Modernization Theory Versus Dependency Theory - Essay Example

First World versus Third World: Modernisation Theory versus Dependency Theory Introduction Today the fast global development and the rising merger of nations can greatly influence the expansion of innovative theories that challenge theorists for clarifying the connection between nations and the subsisting inequalities involving the First World and the Third World. The Modernisation and Dependency theories, although relatively contrasting, may show resemblances in their visions on the modern world and the relationship between countries of opposing worlds. This paper will show the evolution, similarities and differences, as well as the flaws of the two main theories of economic development: the Modernisation and Dependency theories. Moreover it will attempt to explain the gap between the developed and underdeveloped countries, which when not quickly bridged may worsen hunger and poverty in the Third World. The Four Worlds First World. This refers to the Highly Industrialised Countries of the world located in Western Europe, North America, and Japan. Formerly known as the Free World or the West, these democratic countries have mainly free market economies (Damerow). Second World. This is the so-called “communist bloc“ with semi-capitalistic market economies. The term “Second World” is now completely abandoned after the disintegration of the Soviet Union and its Eastern European Iron Curtain States (Damerow). Third World. Belonging to the Third World are the economically underdeveloped countries of Asia, Africa, Oceania, and Latin America. These countries have high rates of poverty, population, and economic dependence on the highly industrialised countries. The term “Third World” was coined by French demographer Alfred Sauvy in 1952 to refer to nations which do not belong to the industrialised capitalist world or the industrialised Communist bloc (Damerow). In the late fifties, the term came to mean the deprived parts of the world, devoid of economic growth and industrial advancement to sustain higher standards of living for its inhabitants (Harmon). Fourth World. The Fourth World comprises the 6000 tribes of the highly discriminated indigenous people of the world. These ethnic groups make up 300 to 600 million of the global population (Damerow). During the 20th century, there were around 130 million tribal people who were massacred through state-organised genocide in their own countries (Rummel). Revisiting the Modernisation and Dependency Theories The first modernisation plan for the poor nations of the world was structured mainly to develop their economic growth and to provide sustenance to the foreign policy programmes, concerns, and ventures of the Western democratic countries in the dissemination of their major cultural values in the social and political growth of traditional civilisations (White). The presumed collapse of the modernisation plan led to the introduction of a new scheme: the dependency plan. Critics of the modernisation plan blamed the ethnocentrism of the European Americans for its failure. The dependency proponents of Latin America claims that the route of development should be investigated on the three large-scale stages: (1) the core which has high technological development standards and produces multipart products; (2) the central which acts as a periphery to the core and a core to the periphery; and (3) the peripheral which supplies indigenous materials, agricultural products and cheap labour for the increasing mediators of the core. Economic trade between the core and periphery is on irregular terms, with the periphery pressured to trade its goods at cheap prices although it has to purchase the cores products at high prices. Peripheral aspects are accountable for the progress retardation of the Third World; the deficiency of excess goods at the periphery supports the stable progress of the centre, which action guarantees the underdevelopment of the periphery; and finally, the periphery ought to struggle for independence and disintegrate from the world market (Servaes). In the late 1990s, the Third World, particularly Africa, came to realise the risks of economic expansion replicated from the West. The Third World struggled for self-reliance, legality and claim of their political and economic autonomy (Uche). The First World’s cultural prejudices and control over the Third World led to disputes and a call for truce between the two worlds for a new global economic order that raised awareness and understanding of the dependency theory after Africa’s economic failure (Uche). Proponents, such as Mowlana and Wilson (1990), posited that the dependency theory was not an economic developmental plan but a root of the Third World’s underdevelopment. It was merely a consequence of the disappointment from the modernisation plan after its failure to uplift economic conditions in the Third World (Uche). Third World Debt Crisis The profound indebtedness and economic dependence of the Third World to the First World clearly implied undying characteristics of the gap between the highly industrialised countries and the underdeveloped countries, thus the helpless strangulation of the deprived civilisations of the world. The Third World debt dilemma is just an off-shoot of the broken social systems reluctantly developed by the West in the South. This crisis and its unfavourable outcome are leading to a slow perish and underdevelopment of the Third World in a post-modernisation era. The abuse and exploitation of the Third World by the First World is a grave obstacle in social justice and unbiased growth in economic development (Uche). The poorest nations of the world are burdened of debt and trade policies of the International Monetary Fund (IMF), World Bank and World Trade Organization (WTO). The refusal of the world’s richest nations to annul debts leaves the Third World in poverty and misery, with no funds to finance daily survival needs and to spend on infrastructure (“Third World Debt”). Some Facts: Annually, there are 7 million children who die of poverty and hunger due to debt crisis. Everyday, since 1999, $128 million is transferred from the poorest nations to the richest nations for debt settlements ($53 million from East Asia and the Pacific; $38 