Contrast Modernisation And Dependency Theories example essay topic

GLOBALISATION AND DEVELOPMENT COMPARE AND CONTRAST THE MODERNISATION AND DEPENDENCY APPROACHES TO THE STUDY OF DEVELOPMENT The various theories of development differ widely in their approach and evolved towards new forms in the 1950's and 1960's. This evolution itself reflects differing views seeking to contribute to, or work against the process of development. By comparing and critically analyzing two different approaches to development, modernisation and dependency, a more broad-based understanding of their strengths and weaknesses at the time they were put into practise can be created. Many difficulties have arisen whilst trying to explain underdevelopment and attempting to condense a number of theories in to one is sure to give rise to criticism. The 1950's and 1960's saw thinking and action on development dominated by the modernisation approach. Modernisation is defined by Hulme and Turner (1990 p 34) as.".. a total transformation of a traditional or pre-modern society into the types of technology and social organisation that characterize the advanced Western World".

It was only in the late 1960's that dependency was considered as the modernisation school could not provide adequate explanations as to what was happening in the third world and how development could be achieved... Dos Santos (1973, p 13) defines dependency as follows, .".. a conditioning situation in which the economies of one group of countries are conditioned by the development and expansion of others". It is important to note where each theory originates from and how it came to be an influential concept in world development. The modernisation approach was characterised by different phases and movements ranging from a move from simple to complex technology, a change from subsistence farming to cash crops, a move from animal and human power to machine power the generation of more urban settlements. The research website for socialolgy, specializing in world economic development, web (1998) offers the explanation, "Such processes would not occur simultaneously, and more, importantly, changes would differ from one society to another... thus leading to different paths towards modernization". The dependency approach became far more fashionable in the 1960's, especially in Latin America.

This theory was preferred as it pin-pointed where modernisation had failed to increase development. Cypher and James (1997, p 189) illustrate that "Dependency theory found the causes of lack of development to be external to the socio-economic formations of the less developed nations". Dos Santos summarises the intentions of the dependency post war model of development. Firstly it aimed to "lessen dependence on foreign trade and lead to a locally controlled economy". Industrialisation would lead to a "process of political democratization" which would in turn lead to more "equal income distribution". Such aspects encourage the development of a "modern developmentally-minded state" which would in turn further their development.

To compare and contrast modernisation and dependency theories certain assumptions that each approach makes must be considered. For example the American modernisation perspective assumes underdeveloped countries must catch up to the west and that all modernisation should follow the US in terms of economic development, political structures and culture. This can be backed up by Hulme and Turner (1990, p 35) .".. the modernisation paradigm is a celebration of western civilisation, a proclamation of the self-confidence of ethnocentric achievement". Modernisation enthusiasts believed that if economic growth could begin in these underdeveloped areas, poverty, unemployment and income inequality could be eradicated. However, it was the failure of modernisation to reflect the practical nature of development problems within places such as Latin America that caused dependency to emerge. This was the underdeveloped countries answer to the inadequacies of Marxist theories and views, in some ways a nationalist response. J. Hogendorn (1992, p 627) suggests that "Economic growth along with democratic institutions may be the best way out of such a dilemma, as growth will reward those who prosper where others have failed".

Modernisation theory holds the view that western penetration and intervention into "non-west", developing countries is always beneficial. It believes that if the west diffuses knowledge, skills, organisations and technology into a poorer nation over time its culture and society will become like that of the west. The globalisation section of the website web suggests that "The modernisation process of development involved fundamental changes at the socio-cultural level as well as economic levels - a requisite to the institution and propagation of capitalist economic development through industrialisation". Despite the modernisation approach making a number of assumptions about developing countries it still allows these areas to develop with some independency with the west acting as a resource centre when it is needed. Alternatively, dependency can be described as 'Tautological', causing third world countries to remain poor as they constantly depend on the west for economic survival.

