SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Kafkas Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi / 2026 / Cilt: 17 Sayı: 33

THE LIMITS OF HOFSTEDE’S NATIONAL CULTURE MODEL IN EXPLAINING CORRUPTION: THE CASE OF JAPAN

HOFSTEDE’NİN ULUSAL KÜLTÜR MODELİNİN YOZLAŞMAYI AÇIKLAMADAKİ SINIRLARI: JAPONYA ÖRNEĞİ

Duru Cigdem Simsek(ONDOKUZ MAYIS ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0003-2614-9359
Pages
526–545
Publication Date
2026-06-28
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

The findings highlight the need to integrate cultural explanations with historical and institutional dynamics.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:This study critically examines the analytical limits of Geert Hofstede’s National Culture Model in explaining corruption, using Japan as a case study.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Although Hofstede’s model is widely employed in cross-national research to analyse the culture–corruption relationship through measurable cultural dimensions, it conceptualises culture as relatively static, homogeneous, and detached from historical and institutional contexts.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The findings highlight the need to integrate cultural explanations with historical and institutional dynamics.
🔬Design:Modeling & Simulation
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Hofstede · ulusal kültür · Japonya

Abstract

This study critically examines the analytical limits of Geert Hofstede’s National Culture Model in explaining corruption, using Japan as a case study. Although Hofstede’s model is widely employed in cross-national research to analyse the culture–corruption relationship through measurable cultural dimensions, it conceptualises culture as relatively static, homogeneous, and detached from historical and institutional contexts. This study argues that such an approach is insufficient to explain corruption outcomes, particularly in non-Western societies. Japan constitutes a critical counter-case in this regard: despite exhibiting cultural characteristics commonly associated with higher corruption risk—such as relatively high levels of power distance, masculinity—it consistently ranks among countries with low perceived corruption in international indices. Based on a qualitative and conceptual analysis of existing literature, the study re-evaluates Hofstede’s cultural dimensions in relation to Japan’s historical bureaucratic development, ethical value system, and administrative practices. The findings highlight the need to integrate cultural explanations with historical and institutional dynamics.

Özet

Bu çalışma, Geert Hofstede’nin Ulusal Kültür Modeli’nin yozlaşmayı açıklamadaki analitik sınırlarını Japonya örneği üzerinden eleştirel biçimde incelemektedir. Hofstede’nin modeli, kültür–yozlaşma ilişkisini ölçülebilir kültürel boyutlar aracılığıyla analiz etmesi nedeniyle ülkeler arası karşılaştırmalı çalışmalarda yaygın biçimde kullanılmakla birlikte, kültürü tarihsel ve kurumsal bağlamdan büyük ölçüde kopuk, görece durağan ve homojen bir yapı olarak kavramsallaştırmaktadır. Bu çalışma, söz konusu yaklaşımın özellikle Batı dışı toplumlarda yozlaşma olgusunu açıklamada yetersiz kaldığını ileri sürmektedir. Japonya, bu bağlamda önemli bir karşı-örnek oluşturmaktadır: görece yüksek güç aralığı ve erillik gibi, literatürde daha yüksek yozlaşma riskiyle ilişkilendirilen kültürel özellikler sergilemesine rağmen, Japonya uluslararası endekslerde düşük algılanan yolsuzluk düzeyine sahip ülkeler arasında yer almaktadır. Mevcut literatüre dayalı nitel ve kavramsal bir analiz çerçevesinde yürütülen çalışma, Hofstede’nin kültürel boyutlarını Japonya’nın tarihsel bürokratik gelişimi, etik değerler sistemi ve yönetsel pratikleri bağlamında yeniden değerlendirmektedir. Bulgular, kültürel açıklamaların tarihsel ve kurumsal dinamiklerle birlikte ele alınmasının gerekliliğine işaret etmektedir.

🔖

Cite This Article

Simsek, D. C., *, D. C. S. (2026). THE LIMITS OF HOFSTEDE’S NATIONAL CULTURE MODEL IN EXPLAINING CORRUPTION: THE CASE OF JAPAN. Kafkas Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, Cilt: 17 Sayı: 33, 526–545. https://doi.org/10.36543/kauiibfd.2026.023

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (55)

