This research paper uncovers the study of modernization and how it correlates to political development towards democracy. First, it examines the development and origins of the modernization theory that encompass a number of explanations that connect economic, social and cultural changes with shifts in political systems. Modernization puts forth the idea that economic development will lead to cultural and social changes that transform the political behavior of a country’s citizens that can ultimately lead to democratic governments. Subsequently, the paper moves to the empirical evidence supporting the modernization theory and critiquing the theory’s broader applicability. Some critics would suggest that certain types of economic development could actually destabilize society, rather than progressing the cultural and social components that provide the starting point for democratic societies. Meanwhile, others have advocated that wealth does not explain the emergence of democracy, and that the likelihood that a country remains democratic is higher in richer countries. Finally, it will look into future avenues in research on the correlation between political development and modernization. Modernization theory refers to a set of explanations that link economic development and social changes with the type of political regime that emerges. As countries economically modernize, they shift from agricultural to industrial societies. Industrialization results in
We know that democracies are common among the economically urbanized countries and rare between the very deprived ones. The reason we scrutinize this pattern is not that democracies are more probable to emerge, as a result, of economic development but that they are to a large extent more possible to survive if they occur to emerge in most urbanized countries. The paths to democracy are diverse. Indeed, they appear to follow no unsurprising pattern. But once democracy is conventional, for whatever reasons, its endurance depends on a few, easily particular, factors.
Change is an inalienable piece of society. Social orders are always showing signs of change to adjust themselves to the contemporary lifestyle. Social researchers generally utilize the term modernization to allude to the procedure through which
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
The idea that economic development will lead to democratization and democratic consolidation generally holds for most cases. More often than not, increasing economic development increases the probability that any given society will have democratic politics. Although this theory is widely spread it does not seem to account for all cases, such as India. Due to the large population of India, the defying factors against modernization theory are not easily overlooked. Many scholars have been analyzing the deviant case for years, trying to find out how they defied the modernization theory. India is considered a deviant case because it only recently began to see notable economic development, and for most of the twentieth century the country was profound poor. Looking through the modernization theory it would lead us to believe that India was ruled by an authoritarian regime due to their poor economics. Because they defy this belief and have been a democratic country for a prolonged time it is evident that India does not conform to the modernization theory. India’s democracy emerged amidst severe poverty, widespread illiteracy, and a largely agrarian and rural population characterized by vast linguistic and ethnic diversity. However, India was able not only to transition to but also consolidate a robust democratic system that has survived for over sixty years. The historical process of Indian democratization challenges the central premise of
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,
INTRODUCTION The chapter By the People: Becoming a Practitioner of Democracy by Kenneth Winston discusses the quest of staying true to personal beliefs while establishing a career and achieving goals. Winston addresses the story of Aruna Roy’s career path and quest for equality in India. Roy has a strong passion for human rights in India, and she sought to raise the voices of the rural poor. Roy stopped at nothing to ensure that her morals, ethics and beliefs were not sacrificed in the name of a job security or the safety of an organization’s reputation. As a result, we see in this chapter, Roy’s ‘non-linear’ career path that includes changes in organizations and living situations.
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.
Does Modernization lead to Democracy or does it not? My hypothesis for this research question is that modernization does not lead to democracy even as I explore the different kinds of literature written on this subject. As part of my research design I have decided to use a single case study as a comparative method. This is because case studies offer a detailed explanation of the topic of discussion transforming “journalism into political science” (Hague & Harrop, 2013: 361). I have decided to look at Singapore to provide a well-rounded description which will therefore show how it operates in the context of modernization and democracy. One of the primary authors who decided to study the relationship between economic development and democracy was Seymour Martin Lipset in both this books titled Political Man and The Social Requisites of Democracy. (Heo & Tan, 2001) Since his literature came out more and more social scientists began to expand or critique on the words of Lipset in carrying out their own research. It is clear to see that discourses around economic progress and democracy are still debated to this day. Arguments around whether or not democracy should come first then development follows are also being discussed in other areas. However there is a general consensus across the board of most authors that the two are closely related. Many argue that they go hand in hand; it is not wise to have one without the other. In helping to answer my research question the work of
For the first time in known history, most people around the world are living under democratic ruling. Although to many this can be seen as a positive step forward from the gruelling nature of dictatorship and other forms of governance, one needs to understand the true nature of the worlds democratic state. This report will investigate and analyse the state of democracy around the various countries of the world and elaborate on the chosen countries democratic crisis and state of governance.
To further our knowledge, democratization theories need to be verified by India’s experience which diverges from projected prototypes. India, as an outlier portrays the potencies and implications of these theories. Distinctly, India should be the preliminary base for articulating and analyzing a democratic theory in a developing country, due to the country’s size and of course its permanence of its democratic establishments. For the developing world, this is of prodigious substance. India establishes the possibility to commence the concurrent progress of the economy, state and society. Modernization theory isn’t necessarily disproven, but it does needs to be reassessed based on the Indian model. As the world continually evolves, theories and political concepts gradually become outdated, thus not being applicable nor appropriate to label particular states. This in turn jeopardizes a nation’s capability to progress, since they do not adhere to the predominant models we accept, therefore they cannot apply the strategies appropriate for their own advancement. India, defying the norms, provides us with the leeway to adapt current models and produce new ones, enveloping the conception of democratization for years to
Populism refers to the political philosophy that pits the downtrodden masses against the apathetic ruling elite. La Moral refers to the conformity to the code of conduct set by employers. Modernization is the transformation from a traditional, rural society that primarily relies on agriculture to an urban, industrialized society. The emergence and flourishing of modern society has been inextricably linked with the development of industries, infrastructure and cities. Sociologists and political analysts agree that “urbanization and industrialization were the main causes of populism in Latin America.” (Conniff and Roberts 6)
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.
Modernization is a structural explanation that sees rural poverty as a result of a lack of economic and industrial development. According to modernization, traditional values and practices prevented the acceptance of new technologies and institutions. This point of view looks past the individual and points
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.
According to Andrew Janos, “the price of economic progress has been political turmoil”. (Janos, pg. 21) If the Modernization Theory holds that countries tend to become more democratic the more they modernize, then political turmoil is to be expected in democracies. Certainly this can occur in both parliamentary and presidential systems: as Linz argues, the presidential system concentrates too much power on the president, resulting in “winner-take-all” politics (Linz, pg. 56) and the polarization of political parties. This is evident in the United States, where the president is elected separately and Congress is divided between the opposing Democrats and Republicans. Conversely, the parliamentary system in Britain, as well as that adapted by the former British colonies of Sri Lanka and Nigeria, has had its fair share of single-party hegemony and political abuse. (Horowitz, pg. 78) Democracy is therefore not a perfect form of government when put in practice, and much of its