A move towards inter-dependency, where all countries rely on each other would close the ever growing gap between the developed and the developing. Paul Cammack (1988, p 89) details some aspects that dependency seeks to achieve Third World development, "The dependency perspective... in the course of world economic development is a perspective within which every element central to understanding - history, the international economy, class formation and conflict, the state as a locus of conflict and domination - is deliberately excluded". Equally as important is the fear that dependency can spiral out of control as it is not possible to measure exactly who is more dependant than whom. However, just because dependency the level of dependency cannot be measured does not mean that it doesn't exist in many different forms.

For example, if Latin America were to become increasingly dependant on the west it would reach a point that it could never reach economic stability independently. The modernisation approach is often referred to as a 'Teleological Conception', to achieve a pre-determined end of self sustaining economic growth. Walt Rostow (1960) saw this as, .".. the economic distinction of modern Western society and to achieve this distinction was what modernisation was all about". This can be viewed as a main difference between modernisation and dependency.

As modernisation was approached with a realistic aim including stages of growth that all societies must go through, as argued by Apter (1987, p 107) .".. societies had to pass through five main stages to get there: traditional society, the preconditions for take-off, the take-off, the drive to maturity and the age of high mass consumption". On the other hand dependency was an unrealistic theory as it ignored key issues such as class formation and internal processes causing it to be a far more 'Externalistic' approach. Although it is important to examine the similarities and difference between the two theories, there were several factors that contributed to the rise of the dependency and the fall of the modernisation approach. It was the sway of modernisation on social analysis and policy that promised quick and sweeping development as suggested by Cypher and James (1997, p 189) .".. Rosenstein, Rodan, Nurse, Hirsch man, Rostow and others maintained that the attainment of development for less-developed countries was only a matter of time".

However, during the 1950's and 1960's the development of these countries was only modest with the numbers of shanty towns still high, abysmal water quality and state schools pathetically incapable of offering an inadequate education. As Cypher and James argue, "Economic growth had created poles of prosperity in a sea of despair". It was not possible to find one dependency theorist who could summarize and detail the ideas of Latin American dependency as the precise mechanisms of such an approach can vary. The move towards dependency can see these theorists employing Marxist's categories and concepts, making the distinction between the two theories less crisp than it might first appear as argued by Paul Cammack (1998, p 9) "The weakness and loss of confidence of non-Marxist political development theory is seen in a number of features such as the readiness to incorporate rather than frontally oppose Marxist approaches". The general view is that the incorporation of Latin America into the emerging global economy, eventually through free trade, ensured that Latin American production was geared towards producing exports for the developed countries. The political and social system was to then ensure that the gains from this were divided between small Latin American classes.

Philip O'Brien (1997, p 16) argues the problem with such a method, "Developing nations used much of their gains for importing luxury consumer goods rather than diversifying investment". From critical analysis of modernisation and dependency theories it can be argued that dependency arose from the failure of the modernisation approach to achieve its goals in the developing world. The western perception of unlimited intervention into the economic growth of developing states did not have its desired effect. In some ways this opened the door for dependency to look for an alternative way for these areas to catch up with the west, away from the Marxist view that capitalism had a role of 'destruction and regeneration' to play. The concept of modernisation can be seen as problematic from the outset. Dependant countries could never attain the same economic status as the developed countries, as it would require further western investment for them to continue to develop.

However if the world economy were to collapse all investment would stop causing the dependant nations economies to suffer severely. O'Brien (1997, p 12) argues that dependency theory relies on these changes in the world economy. "The dynamics of Latin American society depend on changes in the world economy to produce changes in the Latin American economy which in turn spark off political processes for change... ".

Despite the argument above, dependency ran out of steam in the 1980's as it could not offer a constructive way of using these economic dilemmas to further the internal economies of developing nations. Arguably the answer could lie in the Theory and Science, sociology website, where P. Harrison states, "Today, globalisation is a word that points to a phenomenon identified interchangeably as a process, an historical event, or the end result of shifting "ethno, techno, media, finance, and ideo-scapes" web - 2001.