Modernization theory is an interdisciplinary model which is supposed to explain the progress of various societies. In particular, it is aimed at identifying the factors that shape the transition of the society from traditional to modern stage. This approach has been widely applied by American policy-makers during the 1950s and 1960s at the time when they studied developing countries that could become the allies of the United States. Furthermore, this framework was used to develop recommendations that could boost the progress of these states. One can say that this theory can be helpful for distinguishing those factors that can contribute to the development of a country and the growth of its economy; however, the recommendations offered by the advocates of this approach are not always effective, because there are several cultural and social variables that are not included in this model.
Overall, researchers single out several drawbacks of this model. In particular, this model does not always take into account the differences between various traditional societies. For example, they can differ in terms of social hierarchy, the role of religion, workplace culture, and so forth. Therefore, one cannot easily tell how such communities can respond to innovative policies. The advocates of modernization theory focus on Japan which eloquently exemplifies the process of modernization1.
One can also refer to some other countries such as South Korea or Singapore. However, the number of such cases is not sufficient for developing definitive guidelines that can benefit various traditional societies. Thus, modernization theory lacks rigor which is important for any scientific model. This is one of the drawbacks that should be taken into account by policy-makers.
Furthermore, scholars note that that there are differences in the rate of modernization. This argument is particularly relevant if one speaks about countries representing different regions such as Southeast Asia, Middle East, or Africa2. Even though, these states have been allied with the United States, not all of them have been able to create democratic institutions. Furthermore, they did not always achieve prosperity. These examples indicate that there are certain factors that can influence the ability of the society to embrace modernization. For example, some cultures are open to innovation and social transformation while others tend to resist such processes. These issues were not fully considered by the supporters of modernization theory. This is one of the aspects that shout be taken into account.
Another limitation of this model is that it is based on the Western standards of social and political development. One of such standards is the promotion of liberal democracy which is regarded as the optimal political regime3.
However, in many cases, it is not permissible to compare developing and advanced in this way because these communities can differ in terms of values or worldviews. For instance, even during the pre-modern stages, the political landscape of countries like England was dominated by people who wanted to limit the power of the state. This is why many of them embraced the principles of liberal democracy. However, this political regime was not readily accepted in other regions of the world, especially those countries, in which there were fewer people who could protect their rights or struggle for them.
Additionally, modernization theory cannot fully explain the influence of such factors as natural resources on the development of the community. For instance, maritime transportation can be critical for the economic growth of the country. In turn, landlocked states are usually more disadvantaged because they have fewer opportunities for trade. Such factors have to be mentioned to show that under some circumstances, the recommendations based on the modernization theory may not be applicable to certain countries or regions.
Admittedly, there are some benefits of this model. In particular, this approach can be useful for identifying the factors that contribute to the improvement of living conditions in the community. For instance, one can speak about the accountability of government, the development of transportation infrastructure, rule of law, investment in educational institutions, and so forth. They are the necessary prerequisites for the ability of any community to make progress. However, one cannot assume that the guidelines offered by modernization theorists can always be effectively implemented.
Additionally, the guidelines developed on the basis of modernization theory proved to be efficient when American policy-makers tries to reform the social, legal, and political environment of Japan. Again, one can speak about Singapore, Hong Kong, or South Korea. To some degree, modernization was achieved in Turkey. However, these principles can be implemented if policy-makers can anticipate potential response to dramatic transformation of various social, legal, and economic institutions.
On the whole, modernization theory is an important landmark in the history of social and political sciences. Moreover, it has significantly shaped the development of various countries. However, this interdisciplinary model can only identify the prerequisites that are important for social progress. Moreover, the guidelines developed by the advocates of this approach are not always effective because one cannot always anticipate potential resistance to modernization. These are the main aspects that be distinguished.
Bibliography
Latham, Michael. Modernization as Ideology: American Social Science and “nation Building” in the Kennedy Era, Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2000.
Lerner, Daniel. The Passing of Traditional Society. Glencoe: Free Press, 1958.
Rostow, Walt. The Stages of Economic Growth: A Non-Communist Manifesto. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1960.
Footnotes
1 Walt Rostow, The Stages of Economic Growth: A Non-Communist Manifesto (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1960), 15.
2 Daniel Lerner, The Passing of Traditional Society (Glencoe: Free Press, 1958), 8.
3 Michael Latham, Modernization as Ideology: American Social Science and “nation Building” in the Kennedy Era (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2000), 18.