modernisation vs dependancy theory

Compare and contrast Modernisation and Dependency theories

Theories are necessary in the understanding of social change, and the explanation of how and why things happen. Throughout this essay I will be examining ideas of Modernisation and Dependency theorists, and how their theories can give and understanding into the process of development.

‘Development’ as a word is often linked with ideas of change or improvement. There has never been any real agreement in what the concept of ‘development’ really means.

Modernisation theories can be linked with the ideas into the ways which traditional societies become modern societies. An early idea, linked to the starting point for ‘development’ was the thought that there could be a single perfected human species based in all different parts of the world. Europeans saw themselves as representing perfection and civilization, and others as being uncivilized. The ‘civilized’ Europeans saw it as their moral obligation to ‘help’ the other ‘less civilized’ countries to become ‘civilized.’ On this view colonise were formed to help these ‘backward’ societies. Colonisation assumed the promise of world-wide civilization for all.

By the end of world war one in 1918, there was a major shift in power. Germany lost is colonise to Britain and France. Also a mandate system was set-up so that certain territories would be supervised by a international agency. Article 22 of the league stated that the territories which were ceased under the sovereignty of states were, ‘inhabited by peoples… not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world; the tutelage of such peoples’ should be entrusted to advanced nations and that the character of the mandate should differ according to the stage of development of the people.’ (Regan, et al :2002:30) In connection with this statement came the idea that the ‘west were the best,’ and therefore they had to show the ‘less developed’ others how to develop. Although this could be seen as the starting point for modernisation, modernisation theories did not emerge until after the outbreak of World War two in 1939.

Modernisation theory emerged from three crucial events, in the world war two era. First, the United States rose as a super-power. The U.S was not weakened by World War two, unlike Britain, France and Germany. The U.S emerged from the war strengthened and became a world leader, with the help of the Marshall Plan. The Marshall Plans aim was to re-construct war-torn Western Europe. The U.S took over the responsibility of managing the whole world’s affairs. Second, the united world communist movement spread across the world. The influence of the Soviet Union extended not only to Eastern Europe, but to China and Korea as well. Third, there was a break-up of the European colonises in Africa, Asia and Latin America, which gave birth too many new nation states in the third world.

As a result of these three events American political elites got a social scientist to study the third world nation states and find away to encourage development, politically and economically. This was done in order to avoid the chance of losing the new states to the Soviet Union communist bloc. Also flows of internationalist aid, such as, money, technology and expertise, were given from the ‘developed countries’ to the ‘less developed countries.’ This was part of the polices that were put in place in response to the modernisation process. These ‘hand outs’ were given in the expectation that it was helping the economic development process.

‘Modernisation theories argue that development is largely economic and the same path should be followed by all’. (Willis: 2005:45) Walt Rostow in (1960) argued hat societies develop through a series of stages. Rostow stated, ‘that there are five major stages of economic development, beginning with traditional society and ending with high mass-consumption society.’ (So:1990:29) In explanation of the five stages of development, Rostow uses the metaphor of a plane taking off. In accordance with So (1990) stage one, of Rostow’s theory is a traditional society with little social change, however with the rise of new entrepreneurs the expansion of markets and the development of new industries it began to change and becomes the second stage of Rostow’s theory, the ‘precondition for take off growth.’ However this is only a precondition as, as there are advantages and disadvantages of this stage. The advantages include an increase in economic growth, a decrease of the death rate, and an increase in the population. However a disadvantage is that the larger population size can begin to consume the entire economic surplus. The third stage ‘take-off’ is the most important stage and can last up to twenty years, during this period productive investment rises to around ‘10% or more of the national income.’ (So:1990: 30) Also during this time Western Aid act’s as a bandage to the wound of lack of investment, and economic growth becomes the norm. Stage four, ‘the drive to maturity’ is a period of sustained progress and can last up to forty years. However it can only be reached when economic growth has become automatic. Stage five, ‘the age of high mass consumption society.’ This is where society experiences ‘a growth in national income, a rise in consumer demands and the formation of a strong domestic market.’ (So:1990:30)

According to Foster-Carter (1995) Rostow’s theory maintains that the process of development is linear, and that all countries must pass through the same routed pathway in order to develop successfully. They also claim that Rostow’s theory is internalist as it doesn’t consider the role of outside influences. Rostow claims that ‘all the crucial dimensions of change are internally generated within each society.’ (Foster-Carter:1995:15) However Foster- Carter, see Rostow’s theory as recapitulationist in the way that he claims that the ‘under-developed’ countries need to follow the same path as the now ‘developed’ countries. They also point out that Rostow’s theory ...

