, it appears that researchers
have used values synonymously with attitudes and beliefs. This is not surprising
given the ambiguous definition of the values construct and the existing confusion
between values and attitudes.1 Hofstede (1980) defines values as the inclination to
accept certain situations over others. According to Rokeach (1972), attitudes are
differentiated orientations or judgments about a social entity or object that leads
one to react in a preferential manner. An example related to urban planning might
help to clarify the distinction. When we speak of planners positive views on
participatory planning, we are referring to an attitude. Such an attitude can be
attributed to two or more underlying values that can be contradictory (Schultz and
Zelezny 1999). That is, a planner might positively view participatory planning
because of beliefs in democratic values (liberty, justice, due process, and the like)
whereas another planner might conceivably support participatory planning because of
beliefs that the organizations survival depends on getting outside clientele to agree to
proposed alternativesthe cooptation process described by Selznick (1949).
In this study we assume that values, more than attitudes, are the underlying
convictions guiding and evaluating individuals social choices making values more
stable than attitudes (George and Jones 1997; Kamakura and Novak 1992; Hofstede
1983). Furthermore, we believe that values, in addition to influencing behavior, are
the building blocks of culture.2 What follows is a review of the literature focused on
examining the importance of values to the planning practice.
Cross-national value differences
To date, only two studies have focused on cross-national research on values and
culture of city planners. Jerome Kaufman (1985) was the first researcher to empirically study planners attitudes in two different cultures. Kaufmans (1985), survey of
American and Israeli planners found that Israeli planners were more likely to allow
their personal values to influence their work. Israeli planners also demonstrated more
favorable attitudes toward issues concerning the environment, mass transit and lowincome groups than their American counterparts. They were also reportedly less
favorable toward private developers than American planners although both groups
opposed developers. In 2000, Kaufman extended the comparative scope of his 1985
study to include attitudes of a sample of planners from three countries: Dutch, Spain,
and America. (Kaufman 2000, p.6) found that similarities greatly outweigh differences among the three groups of planners we sampled. Similarities were found in
their attitudes toward public-interest goals such as protecting the environment,
improving mass transit, and promoting equity in planning and a negative attitude
toward private developers. Kaufmans 1985 and 2000 studies also found that planner
1

For a comprehensive review of value theories, and definitional differences between values and attitudes,
see Meg J. Rohan, M. J. (2000). A rose by any name? The values construct, Personality and Social
Psychology Review, 4(3), 255277.
2
Rohans work cited above is again recommended for those interested in clear and comprehensive
explanation of how values and attitudes lead to behavioral decisions.

38

A. Rodriguez, A. Brown

values did have an interceding effect on their professional practices and the cultures
of each country affected how the planners confronted different job situations.
Kaufman (1985, 2000) noted the studies were in no way conclusive because of
sampling and other methodological limitations. However, while recognizing the
exploratory nature of these studies, the results suggest that individual values, attitudes, and ethics do affect urban planners, both in the United States and in the other
countries studied. On the question of why planners from three different cultures
reported such convergence in attitudes toward protecting the environment, mass
transit, low-income, equity issues, and the role of private developers, (Kaufman
2000, p. 1), speculated that these similarities resulted from the development of a
common planning culture or ideology among all three groups.
Friedman (2005) disagrees with the notion of a common planning culture arguing
that planners and the planning practice are inevitably conditioned by politics, economics, and cultures among other contextual factors. These factors may lead planning
away from a universalized planning culture and toward distinctive manifestations of
planning practices. We attempt in this paper to refute Kaufmans (2000) assertion of a
common planning practice by offering empirical evidence that planners have
different value orientations across countries and that these distinctive orientations
lead to different cultural productsurban planning being one such product.
Measuring cross cultural differences
The culture model developed by Hofstede (1980, 2001) will be used in this study to
measure culture across countries. Hofstede developed his national culture model
through theoretical reasoning and multivariate statistical analysis of data collected
from more than 116,000 International Business Machine (IBM) employees in 50
different countries. The data was collected by means of questionnaires to assess all
IBM employees attitudes and values. Initial statistical analysis of the data showed
that employees value orientations differed across countries, but the same was not true
of attitudes (Hofstede 1983). Factor analysis of the mean scores for the different value
questions showed that three independent factors explained 50 % of the variance
between countries. Hofstede further theorized that one of the three factors could be
split into two independent factors. These four factors were theoretically linked to
fundamental human problems such as sharing power and inequality, relating to other
individuals, avoiding uncertainty, and differentiating between gender roles. Different
societies develop different solutions to these human problems resulting in different
cultures. For this reason, Hofstede developed an index for each of these factors. He
called them dimensions because all 50 country scores on a particular dimension can
be represented as points along a continuum of two opposites. The dimensions are
largely independent of each other, and their scores occur in nearly all possible
combinations. Hofstedes (2001) description of the four dimensions is as follows:
Large or Small Power Distance (PDI) - is associated to the fundamental human
problem that people are unequal and how different societies deal with inequalities in wealth and power. While all societies are faced with inequalities, some
societies are less unequal than others. The Power Distance index measures the
degree of inequality in a society and ranges from 0 to 100, where 0 represents

