Modernization theory

Development study

1. Modernization Theory






Prepared by: - Asegede Kebede








Gambella Oct, 24/2017

2. Modernization theory Asegede Kebede Oct, 24/2017
Contents
Modernization Theory ......................................................................................................................................................... 3
Emergence of Modernization theory .................................................................................................................................. 3
Modernisation theory ‘third world’ Vs. ‘First world’ countries ......................................................................................... 3
Modernisation theory thought industrialization................................................................................................................. 4
The dependency theorists ............................................................................................................................................... 5
Globalization theory ........................................................................................................................................................ 6
Critics of globalization theory.......................................................................................................................................... 6
Adaptation of Modernization theory .................................................................................................................................. 7
Modernization by Steve Basset ........................................................................................................................................... 7
Modernization by Talcott Parson ........................................................................................................................................ 8
Individualism should promote competition and drive economic growth ....................................................................... 9
Modern education systems embody universalism and meritocracy .............................................................................. 9
Strengths of Modernisation Theory .................................................................................................................................... 9
Modernisation Theory Global Influence ........................................................................................................................... 10
Modernisation Theory VS MDG ........................................................................................................................................ 10
Criticisms of Modernization Theory .................................................................................................................................. 10
Is the collectivist culture of Anuta really inferior to the individualized culture in the West? ...................................... 10
Reference ...................................................................................................................................................................... 12

3. Modernization theory Asegede Kebede Oct, 24/2017
Modernization Theory

Modernization have single definition different schools of thought disagreements about what modernization
theory is and what has been learned from comparisons bedevil discussions between users and critics. Those
who applied the theory often failed to be specific or to supply supporting explanations to establish it as a
powerful set of generalizations in the forefront of cross-disciplinary social science analysis, while critics
usually neglected to define the theory precisely or to make an effort to balance its merits against alleged
shortcomings. Although the theory exerted a huge impact on the disciplines of history, political science, and
sociology, and on thinking about capitalism versus socialism, East Asia versus Western advanced capitalist
countries, and more versus less developed countries, to many its legacy remains confusing, as does its
connection to recent globalization theory. Even at the beginning of the twenty-first century, there is little
agreement on what modernization theory is and how it has advanced social science analysis. The theory of
modernization normally consists of three parts: Identification of types of societies, and explanation of how
those designated as modernized or relatively modernized differ from others; Specification of how societies
become modernized, comparing factors that are more or less conducive to transformation; and Generalizations
about how the parts of a modernized society fit together, involving comparisons of stages of modernization
and types of modernized societies with clarity about prospects for further modernization.
Actually, reasoning about all of these issues predated postwar theory. From the Industrial Revolution, there
were recurrent arguments that a different type of society had been created, that other societies were either to
be left permanently behind or to find a way to achieve a similar transformation, and that not all modernizing
societies had equal success in sustaining the process due to differences in economic, political, and other
institutions. In the middle of the 1950s, these themes acquired new social science and political casting with
the claim of increased rigor in analysis.
Emergence of Modernization theory

By the end of the Second World War many of the countries in Africa, Asia and Latin America had failed to
develop and remained poor, despite exposure to capitalism. There was concern amongst the leaders of the
western developed countries, especially the United States, that communism might spread into many of these
countries, potentially harming American business interests abroad and diminishing U.S. Power.
In this context, in the late 1940s, Modernisation theory was developed, which aimed to provide a specifically
non-communist solution to poverty in the developing world – Its aim was to spread a specifically
industrialized, capitalist model of development through the promotion of Western, democratic values.
Modernisation theory ‘third world’ Vs. ‘First world’ countries

There are two main aspects of modernization theory –Its explanation of why poor countries are
underdeveloped, and its proposed solution to underdevelopment.
Modernisation theory explained the underdevelopment of countries in Asia, Africa and Latin America
primarily in terms of cultural ‗barriers‘ to development‘, basically arguing that developing countries were

4. Modernization theory Asegede Kebede Oct, 24/2017
underdeveloped because their traditional values held them back; other modernization theorists focused more
on economic barriers to development.
In order to develop, less developed countries basically needed to adopt a similar path to development to the
West. They needed to adopt Western cultural values and industrialize in order to promote economic growth.
In order to do this they would need help from Western governments and companies, in the form of aid and
investment.
Modernisation theory favoured a capitalist- industrial model of development – they believed that capitalism
(the free market) encouraged efficient production through industrialization, the process of moving towards
factory based production.
Industrial –refers to production taking place in factories rather than in the home or small workshops. This is
large scale production. (Think car plants and conveyer belts).
Capitalism – a system where private money is invested in industry in order to make a profit and goods are
produced are for sale in the market place rather than for private consumption.
Modernisation theory thought industrialization