This is a preview of the whole essay

One of the main emphasis within the modernisation perspectives, is the assumption that development can be explained as gradually and progressive. They see it as moving along the linear path way, and transforming from a primitive society to a modern society. However some modernisation theorists have also argued that explanations for ‘under development’ can be located within the culture of the societies of the ‘third world.’ This type of idea was pin pointed within the workings of the psychologist, David Mc Clelland. His under-lying speculation was that people of the third world did not attribute the necessary values and personality types to encourage success in the developmental process. ‘The people of the third world are said to be passive, conservative, fatalistic or superstitious, when what they need to be is creative, innovative, entrepreneurial, get up an go types.’ (Foster-Carter:1995:22)

According to So (1990) some criticisms of modernisation theory include; the notion as to why do third world countries need to move in the direction of western countries? Concepts such as ‘advanced’, ‘modern’, ‘traditional’, and ‘primitive’ are merely ideological labels which are used as merely ideological concepts to justify western superiority. It has also been said that, modernisation researchers have overlooked alternative paths of development, as the U.S had democratic institutional researchers who assumed that democracy is necessary for economic development. However is democracy really necessary? Could third world countries ‘not follow the authoritarian development at Taiwan and South Korea?’ (So:1990:54) and create their own models of development Another argument is that ‘modernisation rearchers are over optimistic,’ as they assume that what has worked for the west will also work for the third world. However this has not proved to be the case as many third world countries problems have got worse overtime. For example in Ethiopia many ‘people have faced starvation and the nation has faced extinction.’ (So:1990:55)

Dependency theorists challenge the ideas of modernisation theories. The dependency perspective has been heavily influenced by Marxism. Their main argument is based on the idea that the western countries were rich precisely because the southern countries were poor. The also maintain that the west got rich through the exploitation of the third world. Dependency Theory arose in Latin America, in the 1960’s ‘as a response to the bankruptcy of the program of U.N economic Commission for Latin America (ECLA) (So:1990:92) Referring to (lecture notes) Raul Prebisch argued that the poverty of Latin America reflected the international division of labour . The third world exported relatively heap primary commodities and imported relatively expensive manufactured goods. Paul Baran offers the classic dependency view that the development of the first world and the under development of the third world are linked to the analysis of colonialism.

Andre Gunder Frank a key theorist in dependency theory set out to discredit Modernisation theory and claimed that the development of the west led to the under development of the third world. He claimed that the development gap widened as a result of colonialism. Frank (1967) used examples of Chile and Brazil to demonstrate chains of dependency that existed from the colonial times at the beginning of the sixteenth century. Frank criticises the modernisation school on the bases that it only provides an ‘internal’ understanding of third world development. They assume that the ‘backwardness’ of the third world has something to do with the countries culture, lack of investment, population size, or lack of motivation. Frank also claimed that modernisation theories ignore the history of third world countries and in doing so, they are assuming that third world countries need to look to western countries and follow their same path to modernisation. Therefore assuming that, the third world countries are not capable of getting there on their own.

It has been pointed out that the third world cannot follow the same path as the western countries. This is due to the fact that western countries have never experienced colonialism. The modernisation school rarely discuss the impact of colonialism on the third world and the ways in which it has altered their paths of development. For example, India in the 18th century was one of the most developed countries in the world. It manufactured and exported some of the finest products. At this time Britain had yet to under go the industrial revolution. However Britain had a strong army who defeated the Indians armed forces. Britain then transformed India into a colony; de- industrialized it and turned it into a cotton growing nation which was used to supply Britain with raw materials. Britain then adopted an educational policy that aimed to keep India in ‘a state of darkness and barbarism.’ (So:1990:115) The backwardness of India was caused by the elaborate, ruthless, systematic despoliation of India by Britain. Even though India got its political independence the damage had been done, and the country was a shadow of its former self and could not gain economic independence.

Frank claims that external explanations are a more effective way of understanding the under development of third world countries. As in the example used above India was quite advanced before they experienced colonialism in the eighteenth century. Then foreign domination and colonialism reversed the development of many ‘advanced third world countries, and forced them to move along the path of economic backwardness’ (So:1990:97) Frank in the concept, ‘the development of under development’ maintains that development does not happen naturally, but is created by the long history of colonial domination of the third world. In order to explain this frank adopts the notion of a ‘metropolis-satellite’ to explain the workings of the mechanisms of under development. The metropolis satellite has its origins in the colonialism era, when new cities, which were implanted in the third world. The aim of this was to transfer economic surplus in the form of raw materials, minerals, commodies and profits to the west. However the metropolis satellite relationship was not just on a international level, but also on a regional and local level of third world countries. This creates a chain of dependency.