million from South Asia; and $23 million from Africa). If all debts by Third World countries are written-off, it would only cost one penny per day for every person in the First World countries for two decades (“Third World Debt”). The disproportionate distribution of global wealth and control can be made clear by the theories of Modernisation and Dependency. Modernisation Theory and its Stages Modernisation theory upholds that global discrimination mirrors conflicting levels of industrial development among nations. The biggest obstacle to a nation’s economic development is tradition. At the end of the middle ages, Europe’s restructure of Protestantism and Calvinism altered the Third World with emphasis on individualism and material opulence and not on societal relationships. Walt Whitman Rostow, an American economist and political theorist, developed four general stages of modernisation theory followed by nations. These consist of: 1. The traditional stage, which is focused on kinship and religion. 2. The take-off stage, which is the most crucial stage, materialized by a restricted trade economy. The countrys savings rate grows, and modern technology is applied. 3. The obligation to industrial maturity stage, where nations experience fast economic expansion alongside urbanism and specialism. Integration to international markets; and alteration and improvement in gender roles and position emerge. 4. The high mass consumption stage motivated by mass production (Macionis and Gerber). The Role of the First World Supporters of the modernization theory believe that world poverty is not caused by the rich nations, instead it is a solution. Detailed solutions are: Aid in population management through the introduction of birth control technologies. Augmentation in food production through the introduction of modern farming methods. Introduction of manufacturing machineries to raise production. Foreign aids of investment resources. Whilst modernisation helped several nations of the Third World to attain considerable economic success, opponents disagree that the modernisation theory is merely the European’s protection and extension of their capitalism, which has failed in its own measures of victory. Disregard of historical changes have hindered economic development. The gap between the two worlds failed to be resolved (Macionis and Gerber). Transformation from Traditional to Modernity Five decades ago, the poor nations of the South commenced on national development ventures to catch up with the rich nations of the West. Some nations started manufacturing local products to sell overseas whilst others intensified industrial manufacture to replace imports. This industrialisation scheme was perceived by political and economic leaders as the road to economic development. Infrastructure improvements such as dams and irrigation, highways, tall buildings; social improvements such as abandonment of cultural traditions and myths; and political improvements such as effective bureaucratic governments, were seen by the world as victory in modernisation theory (Joshi). Since the mid-1900s, the theory of modernisation has been the leading application in the social, biological, and political sciences as patterned from the West. Every aspect of the sciences was naturalised to appear to the world as a route to perfection. Critics say that the naturalisation was Westernisation undercover, which became a master plan for all underdeveloped nations. (Joshi). Theorists argue that the theory is centered on insufficiencies of the Third World such as backwardness and ignorance. Around five centuries ago, all people in the world were poor. With foreign aid, the nations developed; trade and exploration materialized; innovation emerged; mainly with one major purpose: to uplift their living standards (Joshi). Westerners ruled over the Easterners. Economic and political improvements were bypassed. Prejudice; disregard of the poor’s interests; volatility in economic growth; and continued amass of wealth in expense of the very poor nations prevailed, leaving the Third World all the more inopportune (Joshi). Dependency Theory and a Capitalist World Economy Dependency theory upholds that world poverty originated from the abuse of the richest nations to the poorest nations. The colonisation of the countries of North America, Africa, and Asia transported sizeable wealth to Europe and the United States. Decades later, colonialism has been withdrawn, however, despite political freedom; economic independence has not been attained (Macionis and Gerber). Wallersteins Capitalist World Economy This model is an explanation of global inequality. According to Immanuel Wallerstein, an American sociologist, the world system of economy is governed by capitalism and is outside the powers of the poor nations. Being the foundation of the existing world economy and maintaining dependency of the Third World, the First World is attributable to global poverty. The foremost reasons for dependency are: Limited production; export-oriented economies focused mainly on raw materials; Deficiency on technological knowledge and industrial inability; Heavy indebtedness to the highly industrialised countries, International Monetary Fund (IMF), World Bank and World Trade Organization (WTO) (Macionis and Gerber). The Role of the First World Proponents of the Dependency theory disagree that the rich nations take the affluence generated in poor nations for their own selfish objectives and that the connection between population and poverty is false. World hunger is not predictable. The Third World, although financially poor, is rich in natural resources. Food is abundant and sufficient to feed the people. However, lands are cultivated and crops are grown to supply goods to the First World, in the process overlooking their own necessities for survival. Believers of this theory disagree that there are flaws to this perception. The following reasons are laid out: (1) Dependency theorists presume all wealth amassed by the rich is from the poor; (2) The poor nations with strong affiliations to the rich nations are actually not the poorest in society; (3) Whilst Capitalist nations are seen as the culprit, more crucial elements are disregarded inside the cultural frameworks of the Third World; (4) The influence