  1. Achim, M.V. (2016). Cultural dimension of corruption: A cross-country survey. International Advances in Economic Research, 333-345. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11294-016-9592-x
  2. Baskerville, R. F. (2003). Hofstede never studied culture. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 28(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0361-3682(01)00048-4
  3. Carlson, M.M., & Reed, S. R. (2018). Political corruption and scandals in Japan. Cornell University Press. Central Intelligence Agency. (2023). The world factbook: Japan. Retrieved November 21, 2025, from https://www.cia.gov/the-world-factbook/about/archives/2023/countries/japan/summaries/#geography
  4. Curtis, G.L. (1990). The logic of Japanese politics. Columbia University Press.
  5. Çulpan, R. (1980). Bürokratik sistemin yozlaşması. Amme İdaresi Dergisi, 13(2), 31-45. https://ammeidaresi.hacibayram.edu.tr/documents/article/1/13/2/3_culpan.pdf
  6. Demir, F. (2011). Bürokratik kültür. Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Dergisi, 16(2), 153-178. http://dergipark.ulakbim.gov.tr/sduiibfd/article/view/5000122297/5000112602
  7. Douglas, M., & Wildavsky, A. (1982). Risk and culture: An essay on the selection of technical and environmental dangers. University of California Press.
  8. Dreyfus, F. (2014). Bürokrasinin icadı: Fransa, Büyük Britanya ve ABD’de devlete hizmet etmek (18.-20. yüzyıl) (I. Ergüden, Trans.). İletişim Yayınları.
  9. Duus, P. (1998). Modern Japan. Houghton Mifflin Company.
  10. Giddens, A. (2000). Sosyoloji. Ayraç Yayınevi.
  11. Gordon, A. (2003). A modern history of Japan: From Tokugawa times to the present. Oxford University Press.
  12. Hardacre, H. (1989). Shinto and the state, 1868-1988. Princeton University Press.
  13. Hardacre, H. (2017). Religion and the Japanese constitution. In A. Ü. Bâli & H. Lerner (Eds.), Constitution writing, religion and democracy (pp. 49-73). Cambridge University Press.
  14. Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions and organizations across nations (2nd ed.). Sage Publications.
  15. Hofstede, G. (2011). Dimensionalizing cultures: The Hofstede model in context, Online Readings in Psychology and Culture, 2(1). https://doi.org/10.9707/2307-0919.1014
  16. Hofstede, G., Hofstede, G. J., & Minkov, M. (2010). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind. McGraw-Hill.
  17. House, R.J., Hanges, P.J., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P. & Gupta, V. (2004). Culture, leadership and organizations: The globe study of 62 societies. Sage Publications.
  18. Huber, Wm. D. (2001). Culture and corruption: Using Hofstede’s cultural dimensions to explain perceptions of corruption. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2383486
  19. Husted, B. W. (1999). Wealth, culture and corruption. Journal of International Business Studies, 30(2) (2nd Qtr.), 339- 359. https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/155316.pdf
  20. Inglehart, R. & Welzel, C. (2005). Modernization, cultural change, and democracy: The human development sequence. Cambridge University Press.
  21. Ishida, Y., Murayama, H., & Fukuda, Y. (2020). Association between overtime work and psychological distress. Journal of Occupational Health, 62(8), 641–646. https://doi.org/10.1097/JOM.0000000000001920
  22. Jansen, M. B. (2002). The making of modern Japan. Harvard University Press.
  23. Jun, J. S. & Muto, H. (1995). The hidden dimensions of Japanese administration: Culture and its impact. Public Administration Review, 55(2) (Mar. - Apr.), 125-134. http://www.jstor.org/stable/977178
  24. Koh, B. C. (1989). Japan’s administrative elite. University of California Press.
  25. Kroeber, A. L. & Kluckhohn, C. (1952). Culture: A critical review of concepts and definitions. Peabody Museum of American Archaelogy and Ethnology.
  26. Maesschalck, J. & Vanoverbeke, D. (2005). Describing and explaining the administrative ethical climate of a country: The case of the Japanese bureaucracy. The Annual Conference of the European Group of Public Administration, Bern-Switzerland, August 31- September 3. https://soc.kuleuven.be/io/pubpdf/İO01061016_egpa_maesschalck.pdf
  27. Marshall, G. (1999). Sosyoloji sözlüğü (O. Akınhay & D. Kömürcü, Trans.). Bilim ve Sanat Yayınları.
  28. Mclaughlin, E. (2013). Culture and corruption: An explanation of the differences between Scandinavia and Africa. American International Journal of Research in Humanities, Arts and Social Sciences, 2(2), March-May, 85-91. https://iasir.net/files/aijrhasspapers/aijrhass13-141.pdf
  29. McSweeney, B. (2002). Hofstede’s model of national cultural differences and their consequences: A triumph of faith – A failure of analysis. Human Relations, 55(1), 89–118. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726702551004
  30. Murdock, G. P. (1940). The cross-cultural survey. American Sociological Review, 5(3), 361-370. https://doi.org/10.2307/2084038
