Contact us
 |
[email protected] |
 |
3275638434 |
 |
 |
| Paper Publishing WeChat |
Useful Links
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License
Article
Pyramid Culture and Power Distance: Intangible Barriers Restricting Democratization
Author(s)
Chanida Jittaruttha
Full-Text PDF
XML 728 Views
DOI:10.17265/1537-1514/2015.05.001
Affiliation(s)
Chanida Jittaruttha, Ph.D., associate professor, lecturer at Public Administration Department, Former Director of Doctor of Philosophy in Political Science Program, Deputy Director of Master of Arts in Governance Program, Faculty of Political Science, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand.
ABSTRACT
Cultural theorists in postmodern approach have suggested that culture is a critical factor of the facts, derived from social values, which were given as socially constructed realities. This research paper was aimed to explore Thai people’s attitude and perceive culture as a social culture that facilitates or hinders a democratic political regime. The assumption was that Thai social culture is a culture of pyramid schemes or authoritarian one, which is a major barrier to democratization, by determining “power distance” factor at three levels: (a) general level of social norms and relationships; (b) organizational or workplace relationships level; and (c) political or state relationships level. The hypothesis is that the higher the three levels of power distance in Thai people’s perception are, the lesser the democracy strength is. The methodology employed in this research is the mixed method conducted by analyzing academic works as well as a field survey. The article postulates that Thai culture is shaped in pyramid scheme or authoritarian culture, since the power distance perceived culture at three levels was very high and directly influenced to Thai political culture in “pyramid” style, which has led Thai society into weak democracy in four dimensions. The pancake scheme or participative culture should have been promoted instead, among four dimensions with successful indicators: (a) cultural dimension: small power distance; (b) historical sociology dimension: reduction of obedience and more freedom of decision; (c) organizational society dimension: participation and decentralization; and (d) political economy dimension: accountability and transparency. Democratization of Thai society will be strengthened by reducing inequality rooted upon nepotism, patronage or spoils system and by eliminating corruption.
KEYWORDS
power distance, pyramid culture, inequality, democratization
Cite this paper
References
Akin, R. (2003). Spoil system and Thai society. Nonthaburee: KPI institute.
Almond, G., & Verba, S. (1965). The civic culture: Political attitudes and democracy in five nations. Boston: Little & Brown.
Anderson, B. (1983). Imagined communities: Reflections on the origin and spread of nationalism. London: Verso.
Anon, A. (1974). Thai society and the problem. Bangkok: Thai Watanapanich.
Dahl, R. A. (1986). Democracy, liberty, and equality. Oslo: Nowegian University Press.
Denhardt, R. B. (1984). Theory of public organizations. Pacific Grove: Brooks/Cole, Publishing Company.
Denhardt, R. B., & Denhardt, K. J. (1979). Public administration and the critique of domination. Administration and Society, 11, 107-120.
Eland, F., Ensher, E. A., & Berke, W. W. (2004). Index to the journal of applied behavioral science. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 40, 480-482.
Embree, J. (1969). Suye Mura: A Japanese village. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Handy, C. (1991). Gods of management (3rd ed.). London: Souvenir Press, Business Books.
Hofstede, G. (1987). Culture’s consequences: International differences in work-related values. Beverly Hills: Sage.
Hofstede, G., & Hofstede, G. J. (2005). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
House, R. J., Hanges, P. J., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P. W., & Gupta, V. (2004). Culture, leadership, and organizations: The globe study of 62 societies. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Howell, D. C. (2007). Statistical methods for psychology (6th ed.). Belmont: Thompson-Wadsworth.
Huntington, S. P. (1991). Democracy’s third wave. Journal of Democracy, 2, 12-34.
Kemp, J. H. (1982). A tail wagging the dog: The patron-client model in Thai studies. London: Pinter.
Lipset, S. M., & Linz, J. J. (1988). Democracy in developing countries. Boulder: Lynne Rienner.
Morgan, G. (1986). Images of organization. California: Sage Publications.
Riggs, F. W. (1966). Thailand: The modernization of a bureaucratic polity. Honolulu: East-West Center Press.
Robbins, S. P. (2003). Organisational behaviour: Global and Southern African perspectives. Cape Town: Prentice-Hall.
Scott, W. G., & Hart, D. K. (1979). Organizational America. Boston: Houghton Miffin Company.
Siegel, A. F. (2000). Practical business statistics (4th ed.). Boston: McGraw-Hill.
Triandis, H. C. (1995). Individualism and collectivism: New directions in social psychology. Boulder: Westview Press.
Wyatt, D. K. (1984). Thailand: A short history. Bangkok: Silkworm Books.