of the ex-Soviet Union on the Eastern Alliance nations is downplayed; and (5) There are no comprehensible policy-making substitutes to the theory (Macionis and Gerber). Theorists say that underdevelopment is non-circumstantial but rather a dynamic course of poverty connected to a nation’s development. The Third World is termed “underdeveloped” because the other world is “developed.” Economic development in the rich nations brought about poverty in the less-developed nations in its wake. Progress and poverty within the entire international climate are connected aspects of a similar process. It is due to colonialism, imperialism, and imbalanced terms of trade by the rich nations that deprived the poor nations of economic stability and growth and weakened their position in society (Joshi). Exploitation of the Third World Considerable changes in social and industrial systems in the Third world emerged as capitalism and domination of the First World spread. The Westerners strived for more accumulation of wealth at the expense of the poor nations. Mining and agriculture flourished and production increased alongside uneven bargains. Dependency opponents say that the exploitation of the indigenous resources and labour weakened and impoverished the Third World. Consequential of this poverty is the South’s total dependency on the West. Critics have a different opinion: It is not the South that is dependent on the West; but rather, it is the West that is completely reliant on the South for economic growth and success (Joshi). Third World poverty and First World success are two inseparable economic elements. Industrialisation distorted the world’s view of economic systems. Eric Williams, a historian, disagrees that the trade of slaves between Africa and the Caribbean islands holds accountability for the surfacing of commercial middle men and industrial revolution in some parts of England. Selling of slaves became a highly profitable market. African slaves were taken to the Caribbean; some were forced to work for free in mining and agricultural lands in their own countries; their generated products were sold to Europe. This started England’s industrial revolution (Joshi). Outright exploitation cruelly restricted the growth of the dominated nations. In the late 1700s, fifty percent of sugar and coffee consumption of the West was produced by half a million slaves in Haiti. This Haitian production generated around 40 percent of France’s trade abroad. The World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, which are supposedly unbiased groups, implement policies that in some way favour the First World (Joshi). Evidences such as these made it clear that the dependency scheme is in fact an underdevelopment at the expense of development. A displacement of the African society through slave market; poverty in the Caribbean Islands due to unpaid labour and strict pressures in meeting the food supply needs of the Europeans; minerals and metals mined in the deprived nations for use in the Western industries are just a few examples of how the Third World was mistreated. Weakened economies, diminished resources and destroyed civilization were left of the Third World whereas power, affluence, and fame were reaped by the First World. The asymmetrical exchange crafted global economic inequality, even more widening the gap between the poor nations and the rich nations. This trend, as seen by the two groups of nations, is bound to persist (Joshi). Whilst modernisation theorists view capitalism as a driving influence toward progress, dependency theorists view capitalism as a vicious force toward Third World destruction. For modernists, the First World is a helping hand, whereas for the dependistas, it is a hindrance to success (Joshi). Conclusion The ever-changing world system of economy aggravates discrimination and inequality in the Third World. Foreign ventures carry further wealth for the already highly-industrialised rich nations as manufacturing employments are lost to the underdeveloped nations. Hunger and poverty, being the most crucial dilemmas facing the Third World today will continue to prevail unless the gulf between the two nations is mended. This paper summarised the standpoints of modernisation and dependency theories through the presentation of historical patterns, similarities and differences, debt crisis, and the role of the developed countries in affecting the economic catastrophe experienced by the underdeveloped countries. It has been made clear in this paper that the rich nations are amassing unparalleled economic victory even as the poor nations are unmistakably lagging behind. However, both theories are being improved given the inclination for poor countries to seek independence and control of their economic future and struggle against scarcity and starvation. Whilst modernisation theory recognises the crisis of deficiency in technological advancement; dependency theory identifies the concept that world inequality is likewise a political concern. However, supporters of both worlds, the First and the Third, have to agree that if the gap between the two opposing worlds will not be bridged, economies of both nations will suffer. Works Cited Damerow, Harold. “Global South.” Union County College. 27 August 2007. 28 November 2010. Harmon, Jane. “What is the Third World and Why is it called that?” Wise Geek. 16 September 2010. 27 November 2010. Joshi, Sharmila. “Theories of Development: Modernisation vs Dependency.” InfoChange News & Features. January 2005. 28 November 2010. Macionis, John J. and Linda M. Gerber. Sociology, 5th Canadian Edition. Canada: Pearson Prentice Hall, 2005. XII. Mowlana, Hamid and Laurie J. Wilson. The Passing of Modernity: Communication and the Transformation of Society. New York, London: Longman, 1990. Rummel, Rudolph Joseph. Death by Government. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers, 1994. Servaes, Jan. “Rethinking Development Communication: One World, Multiple Cultures.” Communication Socialis Yearbook, 1990. IX. “Third World Debt.” World Centric. 2010. 28 November 2010. Uche, Luke Uka. “Some Reflections on the Dependency Theory.” Africa Media Review. 1994. 8.2. White, Robert A. Communication Research Trends. Detroit, Michigan: Macmillan / Thomas Gale, 1988/89, 9.3. Read More