The Basic Principles of Modernisation Theories - Research Paper Example

The Basic Principles of Modernisation Theories 1. Introduction The identification of the events that cause the development of sciences and societies through the decades has been a target of high importance for theorists around the world; it seems that development is an indispensable part of human physical and mental activity; however, at the level of the state, development can be related with various aims and priorities that are not always objective or they are not sufficiently justified – in terms of their necessity within the context of a specific social or scientific field. Often, the need for development is understood as a need for change the spatial structure of a state – or society; in this way, development becomes a tool for creating areas – referring to geographic regions or social teams – that share common characteristics – as these ones are defined and set by the initiators of the relevant project. The interaction between spatialization and development is highlighted in the work of Shields (2006); the above researcher notes that ‘it is insufficient to say that boundary marking and border-making become simply more fraught or obvious’ (Shields, 2006, 223). In other words, borders are likely to be set when the development of a region or a scientific, economic or social field is attempted – probably because it is assumed that borders would increase the chances for the success of the specific effort. Moreover, these borders are not always visible; in any case, their effectiveness or role in the development of a particular sector or area cannot be considered as guaranteed. Current paper focuses on the principles of modernization theories that refer to development studies; emphasis is given on the effects of these principles on development studies as these effects can be differentiated in accordance with the scientific thoughts and the social ethics and values held at a specific period of time. It is proved that modernization theories can affect the interpretation of development studies but the extension of this interaction cannot be precisely estimated in advance; it is rather depended on the public’s needs, the advances of the technology but also the social norms of a particular region – on which the development studies under examination have been applied. 2. Modernisation theories in development studies – overview and basic principles In order to understand the role of modernisation theories in the formulation, interpretation and evaluation of development studies it is necessary to refer to the main characteristics of these theories – also the reasons of their existence and use for the explanation of social and political behaviour. The reference to the historical development of modernisation theories would be also valuable – the changes in the form and the content of these theories through the decades prove their potentials to be adapted on the political and social climate of each era. The appearance of modernization theories has been explained using different approaches. In accordance with Preston (1982, 72) ‘modernization theory is the child of the cold war’; it is also noted that modernization theory has been introduced in order to replace the ‘growth theory’, which is a fundamental concept for the development studies formulated during the particular era; the date of the first appearance of the specific theory can be identified in the years of the ‘pre-1955 period of US dominance in aid-giving’ (Preston, 1982, 93). Modernization, thus, seems to be a wide concept referring to many different frameworks and principles – including the social, political, economic, technological and legal; the main issue highlighted in the concept of modernization is the potential for the change of these frameworks in order for specific interests to be served – usually reference is made to the public interest. Modernization theories - characteristics - points of interaction with development studies Modernization theories are part of the sociology of development. Development theories are also part of the specific concept. The common framework that relates modernization theories and development studies can be considered as the basis for their potential interaction. In accordance with Liping (2008, 88) ‘two major approaches have dominated the field of the sociology of development: theories of modernization, which focus on developed countries, and theories of development, which concentrate on Latin America, Africa, and East Asia’. In the above study it is noted that there are areas, like Russia and China, where the proposals set for their restructuring need to be based on different terms – referring to the principles included in development studies in their traditional form; the need for the creation of new development studies is therefore emergent; modernization theories could help towards the formulation of development studies that will be able to respond to the needs of modern societies. It should be noted that modernization theories could help to the improvement of existing development studies only if they could be aligned with the needs that these studies serve. Referring to the reasons that led to the appearance of development studies, Hette (2001) noted that these studies were formulated in order to respond to the following three challenges: ‘the industrialization imperative in the emerging state-system in nineteenth-century Europe, the international concern with global poverty in the bipolar post second world war world and the current meaning of development in a globalized and increasingly chaotic world’ (Hette, 2001, 21). At a next level, modernization theories cannot be totally irrelevant with the issues mentioned above because in this way there would be no necessity for the development studies to adopt principles of modernization theories. However, the importance of the issues described above for modern development studies can be doubted; indeed, the development studies used in countries