There are alternative systems of production to Capitalism – subsistence systems are where local communities
produce what they need and goods produced for sale are kept to a minimum; and Communism, where a
central authority decides what should be produced rather than consumer demand and desire for profit. (Need
drives production in Communism, individual wants or desires (‗demand‘) in Capitalism)
In the early post–World War II era, approximately twenty societies were regarded as highly modernized and
roughly another ten to twenty were depicted as having passed a threshold on the path to modernization.
Definitions of modernized varied. Some noted structural features, such as levels of : Education, urbanization,
use of inanimate sources of energy, and fertility, Others pointed to attitudes, such as secularization,
achievement orientation, functional specificity in formal organizations, and acceptance of equality in
relationships, Conscious of the ethnocentric nature of many earlier explanations for growth in national power
and income, social scientists in the 1950s and 1960s generally omitted cultural traits associated closely with
Western history from definitions of modernity.
Yet, given the rhetoric of the Cold War and a preoccupation with democracy in U.S. national identity,
political institutions became a central factor in many definitions. It is useful to distinguish two approaches to
modernization in the heyday of the theory: Applications of already identified steps along a unilinear path; and
Comparisons of variations along a path becoming more diverse geographically, even if long-term
convergence was expected in social indicators.
The former approach in its extreme form assumes that the histories of latecomers to modernization (after the
first-comers had all been steeped in Western culture) are irrelevant, that they can best achieve economic
growth and accompanying modernization by rapid democratization and copying of Western institutions, and
that notions of the self and social relationships are destined to become much as they are idealized in the
United States.

5. Modernization theory Asegede Kebede Oct, 24/2017
In contrast, the latter approach looks for diversity in societies along the path of modernization, argues that
historical legacies shape divergent paths to political and other institutions, and suggests that social relations
can be expected to differ as well, even as some convergence occurs.

Clashing views of the Soviet Union may have underscored the two approaches to modernization at a time
when Cold War divisions were uppermost in many minds.
On the one side were those who expected the Soviet system to collapse. High rates of industrial growth and
the ability to project national power presumably would amount to little when the people aspiring for freedom
and the economy riddled with inefficiencies reached an impasse. From this perspective on modernization
there was only one model, and any seeming alternatives did not merit comparative study. The universal model
assumed a high degree of individualism, an intense quest for democracy, and an economy that allowed for
little state intervention. If, for a time, a mobilizing state could produce rapid economic growth, this did not
signify modernization and could not be sustained.
On the other side were those who recognized efforts to reform the Soviet system as well as the rise of East
Asian societies that did not fit the supposedly universal model. They argued that levels of individualism vary,
states differ in their involvement in society, and social relations historically have reflected different regional
traditions. While modernization in some respects is a "universal social solvent," there is notable variation even
among societies labeled the "West." The Soviet Union had the potential to concentrate on science and
technology in education and the workplace in order to advance a new elite, while providing social welfare
benefits to motivate a broader mass of the population. If totalitarianism only produces temporary results, then
a technocracy based on rising interest groups could lead to more balanced modernization and eventual
convergence with Western societies, where social welfare benefits and central coordination were gaining
ground. A comparative approach to modernization theory began with studies of socialist countries, and, after
Soviet reforms stagnated under Leonid Brezhnev (1906–1982; in power 1964–1982), shifted to East Asian
countries and especially Japan.

In the 1970s and 1980s, the two orientations in comparative modernization studies contended with theories on
the left and the right.
The comparative study of East Asia, highlighting first Japan's model of modernization and then the Confucian
development model, faced the dependency school and related arguments centered on Latin American cases. In
contrast to the insistence of the Latin Americanists that societies integrated into the global system of
capitalism were doomed to remain in the periphery, locked into an unfavorable division of labor that
perpetuates backwardness, the East Asianists affirmed the opportunities within the world system for an
industrious population led by farsighted state policies. Studies of Japanese modernization pointed to benefits
from the family system that supported educational achievement, workplace dedication, and long-range
planning; the school and examination system that encouraged intense learning and competition as well as
loyalty in the classroom, which could be transferred to the enterprise; and the workplace system that favored
lifetime employment for a large segment of the workforce, seniority wages, enterprise unions, and
competition among firms under administrative guidance from state ministries. While debates proceeded over
how much these unusual aspects of modernization would withstand forces of convergence as Japan reached a
higher stage of modernization and openness to foreign competition, the comparisons stressed that significant
differences could shape development even in countries whose per capita income ranked at the top of the
world.
The dependency theorists :- were guilty of ahistorical analysis, arguing that the Confucian cultures in
East Asia that had produced extraordinary premodern levels of literacy, urbanization, meritocratic
governance, and commercial development did not matter. Yet politicians and vested interests in some East
Asian countries who lauded Asian values and resisted reforms that would broaden democracy and openness to

