Page 108 - Culture Technology Communication

National Level Culture and Global Diffusion 93

active innovations, in particular, possess certain objective character-
istics that differentiate them from stand-alone innovations. These
differences include network externalities and the “critical mass” ef-
fect. Recognition of these differences has led to changes in Diffusion
of Innovation theory (Rogers 1986; Rogers 1995b).

Global Diffusion
As stated above, traditional diffusion research addresses diffusion
mostly from an individual-as-adopter perspective with an emphasis
on perceived attributes measured at the individual level. The the-
ory has, however, been applied to groups as well. The analysis here
uses diffusion theory and applies it to a global level analysis where
nations are seen as adopters. The leap in levels of analysis requires
attention to several questions. In what ways do nations display
characteristics similar to individuals in areas that are relevant to
diffusion? What are the mechanisms by which the individual char-
acteristics affect diffusion and are these mechanisms applicable to
a global level analysis? We will begin by addressing the most trans-
ferable aspects first, followed by a discussion of those characteris-
tics or mechanisms which are not easily transferred.
Studies of innovation diffusion have identified characteristics
of early adopters as having greater wealth, higher levels of educa-
tion, and greater exposure to mass media (Rogers 1995a). At the in-
dividual level, persons with greater wealth have the financial
resources to invest in new technologies, even before the advantages
of the innovation are clear and well established by other adopters.
Early adoption involves risk and those with greater financial re-
sources are better able to afford these risks. In a comparative analy-
sis of nations, wealth is measured by per-capita GDP. In a global
level analysis the “adoption by a country” is usually really an adop-
tion by an individual in that country. There are national-level insti-
tutions, however, that will affect the ability of an individual to
make that adoption decision, by influencing their access to wealth,
education, and mass media. Thus, national-level indicators of
wealth, education and mass media should predict adoption just as
individual-level measures would. The national measures are a mere
aggregation of individuals’ wealth, education, and mass media ex-
posure. Nations with higher incomes, higher levels of education,
and greater numbers of mass media channels can thus be reasoned
to have higher levels of adoption through the same mechanisms as
individuals.