internationally are expected to follow the current social and political trends – otherwise their effectiveness in the restructuring of social, political and financial frameworks worldwide could be doubted – change of existing social, political and financial conditions cannot be attempted using out-of-date principles and methodologies. On the other hand, modernization theories do not have a standardized form. In fact, it is proved that the structure and the content of modernisation theories have been altered through the years in accordance with the demands of science and politics worldwide. The influence of modernization theories on development studies has been modified accordingly. A critical point for the development of modernisation theories has been the end of Cold War. It is at that point of time that neo-modernisation appeared. The specific form of modernisation theory has been developed in order to support international relations. The specific issue is analysed in the study of Blaney et al. (2002) where it is noted that ‘IR fails to herald a unique contribution to social theory because it persistently avoids and denies the problem of what to do about cultural difference; modernization theory provides an essential contribution to IR's avoidance of this central problem’ (Blaney et al., 2002, 103). In accordance with the above view, modernisation theory is likely to be included in development studies that seek to improve a state’s international relations – increasing in this way the potentials of the specific state to fight for its interests within the international community. Of course, this is not a traditional type of development study; however, it is a common practice in conditions of severe crisis – where all necessary measures for the improvement of a state’s position in the global market need to be taken – an example is current financial crisis. An indicative example of the form that modernization theories can take under the influence of the social and political conditions is the ecological modernization theory – known as EMT – which aims to support the increase of ecological sustainability. Despite the fact that the above theory has been developed in order to meet specific requirements, it has been used for the development additional theories and views – interacting with researchers in other institutions both locally and internationally. The different aspects of modernisation theories have been explained using different justifications and principles. An indicative example is the study of Beck et al. (2003) where it is noted that ‘modernization theories, in their basic form, are used to highlight the flexible character of modernity’ (Beck et al., 2003, 1). This means that the willingness to change traditional social or scientific ethics and practices can be powerful through the decades – even if there are factors that prohibit the appearance of active efforts regarding the above target. In this case, the presence of modernisation theories within the development studies can be based mainly on the fact that the latter are used for the restructuring or increase of existing frameworks and initiatives, i.e. their modernization. In this context, modernization theories are indispensable part of development studies, which are used as a vehicle for the expansion of modernity in various sectors of social, scientific and economic life. Melcote (2001, 75) notes that modernisation can have four different aspects, being considered as: a) economic model, b) social evolution, c) individual change and d) discourse. Using the above four approaches, different types of development studies can be resulted. Indeed, through the first approach – modernisation as an economic model – the following theory of development results: ‘there are two factors that are important: a) productive resources a society has and b) economic institutions to use and to guide the use of the resources’ (Melcote, 2001, 75). The next approach of modernisation, this of social evolution, can lead to different assumptions: a) a development study can be used in order to express the difference between the traditional and the modern society, b) a development study focuses on the representation of the opposition between urban and folk society and c) the development study represents the opposition between the Contract and the Status (Melcote, 2001, 82) – referring mostly to the difference in social status that can be observed among people in a particular society – as for the Contract it is rather a representation of the social bond developed in a specific region – the above bond is likely to refer to people with common social characteristics. The different aspects of modernization theories – as presented above – are indicative of the influence that certain facts and initiatives can have on these theories. In accordance with Pye (1979) modernization theories have been influenced by the changes in the political climate – both in the local and the international community. The above study refer to a specific period – the post 1960s period; it is made clear that ‘changes in scholarly fashions, and continuing advances in technology which, in auguring the advent of "post modern" societies, made the concept of "modernization" even more ambiguous’ (Pye, 1979, 28). In other words, modernization theories can have different effects on the development studies of each specific era taking into consideration the political characteristics and ideas as well as the social ethics that characterize the particular era. It is through this aspect that the role of modernization theories on development studies will be examined and evaluated. Development studies are also likely to be influenced by certain facts and initiatives – following the same path with the modernization theories. The specific issue is highlighted in the study of Pugh (1996) where it is made clear that ‘in the context of developing countries, the World Bank and other leading policy-makers have been advocating a closer relationship between macroeconomic and urban