Accordingly Third World countries were generally perceived as backwards or primitive, and as President Tuman’s famous speech makes clear the problems the Third World suffers from could be solved by following a model of civilised western development, and by sharing scientific and technological know-how this would speed up the modernisation process. Modernisation Theorists looked at the dichotomy between tradition and modernity, which placed emphasis on the values and norms that are prevalent in these two distinct types of societies. Theorists such as WW Rostow (1960) argue that development depends on ‘traditional’ and ‘primitive’ values being replaced by modern ones, and saw development as a succession of stages that a country must go through before it transcends into modernity (Harrison 1988).
For traditional societies the first stage is output, which is difficult because of feudalism and/or an agrarian economy and a lack of modern technology. The second stage ‘the preconditions’ for take off which is when traditional barriers to trade are overcome through the acceptance and use of new technology (as in Britain during the 19th Century). The third stage is the actual take off and use of technology, the fourth stage can be described as a drive to maturity when between 10/20% of national income is invested and the economy becomes international. According to Rostow you have reached modernity when the fifth and final stage is met by high manufacturing output, and high consumption of manufactured goods (Harrison 1988).
Thus poverty and inequality exists because of inherent faults in belief systems and values; people in undeveloped nations are unwilling to accept change and reject technology. The idea that underdevelopment can be blamed on these faults also lends to the idea that underdeveloped nations are independent, and are not affected by capitalist society which controls their economy, politics and culture. Globalisation must be taken into consideration; according to Giddens it is defined as:
The intensification of worldwide social relations which link distant localities in such a way that local happenings are shaped by events occurring many miles away and vice versa (1990:64).
Critics of Modernisation Theory argue that it is ignorant of the way that Third World countries are enmeshed in the world system and defines Western values as universal. What it also illustrates is that Modernisation Theorists do not look at individual cultures and their uniqueness to one another, but it expects Third World nations to evolve in the same manner as the capitalist West. Thus the ideology that stems from this is that capitalism and its values are the only way forward, anything else is doomed to shackle Third World countries to poverty and backwardness. Therefore, the way of the First world is the only way and as Ozay Mehmet writes:
Euro centricity; as a particular form of ethnocentricity; is closely linked to racist theories…it is non-factual narrow mindedness, vain and misleading (1995:90)
And as history has proven, modernisation policies as implemented by President Harry Truman have been unsuccessful, as poverty and exploitation still hasn’t been eradicated in Third World countries today. The persistent poverty in underdeveloped countries such as Latin America were the prime concern during the 1960’s of economists such as Gunder Frank, who dismissed Modernisation Theory and the notion that it was a lack of modernising values that resulted in poverty. Instead he argues that dependency is a result of the capitalist system that has undermined Third World economies by making Western impositions on their economic systems, culture and way of life. Frank argues that growth of advanced society is at the expense of undeveloped nations whose economic surplus the West exploits (Harrison 1988).
Thus poor societies are not underdeveloped in their economic development; their economies will develop if capitalist ideology is withdrawn. But while ever Third World countries are in the grip of capitalism, poverty and inequality will continue to exist (Webster 1990). This is a view shared by Baran (1973) who argues the West extracts valuable raw materials and surplus from underdeveloped nations. However, Baran believes whatever resources are left remaining, are squandered by corrupt government officials and the ‘lumpenbourgeoisie’ (Harrison 1988).
Frank also argues that colonialism and capitalism forced Third World countries into producing goods for export to the West that are of little or no use for home markets. Third World elites or compradors as Frank calls them became the connection between poor producers and the rich merchants. Consequently Third World countries were unable to diversify and produce goods that were essential for their own economic survival. The Comprador elites became reliant for their wealth on the economic elite in the centre, or as Frank terms the centre the ‘metropolitan’ country. Whilst Third World elites enjoy the trappings of capitalism it is at the expense of the teeming masses whom represent a high proportion of the population, that suffer as surplus production is transferred out of the country (Webster 1990).
According to Dependency Theorists there is a chain of dependency running down from the highly advanced centres of the world, a hierarchy of metropolises, with their subordinate satellites through which the economic surplus is passed upwards within a nation and then internationally. For Frank and other dependency theorists the only way to stop this exploitation is by conflict – a socialist revolution, the uprising of the masses who make up the majority of the population who will challenge the comprador elites, or as Marx would call them the bourgoisie, to break the chain of dependency (Webster 1990) As a result of Franks Theory of metropolises and satellites he is widely regarded as a neo-Marxist due to the importance he gives to this relationship, and the ensuing class conflict (Kegley & Wittkopf eds).
