Difference Between Modernization Theory And Dependency Theory Essay

Modernization theory is inadequate with Global Inequality, because it is not the answer to why poverty still has a huge effect on the world. This theory deals more with the conflicts between modernity and tradition. Underdeveloped countries are more into their cultures, they believe there are certain things that should not be taken away. Nations have tried to industrialize, yet cultures traditions affect the countries development. The traditions are usually superstitions, ethnocentrism, fatalism, pride, dignity, and modesty; these variables are a

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).

Throughout time, countries, places and towns, have been changing and updating their plans. They have updated technology, created religions and developed different ways to govern. For example, Industrialization, (“ Being the development of industries

Underdevelopment can also be, and has been, understood as a reflection or product of the economic, social, political and cultural characteristics of said country. Yet with a look at history we see that the underdevelopment of a “satellite” nation can be traced directly back to the past and current economic relations the nation has held with developed “metropoles”. This relationship between a metropolitan and satellite countries pertains back to the process and development of the world capitalist system, which benefits its Western

Direct criticism to the modernization theory created the idea of the dependency theory. Scholars from Latin America theorized about what was the cause of their dependency and underdevelopment. The theory stated “the present underdevelopment of Latin America is the result of its centuries-long participation in the process of world capitalist development” (Frank 7). In ordinary terms, the drive to compete in the global economy deepened the hole of underdevelopment. The capitalistic pull of resources from underdevelopment countries to the development country perpetuated the conditions of

"Modernization" has been a standout amongst the most strongly arranged ideas of the hypothetical and verifiable sociologies throughout the most recent fifty years. Originations of the term have changed significantly over the span of this talk. Beginning as an idealistic and unmistakably framework subordinate subsidiary of the Western, European and North-American thought of advance, the idea ended up noticeably mindful of the inner conflicts, control structures, and unintended results of innovation. Modernization progressively created from an effortlessly workable and appropriate – and frequently spur of the moment – idea into a general heuristic thought, which brings up the issue with regards to the ties holding present day social orders together and the

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 modernization process has been experienced in different ways by different countries that some of them succeeded and some of them failed. Theoretically it has been defined as “a concept in the sphere of social science that refers to the process in which society goes through industrialization, urbanization and other social changes” (Zapf, 2004).Even there is no single approach toward this process, evolutionism, diffusionism, structural functionalism, systems theory and interactionism as well as other disciplines such as political science, economics, anthropology, psychology and others are combined to be known as modernization theory.

The concept of the developmental state has been crucial to the economic growth in East Asia. Combining Berger’s analysis on developmental state theory and Kalinowski’s investigation into VOCs (varieties of Capitalism), it can be seen that looking at developmental states through a structuralist lens helps to deconstruct the economic outcomes seen in East Asia. Through Berger’s in-depth analysis of developmental state theorist perspectives, it can be established that understanding the history, rise and fall of the developmental state theory is essential in understanding the capitalist transformation that has taken place in East Asia.

Under this global system, economic success depends, in part, on speculation and the willingness of private companies to make investments in various countries. The US and other western societies that are considered modernized are investors in this scenario while developing countries offer their labor as a commodity. Some countries were able to achieve success by privatizing and developing industry. Russia was able to accomplish this. Other counties have failed to modernize and their industries lag behind within the global economy. Why have these countries been unable to modernize? Is

Advancement is a chronicled extend that began in the post-feudal west, bit by bit affecting different developments today. It is determined by political and monetary improvements – Capitalism – that structure the life of every living soul inside it. Marx, a pioneer, normatively inspected its accelerating developments. Advancement was the model of social improvement which spoke to the trade of conventional values and examples of inspiration to threatening social change and budgetary development. Sociologists distinguished advancement as an evolutionary approach embraced by the Western

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.

This essay is an attempt to compare the modernization and radical approaches to development and deciding which approach of the two offers a plausible explanation to what is prevailing in LDCs like Zambia. It will start by defining the major concepts which are development, modernization and radical approach, and then it shall proceed to make a full analysis of the two approaches respectively. The advantages and criticism will be given specifically for the two approaches, and it shall evaluate which one is better helping us in understanding the problems faced in less developed countries. Finally a conclusion will be drawn in summation of the topic.

This essay is an attempt to compare the modernization and radical approaches to development and deciding which approach of the two offers a plausible explanation to what is prevailing in LDCs like Zambia. It will start by defining the major concepts which are development, modernization and radical approach, and then it shall proceed to make a full analysis of the two approaches respectively. The advantages and criticism will be given specifically for the two approaches, and it shall evaluate which one is better helping us in understanding the problems faced in less developed countries. Finally a conclusion will be drawn in summation of the topic.