Theories of Development: Modernization vs. Dependency Theory - Essay Example

Theories of Development: Modernization vs. Dependency Theory Introduction Theories of development have been largely informed by the growing need to elucidate mass poverty, which has greatly affected the world and led to global inequality. Development schools of thought are a set of logical explanations of the interrelationships among different variables such as global stratification. The aims of development theories are in particular to reduce and eliminate oppression, poverty and global inequality in order to improve the conditions of the world. The interest in development issues originated rather recently and can be dated back not much earlier than the 1950s and early 1960s; the most prominent theories put forward are the modernization and dependency theory. It is imperative to mention that the comparison of these two schools of thought of development will enable a better understanding of the current trends in international relations and political science and future perspectives of the world. Furthermore, these theories will aid in an objective assessment of the current situation and relationships between developed and underdeveloped nations due to the existing differences between the two countries. Although dependency theory criticizes modernization theory and the global capitalist system in which it is administered by putting forth differences between the two theories, there still exist commonalities that can be viewed between the two individual schools of thought. Modernization theory During the early nineteen fifties and late sixties, many countries around the globe that had recently gained independence from the colonial masters and those newly named underdeveloped or developing nations embarked on varying projects of national development such as development of indigenous industries for export while others pushed accelerated their industrial production as a substitute for importation. Industrialization was largely seen by the political and economic elite and academics as the key to development. Drawing from this particular notion of development as economic growth, industrialization was hugely accelerated and became a race aimed to catch up with the Western nations or with standards that were almost entirely set by West-centric and specifically Eurocentric institutions for a country to be considered as developed. This acceleration was mainly demonstrated by the presiding facts and projects in many countries such as infrastructural transformations including dams and highways, changes in social formations including eliminating of traditional beliefs and practices that were considered possible social ills, and revamping of education systems with a focus on modern science and rationality. In this accelerated race to catch up with the West, the three-pronged strategy applied by these nations that underpinned what came to be referred by academics as modernization theory. The ideas of the modernization school of thought one way or another influenced the decisions and steps towards development taken by several countries during this period. Modernization theory, which largely draws its arguments on the biological sciences, which studied the growth and development of different species, has been a dominant theory in the social sciences in the Western world since the nineteen fifties. Through structural functionalism, societies are treated as structural functional units comprising institutions with adaptive systems that progress from one evolutionary stage to another (Parsons 125). In effect, modernization theorists argue that about five hundred years ago, most world populations were poor or living in traditional social formations but later on scientific innovation existed in many parts of the world including China, India and the Middle East. However, due to a variety of reasons such as the conquest of the New World and slavery, which modernization theory intentionally or unintentionally bypasses science and entrepreneurship advanced in Western Europe. The driving force of this economic progress was the capitalism that entrenched in itself innovation and technological advancement. Entrepreneurs in Western Europe were in competition and profits were aggressively pursued by lowering costs, increasing revenues and re-investing with the aim of making more profit, a ceaseless accumulation and expansion process that greatly spurred growth (Wallerstein 15). Various proponents of modernization theory emphasized the political modernization that accompanied this new economic growth whereby feudal lords and autocratic monarchies were challenged and a more competent form of bureaucracy that followed on the western-style liberal democracy was established. The third world, however, did not undergo these economic and political transformations and had the task of transforming itself from tradition to modernity, that is, to follow in the footsteps of the west. One of the most notable theorists of modernization, WW Rostow (4), outlined stages of modernization that encompass the traditional stage, the takeoff stage, the drive to technological maturity stage and the age of high mass consumption. During the traditional stage to take off stage, old resistances fall, political power is accrued to a group interested in progressing economic growth, the countries savings rate grows and modern technology is largely applied. The drive to technological maturity stage involves the expansion of economic advancement and integration into international markets while the final stage, he proposes, is the period of high mass consumption which means that the benefits of growth are finally transmitted to the bulk of the people (Rostow 73). As the countries prepare to undergo the process of economic and political transformation, they need assistance in terms of funding, technology and new markets using the correct policies. Therefore, consultants and experts in international organizations World Bank and the UN all operating according to formula need to advise different governments constantly. The theory, however, fails to consider the implications that may arise if the countries fail to takeoff or if the ones already undergoing economic transformations slow down or lose the power to lift themselves off the ground. This implies that developed countries must continue to develop if they are to keep afloat and if they are to aid the developing countries to takeoff. The theory further fails to consider factors of instability that existing inequalities might create by failing to appreciate the conflict between the interest of the rich and the poor countries. Moreover, it ignores the fact that the available resources and benefits may be limited and the accumulations of resources in some hands might actually diminish the chances of other countries in trying to undergo an economic transformation. Having mentioned the flaws, there is an even more serious criticism emerging from dependency theory that refers to it as historicity and Eurocentricism. Dependency theory Dependency theory originated in the early 1960s by several academics and development theorists who took an interest in explaining the continuing economic failure of Latin American countries (Larrain 102). This theory heavily draws on the works of Marx in trying to explore the cause of failure of the developing countries in contrast to the continued growth of the world capitalist system. Dependency theory developed in part as a response and a critique to the western-centric notion of the modernization theory that had been previously formulated. It argues that global inequality is fundamentally a result of the developed