Theories of Development - Assignment Example

Outline the process of economic and social change envisaged by Modernisation Theorists. Critically discuss their contention that the Western model ofdevelopment CAN ONLY BE OF POSITIVE BENEFIT TO THIRD WORLD COUNTRIES. The appearance of modernization theory can be combined with the need for explanation of the changes in the social and political structures around the world under the influence of turbulences and conflicts either in the political/ financial or the social environment. In the literature, the reasons for the development of modernization theory have been thoroughly examined by researchers trying to identify its strengths/ weaknesses but also its role in the development of less – benefited countries (referring especially to the countries of the Third World). It should be noticed that the development of modernization theory has been quick and multi-dimensional – possibly influenced by the simultaneous development of globalization (Dtiglitz, 2002). Trying to locate the historical roots of this theory, Blaney et al. (2002) was led to the conclusion that modernization theory could have started in the previous centuries having being transformed through the years in order to meet the new political and social standards – the so-called – neo modernization theory. Regarding this issue it is noticed by the above researchers that since the putative end of the Cold War, modernization is increasingly reimagined as a global process— as an expanding liberal zone of peace, a global civil society, or as emerging forms of global governance’ (Blaney et al., 2002, 103). This form of modernization theory has been also characterized as being part of the International Relations – a concept developed through the years in order to explain the models of cooperation among the states, the role of governments, and the power of international authorities/ bodies to intervene in order to settle disputes of international character – being developed between members of the international community. The above role of modernization theory in the development of international relations has been explained by Blaney et al. (2002) as follows: ‘while modernization theory implicitly relies on IRs freezing of difference into geopolitical containers, it also projects a natural and universal developmental sequence through which all cultures must pass’ (Blaney et al., 2002, 103). Under these terms, modernization theory could be regarded as being part of the political efforts for the improvement of cooperation among the states around the world (Larrain, 1989). The countries belonging in the so-called ‘Third World’ cannot be excluded from the above framework. In this case modernization theory could be regarded as having a role of supporter to the challenges (political, financial, social) faced by the local governments; however, because modernization theory is related with the western political and social traditions, it would be stated that the application of the principles of this theory on the various political and social sectors of these countries would cause turbulences – because of the differences between the social and cultural characteristics of the Third-World countries and those of the countries of the West (Desai et al., 2002). However, it has been proved that the use of the principles of the modernization theory on the development of political and social framework of Third World countries can benefit these countries either in the short or the long term. The reasons for this assumption can be identified in the literature published on the particular issue. The historical development of modernization has been also examined by Beck et al. (2003). The above theorist supported that the historical roots of modernity – that led to modernization – cannot be easily identified since the above concept has been transformed in order to meet the social and political needs of modern societies (Foster-Carter, 1985). Through all these transformations, modernity has lost its initial character – from a pure sociological concept it has been transformed to a framework that defines a specific style of life based on the funds and the technology available in various human activities. For this reason, it is noticed that ‘modernity has not vanished, we are not post it; radical social change has always been part of modernity; what is new is that modernity has begun to modernize its own foundations’ (Beck et al., 2003, 1). In fact, the change of modernity through the years has been such that we could even speak for a ‘second modernity’. The role of this concept in the explanation of the various aspects of modern life can be important but contradicted with other sociological frameworks. Towards this direction, it is supported that ‘where postmodernism simply celebrates this multiplication of boundaries, the theory of second modernity starts with the problem this new reality poses for individual and collective decisions, and with the problem that the continued existence of such decisions poses for theory’ (Beck et al., 2003, 1). The role of second modernity – as of the postmodernism – can be important regarding the explanation of various political and social trends internationally. In the case of countries with particular social/ political and financial problems – like the countries of the Third World – the use of the principles of second modernity would be possible only under the terms that appropriate measures are taken for the limitation of any potential differentiations among the participants/ people (referring to the social/ political decisions developed using the principles of second modernity). The above view is in accordance with that of Chirot (2001) who made clear that modernization theory can benefit the