policy development’ (Pugh, 1996, 1045). In other words, the structure and the content of the development studies cannot be characterized as random; it is rather the result of the long - term observation of specific social needs; development studies are formulated in order to respond to these needs – even if they often fail to respond to the demands of their role. The achievement of the above target is likely to be guaranteed when principles of modernization theories are incorporated in the development studies used for restructuring a region’s existing social, political or financial conditions. However, quite often, existing modernization theories cannot respond to the needs of development studies; alternative forms of modernization theories are then likely to appear. The example of ‘neo-modernization’, a concept that was developed in order to help towards the evaluation of social and political conditions that resulted from the World War II, is mentioned by Tiryakian (1991); the above theorists supports that the appearance of neo-modernization should be considered as expected ‘since many regions of the world are undergoing an important new phase of modernisation and since there may be taking place an important shift in the epicentre of modernity’ (Tiryakian, 1991, 165). However, the criteria for deciding on the principles of the specific concept and the terms for the application of these principles have not been adequately discussed in the above study. The reference to the concept of ‘neo-modernization’ is made in order to emphasize on the needs for well-justified theoretical frameworks that could help to improve the effectiveness of development studies applied on a specific country. 3. Critiques on modernization theories in development studies Modernization theories can influence development studies – in the context described in the previous section – however, the interaction between the two concepts depends on the needs that have to be served – referring to the needs of the population of the region on which a specific development study is to be applied. Regarding this issue it has been proved that the principles of modernization theories may not be included in development studies when the conditions – social, economic or political – of the particular region would not allow the implementation of such principles. In this context, the value of modernization theories may be limited if the people involved in a relevant project do not accept the principles of this concept – being different with their values/ traditions or simple their perceptions; this fact could lead to the failure of the development studies that are based on specific principles of the modernization theories; a fact that it is negative in regions which need to be restructured in order for the quality of life of their residents to be improved. The above view is supported in the study of Cardoso (2000, 171); Pugh (1996, 1046) also supports that modernization theories may be opposite with the cultures of a region but if they are necessary in order to improve the conditions of life of the local population, they should be included in the development studies applied on the specific region – especially if there is no other concept that could justify the application of development plans that are quite necessary for the improvement of the urban structure of a region or a country. In accordance with the above view, people living in societies where development studies are used for the realization of various projects should align their behaviour with the principles and the rules set by the projects’ initiators – pressure on specific parts of the local population can be significant, not necessarily psychological but can have other forms, like in the case of tax imposed for the realization of projects that are part of a study aiming to develop the quality of life of people in a specific region. In accordance with Hill (1975, 30) ‘it is in the developing societies that problems relating to the co-existence of social formations of different ages, to the transition from one structural system to another, crop up most vividly and in a practical way’. The above view sets another issue: even if development studies are often based on principles of modernization theories, still they may lead to the limitation of social or economic freedom of the local population – referring to the people living in the regions the reform of which is attempted using appropriate development studies. An indicative example is presented through the study of Gundelach (1994); in the particular study a survey among European countries is presented and analysed; the above survey was conducted across Europe in 1990. The results of this survey are quite interesting regarding the prospects of modernization theories in development studies under specific terms and conditions. In accordance with the findings of this survey, cultural values in European Union – referring to the culture and traditions of each member state - are quite strong and it would be impossible to create a common framework of values for all member states. As a result, Gundelach (1994) notes that ‘a social institution's approach is more effective than the often- used modernization theory to explain value differences among countries’ (Gundelach, 1994, 37). In other words, modernization theories are not always the only concept for promoting necessary development plans – alternative concepts should be used instead – if the use of the principles of modernization is considered to be of no importance – especially when the local culture and traditions are in opposition with the principles of modernization. The specific fact is also highlighted in the study of Hajjar (1984); in the specific study an alternate ‘dependency theory’ is proposed – instead of the modernization theory – in case that this alternate concept would be easier to be applied on a particular area because of the local social and cultural values; the case of the Middle – East is mentioned by Hajjar (1984) as an indicative