Paper Status Tracking

Journals by Title

Journals by Subject

Contact us

	[email protected]
	3275638434

	Paper Publishing WeChat

Useful Links

Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License

Article

Open Access

National Culture and Identity in Contemporary Global World: Assessment in Latvia

Author(s)

Iveta Ludviga

Full-Text PDF Download XML 1016 Views

DOI:10.17265/1537-1514/2012.06.004

Affiliation(s)

Iveta Ludviga, MBA, Ph.D. candidate, Riga International School of Economics and Business Administration.

ABSTRACT

This research aims to present the close interconnectedness of the issues of the cultural and national identity with globalization, and reveal opportunities for business organizations. The study evaluates and compares cultures as strategically important business resources. Since national identity (NATID) scale has been reported as the only measurement scale incorporating the resource perspective, and national cultural heritage in particular, it is applied as measurement instrument. This study assesses the relevance of NATID scale in general and its constructs in Latvia over three year time period from 2009 to 2011. Total sample size is 337 respondents. The results reveal satisfactory internal consistency reliability of the NATID scale in Latvia supporting the validity of Keillor and Hult’s constructs. Cross country comparison allows positioning Latvian national identity as strong encompassing relatively very high consumer ethnocentrism. The results from different year samples show growing national identity and consumer ethnocentrism, however, based on Kruskal-Wallis test, the change is statistically insignificant. In spite of growth in absolute values, it is not possible to conclude that economic crisis and intensification of globalization result in statistically significant change of national identity constructs (NATID) during three years. Culture is a social phenomenon and more time is required for social change. Three years are too short a time period to assess national identity change, hence, leading to prospects for further research. Practical implications include incorporation of the NATID constructs in a Business Model, hence, providing companies with different perspective on cultures—national identity as a resource for business model innovation and thus indicating another prospect for further research.

KEYWORDS

culture, national identity, globalization, business model

Cite this paper

References

Adler, J. N. (1983). A typology of management studies involving culture. Journal of International Business Studies, 14(2), 29-47.

Alcacer, J., & Chung, W. (2011). Benefit from location: knowledge retrieval. Global Strategy Journal, 1(3-4), 233-236.

Anheier, H., & Isar, Y. R. (2011). Heritage, memory and identity. London: Sage.

Anholt, S. (1998). Nation-brands of the twenty-first century. The journal of Brand Management, 5(6), 395-406.

Chi Cui, C., & Adams, E. I. (2002). National identity and NATID: An assessment in Yemen. International Marketing Review, 19(6), 637-662.

Chirjevskis, A., & Ludviga, I. (2009). Managing the culture of diversity: National cultural identities as the basis of sustained competitive advantages in globalized markets. The International Journal of Diversity in Organizations, Communities and Nations, 9(4), 85-97.

Cowen, T. (2003). Creative destruction: How globalization is changing the world’s cultures. Princeton University Press.

Cuervo-Cazurra, A. (2011). Global strategy and global business environment: The direct and indirect influence of the home country on firm’s global strategy. Global Strategy Journal, 1(3-4), 382-386.

Dahl, S. (2000). Communications and culture transformation: Cultural diversity, globalization and cultural convergence. London: ECE.

Denner, J., & Cooper, C. R. (1998). Theories linking culture and psychology: Universal and community-specific processes. Annual Review of Psychology, 49, 559.

Hakala, U., Latti, S., & Sandberg, B. (2011). Operationalising brand heritage and cultural heritage. Journal of Product and Brand Management, 20(6), 447-456.

Hall, E. T. (1989). Beyond culture. New York: Anchor Books, Random House.

Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s consequences. Sage, Thousand Oaks, C.A..

Isar, R. Y. (2011). UNESCO and heritage: Global doctrine, global practice. In H. Anheier, & Y. R. Isar (Eds.), Heritage, Memory and Identity (pp. 39-52). London: Sage.

Keillor, B. D., & Hult, T. M. (1999). A five-country study of national identity implications for international marketing research and practice. International Marketing Review, 16(1), 65-84.

Keillor, B. D., Hult, T. M., Erfmeyer, R. C., & Babakus, E. (1996). NATID: The development and application of a national identity measure for use in international marketing. Journal of International Marketing, 4(2), 57-73.

LaBahn, D., & Harich, K. (1997). Sensitivity to national business culture: effects on US-Mexican channel relationship performance. Journal of International Marketing, 5(4), 29-51.

Moore, H. L. (2011). Intangibles: Culture, heritage and identity. In H. Anheier, & Y. R. Isar (Eds.), Heritage, Memory and Identity (pp. 273-280). London: Sage.

Moriss, D. R. (2009). The globalisation of culture: Myth or reality? The International Journal of Diversity in Organizations, Communities and Nations, 9(4), 13-22.

Nye, J. S. (2004). Globalization promotes cultural diversity. Africa News Service, 10(19). PNA.

Phau, I., & Chan, K. (2003). Targeting East Asian markets: A comparative study of national identity. Journal of Targeting, Measurement and Analysis for Marketing, 12(2), 157-172.

Piscitello, L. (2011). Strategy, location, and the conceptual metamorphosis of the MNE. Global Strategy Journal, 1(1-2), 127-131.

Porter, M. E. (1980). Competitive strategy: Techniques for analyzing industries and competitors. New York: The Free Press.

Porter, M. E. (1985). Competitive advantage. New York: The Free Press.

Porter, M. E. (1990). New global strategies for competitive advantage. Planning Review, 18(3), 4-14.

Porter, M. E. (1998). The competitive advantage of nations: With a new introduction. New York: Free Press.

Porter, M. E. (2004). Competitive advantage: Creating and sustaining superior performance. New York: Free Press.

Schwartz, S. H. (1999). A theory of cultural values and some implications for work. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 48, 23-47.

Sclove, S. L. (2001). Notes on likert scales. Retrieved from http://www.uic.edu

Shankarmahesh, M. N. (2006). Consumer ethnocentrism: An integrative review of its antecedents and consequences. International Marketing Review, 23(2), 146-172.

Sotshagane, N. (2002). What impact globalization has on cultural diversity? Alternatives, Turkish Journal of International Relations, 1(4), 214-231.

Spieberger, S., & Ungersbock, M. (2005). National identity. Proceedings from International Marketing Seminar. Retrieved from http://www.unet.univie.ac.at/~a0102141/downloads/National%20Identity%20-%20NATID.pdf

UNESCO. (2010). Intangible heritage. Retrieved from http://portal.unesco.org/cultures/ en/ev.php

Usunier, J. C., & Lee, J. A. (2005). Marketing across cultures. Edinburg, England: Pearson education Limited.

Witkovski, T. H. (1998). Consumer ethnocentrism in two emerging markets: Determinants and predictive validity. Advances in Consumer Research, 25, 258-263.

Zaheer, S., & Nachum, L. (2011). Sense of place: From location resources to MNE location capital. Global Strategy Journal, 1(1-2), 96-108.