countries of the Third World but only under the terms that the modernization across these countries will be even/ equal for all people. In case of an uneven modernization, it is quite possible that social conflicts are developed leading to the increase of inequality within the particular society. In this context, it is made clear that ‘uneven modernization has caused some parts of the world to lag behind others’ (Chirot, 2001, 341). In the future, it is expected that ‘social evolutionary pressures will force all societies to modernize, so that the major technological and cultural gaps between various parts of the world will greatly diminish’ (Chirot, 2001, 341). In other words, the current role of modernization in the development of countries of the Third World is rather unclear; modernization could benefit these countries to be developed (even if it is based on the principles of the western model of development) only if equality was promoted – equal chances should given to all people of these countries in order to participate in the relevant schemes (Leys, 1996). In accordance with the above, second modernity would have an important role in the development of the countries of Third World. However, issues ‘of contingency and boundaries to distinguish second from first modernity’ (Lee, 2008, 55) could also appear. The above problem could be faced successfully by ‘an attempt to reinvent modernity without considering its shifting centre’ (Lee, 2008, 55). In other words, the second modernity – as the first one – could benefit the countries of the Third World only if the local political powers participate actively in the relevant effort suggesting methods for the alignment of the existing social and political rules/ trends with the principles of second-modernity – where possible. The effects of these efforts on the various aspects of people’s life should be taken into consideration by those who will administrate the whole project. The role of sociological theories in the development of the countries of the Third World has been an issue appeared rather recently – approximately in the beginning of the 1960s. Then, the use of modernization theory in order to support the development of the countries of the Third World was considered a rather challenging task. Indeed, the study of Pye (1979) reflecting the sociological trends of that period led to the conclusion that ‘interest in the questions of "dependency" and the relationships of the Third World to the international system forced theorists to reexamine the significance of the traditional basic concepts of "authority" and "sovereignty" for changing societies’ (Pye, 1979, 28). In other words, the introduction of the principles of modernization in the countries of the Third World has been considered as being depended on the potential willingness of the political powers of these countries to change their fundamental methodology of decision making. However, the reaction of local governments to such a prospect cannot be estimated in advance. Regarding this issue, it is noticed that ‘the problems of achieving greater equality, both domestically and internationally, are already well recognized in the economic realm, but will be even more difficult with respect to power’ (Pye, 1979, 28). All these issues are also highlighted in the Brandt Commission Report (1980) where it is noticed that when designing the development of Third World countries, political leaders should take into consideration ‘the often overlooked idea of greater human dignity, security, justice and equity as equally valid measures of development as economic betterment’ (The Brandt commission, 1980, online). Under these terms, the use of any sociological framework for the development of the countries of the Third World should be decided and evaluated in accordance with these countries’ existing political and social system (Cowen et al., 1996). It is quite possible that the principles of modernity are not ‘compatible’ with the local social and cultural trends or it is also possible that there is no intention by the local authorities/ governments for changing existing methodology of decision taking (Alavi et 1982). The existence of inequality – a fact that may serve the interests of different social and political teams – would be an obstacle for the expansion of the principles of modernity across the particular countries. References Alavi, H. and Shanin, T. [Eds] (1982) Introduction to the Sociology of Developing Societies. London: MacMillan Beck, U., Bonss, W., Lau, C. (2003) The Theory of Reflexive Modernization. Theory, Culture & Society, 20(2): 1-33 Blaney, D., Ayatullah, N. (2002) Neo-Modernization? IR and the Inner Life of Modernization Theory. European Journal of International Relations, 8(1): 103-137 Brandt Commission (1980) North-South: A Programme for Survival http://www.stwr.org/special-features/the-brandt-report.html#Dimensions Chirot, D. (2001) Theorizing Progress and Social Change. International Sociology, 16(3): 341-360 Cowen, M. P., R. W. Shenton (1996) Doctrines of Development. London: Routledge Desai, V., Potter, R.B. Eds. (2002) The Companion to Development Studies. London: Arnold Dtiglitz, J. (2002) Globalisation and its Discontents. London: Penguin. Foster-Carter, A. (1985) The Sociology of Development. London: Causeway Press. Larrain, J. (1989) Theories of Development. Oxford: Blackwell. Lee, R. (2008) In search of second modernity: reinterpreting reflexive modernization in the context of multiple modernities. Social Science Information, 47(1): 55-69 Leys, C. (1996) The Rise and Fall of Development Theory London: James Currey Ch. 1 Pye, L. (1979) Political Modernization: Gaps Between Theory and Reality. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 442(1): 28-39 Read More