DEVELOPMENT

the cultural variations of values (see Figure 1.5.1). Survival
versus self-expression has been found to be very
closely related to Hofstede’s (1980) individualism versus
collectivism, and Shalom Schwartz’s (1994) autonomy
versus conservation of cultural value dimensions as
all three deal with the common dimension of cultural
variation – people’s aspiration toward greater autonomy
and freedom of choice (Inglehart & Oyserman, 2004;
Schwartz 2004).
1.5.2
Do values change and how?
The main goal of Ronald Inglehart and his colleague’s
approach to values (Inglehart 1997; Inglehart & Welzel
2005) is to explain cultural value change. The theory
focuses on the socio-economic development of society
(the so-called “modernisation” theory), which, on the
one hand, is accompanied by considerable social, political
and cultural changes, and, on the other hand, allows
predictions to be made regarding how and in what
direction values will develop.
Socio-economic development starts from technological
innovations, which increase labour efficiency, and
this, in turn, is accompanied by greater specialisation
in the division of labour, increased incomes and levels
of education, diversification of human relations, and it
shifts the focus from authoritarian forms of communication
to market economy relations. In the long term, this
development is accompanied by changes in gender roles,
sexual norms, current attitudes toward the authorities,
as well as the people’s increased political activism and
involvement in activities related to civil society (Inglehart
& Welzel 2005).
According to Inglehart and Welzel’s theory (2005),
the socio-economic development of a society increases
people’s autonomy, creativity and freedom of choice
through three important mechanisms. Firstly, socio-economic
development increases people’s sense of material
security, through which the impact of material limitations
on people’s choices and decisions is reduced. Secondly,
the increase in the educational level, the spread
of the means of mass communications, and cognitively
more demanding work tasks increase the people’s intellectual
independence. Thirdly, greater specialisation in
the division of labour as well as the reduction in the
importance of traditional social relations and roles
increase the people’s social autonomy – it is possible for
people to create new social relations based on their own
desires and needs, and not based on prescribed (e.g.
inherent) and strictly defined roles. Therefore, it could
be said that, by reducing limitations on the people’s freedom
of choice and by increasing the people’s autonomy,
modernisation and socio-economic development guide
societies and the changes in the predominant values in a
broadly predictable direction (Inglehart 2006; Inglehart
& Welzel 2005).
At the same time, Inglehart and his colleagues’ research
(Inglehart 200e6; Inglehart & Baker 2000) shows that
the development of values is path dependent – the
dominant religious background of the society, be it
Protestantism, Orthodoxy, Islam, Confucianism, etc.,
is clearly expressed in the development of cultural
areas, which have characteristic value systems that
persist even after economic development is taken into
account. Therefore, although the value systems of various
countries are moving in the same direction under
the influence of modernisation, the development of the
values of these societies are influenced, to a significant
degree, by their cultural, historical and religious legacies.
Thus, Inglehart describes the development of values
based rather on a paradigm of multiple modernities
(Eisenstadt, 2000).
In Inglehart and his colleagues’ approach, a
significant cultural shift has taken place during the
last thirty to forty years in the developed industrial
countries, where the people’s value preferences have
shifted from values that stress a sense of material and
physical security toward “post-modern” values, i.e.
those that stress greater self-expression and quality
of life. According to Inglehart (1990), the change is
based on two important hypotheses, which complement
each other.
• The scarcity hypothesis: almost all people appreciate
freedom and autonomy, although under conditions
of economic hardship, people must first pay
attention to the most important activities necessary
for survival in order to ensure their material and
physical security. As economic well-being increases,
so does the importance of post-materialist, self-expressive
values.
• The socialisation hypothesis: the socio-economic
development of society does not cause changes in
the people’s value preferences overnight. People’s
values are formed during the early years of their
childhood and represent the economic conditions
prevalent at that time. Thus, as the society becomes
wealthier, values change gradually through generational
turnover.
In summary, it could be said that according to Inglehart
and his colleagues, the development of values
depends to a great extent on the socio-economic and
technological development of the society, but also follows
the historical-religious patterns that are typical of
that society. However, cultural change that is caused by
socio-economic development takes place in two stages:
industrialisation (including the secularisation of both
society and power) is accompanied by a growth in the
importance of secular-rational values, while the emergence
of values that stress self-expression and autonomy
accompany post-industrialisation (Inglehart 1997; Inglehart
& Welzel 2005). 1
1 Although Inglehart’s and his colleagues approach to value dimensions and value changes has warranted great interest and recognition among
social scientists, this fame has inevitably been accompanied by an increased number of researchers that view Inglehart’s ideas and methods
sceptically and critically. An overview of the criticism and counter criticism related to Inglehart’s work is provided by an article by Paul
Abramson (2011), which can be downloaded from http://escholarship.org/uc/item/3f72v9q4.
50
Estonian Human Development Report 2012/2013