Cultural Differences: A Cross-cultural Study of Urban Planners

39

small Power Distance and 100 large Power Distance. In countries where the
prevailing values agree with large Power Distance, members of groups or
organizations are more accepting of unequal share of power. These unequal
distances to power are accepted by powerful members of society as well as by
the less powerful. Less powerful people accept this inequality because of their
psychological need for dependence.
Strong or Weak Uncertainty Avoidance (UAI) - is related to the fundamental
human problem of not being able to predict the future and the stress in a society
in the face of uncertainty. Weak Uncertain Avoidance societies are more
accepting of an unpredictable future and feel more secure and less stressed by
risk, changes, or unfamiliar events or people. Strong Uncertainty Avoidance
societies are more threatened by uncertainty and attempt to predict the future or
cope through the use of law, religion, ideology, science, and technology. Members of these groups prefer career stability, controlled environments, security,
stable political systems, formal rules, absolute truths, and are relatively intolerant
of different ideas and behaviors. The Uncertainty Avoidance index measures the
level of anxiety in a country in the face of an unknown future and ranges from 0
to 100, where 0 represents weak Uncertainty Avoidance and 100 strong Uncertainty Avoidance.
Individualism versus Collectivism (IND) - addresses the fundamental human
difficulty of how individuals relate to other members of their group. At one
extreme of individualism/collectivism continuum, individualist groups imply a
loosely integrated social unit in which people are expected to take care of
themselves and their immediate families only. These groups afford their members maximum freedom to go about achieving individual goals. At the other end,
collectivism is characterized by a tightly integrated social unit in which people
put the welfare and interest of the group, family, clan, and other collectivities
before their self-interests. Collectivist-minded individuals expect the support of
their in-group, and in exchange for that, they are expected to be loyal. The
Individualist-Collectivist index ranges from 0 to 100, where 0 represents a
strongly collectivist society and 100 a strongly individualist society.
Masculinity versus Femininity (MAS) - this dimension is theoretically linked to
the fundamental human problem of assigning social roles between males and
females. All societies arbitrarily assign different roles to men and women;
however, some societies are more determined than others in maintaining a rigid
separation of gender roles. Those societies that markedly differentiate between
social sex roles are labeled Masculine. Feminine societies do not demand a
sharp distinction of gender roles (Hofstede 1983). The Masculinity versus
Femininity index measures the extent to which a society maximizes the separation of social roles between the sexes. The Masculinity versus Femininity index
ranges from 0 to 100, where 0 represents a high Masculine society and 100 a
high Feminine society.
Masculine-centered societies emphasize values traditionally associated with male
domination such as aggressiveness, assertiveness, money making, and acquisition of
objects that denote status and power (big cars, big houses, and so on). At the other
end of the dimension, the prevailing values of Feminine societies are related to

40

A. Rodriguez, A. Brown

maintaining quality of life, nurturing life, taken care of others, sharing, and caring for
the environment and energy conservation.
In the 1980s, the collaboration between Hofstede and Michael Harris Bond of the
Chinese University of Hong Kong led Bond to initiate work on a Chinese Value
Survey (CVS). Recognizing that Hofstedes survey was biased towards a Western
perspective and values, Bond asked four Chinese colleagues to help him design the
CVS to better reflect an Eastern view of culture (Chinese Culture Connection 1987).
The CVS was used to collect student data from 23 countries around the world. A new
dimension, long-term versus short-term orientation was found in the answers to the
surveys. The description of the fifth dimension is as follows:
Long-term versus Short-term Orientation (LTO) - the fundamental issue
addressed by this dimension is time orientation. Time orientation affects how
societies deal with family problems, work, religion, and philosophical viewpoint.
Long-term oriented societies value persistence, patience, building business relationships for future benefits, frugality and saving, and the view that the best in
life comes later in life. Short-term orientated societies value leisure time, quick
results or immediate satisfaction, and the view that the best in life has already
happened. Life is short and one lives only once would be an apt slogan for
short-term oriented groups. The Long-term versus Short-term index ranges from
0 to 100, where 0 represents a low Long-term society and 100 a high Long-term
society.
Hofstedes (2001), original indices from the IBM data show that the United States
ranks higher than all other countries in the study on Individualism (IND), whereas
Japan ranks higher than all other countries on Uncertainty Avoidance (UAI), Masculinity (MAS,), and Long-term Orientation (LTO). Mexico and Serbia-Montenegro
rank high on Power Distance (PDI) (see Table 1).
One could argue based on the scores shown in Table 1 that one salient feature of
national culture within the United States is its emphasis on self-interested goals and
achievements. In contrast, South Korea with a score of 18 on the Individualism index
ranks at the bottom of the scale, so one could expect a very collectivist culture.
National culture in Japan based on the Hofstede original index scores is characterized
by a society centered on masculine values, thriftiness and oriented to life
rewards in the future, and the threat of unclear or changing situations. One
could also speculate based on Mexicos and Serbia-Montenegros rank on PDI
that less powerful people in these countries expect and accept that power is