nations or high-income nations exploiting semi-peripheral or peripheral nations, which creates a cycle of dependence (Hodder 5). Provided that the underdeveloped nations or the third world continue to depend on the core nations for economic stimulus and access to a larger piece of the global economy, such countries will fail to realize full economic growth. Dependency theory further states that the situation created whereby core nations, as well as international bodies such as the World Bank and IMF, choose the countries to make loans to and the projects for which the loans are dished out, leads to a highly segmented labour market built to benefit the dominant market countries (Hayter 10). However, not a homogenous theory, dependency theory in essence argues that the origins of importunate global poverty cannot be fully analyzed without considering the entire international economic system. The theory states that underdevelopment of the Third World is a continuing progression of poverty that is fundamentally linked to the development of the core nations. The ceaseless accumulation of wealth and search for profit, which began in Western Europe during the onset of the spread of capitalism fundamentally, changed the social structures of the Third World. Other theorists, however, argue that the West has remained dependent on the Third World in order to sustain its economic growth and prosperity. Therefore, dependency theorists do not consider Poverty in the Third World as entirely traditional or accidental but rather as a necessary companion to the economic development and richness of the developed world. The expansion of the industrial world led to a deformation of the underdeveloped world, for instance, some theorists argue that the slave trade between African and the Caribbean islands was instigated the rise of a commercial middle class in Britain and the eventual industrial revolution. Slaves taken from Africa were coerced into unpaid labour, which resulted in the production of such profitable commodities as sugar, or cotton, which were accordingly taken to Europe for huge profits. There was grossly unequal exchange that oversaw the Third World given much more than it got in return. Some new wealth such as new infrastructure might have been created in the Third world as a result of the exchange, however, it also led to a creation of international system of inequality, a process viewed by proponents of this school of thought as continuing. For example, transnational corporations base their bargains on strength to distort the local economies of underdeveloped nations, create vast income gaps, impose their priorities and damage the environment, and financial institutions such as the World Bank and IMF pursue policies that indirectly favour rich nations. An offshoot of dependency has been world systems theory, which emphasizes the expansion of capitalism, views the global economy in long-term perspectives and sees the world system in a constant state of flux (Calhoun et.al, pg4). The theory argues that the system lacks fixed rankings and locations but rather entails cyclical rhythms of expansion and stagnation where nations are capable of upward and downward mobility over very long periods. Critical Evaluation: Commonalties and Differences It is imperative to note that both theories put into consideration the gap existing between developed nations and underdeveloped ones that belong to the Third World. Specifically put, modernization theory and dependency theory stand on the ground that the Western world are the leaders as a result of their higher levels of development which primarily affects all elements of life such as economic, political, social, and cultural life. Both theories therefore make absolute statements between the developed and developing nations by appreciating the existence of a strong link between the two. In addition, both theories state that the experience of developed nations is followed by developing and underdeveloped ones by following in the development path that was previously undertaken by the developed countries but cannot be at par economically with the latter but rather remain in the rearguard of world development. Both theories also agree on the fact that the major interaction between the developed world and the developing and underdeveloped whereby the developing nations continue to play the key role in the development of the entire world and the integration of the global economy continues to increase. One difference that stands out between the two theories is that dependency theory does not bypass the effects of colonization in the underdeveloped nations while modernization theory completely pays no attention to this factor. This is evident in the assertion of dependency theory that the developing dependent countries are already a part of the global capitalist system and remain to be so since the spread of colonialism. Modernization on the other hand underpins the preconditions for successful development by assuming that the country in which the development strategies shall be implemented is sort of a blank page that is ready to industrialize or take off by repeating the successful experience of the developed countries (Larrain 85). Moreover, another difference is that dependency theory states that successful development must be state-led development while modernization theory, defined by its highly neoliberal doctrines, places more emphasis on privatization and market-led development or simply, a capitalist system, two positions that clearly demonstrate a clear contradiction. Conclusion Modernization theory and dependency theory are two of the most common perspectives used by development theorists when approaching issues of global inequality. Comparison of these two schools of thought of development is essential to understand the current trends better in international relations and political science and future perspectives of the world objectively assess the relationships between developed and underdeveloped nations. Modernization theory conceives that countries go through various stages to achieve full economic development and points out that industrialization and improved technology are the key factors that enhance forward movement. On the other hand, dependency theory views modernization theory as Eurocentric and patronizing and explains global disparity as the result of developed Western countries forming a sequence of dependence by abusing resources and labor in the underdeveloped world. Although the very nature of dependency theory makes it contrasting, there is commonality in the way both theories make absolute statements about the relationship between the developed and underdeveloped nations. It is my belief that dependency offers a better explanation for the global inequality as it is correct in claiming that global inequality is also a problem of distribution and politics. Works Cited Calhoun, Craig J, Chris Rojek, and Bryan S. Turner. The Sage Handbook of Sociology. London: Sage Publications, 2005. Print. Hayter, Teresa. Aid As Imperialism. Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1971. Print. Hodder, Rupert. Development Geography. London: Routledge, 2000. Print. Larrain, Jorge. Theories of Development: Capitalism, Colonialism, and Dependency. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press, 1989. Print. Parsons, Talcott. The Social System. London: Routledge, 1991. Print. Rostow, Walt Whitman. The Stages of Economic Growth: A Non-Communist Manifesto. Cambridge: [England: Cambridge University Press, 1990. Print. Wallerstein, Immanuel M. The Capitalist World-Economy: Essays. Cambridge [Eng.: Cambridge University Press, 1979. Print. Read More