Modernization in historical terms is a continuous and open ended process, a sociological definition says:
Modernization is the transformation from a traditional,
Rural, agrarian society to a secular, urban, industrial
Society. (Pearce p154)
Historically a modern society is a largely industrial society; the transformation of modern society has always been inextricably linked with industrialization. Industrialization is an encompassing force that engages economic, social, political, and cultural changes. It is essentially by undergoing the comprehensive transformation of industrialization that societies become modern. Arno J Mayer talks about modernization being based on military strength and growth but essentially the abolition of social inequality.
But behind all state developments was bureaucracy no more so than in Russia, but was Russian modernization largely assisted by bureaucracy or Russian bureaucracies assisted by modernization? Russia in the nineteenth century was far from Weber’s ideal model the Russian Tsar’s bureaucracy was outstandingly corrupt it was not a state grounded in clear laws like Prussia or Germany; bureaucratic practice was not subordinate to the states laws, but on the contrary remained highly arbitrary and lacked morals and principles. Another One of Russia’s main problems was that it could not generate enough capital to support rapid industrial development or to compete with advanced European countries to the west on a commercial basis. Russia's fundamental dilemma was that accelerated domestic development risked upheaval at home, but slower progress risked full economic dependency on the faster-advancing countries to the east and west. (O U State P 53-55) (US library of congress online)
Throughout the second half of the nineteenth century, Russia's economy developed steadily but also constantly slowly than that of the major European nations to its west. Russia's population was, however, substantially larger than those of the more developed Western countries, and the states population growth rate from 1850 to 1910 was the fastest of all the major European powers, the problem was that the vast majority of the people lived in rural communities and engaged in relatively primitive agriculture, which did little for the economy or for modernization. . (US Library of Congress online) (Anderson 2003)
There was however general trends of modernization taking place across Europe, industrialisation, urbanisation and population growth were all on the increase even in the somewhat backward state of Russia, and this I believe subsequently meant that the central state administration system in Russia had to be more modernized and cohesive in order to assist the state in its development but the bureaucracy followed the natural modernization patterns not the other way around. (Anderson p 106-108) (State p54-56)
However Arno J Mayer in The Persistence of the old regime talks about the bureaucracies of Europe being ‘systems of maintenance’ and not politically neutral institutions as one would hope. He suggests that bureaucracies did not aid modernization he goes as far as to say:
The bureaucracy’s political consistency cemented
the social cohesion of the ruling and governing class
by giving it an aura of disinterested, efficient,
and severe service to the commonwealth. (Arno J Mayer)
What Mayer is suggesting is that although the bureaucracies were consistent, unfortunately they were consistently lacking broad views and did nothing to help modernize Russia, this being because they were only really concerned with aiding the upper ruling classes and not the general population of the state.
At the other end of the scale was Prussia, Prussia along with France was an ideal Weber type example of functional Bureaucracy. Prussia’s success in displaying an ideal bureaucracy system was greatly down to the reforms seen at the beginning of the nineteenth century but also down to Napoleon who led France into Prussia when it was defeated by France in 1806. This invasion forced Prussia not only to accept French troops into its land but to become stronger in the face of threat, it was essential at this point for the Prussian bureaucracies and administration system to introduce reform and modernization in order to improve the countries chances of recovery and to improve the countries financial status in Europe, Prussia’s rulers hoped to do this by forcing reorganisation of government and modernizing not only the state but the economy and society as well. (O U state p49-53)
Various different methods followed including the free use of land, and the facilitation of property ownership. Prussian’s were then subject to ‘the rule of law’ and restrictions previously enforced on the buying of noble estates were removed; and crucially, occupations were, for the first time, available to not only to nobles but commoners also. Prussia was set to become a modern society within a modern state, however although reform appeared to be occurring there were still signs of the old regime and changes were hardly democratic in absolution. The most desired employment was in civil services and these jobs were still only available to university graduates with considerable funds or means available, and the junkers continued to control the officer class. (O U state P49-53)
Another ideal bureaucratic model and perhaps, the first was seen in revolutionary France. The revolution of 1789 brought change to France in many ways for example; the number of salaried state employees grew considerably near the beginning of the century and sheer number of administrative staff more than tripled the bureaucracies numerical strength compared to that of the late 1700’s. Another major influence in shaping a modern state bureaucracy was undoubtedly Napoleon, he used the bureaucracies to his advantage he increased them and assisted in their cohesion, and he then used his successful bureaucracies as an example for other European states to model theirs on. In principle the French bureaucracies fitted weber’s model fairly well it was characterized by hierarchy, it had a clear career pattern that offered security was consistent and led to a pension. It had a highly developed division of labour and specialization of tasks among its residents. Modernization was on the increase and more opportunities of an academic education available to a wider range of applicants. The French state system was powerful and strong throughout the nineteenth century and the bureaucracies assisted growth and modernization and were an example for other European states.
In conclusion: I think that in some cases such as Prussia, and also France bureaucracies played a major part in modernization of the nineteenth century state but in others, Russia for example modernization was a slower and more natural transition that occurred rather than being forced.
Word count 1,397
Bibliography
Arno J Mayer, persistence of the Old Regime, cited in The Open University Offprints collection, London, University press
Boyd K, 1993, Dictionary of World History, Edinburgh, Chambers Harrup LTD.
Harvie C et al, 1975, Industrialization & Culture 1830-1914, London, University press.
cited on 7-4-05
http://www.loc.gov/
Morgan K O, 1984, Oxford popular History of Britain, London, Oxford University Press.
Pearce R, 1999, Britain & the European Powers 1865-1914, London, Hodder&
Stoughton.
Roget P M, 1972, Thesaurus of Synonyms & Antonyms, London, Roydon Publishing Company.
The Open University, 1995, State, Economy and Nation in 19th century Europe (State) University Press.
Thompson D, 1996, Oxford Compact English Dictionary, London, Oxford University Press.
Weber, M, 1964, The Theory of Social and Economic Organization. New York, The Citadel Press.
Wood A, 1982, Nineteenth Century Britain 1815-1914 2nd edition, Malaysia, Longman Group.