Table 1 Hofstedes original

indices

Source: Serbia-Montenegros index scores reported by Hofstede

(2001, p. 501) Russias index
scores estimates for countries
not in the IBM set reported by
Hofstede (2001, p. 502)

Country

PDI

UAI

IND

MAS

LTO

Japan

54

92

46

95

80

Mexico

81

82

30

69

South Korea

60

85

18

39

75

United States

40

46

91

62

29

Serbia-Montenegro

86

92

25

43

Russia

93

95

39

36

Cultural Differences: A Cross-cultural Study of Urban Planners

41

distributed unequally. This exploratory study will address the following research
question:
Research Question: Are public officials (urban planners) in the six countries
sampled significantly different across Hofstedes five dimensions of culture? If
so, how do these differences affect public decision-making?
We expect planners in Japan and South Korea to be similar on the power distance
and long-term orientation dimensions, but to be different than planners in the nonAsian countries on the same dimensions. We expect urban planners in Mexico and the
United States to be different on the masculinity and individualism dimensions. On the
uncertainty avoidance dimension, we anticipate planners in more economically
developed countries in the study (U.S. and Japan) to be different than planners in
the less developed countries. If these cultural differences are, in fact, supported by the
data, we will speculate on what this might mean for the role of planners and general
public decision-making in the six countries in the study.

Methodology
Instrument
Hofstedes 1994 Values Survey Module (VSM 94) was used to collect data from the
six countries in the study: Mexico, South Korea, Russia, Japan, Serbia-Montenegro,
and the United States. The VSM 94 is a 26-item questionnaire developed by Hofstede
to measure five dimensions of culture (Individualism, Power Distance, Masculinity,
Uncertainty Avoidance, and Long Term Orientation) across countries or geographic
regions within countries. Each of the five dimensions is measured by four specific
items of the questionnaire. The remaining six items are demographic questions, i.e.,
age category, sex, nationality at birth, current nationality, and occupational status.
Six language versions of the VSM 94 were used, one for each of the countries sampled.
The English and Spanish versions were procured from the Institute for Research on
Intercultural Cooperation. Geert Hofstede generously provided the Japanese and Russian
versions of the VSM 94. Native speakers checked the Spanish, Japanese, and Russian
language versions of the questionnaire for meaning equivalence before the instruments
were used in the data collection. Bilingual native speakers of the respective
countries translated the original English-language version of the VSM 94 into
Serbo-Croatian and Korean. A different set of native speakers translated the
resulting Serbo-Croatian and Korean versions back into English without referring to the original English version. The resulting back-translated text was then
compared to the original English-language questionnaire for any unwarranted
nonequivalence in meaning. Minor corrections were made to bring the translations as close as possible to be equivalent to the original texts.
Participants and procedures
A total of 343 employees of urban planning agencies in Mexico, South Korea, Russia,
Japan, Serbia-Montenegro, and the United States completed the VSM 94. In the case of

42

A. Rodriguez, A. Brown

the U.S. and Mexico, the authors and research assistants following a purposive sampling
strategy selected the participants. That is, we solicited the voluntary and uncompensated
participation of professional city planners, technical personnel, support staff, and managing personnel in metropolitan planning agencies. Since the purpose of our survey was
to collect data on value orientations across cultures and we needed to control for a public
sector occupation, we limited the participation to professional city planners or employees working closely with city planners on the mission of the planning agency. The same
purposive sampling strategy was used to collect data in Russia, Serbia-Montenegro,
Japan, and South Korea. In these four host countries, the authors relied on the cooperation of professional contacts at planning agencies in each of the countries to administer
the survey. Our contacts were instructed on appropriate data collection procedures, the
importance of maintaining anonymity, the voluntary nature of the participation, and the
criteria used to get a representative purposive sample of the planning agency. In all cases
the survey was administered to the respondents during their workday. All participants
anonymously and independently completed the questionnaire within approximately
20 min. Our professional contacts in the host countries ensured that the data was
collected without compromising the anonymity of the participants and mailed the
completed questionnaires to the authors.
The United States and Mexico data were collected in 2002. Data for the other four
countries were collected between 2003 and 2005. We subscribe to the generally
accepted view that values are very stable over time, and we do not anticipate a
problem with the fact that the data collection started in 2002 (England 1978 and
Hofstede 2001). Table 2 shows the demographic characteristics of the respondents for
the six countries sampled. Except for South Korea, the mean age for all country
groups is very similar ranging from 36 to 38 years. Education ranges from 15 to 17
mean years of education. The percentage of women participants is around 50 for
Mexico, Serbia-Montenegro, and the United States, but is low for South Korea (9 %)
and high for Russia (76 %). In terms of occupation status, most Americans reported
being employed as professionals, managers, or directors. In contrast, most Japanese,
South Korean, and Mexican participants reported being employed in support and
technical positions.
Table 2 Demographic characteristics of sample by country
Japan

Mexico

U.S.