6. Modernization theory Asegede Kebede Oct, 24/2017
outside influences were guilty, too, of slanted analysis, ignoring the argument of modernization theory that
convergence continues, and more complex societies at higher stages of modernization, with greater openness
to foreign competition and influences, must give voice to younger generations espousing new values. Critics
of modernization theory on the left insisted that struggle against an oppressive world system (not domestic
consolidation around shared values) would be necessary, dismissing comparisons that alleged different
pathways to success.

Globalization theory:- is essentially modernization theory bolstered by greater emphasis on international
integration and the power of external forces to induce rapid change. Again, one finds generalizations about
individual modernization, adoption of attitudes in favor of personal choice for marriage, divorce, choice of
work, migration, and views of authority. One also may observe organizational adaptation, with formal
organizations transforming their roles in a market environment where a civil society is gaining ground and
individuals are free to enter and leave. Likewise, state authority becomes subject to checks and balances,
limited in creating monopolies and denying access to the outside world. If modernization theory emphasized
competition among nations that would oblige, sooner or later, domestic adjustments, globalization theory
stresses the powerful effects of the flow of resources, information, and people across national boundaries. The
urgency of meeting the competition is accelerating, but the fundamental changes identified by modernization
theory continue to occur.

Critics of globalization theory:- both from the left and the right, repeat the accusations raised against
modernization theory. Many on the left see it as justification for neo-imperialism or U.S. hegemonism,
leading to unfair results, including one-sided gains and negative consequences for cultural diversity and the
environment. On the right, there is continued fear that compromises will have to be made with others who
follow different models, watering down national distinctiveness or sovereignty. Instead of comparing different
approaches to globalization and accepting the need for all sides to adjust as competition proceeds in
unpredictable ways, many prefer either to reject the process as inherently flawed or to insist that control by
only one party must be ensured.
As seen in a half century of modernization theory, politicized approaches to far-reaching questions of social
change as well as narrow rejection of generalized social science analysis leave many critics unprepared to
keep the focus on how to draw on empirical evidence and comparisons to keep improving existing theory. The
theory of modernization may not have remained popular, but its message endures: States reorganize in an
increasingly competitive environment; The quest for international power and economic growth leads to
substantial changes in domestic policies; Societies continuously adjust to economic growth and global
integration; and the result is growing convergence, but there may be multiple models and sharp backlashes
from those fearful or unsuccessful in the process.
As in the Cold War era, there are three prevailing theories of global evolution at the beginning of the twenty-
first century. The Marxist school that equated modernization reforms with promotion of imperialism and
social class exploitation has transformed into a broader left-leaning agenda, appealing to conflict against the
United States and its elitist allies as a mechanism for more just economic distribution and more checks in
global political development. Its neoconservative message calls for imposing a single model, more than
comparing alternative approaches of nations and regions while accepting the virtues of diversity.
As developed in comparative studies and by the multilateral globalization school, modernization theory
accepts that convergence is a long-term process that must remain incomplete as societies seek solace in what
makes them distinctive. The quickening pace of technological change will fuel accelerated integration, and
there will be dangers of increased interdependence and vulnerability that will demand more security
cooperation. Yet the driving forces of the global system will remain states competing to gain an advantage in