example; in this region the use of modernization theories may face a series of obstacles. The choice of the alternate concept suggested above it is justified as follows: ‘on the traditional-developed continuum, the Middle East is characterized as quasi-developed, a unique phase distinct from the transitional or developed phases’ (Hajjar, 1984, 121). In other words, Middle – East is a region the social context of which is under continuous change – under the influence of scientific and technological progress; having these characteristics the specific region is available to development but under specific terms and conditions – the influence of local culture and traditions is still strong (Lerner, 1958, 67). In the case of the above region there is another factor that influence the effectiveness of any concept used for the area’s development: it is the development of local economies that has been extremely rapid because of the oil and its derivatives. In this case another fact is revealed; in regions where the economic growth is not homogenous the application of modernization theories may be avoided if it is considered that their effectiveness could be only partial. The above assumption is also justified using the study of Escobar (1995, 54) which refer to the Third World; in the above study, it is noted that the effectiveness of modernization theories in developing countries could be limited by the fact that the various parts of these countries are not equally developed under the influence of the production of oil and other valuable products of the earth – valuable stones and so on; an issue also highlighted in the study of Kiely (2006, 896) where the inequality in the conditions of life of people living in developing countries is considered to be a factor that possibly limits the effectiveness of modernization theories. The problems related with the implementation of development plans in countries of the Third World have been also studied by Pye (1979, 28); in the particular study it is noted that in developing countries, there are concepts like ‘authority’, ‘sovereignty’ and ‘equality’ that should be reviewed as of their alignment with these countries’ social characteristics, needs and potentials. It seems that inequality – in most aspects of social and economic life - is the main obstacle towards the successful implementation of development plans in the above areas. The effectiveness of development plans in a region with similar characteristics, the Latin America, is examined and evaluated in the study of Peruzzotti (1999) who notes that ‘in contrast to western societies, where the debate on modernization has been dominated by the Weberian thematic of bureaucratiz-ation, the most salient feature of the Latin American developmental path is the chronic frailty of legal-constitutional arrangements’ (Peruzzotti, 1999, 59). Another aspect of the failure of modernization theories in developing countries is given through the above study; more specifically, the effectiveness of modernization theories in the countries with the particular characteristics is proved to be influenced not only by the local culture, political structure and economic conditions – in the context analysed in this study – but also by the legal principles and framework of each specific region. In their common form, development studies focus on specific political, economic or social issues; it is considered that using these studies a series of problems that use to appear in the above fields can be effectively resolved. This assumption is true but just partially. In fact, the effectiveness of development studies cannot be guaranteed; despite the fact that these studies are formulated using existing legal and social rules, they can fail to meet their standards. The main reason for this can be identified to the following fact: each individual has his personal view on the content and the aim of social and legal principles; when the above person has to deal with such rules he tends to make his own interpretation and act accordingly; this behaviour is not rejected or criticized – it is normally expected (Mbiba et al., 2002, 113). However, when specific political, economic or social aims are to be achieved using a specific development study, then the behaviour of people that participate in the relevant effort has to be closely monitored and appropriately controlled. In this case, the value of the modernization theory, which has been used in formulating the particular development study, is being limited. The role of modernization theories – as a basis for particular development studies - may be also limited because of the political environment of a specific region; this is the case where the application of development studies is not depended on the willingness of individuals but on the decisions of political authorities. The militarization of a region is an example of this case; Regarding the specific issue it is revealed in the study of Kwong et al. (1995, 64) that ‘there is a significant negative correlation between arms import and social development; arms export and indigenous spending are correlated with social development in the expected directions but their beta coefficients are not significant’. It is clear on the above view that development studies may not be related with the public interest – militarization is an indication of the negative aspect of development plans – in this case development refers to the achievement of targets that are related with personal interests and aims – of course there is also the case that militarization is an unavoidable initiative – when a country is occupied; in this case, development refers to the effort to protect the country’s boundaries – i.e. it is a positive development even if it refers to the militarization of a region. 