Serbia & Mont

Russia

S Korea

Total

Mean Age

36

38

37

37

37

43

Mean Education

15

15

17

15

15

16

Percent Women

20

55

47

43

76

Support staff

44

30

12

40

Technicians

14

36

Professionals

18

50

14

102

Managers

19

42

Directors

11

21

69

64

89

30

35

56

343

Occupational Level

Country Subtotals

142

Cultural Differences: A Cross-cultural Study of Urban Planners

43

Results
Descriptive statistics
For the current sample, means and standard deviations were first computed for the
dimensions of power distance, individualism, masculinity, uncertainty avoidance, and
long term orientation separately for each of the six countries sampled (see Table 3).

Test of research questions

In order to test for overall differences in Hofstedes five dimensions across groups of
city planning officials residing in the six countries sampled, separate one-way,
between groups, analyses of variance (ANOVA) were computed. Specifically, the
General Linear Model (GLM) Univariate method was used in SPSS. This method of
performing a one-way ANOVA is recommended when some groups have more
participants than other groups (unbalance models), such as is the case in the current
study. The GLM method is particularly suited to unbalanced models because it uses
Type III sums of square calculations for the analysis of variance to adjust for unequal
cell sizes. The Welch statistic was calculated for all ANOVAs as one more method to
lessen the threat of unequal variances and group sizes. In all five cases, the Welch
Table 3 Means and standard deviations for Hofstedes culture dimensions for each of the countries in the
study compared to Hofstedes original indices
Country

PDI

United States

25.87 (44.08)

102.21 (43.06)

17.40 (90.88)

56.59 (60.73)

42.69 (19.52)

[40]

[91]

[62]

[46]

[29]

27.50 (52.59)

70.86 (43.90)

78.59 (105.39)

100.16 (68.80)

50.63 (23.36)

[81]

[30]

[69]

[82]

[ND]

39.26 (47.99)

56.62 (60.37)

73.53 (88.04)

60.74 (54.83)

49.41 (19.22)

[93]

[39]

[36]

[95]

[ND]

Mexico
Russia
Serbia-Mont
South Korea
Japan

IND

MAS

UAI

LTO

28.67 (36.81)

94.33 (42.70)

53.67 (76.99)

72.17 (70.09)

59.33 (20.67)

[86]

[25]

[43]

[92]

[ND]

1.47 (38.16)

64.83 (42.23)

15.86 (74.62)

71.47 (54.45)

43.45 (14.57)

[60]

[18]

[39]

[85]

[75]

15.00 (39.84)

74.49 (51.35)

0 .14 (80.94)

64.06 (49.43)

42.61 (15.69)

[54]

[46]

[95]

[92]

[80]

df (5,337)
F

4.48

7.60

8.47

4.93

5.16

<.001

<.000

<.000

<.000

<.000

N0343
Authors own calculations and Hofstedes (2001) Cultures consequences
() numbers in parenthesis show standard deviations
[] numbers in brackets show Hofstedes original indices

44

A. Rodriguez, A. Brown

statistic confirmed the robustness of the standard F statistic values of significance