7. Modernization theory Asegede Kebede Oct, 24/2017
boosting their economies and national power. In the context of growing world integration, states will still be
in competition to capitalize on modernization and shape the global system.
Adaptation of Modernization theory
Modernization theory adopted the narrative of progress of nineteenth-century evolutionary theories of social
change. It dispensed with the racist overtones of many, which tended to separate societies into "civilized" and
"savage" and doubted the possibility of development of the latter. Adopting the nation-state as its main unit of
analysis, the theory defined development as an endogenously driven process and maintained that
modernization was a goal attainable by all societies. Retaining but elaborating the dichotomous conceptions of
earlier evolutionary theories, the modernization approach conceived of underdeveloped societies as
comprising traditional and modern sectors. The traditional sector was rural and agrarian, its sociopolitical
organization defined by religion, superstition, primordial loyalties, and similar forces. In contrast, the modern
sector was urban, its economy dominated by industry; social standing was determined by economic position
(social class) and hence the result of personal achievement, and secularism defined the organization of social
relations and public life. In effect, this equated development with the increasing Westernization of
underdeveloped societies through elaboration of market-based economies and liberal, pluralistic political
systems. One of the most famous articulations of the approach, W. W. Rostow's The Stages of Growth: A
Non-Communist Manifesto, made this explicit. Modeling his analysis on Marx's theory of history, but blunt
about his intention to present liberal capitalism as the superior path to modernity, Rostow argued that
economies progressed through five historical phases: traditional, preconditions for takeoff, takeoff, drive to
maturity, and the age of high mass consumption. Contrary to Marx, who saw capitalism as a way station to the
ultimate modern society—stateless communism—Rostow argued that high–mass-consumption society, of
which the United States was the most fully realized incarnation, was the end of the modernization process.
In general, the two key conditions for successful modernization were economic growth through
industrialization and modernizing elites with the "psychocultural attributes" to guide their societies through
the process. Modernization of underdeveloped societies could be realized in a shorter period than had been the
case for Western societies. In bequeathing ex-colonies with modern economic enclaves and Westernized
elites, colonial rule had laid the foundations for accelerating the process. Interestingly, the narrative of
progress that undergirded the approach resonated with the nationalist aspirations of Third World elites. The
promise of development of their societies served as a ubiquitous trope for the legitimization of their power.
Although they adopted different ideological positions, modernization for them was fundamentally about the
elaboration of the two projects of economic development through industrialization and nation-state building.
Modernization by Steve Basset
Steve Basset has produced an excellent series of vodcasts introducing Modernization Theory and other
theories of development:
The term modernization conjures images of social change in the direction of general improvement over the
past. In contemporary social sciences, the notion has been the basis of a theoretical orientation—variously
referred to as modernization theory, approach, paradigm, or framework—to the study of the development of

8. Modernization theory Asegede Kebede Oct, 24/2017
Third World or underdeveloped societies. The conception of development as a process of modernization
gained prominence in the period after World War II, but its popularity ebbed in the 1960s. There were rival
definitions of modernization in the social sciences; this entry, however, will be concerned mainly with the use
of the term for a general theoretical orientation—a set of linked assumptions framing analysis of and debates
about the nature and challenges of development. In this regard modernization was a historically unique type of
social change, which was inexorable, transformational in its effects, and progressive in its consequences. The
main institutional pillars for modern society were industrialism and the nation-state.
A product primarily of American social science, the modernization approach was inspired by two important
and concurrent developments of the postwar era, the disintegration of European colonial empires and the Cold
War. Modernization theory, directly or indirectly, was concerned with resolving the problems of
underdevelopment by promoting market-based economies and pluralistic political systems. The approach thus
appeared to be scholarship guided by and in support of specific Western policy objectives. The intellectual
roots of modernization theory lie in pre-Socratic Western thinking about social change, and more immediately
in the European Enlightenment of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, which gave birth to modern social
sciences.
Modernization by Talcott Parson

According to Modernisation Theorists, obstacles to development are internal to poorer countries. In other
words, undeveloped countries are undeveloped because they have the wrong cultural and social systems and
the wrong values and practices that prevent development from taking place.
The Caste System in India is a good example of an ascribed status system based on traditional values
Talcott Parsons (1964) was especially critical of the traditional values of underdeveloped countries – he
believed that they were too attached to traditional customs, rituals, practices and institutions, which Parsons
argued were the ‗enemy of progresses. He was especially critical of the extended kinship and tribal systems
found in many traditional societies, which he believed hindered the geographical and social mobility that were
essential if a country were to develop (as outlined in his Functional Fit theory).
Parsons argued that traditional values in Africa, Asia and Latin America acted as barriers to development
which included –
Particularism – Where people are allocated into roles based on their affective or familial relationship to
those already in positions power. For example, where a politician or head of a company gives their brother or
someone from their village or ethnic group a job simply because they are close to them, rather than employing
someone based on their individual talent.
Collectivism – This is where the individual is expected to put the group (the family or the village) before
self-interest – this might mean that children are expected to leave school at a younger age in order to care for
elderly parents or grandparents rather than staying in school and furthering their education.
Patriarchy – Patriarchal structures are much more entrenched in less developed countries, and so women
are much less likely to gain positions of political or economic power, and remain in traditional, housewife
roles. This means that half of the population is blocked from contributing to the political and economic
development of the country.