  31. Nakane, C. (1970). Japanese society. University of California Press.
  32. Nester, W. (1990). Japan's recruit scandal: Government and business for sale. Third World Quarterly, 12(2), 91-109. https://www.jstor.org/stable/3992261.
  33. Oatey, H. S. (2004). Introduction: Language, culture and rapport management. In H. S. Oatey (Ed.), Culturally speaking: Managing rapport through talk across cultures. Continuum.
  34. Ono, H. (2018). Why do the Japanese work long hours?. Japan Labor Issues, 2(5), 35-49. https://www.jil.go.jp/english/jli/documents/2018/005-03.pdf
  35. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2024). Economic surveys: Japan. OECD Publishing. https://www.oecd.org/content/dam/oecd/en/publications/reports/2024/01/oecd-economic-surveys-japan-2024_9289b572/41e807f9-en.pdf?utm_source
  36. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2025). Gender Equality in a Changing World: Taking Stock and Moving Forward. OECD Publishing. https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/gender-equality-in-a-changing-world_e808086f-en.html
  37. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2025). OECD environmental performance reviews: Japan 2025. OECD Publishing. https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/oecd-environmental-performance-reviews-japan-2025_583cab4c-en/full-report.html
  38. Özen, Ş. (1996). Bürokratik kültür I: Yönetsel değerlerin toplumsal temelleri. TODAİE.
  39. Özsemerci, K. (2003). Türk kamu yönetiminde yolsuzluklar, nedenleri, zararları ve çözüm önerileri. Sayıştay Araştırma/İnceleme/Çeviri Dizisi:27. https://www.sayistay.gov.tr/tr/Upload/95906369/files/yayinlar/TurkKamuYonetiminde_Yolsuzluklar.pdf
  40. Pecaric, M. (2011). Administrative culture. Hrvatska Komparativna Javna Uprava, 11(2), 379–409. https://hrcak.srce.hr/file/194854
  41. Pew Research Center. (2012). The global religious landscape: A report on the size and distribution of the world’s major religious groups as of 2010. https://assets.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/11/2014/01/global-religion-full.pdf
  42. Pharr, S. J. (2007). Public trust and corruption in Japan. In A. J. Heidenheimer & M. Johnston (Eds.), Political corruption: Concepts and contexts (pp. 835-862). Transaction Publishers.
  43. Poverty Reduction and Economic Management Network. (1997). Helping countries combat corruption: The role of World Bank. https://documents.worldbank.org/en/publication/documents-reports/documentdetail/799831538245192753/helping-countries-combat-corruption-the-role-of-the- world-bank
  44. Pudelko, M. (2006). Decision making in Japanese companies. In R. Haak (Ed.), The changing structure of labour in Japan: Japanese human resource management between continuity and innovation (pp. 88-112). Palgrave.
  45. Renn, O. (2008). Risk governance: Coping with uncertainty in a complex world. Earthscan.
  46. Sagi, S. (2015). “Ringi system” the decision making process in Japanese management systems: An overview. International Journal of Management and Humanities, 1(7), 10-11. https://www.ijmh.org/wp-content/uploads/papers/v1i7/G0055041715.pdf
  47. Schwartz, S. H. (1999). A theory of cultural values and some implications for work. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 48(1), 23-47. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-0597.1999.tb00047.x
  48. Slattery, M. (2014). Sosyolojide temel fikirler. Sentez.
  49. Statistics Bureau. (2025), Statistical handbook of Japan 2025, Retrieved November 21, 2025, from https://www.stat.go.jp/english/data/handbook/pdf/2025all.pdf#page=1
  50. Şaylan, G. (1975). Toplumsal değişme, yönetsel bozulma ve yolsuzluk. Amme İdaresi Dergisi, 8(4), Aralık, 85-94. http://www.todaie.edu.tr/yayinlar/dergi_goster.php?kodu=887&dergi=1
  51. Şencan, H., (2015). Japonya hükümet sistemi: Yarışan partiler değişmeyen iktidar. In H. Yapıcı Kaya (Ed.), Karşılaştırmalı hükümet sistemleri parlamenter sistem: Almanya, Güney Afrika, Hindistan, İtalya, İngiltere, Japonya örnekleri (pp. 287-332). TBMM Basımevi.
  52. Tavanti, M. (2013). The cultural dimensions of corruption: Integrating national cultures differences in the teaching of anti-corruption in public service management sector. In A. Stachowicz-Stanusch & H. K. Hansen (Eds.), Teaching anti-corruption: Developing foundation for business dignity (Principles of Responsible Management Education Book Series) (pp. 129-156). Business Expert Collection Press.
  53. Transparency International. (2024). Corruption perceptions index, Retrieved December 9, 2025, from https://www.transparency.org/en/cpi/2024
  54. Wilson, J. Q. (1996). Bürokrasi: Kamu kuruluşları neyi niçin yaparlar (S. Yalçındağ, Trans.). TODAİE.
  55. Yavuzyiğit, H. M. (1996). Türkiye’de rüşvet ve yolsuzlukların nedenleri ile çözüm yollarının tartışılması. Sayıştay Dergisi, 23, Ekim-Aralık, 1-36. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/download/article-file/3160404