Tuesday’s Edition: Universalistic Cultures And Particularistic cultures
The 8 political drivers
Somewhere in Nairobi, a Kenyan official is staring at a contract. Somewhere in Beijing, a Chinese banker is looking at the same document. One sees a binding agreement. The other sees the beginning of a conversation.
They’re both reading the same words, but they’re not reading the same thing.
Kenya’s Standard Gauge Railway, a flagship Belt and Road project, hit delays and cost overruns. The Kenyan officials, trained in British legal traditions, pulled out the contract. The terms were clear. The deadlines were specific. They expected the written words to govern what happened next.
The Chinese lenders saw it differently. Yes, there was a contract. But there was also a relationship. Kenya was a strategic partner. Circumstances had changed. The document was a framework, not a straitjacket, so of course, the terms would flex.
Neither side was being deceptive. Neither side was corrupt. They were running incompatible legal operating systems, coming from different cultural perspectives.
Universalistic cultures, the US, Germany, and the UK, believe rules apply the same way to everyone. A contract means what it says. The deadline is the deadline. Personal relationships don’t modify legal obligations. If anything, letting relationships influence outcomes is the definition of corruption.
Particularistic cultures, China, Russia, and most of Latin America, believe context and relationships shape how rules apply. A contract is a starting point. Circumstances matter. The parties’ relationship matters. Rigid enforcement that ignores legitimate human situations is cruel.
In its extreme form, universalism produces systems so rigid that they destroy relationships over technicalities. Particularism produces systems so flexible that rules mean nothing and only personal connections matter. Neither extreme serves anyone well. It’s the middle ground that works best.
It’s the middle ground where the confusion lives.
China’s Belt and Road Initiative has generated over a trillion dollars in infrastructure projects across 150 countries. The contracts typically include provisions that Western lawyers find maddeningly vague, clauses allowing acceleration of loan repayment for “actions adverse to Chinese interests.” Western legal experts call this exploitative. Chinese negotiators call it normal. Both are describing the same clause through different cultural perspectives.
When Pakistan’s Gwadar Port project ran into trouble, Chinese lenders extended timelines, citing the broader relationship. A universalistic system would have triggered penalty clauses. The Chinese approach bent the rules around the partnership. Is it generosity or unpredictability?
Hornby mapped these patterns onto individual psychology. Universalism aligns with the West Sage, who values logical systems where rules apply uniformly based on principle, and the Blue Guardian, who imposes structure through procedures that treat everyone identically. These archetypes define fairness as consistency. Same rules, same application, regardless of who you are.
Particularism elevates the East Communicator, who adapts approaches based on specific relationships rather than uniform scripts, and the Green Caregiver, who adjusts responses to individual circumstances. These archetypes define fairness as recognition. Different situations require different responses.
Neither is right nor wrong. One trades flexibility for clarity. The other trades predictability for humanity.
But here’s where it costs us. Every international agreement, every trade deal, every infrastructure contract becomes a landmine. Universalistic cultures interpret flexible implementation as corruption. Particularistic cultures interpret rigid enforcement as inhumane. Both sides can think they’re stating moral facts. Both sides can think the other is acting in bad faith.
The Kenyan official and the Chinese banker aren’t arguing about a railway. They’re arguing about what a contract is and what the rules are for. Whether relationships should bend obligations or obligations should transcend relationships.
Neither knows it, but that’s the problem.