reported by the GLM Univariate procedure.
Large or small power distance
The first one-way analysis of variance was conducted to determine differences in the
degree of power inequality experienced by members of the countries sampled. The results
suggest that a significant overall difference exists between the countries, F(5, 337)04.48,
p<.001. The magnitude of the effect size between nationality of the respondents and
their mean score on the power distance variable, as assessed by 2, was medium, with
nationality accounting for 6.2 % of the variance of the dependent variable.
In order to detect specifically which countries were significantly different, a post
hoc Tamhanes T2 test was performed. Tamhanes T2 does not require population
variances to be equal and is generally better than other post hoc statistics when there
are unequal cell sizes. A significant difference in mean levels was observed between
South Korea and the United States, Mexico, Serbia-Montenegro, and Russia. Specifically, the results indicated that South Koreans report experiencing practically no
power distance between individuals they interact with (M01.47, SD038.16), whereas
in the United States (M025.87, SD044.08), Mexico (M027.50, SD052.59), and
Russia (M039.26, SD047.99), the perception of inequality between a less powerful
individual and a more powerful other is much more salient.
Individualism versus collectivism
The second one way analysis of variance was conducted to determine the degree to
which persons of a specific nation follow a loosely knit social network in which the
focus is on individual goals versus following a tight social network in which the focus
is on the goals of a collective unit (e.g., family). The results of the ANOVA revealed a
significant overall difference across the six countries, F(5, 337)07.60, p<.000. The
magnitude of the effect size between nationality of the respondents and their mean
score on the power distance variable, as assessed by 2, was medium, with nationality
accounting for 10.1 % of the variance of the dependent variable.
A follow-up Tamhanes T2 indicated that the United States exhibits a significantly
greater focus on the goals and needs of individuals (over communities or societies;
M0101.29, SD042.63), compared to city planners living in South Korea (M064.83,
SD042.23), Mexico (M070.86, SD043.90), Japan (M074.49, SD051.35) and Russia (M056.62, SD060.37), all of which are relatively similar in their collectivistic
orientation. The post hoc analysis further revealed that city planners in SerbiaMontenegro also exhibit a significantly greater focus on individual needs and goals
(M094.33, SD042.70), but only in comparison to Russia (M056.62, SD060.37).
Masculinity versus femininity
A third set of ANOVA analyses was conducted to determine the degree to which
individuals of a nation value more masculine traits such as assertiveness and the
acquisition of money as opposed to a more feminine orientation towards living life
which include a stronger focus on the quality of life and people in general. The results

Cultural Differences: A Cross-cultural Study of Urban Planners

45

of the ANOVA revealed a significant overall difference across the six countries, F(5,
337)08.47-, p<.000. The magnitude of the effect size between nationality of the
respondents and their mean score on the power distance variable, as assessed by 2,
was medium, with nationality accounting for 11.2 % of the variance of the dependent
variable. A follow-up Tamhanes T2 indicated that Mexico differs significantly in its
orientation with regard to masculinity and femininity. Specifically, Mexico (M0
78.59, SD0105.39) and Russia (M073.53, SD088.04) both adopt masculine traits,
significantly more so than the United States (M017.40, SD090.88), South Korea
(M015.86, SD074.62), and Japan (M00.14, SD080.94), all three of which adopt a
more feminine approach to living their lifestyle.
Strong or weak uncertainty avoidance
The fourth set of ANOVA analyses allowed us to identify the degree to which
members of a nation feel threatened by ambiguous and uncertain situations and as
a result, they impose formal rules for appropriate behaviors (indicated by a high
score). The results of the ANOVA revealed a significant overall difference across the
six countries, F(5, 337)04.93, p<.000. The magnitude of the effect size between
nationality of the respondents and their mean score on the uncertainty avoidance
variable, as assessed by 2, was medium, with nationality accounting for 6.8 % of the
variance of the dependent variable. The follow up Tamhanes T2 further revealed that
Mexico imposes more formal rules in the conduct of behavior (M0100.16, SD0
68.80) compared to the United States (M056.59, SD060.73), Japan (M064.06, SD0
49.43) and Russia (M060.74, SD054.83).
Long-term versus short-term orientation
The final set of ANOVA analyses was conducted to compare the countries on their
long-term orientation, that is, the degree to which individuals believe that relationships are ordered by status and that work should be conducted with the future results
(versus past or present) in mind. The results of the ANOVA revealed a significant
overall difference across the six countries, F(5, 337)05.16, p<.000. The magnitude
of the effect size between nationality of the respondents and their mean score on the
long-term versus short-term orientation variable, as assessed by 2, was medium, with
nationality accounting for 7.1 % of the variance of the dependent variable. The follow
up Tamhanes T2 revealed significant overall differences that city planners in SerbiaMontenegro (M059.33, SD020.67) scored significantly different from planners in
the United States (M042.69, SD019.52), Japan (M042.61, SD015.69), South Korea
(M043.45, SD014.57).

Discussion
A principal objective of this paper was to offer empirical evidence that public officials
from the six countries studied are different on the power distance, individualism,
masculinity, uncertainty avoidance, and long-term orientation dimensions of national
culture proposed by Hofstede. This is not to say that we should expect all individuals