Laclau (1971) an ‘articulationist’ theorist, disagrees with Frank and argues that capitalist development does take place in Third World countries, but in an unequal way; for example wage earners are paid very little and have to rely on traditional methods of support such as producing their own crops to help sustain themselves and their families. This allows employers to continue to pay low wages and maintain high profit margins. In short capitalism is said to articulate with rather than include local economic methods of production. However, this mode of production restricts any real growth in the economy by its very low wages, and consequently does not allow for any significant progress to be made in standards of living. Neo-Marxists such as Ernesto Laclau and Bill Warren are concerned with the relationship between the different systems of production and the implications this has for economic growth (Webster 1990).
Warren argues that what is considered to be characteristics of underdevelopment are in fact, typical of any country that is going through a transition to capitalism (the Industrial Revolution of the 19th Century?). Thus it is possible that Third World countries will progress. Warren however, does agree that these countries are heavily dependent on ‘advanced’ industrial societies for economic growth, but argues that:
The distribution of world economic power is becoming less concentrated and more dispersed, and the countries of Asia, Africa and Latin America are playing ever more independent roles, both economically and politically (cited in Webster 1990:90)
Thus development is taking place and as capitalism becomes more successful, so does Third World economies. Nevertheless there are other flaws in Frank’s argument if we look at Canada for example this is a developed country that is reliant on American capital. Additionally the US and the West are heavily dependent on Third World countries for oil reserves, which illustrates that all countries are interconnected. And as Therborn (1973) argues the suggestion that the world economy is a system means that all parts of the world are in one way or another ‘dependent’ on each other (cited in Webster 1990).
Kitching (1982) argues the only real measure of dependency is by assessing the amount of money that is invested in a country and the total over and above this is the exploited surplus that is taken out by the metropolitan centre. But measuring this is problematic:
Certainly a simple comparison of money capital inflows into developing countries with money capital outflows is … totally inadequate basis on which to build a theory of exploitation (p167).
The problem then is one of measurement; how does a country measure it people’s standard of living? The standard format throughout the world is by calculating its Gross National Product (GNP), which is universally accepted and easily implemented. But the statistics do not take into consideration the black economy of street vendors or other illegal traders. Arguably these activities, which are often vital for the survival of the impoverished, could be classed as development and could be in the interest of the local economy to let it flourish unhindered.
A prime example of the distortion that is caused by statistical analysis is the country of Brazil, which in 1964 saw its GNP rise to annual rates as high as 10% whilst the level of real wages declined by a third or more. This led the president of Brazil to remark on a visit to Washington, ‘in my country the economy is doing fine, but the people aren’t’ (cited in Alavi & Shanin 1982:217). Mittelman & Pasha further explains the negative affect of transferring the surplus produced by Third World nations:
…a startling feature of the global economy was a net transfer from ‘Third World’ countries to the ‘advanced’ countries. With mounting debts and interest payments exceeding the total of new loans and investment, uneven flows of finance capital augments global structural inequality. Consequently aid and investments serves to deter Third World governments from state intervention in their economies and leaves them even more reliant on Western aid (1997: 226).
More recently Sir Eddie George the governor of the Bank of England has allied himself with the views of anti-globalisation protestors who argue that the poorest countries are excluded from the benefits of world trade. Speaking in London Sir Eddie George said:
At the global level – and it is here that I think some of the peaceful anti-globalisation protestors have a real – point many of the poorest, least developed countries are effectively excluded, we need not just free but fair trade at the international level (cited by Stewart 2001).
It is the goal of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) to remove all barriers to trade and investment among nations, they mediate between developed and undeveloped worlds to try and ensure a level playing field. However, it is arguable whether or not this is the case when securing fare-trading practices for the poorer countries. And as Caroline Lucas (2001) reports the latest round of negotiations in November with the WTO angered delegates of the developing nations (the South), before talks had begun as the programme was already unfairly set against them in favour of the rich capitalist countries (the North). The powerful trading blocs threatened to withdraw aid and debt relief to the developing nations if they did not get their own way on key policy issues.
During these talks the demands of Third World nations were ignored, they found themselves marginalized by powerful trading blocs made up of Japan, the US and the EU. The poor South were forced into signing up to unfair trade deals and forced into a global economy into which they could not compete. Important issues for these countries such as being allowed to protect domestic farming fell on deaf ears. The EU was allowed to continue to dump cheap agricultural imports into countries such as Tanzania. This will result in the further destruction of Third World domestic markets’ as small peasant farmers will be unable to compete with powerful producers in the North. Tanzania’s trade minister Iddi Simba said, “the wrong policy on agriculture might lose elections in France, but it loses lives in Africa” (cited by Lucas 2001).
China who has been seeking entry to WTO for several years has finally been accepted into this powerful trading body. In the past they have been kept out by right-wingers in the US on the pretext of their poor human rights record, when in reality they were trying to protect their own commercial interests. Some would argue that by keeping China and other authoritarian regimes excluded from this body, allows them to continue persecuting minorities and others who do not conform to their ideology. Now China are members of the WTO it is hoped that they will succumb to pressure to clean up their act on human rights abuse (Brown 2001).
