Criticism Of Modernization Theory

For individuals in very poor and economically unstable countries, globalization tends to do more harm than good. Through the economic, political and cultural examples stated above, globalization has not aided these countries climb out of poverty, develop an influential government or have a strong cultural identity, in fact, it has done the exact opposite. L’Huillier quotes Charles Darwin, “if the misery of our poor be caused not by the laws of nature, but by out institution, great is our sin” (2017 381). The business model that globalization suggests is an unattainable utopia for those in developing countries. These traits of poverty and war have always existed yet, many of today’s countries are the way they are because of the models that are favored and paraded under globalization

Over time some societies become more modern than others creating an unequal balance among other states globally. It is the thought that the modernization theory in some societies, are left behind because of advances in technology and within the economy also (Macionis and Plummer, 2012:p 306). Rostow (1990: p12) suggested that the modernization theory is created by an outside government or corporation to introduce new technologies and build industries to make money. As the four phases of modernization are explained above, it is simple to understand how these societies built upon modernization can create global inequalities and unequal balance within an underdeveloped society. However,

The level of analysis differs greatly between the modernization approach and dependency approach, where modernization focuses predominantly on the behaviours, beliefs and traditions of individuals, the dependency approach focuses on elements outside the individual unit such as international trade, class alliances and conflict (Valenzuela and Valenzuela, 1978, p.550). Where the modernization approach focuses on the microsocial, the dependency approach focuses on the macrosocial (Valenzuela and Valenzuela, 1978, p.550).

Brave New World is a book written in 1932 by Aldous Huxley. One of the more memorable aspects of Brave New World is its setting: a dystopian future where the government regulates everything in society and all high art is banned. At the time the book was written technology was rapidly advancing, so Huxley decided to let the quickly advancing world shape the setting of Brave New World. Modernization heavily shapes Brave New World's setting.

In most cases U.S. citizens who are in poverty are in relative poverty in relation to the rest of the U.S. population; whereas in the world as a whole a greater number of people are in absolute poverty and are barely able to survive on their income, or wages and earnings, and they have very little to no wealth since it is impossible to save any of their money. Ethnocentrism makes it difficult to obtain a clear picture of the conditions of poverty and inequality in other nations and cultures. There are many theories concerning the causes and solution for poverty in the global economy. The two major theories are the modernization theory which explains inequality in terms of technological and cultural difference between nations, and the dependency theory which explains poverty in terms of the historical exploitation of poor, or low-income, nations by rich, or high-income, nations. This theory has manifest itself in a new way in today’s world in the form of neocolonialism; economic exploitation by multinational corporations.

     Leading up to the turn of our present century, changes in culture and society of America triggered modernization throughout much of our commerce, social, artistic and educational lives. The past century or so has brought new obstacles and opportunities for the nation of America. This changing is reflected through some of the works by writers such as, Robert Frost, William Williams, Ezra Pound, and T.S. Eliot. Examining people’s mindset in modernization one common feeling of people is “nervousness” which is due to the nation’s reluctance to change. T.S. Eliot is quoted with the statement "the immense panorama of futility and anarchy which is contemporary history."1 Modernism

Within the last 60 years, Third World development has been a global priority, at the top of virtually every Western agenda. And with the rise of the global population and poverty levels continuing to rise along with it, it is very easy to see why human development is becoming such a topic of focus and discussion among members of the academia. But one question that everyone wants the answer too is, how does Third World development fit into Globalization? Despite apparent compatibility, when closely examined it is clear to see that Globalization actually contradicts Third World development due to the conflict of agendas. Both Globalization and Development hold views concerning market reform, social structure and regulation, which are

The two theories which shall be compared are the modernisation theory and Neo Liberalism. The modernisation theory is a market oriented development theory which states that low income countries can develop economically if they give up their traditional ways which often can be dated back centuries and take on more modern economic principles, technologies and cultural values which comprise of an emphasis on productive investment and savings.

The three theories of global inequality: modernization theory, dependency theory, and globalization theory all attempt to describe and offer up solutions to global inequalities. I think that each has it's strengths and shortcomings.

The overriding difference between modernization theory and dependency theory is that where modernization theory contends that there are universal practices that result in economic success, dependency theory states that poor countries are subordinated by wealthier ones in order to maintain the status quo. To this end, modernization theory involves the belief that by adopting principles of wealthy nations, such as technology and mass culture, economically disenfranchised cultures can enjoy success (Weinstein, 2008). Implicit in modernization theory is that every country can achieve success through following the same framework.

The three theoretical perspectives that we will describe in this paper are: (1) modernization theory; (2) dependency theory, and; (3) world systems theory. We will first begin with the modernization theory.

Modernization theory is a hypothesis used to clarify the procedure of modernization that a country experiences as it moves from a simple society to a modern one. Dependency theory is the idea that assets spill out of a fringe of poor and immature states to a centre of rich states, enhancing the latter to the detriment of the former. These two theories contrast in that modernization theory clarifies how created states work and develop, whereas dependency theory outline how work and develop are restricted. Modernization theory clarifies the advancement and improvement of innovation in more steady regions of the world (Culp, 2014). Dependency theory looks at the impacts that modernization in one district has on different parts of the world. Dependency theory is more comprehensive than modernization theory. Modernization theory emphasises that instruction, innovation and broad communications are noteworthy reasons why created districts pull ahead from others. Be that as it may, modernization theory does not operate on a worldwide scale where the assets, work and power originate to make this advancement conceivable. In modernization theory, the majority of the advancements that local areas or states make originate from an aggregate interior exertion.

As we begin to ponder the future of modernization, and the possible consequences that are apt to occur, perhaps we should first revisit the definition of modernization. To this end we can start by saying that modernization is thought of as a concept that states that the development of societies can be considered as a standard evolutionary pattern that has a tendency to stimulate growth. It can also be considered as the concept that refers to the process where society goes through several stages, including industrialization, urbanization, and various other social changes, that tend to completely transform the lives of individuals.

The rise of globalization following WWII generated three important factors that define today’s world. McNeill and McNeill agree with Pollard, Rosenberg, and Tignor that multiple economic changes, such as the creation of financial institutions like the International Monetary Fund (IMF) contributed to the globalization of the world economy. Carter and Warren further this argument by claiming that globalization has caused shifts in the modern economy, namely the rise of Asian economic powers. However, all three historians agree that the rise of globalization goes hand in hand with the rise of inequality in today’s world. Gaps in power, wealth, and access to information have only widened due to the trend of globalization. The final key factor defining our world today are the ongoing processes affecting development countries. McNeill and McNeill argue similarly to Carter and Warren that the end of imperialism generated new nations who quickly realized the free market was a pathway to stability. However, Pollard et al. and McNeill and McNeill place importance on financial institutions like the IMF forcing developing nations to reform their economies to be subservient to the world’s economy. Together, these historians argue that the trend of globalization following WWII caused factors like the modern global economy, the rise in inequality, and the development of new, decolonized nations to be key determiners in the world today.

Lack of development in countries in the so-called `Third World' has many political and economical reasons. Historians explain the inadequacy of developing countries with the early imperialism and the resulting colonization of the South. Exploitation of mineral resources, deforestation, slavery, and the adaptation of foreign policies shaped the picture of today's suffering and struggling civilizations and natural rich continents. The omission of concessions and equal negotiations between dependency and supremacy give rise to the contrast of enormous resources and immense poverty in developing countries is. In the last years the outcry of justice and the emancipation of the Third World became louder throughout developing and industrialized