4. Conclusion The role of modernization theories in the implementation of development plans worldwide seems to be differentiated – in accordance with a series of criteria, like the local political and social structure and principles, the economic conditions and the legal framework. In any case, it has been proved that modernization theories can be identified in most development studies worldwide; in fact, the principles of these theories are used in order to justify the need for changes in various scientific, economic or social activities; however, the alignment between these principles and the aims of the development studies is not always obvious. On the other hand, the facts that led to the first appearance of modernization theories cannot be used for the justification of the expansion of these theories worldwide. In their initial form, modernization theories served specific interests – the increase of the influence of USA on the social and political frameworks of the countries which were based on its financial or political support; however, through the decades the role of modernization theories have changed. Currently, these theories are used as a theoretical basis for the design and implementation of development studies in countries worldwide; there is no more dependency on the social and political ideas of a specific country; however, there may be influences by the ideas and interests of specific individuals or organizations – like in the case of Third World countries. It is for this reason that the use of modernization theories in development studies worldwide needs to be carefully examined in advance – alternative concepts, like the ‘dependency theory’ suggested by Hajjar (1984) would be then preferred. References Beck, U., Bonss, W. (2003) The Theory of Reflexive Modernization. Problematic, Hypotheses and Research Programme. Theory, Culture & Society, Vol. 20, No. 2, 1-33 Blaney, D., Inayatullah, N. (2002) Neo-Modernization? IR and the Inner Life of Modernization Theory. European Journal of International Relations, Vol. 8, No. 1, 103-137 Cardoso, F. H. (2000). ‘Dependency & development in Latin America’ (first published in 1972) (Ch. 11), in in T. Roberts & A. Hite (Eds), From modernization to globalisation. Social perspectives on international development, Oxford: Blackwell, 169-178 Coetzee, J. K. (2001). ‘Modernisation theory: A model for progress’ (Ch 3), in J. Coetzee et al (Eds), Development: Theory, Policy and Practice, Oxford: Oxford UP, pp 27-44. Escobar, A. (1995). Chapter 2 in Encountering development: The making and unmaking of the Third World, Princeton: University of Princeton Frank, A. G. (2000). ‘The development of underdevelopment’ (first published in 1969) (Ch. 10), in T. Roberts & A. Hite (Eds), From modernization to globalisation. Social perspectives on international development, Oxford: Blackwell, pp159-168 Gundelach, P. (1994) National Value Differences. Modernization or Institutionalization? International Journal of Comparative Sociology, Vol. 35, No. 1-2, 37-58 Hajjar, S. (1984) Introduction-The Middle East: From Transition to Development. Journal of Asian and African Studies, Vol. 19, No. 3-4, 121-136 Hette, B. (2001) Discourses on peace and development. Progress in Development Studies, Vol. 1, No. 1, 21-36 Hill, H. (1975) 'Peripheral Capitalism', Beyond 'Dependency' and 'Modernisation'. Journal of Sociology, Vol.11, No. 1, pp 30-37 Kiely, R. (2005) Globalization and Poverty, and the Poverty of Globalization Theory. Current Sociology, Vol. 53, No. 6, 895-914 Kwong, J.,Zimmer, Z. (1995) Militarization and social development in the Third World. Journal of Sociology, Vol. 31, No. 1, 64-81 Larrain, J. (1989). ‘Introduction’ in Theories of development: Capitalism, colonialism and dependency, Cambridge: Polity, pp1-17 Lerner, D. (1958). The passing of traditional society. Modernising the Middle East. New York: Free Press. Liping, S. (2008) Societal Transition. New Issues in the Field of the Sociology of Development. Modern China, Vol. 34, No. 1, 88-113 Mbiba, B., Huchzermeyer, M. (2002) Contentious development: peri-urban studies in sub-Saharan Africa. Progress in Development Studies, Vol. 2, No. 2, 113-131 Melkote, S. R. (2001). Chapters 3 & 5 in Communication for development in the third world: Theory and practice, New Dehli & London: Sage. Mohan, G., Wilson, G. (2005) The antagonistic relevance of development studies. Progress in Development Studies, Vol. 5, No. 4, 261-278 Nederveen Pieterse, J. (2001). Chapters 1, 4 &10 in Development theory: deconstructions / reconstructions. London: Sage Peruzzotti, E. (1999) Modernization and Juridification in Latin America: A Reassessment of the Latin American Developmental Path. Thesis Eleven, Vol. 58, No. 1, 59-82 Preston, P. (1982) Theories of development. Taylor & Francis Pugh, C. (1996) 'Urban Bias', the Political Economy of Development and Urban Policies for Developing Countries. Urban Studies, Vol. 33, No. 7, 1045-1060 Pye, L. (1979) Political Modernization: Gaps Between Theory and Reality. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Vol. 442, No. 1, 28-39 Robinson, W. (2002). Remapping development in light of globalisation: From a territorial to a social cartography, Third World Quarterly, Vol. 23, No. 6, pp 1047-1071. Rogers, E. M. and D. Lawrence Kincaid. (1969). Modernization Among Peasants. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Rogers, E.M. and F.F. Shoemaker. (1971). Communication of Innovations: A Cross Cultural Approach. New York: Free Press. Shields, R. (2006) Boundary-Thinking in Theories of the Present. The Virtuality of Reflexive Modernization. European Journal of Social Theory, Vol. 9, No. 2, 223-237 Tiryakian, E. (1991) Modernisation: Exhumetur in pace (rethinking macrosociology in the 1990s). International Sociology, Vol. 6, No. 2, pp 165-180 Wood, G. (2001). ‘Theories of imperialism and post-imperialism: classical and contemporary perspectives’ (Ch 5), in J. Coetzee et al (Eds), Development: Theory, Policy and Practice, Oxford: Oxford UP, pp 63-76. York, R., Rosa, E. (2003) Key Challenges to Ecological Modernization Theory. Institutional Efficacy, Case Study Evidence, Units of Analysis, and the Pace of Eco-Efficiency. Organization & Environment, Vol. 16, No. 3, 273-288 Read More