9. Modernization theory Asegede Kebede Oct, 24/2017
Ascribed Status and Fatalism – Ascribed status is where your position in society is ascribed (or determined)
at birth based on your caste, ethnic group or gender. Examples include the cast system in India, many slave
systems, and this is also an aspect of extreme patriarchal societies. This can result in Fatalism – the feeling
that there is nothing you can do to change your situation.
In contrast, Parsons believed that Western cultural values which promoted competition and economic growth:
such values included the following:
Individualism – The opposite of collectivism This is where individuals put themselves first rather than the
family or the village/ clan. This frees individuals up to leave families/ villages and use their talents to better
themselves ( get an education/ set up businesses)
Individualism should promote competition and drive economic growth
Universalism – This involves applying the same standards to everyone, and judging everyone according to
the same standards this is the opposite of particularism, where people are judged differently based on their
relationship to the person doing the judging.
Achieved Status and Meritocracy – Achieved status is where you achieve your success based on your own
individual efforts. This is profoundly related to the ideal of meritocracy. If we live in a truly meritocratic
society, then this means then the most talented and hardworking should rise to the top-jobs, and these should
be the best people to ‗run the country‘ and drive economic and social development.
Modern education systems embody universalism and meritocracy
Parsons believed that people in undeveloped countries needed to develop an ‗entrepreneurial spirit‘ if
economic growth was to be achieved, and this could only happen if less developed countries became more
receptive to Western values, which promoted economic growth.
Strengths of Modernisation Theory

ONE – Indonesia – partly followed Modernisation theory in the 1960‘s by encouraging western companies to
invest and by accepting loans from the World Bank. But, their President Suharto (Dictator) also maintained a
brutal regime which a CIA report refers to as ―one of the worst mass murders of the 20th century,‖
comparable to those of Hitler, Stalin, and Mao. However, the World Bank praised Suharto‘s economic
transformation as ―a dynamic economic success‖ and called Indonesia ―the model pupil of the global
economy,‖ while Bill Clinton referred to Suharto as ―our kind of guy.‖
Two further examples of where western expertise has helped solved specific problems in a number of
developing countries are the green revolution and the eradication of smallpox, but neither of these lead to ‗the
high age of mass consumption‘ as Rostow predicted
TWO – The Green Revolution: In the 1960s, Western Biotechnology helped treble food yields in Mexico and
India.
THREE – The Eradication of Smallpox… In the early 1950s 50 million cases of smallpox occurred in the
world each year, by the early 1970s smallpox had been eradicated because of vaccine donations by the USA
and RUSSIA

10. Modernization theory Asegede Kebede Oct, 24/2017
Modernisation Theory Global Influence
Despite its failings Modernisation theory has been one of most influential theories in terms of impact on
global affairs. The spirit of Modernisation theory resulted in the establishment of the United Nations, The
World Bank and the IMF, global financial institutions through which developed countries continue to channel
aid money to less developed countries to this day, although there is of course debate over whether aid is an
effective means to development.
Modernisation Theory VS MDG
Furthermore, the ‗spirit of Modernisation theory may actually still be alive today, in the form of Jeffry
Sachs. Sachs (2005) is one of the most influential development economists in the world, and he has been
termed a ‗neo-modernization theorist‘.
Sachs, like Rostow, sees development as a ladder with its rungs representing progress towards economic and
social well-being. Sachs argues that there are a billion people in the world who are too malnourished, diseased
or young to lift a foot onto the ladder because they often lack certain types of capital which the west takes for
granted – such as good health, education, knowledge and skills, or any kind of savings.
Sachs argues that these billion people are effectively trapped in a cycle of deprivation and require targeted aid
injections from the west in order to develop. In the year 2000 Sachs even went as far as calculating how much
money would be required to end poverty – it worked out at 0.7% of GNP of the 30 or so most developed
countries over the next few decades.
Criticisms of Modernization Theory
Firstly, there are no examples of countries that have followed a Modernization Theory approach to
development. No countries have followed Rostow‘s ―5 stages of growth‖ in their entirety. Remember,
―Modernisation Theory‖ is a very old theory which was partly created with the intention of justifying the
position of western capitalist countries, many of whom were colonial powers at the time, and discrediting
Communism. This is why it is such a weak theory.
Secondly, Modernization Theory assumes that western civilization is technically and morally superior to
traditional societies. Implies the traditional values in the developing world have little value compared to those
of the West. Many developed countries have huge inequalities and the greater the level of inequality the
greater the degree of other problems: High crime rates, suicide rates, poor health problems such as cancer and
drug abuse.
Is the collectivist culture of Anuta really inferior to the individualized culture in the
West?
Thirdly, Dependency Theorists argue that development is not really about helping the developing world at all.
It is really about changing societies just enough so they are easier to exploit, making western companies and
countries richer, opening them up to exploit cheap natural resources and cheap labor.