China’s economy is now the seventh largest exporting nation in the world and is described as the most important ‘locomotive’ in the troubled economy of the Far East. Thus it comes as no surprise that they have finally been allowed into the WTO, as they will be instrumental in propping up the Asian economy. According to the WTO China has managed to steadily raise living standards over the last two decades with massive economic growth, although it has been unevenly distributed (Brown 2001).
What is significant about China is that it is a socialist system that has been highly successful without following the North’s model of economic development. China’s economy has been booming without Western interference, this illustrates that alternative models of development can be successful, probably to the chagrin of Western politicians most notably in the US. However, the WTO has many critics such as the International Forum on Globalisation (IFG) who states that the WTO has one objective: ‘that commercial interests supersede all others’ it continues:
Any obstacles in the path of operations and expansion of global business enterprise must be subordinated. In practice these ‘obstacles’ are usually policies or democratic processes that act on behalf of working people, labour rights, environmental protection, human rights, social justice, local culture and national sovereignty (cited by Brown 2001).
After considering the evidence the IFG appear to have considerable justification in condemning the WTO, which can be argued are steamrollering developing nations into entering a global trade race they cannot win, regardless of the poverty and inequality that is impinged on them. The voice of the South goes unheard and unheeded. When delegates of these nations speak up they are bullied into submission, and forced into accepting unfair trade deals that costs millions of lives worldwide.
Clearly the WTO cannot represent the interests of both the ‘advanced’ North and the poor ‘South’, as the North has economic and political might on their side as opposed to the relative powerlessness of nations in the South. It can be argued that the WTO needs overhauling and a truly independent trade body implementing, which would serve all nations fairly – instead poor countries find themselves exploited and marginalized by powerful capitalist nations.
Some academics such as Kiely (1995) would argue that we have now reached an ‘Impasse’ – the end of the road for new ideas to combat global inequality. It appears the two major paradigms of Dependency Theory and Modernising Theory have been exhausted, and that sociologists are reluctant to go back to the drawing board and start again with fresh ideas. It has been claimed by Kiely that theorists have been stuck in the past, and that the new world order cannot be explained by concepts that have their roots firmly embedded in an era long gone and that is irrelevant in today’s vastly changed society.
Past experience has proved that Modernisation Theory and ‘modernising values’ have proved to be a useless concept, as individuality of countries and their cultures are dismissed as irrelevant. Modernising Theories are aimed at introducing capitalism into developing countries whether they want it or not and the avoidance of socialism, which is a legacy of the cold war and old hostilities. Dependency Theory argues for the withdrawal of capitalism from developing countries, which will allow them to develop on their own if they break the chain of dependency. Thus Dependency Theory and neo-Marxism has got us no nearer to curing the problem of inequality; it merely reiterates what is already known – that capitalist countries are exploiting developing nations, but whose teeming masses must bring about a revolution in order to resolve their problems (which is not a new idea).
In conclusion perhaps change for the better could be made if the uniqueness of all countries were taken into consideration, with the help of a new and improved WTO to encourage Third World countries to meet their own domestic demands rather than the demands of exploiting nations. This would help break the chain of dependency and enable Third World countries to develop there own policies to lift themselves out of the abyss of poverty. Maybe some lessons could be learnt from the success of China and socialism, which has to some extent embraced capitalism but still managed to remain a socialist country, and who have remained powerful enough to resist Western domination. Finally, it appears that sociologists are now realising that Modernising Theories and Euro-centrism has held Third World nations back, and that new models of development are necessary to come out of the sociological crises of the Impasse, but it may be a long way off before sociologists are confident enough to put these ideas forward for scrutiny.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Alavi H & Shanin T (1982) Introduction to the Sociology of Developing Societies London: MacMillan
Bullock A & Trombley S (eds) (1999) The New Fontana Dictionary of Modern Thought 3rd edition London: Harper Collins
Giddens A (1990) The Consequences of Modernity
Cambridge: Polity
Harrison D (1988) The Sociology of Modernization & Development London and New York: Routledge
Kegley C W & Wittkopf E R (eds) Trend & Transformation4th ed. New York: St Martins Press
Kiely R (1995) Sociology of Development, the Impasse and Beyond UCL Press
Kiely R & Marfleet P (eds) (1998) Globalisation and the Third World. London & New York: Routledge
Kitching G (1982) Development and Underdevelopment in Historical Perspective. London: Methuen
Mehmet O (1995) Westernizing the Third World: Eurocentricity of Economic Development Theories. London: Routledge
Mittelman J H & Pasha M K (1997) Out from Underdevelopment Revisited. London: MacMillan Press
Webster A (1990) Introduction to the Sociology of Development 2nd edition. London: MacMillan Press
INTERNET
Brown D (2001) China Joins The Club available from:
November 23 2001
Lucas C (2001) The Ill Wind Of Trade available from:
November 21 2001
Stewart H (2001) Sir Eddie Takes Protestors Point available from:
December 13 2001
