Currently, we can say without any doubt that Western non-technical knowledge is mostly (if not solely) applicable to and useful for Western societies. By analyzing the distinct social pattern of the world’s macro-regional cultural entities, this conclusion becomes more than obvious.

For this, I have chosen to take a brief look upon , what I consider to be, the major cultural groups today: Western (mostly US and the EU), Islamic (the Middle East and Northern Africa) and Asian (with focus on Japan and China). These three entities are the “triad” of the modern economic and political context and represent the cultural basis upon which social integration structures will come to develop (further).

In the next brief analysis I will point out the crucial differences between these cultural spaces, differences that point to the need to develop specialized ’social solutions’ for every particularized need.

First of all, the Western culture is that which has been for centuries praised as being the most functional, efficient and humane culture in the world. The fundamental beliefs are: individualism, liberalism and materialism. According to these cultural elements, experience has proved that the best model for governance is democracy. Some examples in this matter are Athens and USA. In Athens, democracy came along as an alternative to autocracy and, as it was experimented, it proved more functional for the general well-being of the community. Elements such as individualism and materialism, which were deeply rooted in the collective psyche, favored a participatory form of government because it led to negotiation and compromise between the various interests. In the same way, the American democracy favored (at first)  cohabitation between the European colonists. On the other hand, totalitarian regimes and (absolute) monarchy totally failed socially. While the former started the second World War, the latter led Europe into the Dark Ages. Pluralism is, therefore, a must in the administration of Western societies. It is seen as a way to preserve core values, such as the fundamental human rights. As supra-structure, the integration takes place, for now, regional and the best examples are NAFTA and the EU.

The second macro-culture in perspective is the Islamic culture. ‘Born’ in the Middle East, Islam covers today all of Northern Africa and was, in the past, present (institutionally) in Europe (mostly in Southern Iberia and in the Balkan peninsula). The fundamental elements are: religiousness and patriarchal structure. It relies on the positive discrimination of males and is, to a certain point, individualistic (but, by no comparison, to the extend of the Western culture). As political structure is concerned, the main form is theocracy (on the axiological side), and relies on autocratic leaders to exercise the power. Also, economically, the religion plays a fundamental role. A few particular examples in this matter can cast some light on the matter. For instance, the constitution of Saudi Arabia is the Qur’an itself. Also, the system of interest is banned, because Islam considers it as being sinful. Therefore banks function on associative basis with their customers. In comparison with the West, where religion plays a small, if not minimal, role (Europe is famous for having the majority of its citizens as non-believers), in Islamic societies, religion is fundamental. My personal opinion on this matter is that, by not experimenting (technical) progress at a vast scale, old social institutions - like the religion and the mosques - have continued to exert influence in this part of the world, and have adapted their techniques to the new challenges in order to continue their existence. OPEC is the perfect example of an Islamic supra-structure. Also, it shows how poor economic competitiveness, together with huge and expensive oil resources, is able to support the theocratic regimes. It will be very interesting to observe the evolution of this culture after it has exhausted its current assets.

Asian culture, the last in our analysis, has some very interesting characteristics that distinguishes it from the others. For example, colectivism as a way to define individual relationships with the rest of the society, group orientation and ethics as a vital part in the well-being of the community. As opposed to Western culture, consensus replaces compromise as the process that binds the society together. The role of pluralism and competition is taken by ethics, which is considered to be a natural part of human behavior (unlike in the West). The fact that China uses socialism as fundamental ideology of the state (although it embraces the market economy) and the fact that the Japanese democracy (de facto) has a strong social component are good examples of the political structure of this culture. Also, economically, it’s worth mentioning that Japan’s central bank is one of the least independent in the world. But still, in this circumstances, the Japanese currency remains the 3rd strongest in the world.

This goes to prove that Western knowledge is not very accurate in researching phenomenons from different cultures, and that a less ethnocentric approach would benefit more in providing solutions for the real world.

Although cities are the main propellers of the world’s economies, it is becoming more and more obvious that their pattern of evolution is changing. If, since the Middle Ages, towns were developing according to the potential and resources of the neighboring villages and smaller towns, today the potential of development lies in the city itself, gradually influencing further the surrounding area.

Such is the case of Bucharest, a relatively large city for Eastern Europe. With its almost 2 million inhabitants, it is one of the most economically developed places in the region. It alone produced more than 16 percent of Romania’s GDP in 2006 1 , thus having a better GDP/capita (PPS) than other Western regions of the EU, such as Campania in Italy - the region around Naples - 2. Also, the rate of growth is the biggest in Europe, a staggering 20% 3, up by more than 13% from its country’s growth rate. And this is just one example of an ‘insular city’ that developed separately from its environment, stimulating the region around to grow along. Other such cities in Europe are: Barcelona, Madrid, Lisbon, Budapest and, perhaps the ‘crown’s jewel’, London.

These are spaces that, because of their status as national capitals, or because they are regional/international hubs (financial hubs, knowledge hubs, transport hubs) receive the most ‘attention’ from international visitors/investors of from national governments.

However, the relationship of interdependence between this type of cities and their area of influence remains to be further strenghtened in the future, if the development is desired to be a sustainable one.