Modernization Theory

In political science, we have a lot of isms and ations . Almost every day we hear about some new viewpoint; most recently Phillip Smith of Lark College legitimized Smithism stating that the mass development of theoretical labels would factionate the discipline rendering it uselessly over-descriptive. Still, we do not have all that many major theories. Perhaps this speaks to the inability to create viable fixed rules in the social sciences, but either way, most undergraduates do not learn very many great theories. However, there is likely not a student in the country at any reputable political science school that has not heard of Modernization Theory.

Modernization Theory developed in the mid 20 th century largely with the works of Walter W. Rostow. The theory examined the modernization of states and noted that economic development encouraged political development, and that the two were necessarily compatible. The idea, in essence, was that economic openness fostered urbanization, the creation of a middle class, and the downfall of traditional systems. From here, it is argued that economic development encouraged political development in order to meet to newfound needs of an advancing economy. Political modernization has long been thought of as the liberalization of the governmental system, or democratization.

Modernization Theory is state-centric; it focuses primarily on individual states or countries for analysis. It is also universalistic and linear, meaning that it implies a degree of inevitability in development; all countries will someday become economically liberal democracies, but that some will come to this conclusion faster than others. In addition, approaches to Modernization Theory are considered scientific. This is because it is researched with economic and political development as operationalized variables such as per capita GDP and political liberty ratings. Proponents argue that it is not simply a philosophical theory, but that it is supported in study.

There are a number of critiques of Modernization Theory. Actually, following its inception, little has been written in direct support of it; in many ways, more critiques and modifications exist than affirmations. Primarily, Modernization Theory is thought to have a tremendous cultural bias; when it was written, the only really "advanced" states were found in the United States and Europe. Because of this, many have questioned the theory's applicability in other areas of the world. Many Latin American countries found the model inapplicable in their situation and this helped to lead to the development of Dependency Theory. Dependency stresses that the lack of development some countries face is not a result of their actions, but that instead the global system discourages advances. These theorists claim that their poorer periphery countries are made dependent on core states and that the advanced economies have an interest in the poor staying poor.

Others have found a post-modern critique of Modernization Theory. They claim that the universalism it expresses is careless and ignorant; that perhaps development is not for everyone, or that it may be that different states will come to a developed stage in different ways. Samuel Huntington put forth a conservative critique of Modernization Theory by stressing the idea that progress is not a law; that instead, stability was in many ways more important than careless and rapid development.

Ultimately, development is an exceptionally complicated issue; it is likely that no specific model or theory will always be applicable everywhere. Still, most do agree that economics and politics are intricately related. However, it is important to remember that "one-size-fits-all" approaches to development will almost certainly face difficulty. Modernization Theory has proven relatively good in S.E. Asia, but has been largely unsuccessful in Latin America. In conclusion, it will likely always be that economics are a primary concern in development, but it is important to give great consideration to the social, historical, religious and cultural contexts in which development is attempted.
-Mike Ryckman