46

A. Rodriguez, A. Brown

from a particular country sample to necessarily reflect the cultural differences found
for the sample. That would be an ecological fallacy. The country differences on the
dimensions are collective statistical characteristics and do not apply to all individuals
in the group. For example, it is very likely for a planning official from a highly
masculine country to score lower on the masculinity index (thus more feminist) than
other planners from a highly feminine country. We argue instead that because we
found planners to be culturally different across the six countries studied, public
officials decision-making is affected by their unique national cultures.
One important limitation of this study is that the sample sizes of the countries in
our study were not equal resulting on unequal variances of the dependent variables
across the groups. And despite Hofstedes (1980, 2001) findings that gender has no
effect on the dimensions scores, we would have preferred higher and similar
percentages of women across the country samples to control for the potential effect
of gender on the dependent variables. As shown, in Table 2, women represented only
9 % of the South Korean sample, yet 76 % of the Russian sample.
As expected, we found that planners from the six countries in the study are
significantly different on all five dimensions of culture. This study offers empirical
evidence that planners across countries have different value orientations and since
planning entails making value-laden decisions, these findings refute assertions of a
developing common planning practice. These unique orientations are expected to
lead to different cultural products resulting in distinctive urban planning practices.
As we have hypothesized, planners in Japan and South Korea are not significantly
different on the power distance index (PDI). Officials from South Koreavery low
PDIwere found to be significantly different from all other non-Asian countries on
the power distance index. Except for Russia (PDI 39.26) all other countries in the
study had a relatively low PDI (below 30). Low power distance planning cultures
with their rejection of power inequalities would likely promote citizen participation
ideas for collective decision making because they would see citizens and other
stakeholders as their equal despite any perceived or real differences in expertise,
knowledge, or legal status. These officials would expect that their superiors would
make every effort to consult them in the governance of the organization and on
matters of relevant decision-making. They would promote ideas of accountability,
transparency, and in general an egalitarian workplace and society. The same argument
can be made regarding advocacy planning. Given that low PDI collectivities see that
the way to change a social system is to redistribute power (Hofstede 2001, p. 98),
we would expect officials from low PDI cultures to advocate for social equality and to
be more likely to take on controversial issues as advocates for the less powerful in the
community. Low PDI cultures would also prefer decentralized decision structures
where authority is less concentrated at the top of the organization and the organization
is flatter, based on teamwork, and less hierarchicalhierarchy translates into inequality (Hofstede 2001).
On the long-term orientation (LTO), planners from the two Asian countriesSouth
Korea and Japanwere culturally alike and were also alike with the U.S., Mexico, and
Russia. The surprising finding on the long-term orientation was that planners from
Serbia-Montenegro scored higher on the long-term orientation than planners from
any of the other countries and that all the other country means on this dimension were
very similar. In practical terms, the low-to-moderate LTO scores for the U.S., South

Cultural Differences: A Cross-cultural Study of Urban Planners

47

Korea, and Japan point to cultures that are likely to focus on the bottom line, fast
economic growth, and short-term solutions to governance and economic issues.
These officials are likely to respond to urges for immediate gratification of needs
(Hofstede 2001). The inclusion of Japan and South Korea in this group is an
unexpected finding and one that goes against Hofstedes 2001 original values
for LTO.
On the similar mean scores we speculate that long-term orientation might be a
common value to planners. After all, to engage in planning as a profession requires
thinking in the long-term. The orientation of public sector institutions toward strategic planning and managing is essential to a countrys socio-economic development.
Thus, long-term strategic management is a required competency of public officials in
their decision-making processes. Consequently, a long-term orientation approach
enables public officials to respond to challenges with the proper combinations of
policy, fiscal and institutional solutions to maximize efficiency and effectiveness.
In addition to the expected differences on the masculinity and individualism
dimensions (MAS) between Mexican planning officials and those from the U.S.,
we also found Mexico to be different to planners from the two Asian countries. Based
on Hofstedes (2001) original indices, we expected Mexico and Japan (two high MAS
countries) to be alike on the MAS dimension and different than planners from all
other countries (all low MAS countries). As it happened, Japanese planners were
found to be different from planners from Russia, Serbia-Montenegro, and, unexpectedly, from Mexico, but only because the mean score on MAS for Japanese planners
was close to zero. So what could it mean for planners to be more masculine than
feminine? Planners determine the specific land use pattern within their jurisdictions
by employing zoning, and other planning tools. Inherent to the land use planning
process, planners exclude some users while favoring others.
Thus, it would not be unreasonable to assign MAS oriented planning cultures the
responsibility for unbalanced land use patterns in favor of male dominated activities.
For example, in the U.S. sports facilities, which serve mostly a male activity easily,
outnumbers (both in numbers and dollars invested) publicly financed nursing rooms
and other childcare facilities. Facilities where mothers could nurse and change infants
are a rarity, and even in the developed world only provided in upscale shopping malls.
This example is just one in many ways that high MAS societies could emphasize
maximum emotional and social role differentiation between the genders (Hofstede
2001, p. 299). High MAS cultures would also emphasize any decisions and actions
that would lead to presenting a strong, dominating, assertive built environment
through the construction of massive sport complexes, institutional buildings, statues,
and monuments. In the workplace, promotion of equal opportunities for women and
minorities is less likely to happen in high MAS cultures. Women would have a more
traditional and nurturing role while men are more likely to make the big decisions, to
specialize in technical careers, and to lead. Clearly planning or any public governance
decision would be skewed toward a maleness arrangement of the workplace or
society if a given culture were an extreme case of high MAS. Some former and
present totalitarian states come to mind.
As expected the U.S. scored the highest (102.21) on the individualism-collectivism
dimension (IND) and we found Russia (56.62) to be the most collectivist of the
countries in the study group. We would expect individualist planning cultures to