‘Frank argues that this national transfer of economic surplus has produced under-development in the third world countries and development in western countries.’ (So:1990:97)

Theotonio Dos Santos claims that ‘dependence’ can be explained by looking at how the dominate and dependant countries experience growth, in that the dependant countries can produce their own growth, but dependant countries can only reflect this growth.’ (lecture notes) He also argues that the relationship between the dominant and dependant countries are unequal because the development of the dominant takes place at the expense of the dependant. For example the control of the market in through trade, loans and surplus generated in dependant countries to dominant countries. As a result of these factors the development of dependant countries is limited, economically, technically, culturally, morally and physically in the health of their people. As Willis (2005) points out, many third world countries are dependant on the aid they receive such as Jamaica. However the high repayments have led to expenditure falls, which have led to a decline in healthcare, and schools etc. The country becomes trapped by the aid they receive, as the demanding repayments have serious negative impacts on their social development.

In So (1990) Dos Santos Claims that there are fundamental structural limitations placed on the industrial development of the under developed countries. Dos Santos pointed out that the development of industry is dependant on the existence of an export centre, as the export centre brings in the necessary foreign exchange for the purchase of advanced machinery for the industrial sector. The development of the industry is heavily influenced by the balance of payments, which causes deflect. This is due to, the international market lowering the price of raw materials to raise the price of industrial products. Also the amount of capital leaving the dependant countries is greater than the amount that enters. For example, ‘for the period 1946-1967, for each dollar that entered dependant countries, $ 2.73 left.’ (So:1990:100) A result from these circumstances is that foreign financing in the form of aid becomes necessary to finance further development. However Dos Santos argues that the needs of underdeveloped countries are not high priority. Foreign finance is given on the notion of financing North American investments and to support foreign imports which compete with national products. Dos Santos also argues that Trans-national corporations look out for themselves, they don’t sell machinery and process raw materials as simple merchandise. They demand payment of royalties for their own use or they transform the goods into capital and form them into their own investments. Dos Santos concludes that the economic backwardness of the underdeveloped countries is not a result of less integration with capitalism. It is the dominate control of foreign capital, technology, and finance at local and international levels, which is preventing underdeveloped countries from reaching a successful position. It is the negative influence of these contributing factors which is resulting in the, ‘backwardness, misery and social marginalization within their borders.’ (So:1990:102)

The dependency school feel that the term development needs to be redefined. They suggest that the term should mean more than industry and the rise of productivity. Development should mean the improvement of living standards and quality of life for all involved. Dependency theorists also suggest that the links that the underdeveloped countries have with the developed countries are potentially harmful. They maintain that the only way for the under developed countries to pursue their own path of development, is to stop relying on foreign aid and technology and develop their own ways to trade with other countries outside of the modernised countries ring.

It appears that the dependency schools views are exactly the opposite of those of the modernisation schools views in that; first of all, they both come from different theoretical backgrounds. Classical modernisation theorists are influenced by ‘European evolutionary theories and American functionalist theories.’ (So:1990:108) Dependency theorists are influenced by ‘liberal ECLA program and radical neo-Marxist theories.’ (So:1990:108) Another difference between the two schools of perspectives is the ways they express what they feel to be the causes of the problems of the third world. Modernisation theories offer internal explanations, while dependency theorists offer external explanations. Third, modernisation theories maintain that the third world should receive more contact from western countries, and dependency theories maintain that this contact is harmful. Forth, modernisation theorists have a positive view concerning the further development of third world countries. They believe that the third world will eventually catch up with the modernised western countries. Dependency theorists have a negative view. They maintain that third world countries will become more dependent on western countries, leading to bankruptcy and further underdevelopment. Dependency Theorists suggest that this is almost certain to happen if the exploitive linkages between the countries remain unchallenged. Another major difference between the two perspectives is that, Modernisation theorists suggest that the best way to solve the problems of the third world is through more aid, cultural exchanges and technology. However dependency theorists maintain that the best way to solve the problems of the third world is through cutting down the connections between the third world and developed countries. Dependency theorists see this as the only way that third world can become independent and self ruling.

However Peter Berger states that if dependency prevents development how we can explain the extraordinary growth in Japan and the Asian Tigers. On the other hand Eric Hobsbawn observes that ‘the Newly Industrialised countries only represent 2% of the third world population.’ (lecture notes) However the 2% still represents the notion that some countries can be dependant and have a degree of development. This supports the view of Bill Warren who insists that ‘capitalism is essentially progressive and will eventually nurture development.’ (lecture notes)

New dependency theorists such as Fernando Cardoso argue that ‘it is possible to have dependant-associate development.’ (So:1990:137) Other criticisms of dependency theories include; their definations are too abstract and vague , their policy conclusions fail to spell out how the problems of the third world can be resolved and overall the concept of dependency has become an explanation for all that is wrong in the third world.

Despite all the differences between the modernisation and dependency perspectives, there are a few similarities between them. The first similarity is that both perspectives are interested with third world development, and the factors that promote third world development. The second similarity is that they use similar methodologies and position their arguments at highly abstract levels. Third both perspectives have developed a ‘polar theoretical framework,’ (So:1990:107) Classical modernisation theorists call it, ‘core (metropolis) verses periphery (satellite)’ (So:1990:107)