Identify an ethical issue (human rights, bribery, imperialism, etc.) that reflects significant cultural differences between U.S. perspectives and practices and those of another country (select a country that you did not explore before). Fully present and defend the positions of both countries (from the U.S. perspective AND as if you are a citizen of the other country), before analyzing challenges presented by differences between those positions and offering strategies to manage global ethical conflicts.
Support all answers with proper scholarly research, using at least 1 reference ( scholarly articles published in peer-reviewed academic journals). Every initial post should have at least 150 words and will be graded for clarity, content, grammar and APA like a paper.
Student should also post at least 2 substantive replies to classmates’ posts.
1st Page is the initial Post.
2nd Page is to respond to each of the following Classmates:
FIRST CLASSMATE:
In the United States, we are fortunate enough to be protected by our Constitution. Under the Constitution, our citizens have certain rights and freedoms that unfortunately many other countries do not have. Freedom of speech, religion, and assembly are some specific basic human rights that some citizens need to fight for every day. The U.S. has a judiciary system in place with set laws and consequences for breaking these laws. When someone breaks the law the punishment is very seldom death. That is not the case for many countries. Though the United States touts its freedom, Freedom House, an American organization ‘devoted to the support and defense of democracy around the world” when rating countries on their civil liberties and political rights, ranked the U.S. as an 86 out of 100. The lowest Global Freedom score was held by Tibet and Syria. Both countries had a 1 out of 100, the highest scores were in countries like Sweden and Finland, both ranked a 100/100 (Freedom House, 2020).
One country, in particular, that has actually had the worst human rights violations is Egypt. The President of Egypt, Abdel Fattah al-Sisi has governed the country as an authoritarian state since 2013 after taking control during a coup. President al-Sisi is in control of policymaking, and he can appoint one-third of the Senate (Freedom House, 2020). There is very little freedom of the press and freedom of assembly. In September of 2019 some small protests broke out, and in response, the authorities detained thousands of people and censored online speech. Journalists are also frequently detained and imprisoned. In 2018 a law called the Media Regulation Law states that members of the press can be imprisoned if they “incite violence” through their journalists (Freedom House, 2020). Certain websites are also blocked if there is anything politically sensitive located on them. According to the Egyptian constitution, there is the freedom to assemble, however, a 2017 amendment allowed the Ministry to postpone, ban, or relocate protests (Freedom House, 2020).
Amnesty International reported that in April, the country led a crackdown on female social media influencers, and prosecuted nine of them for “indecency” and “violating family values”. “At least six women were sentenced to prison terms ranging from two to six years” (Amnesty International, 2020). This is a very stark contrast to the very relaxed American laws where we have pornographic websites and movies that people are allowed to produce and purchase. It is understandable that President al-Sisi would put so many restrictions into place. By monitoring and censoring the media and online sources he is able to detain and eliminate people who are opposed to him and he is also able to control the narrative and control the information that is dispersed to the general public. Jailing those that fight against the government sends a message to others that treason will not be tolerated. If everyone would just follow the rules put in place by al-Sisi and the government and not challenge the authority there would be fewer imprisonments.
Amnesty International. (2020). Egypt 2020 Archives. https://www.amnesty.org/en/location/middle-east-and-north-africa/egypt/report-egypt/
Freedom House. (2020). Egypt. https://freedomhouse.org/country/egypt/freedom-world/2020
*The Freedom in the world site is very interesting and has Human rights data on every country and how they rank
2nd Classmate:
In an individualistic and universalistic country like the U.S., bribery or even providing gift for superiors is something that will be very frowned upon. In fact, there are distinct laws and regulations surrounding bribery and corruption. Its universalistic-leaning indicates that the social practices are to “follow the letter of the law” regardless of who one is, especially emphasizing the importance of explicit laws and behavioral directions (Tuleja, 2017). Since social practices or ways of behaving in different areas are not as “implicitly obvious,” explicit signs (such as No Loitering) will be much more abundant to explicitly denote how one should act in a certain setting. Moreover, it should be noted that the U.S. is also low on uncertainty avoidance. This may lead individuals to be more inclined to utilize bribery to advance their personal agendas, further emphasizing the need for explicit laws to prevent such behaviors. With all this being said, bribery in the U.S. is highly untolerated as it is seen as evading the law, which goes against its universalistic foundation that implies that the objective law should be followed by all.
Adversely, in a Latin American country (such as Costa Rica), there are certain cultural elements that may make a superior more tolerant to bribery. Firstly, consider the dimension of collectivism. In such a country, work is something that may be seen as a way to support their family unit (the collective) as compared to an individualistic culture, where work is seen as something to advance one’s own goals. With a collectivistic mindset, accepting a bribery at work may be seen as something that is beneficial to the bribery-accepting individual’s collective, or their family, in this case (Sanchez, Gomez & Wated 2008). Moreover, there is a large emphasis here on the relationships one has, making Latin American countries more particularistic, and consequently, high-context. This means that there are likely “strong social networks. . . which have developed over time as substitutes for generally weak and ineffective institutions” (Sanchez, Gomez & Wated 2008). A superior will more likely take into consideration the specific details of the one particular bribe they are considering, and decide if it was something that can be tolerated and let go without discipline, or does indeed break social customs and expectations.
Of course, there are challenges and potential hypocrisies with both perspectives. In the case of the U.S., all forms of bribery are not tolerated regardless of who is involved. Given its strict adherence to the law, one may even turn someone in for something that may not be an explicit bribe, but seemingly such- such as a lavish gift. However, does this complicate business and the creation of strong bonds and relationships when interacting with foreign diplomats? These foreign officials may be coming from countries where bribery or expensive gift-giving is a customary way of forming a connection or bond in business, but the U.S.’s highly universalistic ideals may complicate this. On the other hand, a Latin American country’s approach to bribery may also pave the way for unfair and (ironically) uncertain conditions for certain employees. If someone can get ahead by simply gaining favor of their superior through bribery, will this unfairly allot them more opportunities compared to their non-bribing peers? This may also create the generally corrupt and imbalanced conditions that America seeks to avoid through its anti-bribery laws, depending who it is that comes into power and is giving/accepting the bribes.
So, when it comes to conducting business on a global scale, a certain reframing of the customs as it pertains to each culture’s cultural dimensional values may be in order. As noted by Sanchez, Gomez and Wated, “First, both attitudes and subjective norms can be shifted by emphasizing that collectivist values such as social harmony and solidarity are not opposed but actually aligned with individual accountability because group achievement, organizational survival and, ultimately, the jobs that help support the employees’ families depend on all group members’ observing the proper rules.” Thus, to uphold objective fairness in cross-cultural context, certain practices and why they should be upheld can be reframed to align with each respective culture’s values.
Sanchez, J. I., Gomez, C., & Wated, G. (2008). A Value-Based Framework for Understanding Managerial Tolerance of Bribery in Latin America. Journal of Business Ethics, 83(2), 341–352. http://www.jstor.org/stable/25482376
Tuleja, E. A. (2017). Intercultural communication for global business: How leaders communicate success. Routledge.