48

A. Rodriguez, A. Brown

prefer privatization and market-based planning and governance arrangements. High

IND cultures believe in the self-interested, utility maximizing economic man and all
their actions in different settings (family, work, community) are aimed at differentiating themselves from the group. It might be difficult for some planners or public
officials to accept cultures where the nuclear family is not the norm. Extended family
arrangements carry a stigma of poverty, backwardness, and even the likelihood of
illicit activities such as nonconformance with building codes, and zoning regulations.
High IND cultures are likely to have a harder time accepting the teamwork concept
especially because they believe that their work contribution cannot be fairly and
accurately assessed. On the positive side, high IND cultures are likely to promote
greater innovation and creativity. On the other hand, low IND cultures are more likely
to cooperate with coworkers, to develop trust, and to develop common goalsthus,
creating a more nurturing and effective work environment.
On the uncertainty avoidance dimension (UAI), we expected planners in more
economically developed countries in the study (U.S. and Japan) to be different than
planners in the less developed countries. In fact, because of their high UAI score
(100.16) it appears that Mexican planners are guided by more formal rules than
planners in the United States and Japan. If so, what might high uncertainty avoidance
planning cultures advocate for? This type of planning culture would seek more
central, bureaucratic and rational planning focused on controlling strategic as well
as micro levels of societal activities. The Weberian-like bureaucratespecially a ruledriven technocratcomes to mind when thinking about how uncertainty avoidance
cultures might affect public officials decision-making. In general, public officials in
high uncertainty avoidance cultures tend to be more conservative, more abiding of
law and order, are more risk avoidance, need more structure and clarity in rules, and
feel that they are powerless to influence external forces (Hofstede 2001). Given the
mean scores we found for this set of national cultures, we predict that planners and
other public officials from Mexico, Serbia-Montenegro, and South Korea would be
much more inclined to conservative, rule-based, and comprehensive planning and
decision-making than officials from the U.S., Russia, or Japan. This latter group
would be more inclined to innovation and change, new technology, more tolerant to
diversity, incremental changes, and smaller organizations.
As Table 3 shows, the means we found for the sampled countries in some cases
differ markedly from Hofstedes original means or indices. For example, South
Koreas power distance index reported by this study is extremely low (1.47), a score
that is not supported by Hofstedes original index of 60. Could South Korea have
become a lot more unaccepting of power inequalities within a few decades? Similarly,
Japans index for masculinity (0.14) is remarkably low compared to Hofstedes
original score of 95. We dont believe that national cultures have changed so
dramatically within a short period of a few decades. Instrumentation is not the
problem either as Hofstedes questionnaire has been validated by hundreds of studies.
We suspect the problem is related to sampling. The participants in the study are not as
well matched across countries, as we would have preferred them to be. As Table 2
shows, the number of participants is very unbalanced across countries30 for
Serbia-Montenegro compared to 69 for Japan. Also, the number of women is not
well matched. The percent of women for South Korea is 9 % compared to 76 % for
Russia and 55 % for Mexico. In terms of occupational levels, while we would have

Cultural Differences: A Cross-cultural Study of Urban Planners

49

preferred to only survey professional planners, 49 out of 56 total South Korean

participants were support staff or technicians. The same is true of Japan58 out of
69 participants were either support staff or technicians. Another potential limitation is
the relative small sample size of 30 for Serbia-Montenegro and 35 for Russia. We
opted to include all six countries despite the relative small sample size for SerbiaMontenegro and Russia to strengthen the generalizability of our findings and to take
advantage of the cross-national benefits of a study involving more rather than less
countries. As noted above, Kaufmans (2000) three-country study of urban planners is
so far the most extensive cross-national study involving public officials. We believe
that increasing the number of countries is methodologically a more rigorous crosscultural study. Furthermore, even though we would have preferred larger samples, the
literature on sample size supports samples as small as 30 as long as there is no
reasonable suspicion that the sample violates the normality assumption. According to
Salkind (2003), a sample size of 30 will produce an approximately normal sampling
distribution for the sample mean from a non-normal distribution. (Mier et al. 2006, p.
197), more decisively supports a sample size of at least 30. They claim that, [w]hen a
sample is smaller than 30, we generally cannot assume that the distribution of sample
means is normally distributed. When a sample is 30 or greater, we can have greater
confidence that the distribution of sample means is normally distributed.
Despite the limitations of this study, the findings that planners from the six
countries in the study are significantly different on all five dimensions of culture
make an important contribution to cross-cultural research. Specifically, the empirical
evidence that planners have different value orientations across countries weakens the
argument of a developing common planning culture. Indeed these unique value
orientations are expected to lead to different cultural products resulting in distinctive
urban planning practices and public decision-making. Another contribution of this
study is that for the first time scores on the long-term orientation dimension for
Mexico, Serbia-Montenegro, and Russia are made available.
As a whole, the findings reported in this study have important practical
implications as urban planners are in the forefront to help society solve issues
concerning the equitability, sustainability and growth of community life. For
example, planners decide on the sustainability of the environment, where people
live, shop, receive medical attention, and get from place to placedecisions
that are as much guided by law, government, politics (among other contextual
factors) as the unique planning culture of the jurisdiction. In view of that, to be
successful in the professional practice of urban planning, planners and all
public officials alike must understand the important role that cultural values
play in the decision-making process.
Acknowledgments The authors acknowledge the research help provided by two former students, Robyn
Trosper-Murrel and Mahnaz R. Charania.