11. Modernization theory Asegede Kebede Oct, 24/2017
Fourth, Neo-Liberalism is critical of the extent to which Modernisation theory stresses the importance of
foreign aid, but corruption (Kleptocracy) often prevents aid from getting to where it is supposed to be going.
Much aid is siphoned off by corrupt elites and government officials rather than getting to the projects it was
earmarked for. This means that aid creates more inequality and enables elites to maintain power
Fifth, Post-Development thinkers argue that the model is flawed for assuming that countries need the help of
outside forces. The central role is on experts and money coming in from the outside, parachuted in, and this
downgrades the role of local knowledge and initiatives. This approach can be seen as demeaning and
dehumanizing for local populations. Galeano (1992) argues that minds become colonized with the idea that
they are dependent on outside forces. They train you to be paralyzed and then sell you crutches. There are
alternative models of development that have raised living standards: Such as Communist Cuba and The
Theocracies of the Middle East
Sixthly, industrialization may do more harm than good for many people – It may cause Social damage – Some
development projects such as dams have led to local populations being removed forcibly from their home
lands with little or no compensation being paid.
In the clip below, Vandana Shiva presents a useful alternative perspective on the Green Revolution, pointing
out that many traditional villages were flooded and destroyed in the process:
Finally, there are ecological limits to growth. Many industrial modernisation projects such as mining and
forestry have led to the destruction of environment.
For conservative critics, such as the political scientist Samuel Huntington, the ethnocentrism and teleology of
modernization theory made it a poor guide to public policy. The conjecture of an unproblematic causal link
between economic development and the advance of pluralistic political systems encouraged a moralistic
approach to policy toward the developing world, which promoted democracy even if it was not necessarily in
the best interest of the United States. The social dislocations caused by economic development fed political
instability; therefore, the creation of political orders—the institutionalization of political authority—was a
precondition for economic development and democracy. According to this argument, the main objective of
American policy toward the developing world ought to be support of regimes that are capable of maintaining
order and amicably disposed toward America's economic and strategic interests.
Radical critics, on the other hand, such as dependency and world system theorists, dismissed modernization
theory as well as its conservative critics as engaged in providing intellectual justification for American
imperial designs. In adopting the nation-state as the primary unit of analysis and positing modernization as a
primarily endogenously driven process, they were both guilty of misleading representation of
underdevelopment as an "original condition." Capitalism was a hierarchically organized global system, with
nations or regions belonging to the core, semicore, or periphery of the system. The pace and pattern of
development of "national" economies were contingent on the manner of incorporation and position of
countries or regions within the world capitalist system and its corresponding hierarchy of nation-states. The
underdevelopment of peripheral Third World societies followed from their incorporation, through
colonialism, as subservient members in the world capitalist system and the shaping of their economies to
serve the interests of dominant core states. Their governing elites were not altruistic agents of progressive
social change but groups primarily interested in advancing their class interests. This they did in part by the use
of state power to create and manage beneficial alliances between themselves and foreign capitalists. For

12. Modernization theory Asegede Kebede Oct, 24/2017
radical critics, then, modernization theory and its conservative critics were both advocating an approach to
development that favored the expansion of the world capitalist system.

Reference
Black, Cecil Edwin. The Dynamics of Modernization: A Study in Comparative History. New York: Harper
and Row, 1966.
Black, Cecil Edwin, et al. The Modernization of Japan and Russia: A Comparative Study. New York: Free
Press, 1975.
Ingelhart, Ronald. Modernization and Postmodernization: Cultural, Economic, and Political Change in 43
Societies. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1997.