References
Campbell, D. T. (1963). Social attitudes and other acquired behavioral dispositions. In S. Koch (Ed.),
Psychology: A study of a science (Vol. 6, pp. 94172). New York: McGraw-Hill.

50

A. Rodriguez, A. Brown

Chinese Culture Connection. (1987). Chinese values and the search for culture-free dimensions of culture.
Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 18(2), 143164.
England, G. W. (1978). Managers and their value systems: A five-country comparative Study. Columbia
Journal of World Business, 13(2), 3544.
Friedmann, J. (2005). Globalization and the emerging culture of planning. Progress in Planning, 64(3),
183234.
George, J. M., & Jones, G. R. (1997). Experiencing work: Values, attitudes, and moods. Human Relations,
50(4), 393416.
Hofstede, G. (1980). Cultures organizations: Software of the mind. London: McGraw-Hill.
Hofstede, G. (1983). Dimensions of national cultures in fifty countries and three regions. In J. B.
Deregowski, S. Dziurawiec, & R. C. Annis (Eds.), Explanations in Cross Cultural Psychology (pp.
335355). Lisse: Swets & Zeitlinger.
Hofstede, G. (2001). Cultures consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and organizations
across nations. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Kamakura, W. A., & Novak, T. P. (1992). Value-system segmentation: Exploring the meaning of LOV.
Journal of Consumer Research, 19(1), 119132.
Kaufman, J. (1985). American and Israeli planners: A cross-cultural comparison. Journal of the American
Planning Association, 51(3), 352364.
Kaufman, J. (2000). Thinking alike. Journal of the American Planning Association, 66(1), 3445.
Mier, K. J., Brudney, J. L., Bohte, J. (2006). Applied Statistics for Public and Nonprofit Administration
(sixth ed.). Thomson-Wadsworth.
Rohan, M. J. (2000). A rose by any name? The values construct. Personality and Social Psychology
Review, 4(3), 255277.
Rokeach, M. (1972). Beliefs, attitudes, and values: A theory of organizations and change. San Francisco:
Josey-Bass.
Salkind, N. J. (2003). Exploring Research, (fifth ed.). Prentice Hall.
Schultz, P. W., & Zelezny, L. (1999). Values as predictors of environmental attitudes: Evidence for
consistency across 14 countries. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 19(33), 255265.
Selznick, P. (1949). TVA and the grass roots. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Sondergaard, M. (1994). Hofstedes consequences: A study of reviews, citations and replications. Organizations Studies, 15(3), 447456.
Alejandro Rodriguez is Associate Professor in the School of Urban and Public Affairs at the University of
Texas at Arlington, where he has taught since 2000. He served as the Masters of Public Administration
director from fall 2007 to summer 2010. Professor Rodriguez has a Ph.D. in Public Administration from
Florida International University, Master in Public Administration from Marist College, New York, and a
Bachelors of Science in Architecture from City College of New York. His research interest focuses on
budgeting, government reform, and public administration theory. His work has appeared in Publius: The
Journal of Federalism, International Journal of Public Administration, Public Organization Review, and
Public Works Management & Policy. Before receiving his Ph.D. he served as Principal Planner for the City
of New York, Senior Planner for Miami-Dade County as well as Assistant Director for Budget and
International Programs for the Institute of Public Management at Florida International University.
Alvin H. Brown is an executive human resources professional with over 17 years of leadership and
management experience. Dr. Brown worked for San Juan College in New Mexico, a comprehensive
community college (and the fourth largest institution of higher education in the state) from 2008 to
2012. As the Associate Vice President for Human Resources and Institutional Resources and Planning,
he exercised executive leadership for Human Resources, Strategic Development, AQIP Accreditation,
Grants Management, Institutional Research and Effectiveness, and Marketing and Public Information.
Dr. Brown has a long tenure of serving in Human Resources leadership positions. Prior to joining San Juan
College, Dr. Brown was Director of Human Resources, Global Workforce Culture and Strategic Initiatives
for Worldwide Flight Services. His work has appeared in Public Organization Review. Dr. Brown is
currently a lecturer at the University of Texas at Arlington.