Modernization in Afghanistan and Iran

More specifically, import substituting industrialization became the most adopted economic development strategy in Turkey. However, there were some discontinuities between the state led import substituting industrialization in the 1930s and the adopted import substituting industrialization model during the 1960-1980 era. Although the economy policies after 1962 were placed in the planning basis with the development plans, these economic policies carried more different features than that of 1930s in terms of the distribution of the investments, the priorities of the sectors and the content of the industrialization. While the Muslim-Turkish bourgeoisie was weak to lead the economy in the 1930, the state took the responsibility of the industrialization, investing in the various sectors. On the hand other, the import substituting industrialization model during the 1960s and 1970s was led by the private

Iran was faced with high unemployment rates and immense property, as workers had low wages and protection, and the country was underdeveloped. Iranians lost hope for a better future, as the promises of a prosperous Iran made by the Shah were not coming true. For example, the Shah believed that developing an industrial base with multiple foreign contractors and corporations would be economically beneficial for the country. Due to these investments made, Iran's oil market was flourishing in the late 1970's. However, an increase in oil profits resulted in problems with absorbing funds, leading to an increase in spending. Iran was therefore hit with effects such as inflation and corruption. Another example is that the Shah hoped for a modernization program for Iran. With this, the hope was to limit the land one could hold, decreasing the financial gap between the wealthy and poor. The result was that wealthy families continued to be as wealthy and the economic status of peasants generally worsened. Modernization also negatively affected religious institutions relying on a network of exchange, as limited land made it harder for trade. A final consequence of land reform was that peasants were forced to move to cities, begging to Westerners in order to feed themselves. These peasants began to see the negative impact western culture had made in society. They found inner peace through

This continued to exacerbate the gap between the social classes of Iran. The main reason for the Shah’s confidence in bringing his people prosperity was the mass amount of revenue Iran was generating from Oil. The nationalization of Iran’s oil in the fifties meant increased profits for the nation. Iran’s economy was growing exponentially; its GDP was five times higher in 1976 than it was in 1960 (Clawson, p.15). Islamic modernists, such as Marxist Mujaheddin-e-Khalq, opposed the Shah’s capitalist economic policies (Diller 1991, p.152). There were several other groups that were not pleased with the Shah’s growing focus on economic growth, including the ulemas (councils composed of local Mullahs or respected religious leaders) (Sanders 1990, p.66). These ulemas possessed considerable local influence, as they were in charge of the educational systems and had influence over the urban poor and bazaar merchants (Diller 1991, p.152). In the midst of all that was going on in Iran, Khomeini lived in exile in Paris. The Ayatollah however, was well informed, and managed to sneak tapes into the country to his supporters and the local ulemas. These tapes spread the word of Islamic fundamentalism to these groups that opposed that Shah, and gave them a binding power that eventually would be the revolution of February 1979. Not long, Khomeini had

Iran was now unprotected, and a new power came into being. The Arabs invaded and the quality of life changed. “People fell into poverty as the greedy court imposed ever-increasing taxes. Tyranny tore apart the social contract between ruler and ruled that Zoroastrian doctrine holds to be the basis of organized life” (21). The Iranian people couldn’t survive with a ruler who had no sympathy or respect for them. Their life was being over run by foreigners.

The complexity of America’s relationship with Iran increased steadily beginning in 1908, when Iran struck oil. The Shah, the king or emperor of Iran, after taking the place of his young predecessor Reza Shah Pahlavi with the help of the CIA, led Iran into a period of extreme wealth and prosperity, the likes of which the Iranian people had never experienced. However, with the growth of wealth in Iran came the growth of Iranian resentment towards the West, specifically the United States. The Iranian’s resented the uneven distribution of wealth that they felt existed and the United State’s influence in “westernizing” their society. In 1963, this growing hatred led to a conflict with the Islamic clergy. The conflict was quickly settled by the Shah, but he was unaware that this dispute was the beginning

The Modernization efforts undertaken by the leadership of Iran and Turkey after World War I share numerous similarities across ideological, and social lines. Both countries shared and benefitted from strong social identities, and resistance to outside influence. While these countries were unified using comparable methods, they were also exploited to further the individual goals of both countries? respective leaders.

Mohammad Reza Pahlavi (The Shah), the son of Reza Shah took the throne after his father on September 16, 1941. The Shah continued his father’s politics and modernization of Iran. He proceeded to Westernize Iran by having the education structure “(primary, secondary, higher

Pre-revolutionary Iran was very different from revolutionary Iran. During the revolution, Khomeini held power(). He was a devout religious leader that enforced very strict laws on how the country should live by bringing religion and government together. Because of this, women were forced to wear veils and wear long garments to hide their figure. Reza Shah ruled Iran before Khomeini and had entirely different political ideals. He wanted to keep religion and government separate from each other (). As soon as Reza Shah was inaugurated into power, he seeked to progress Iran by adopting western ideas and culture (Sarder 1). Throughout his rule, Reza Shah turned Iran into an urbanized country by making social classes and improving their educational

At the start of the 18th century, Middle Eastern countries witnessed their Eastern neighbors being overtaken by Western Europe and were faced with a choice: to pick apart or to be picked apart. It was from this dilemma that defensive developmentalism emerged in the Middle East. Empires such as the Ottomans, Persia, Tunisia, and Egypt began the process of centralizing their authority in order to assert effective control over their populations. The chief goal of defensive developmentalism for these empires was to assert their autonomy, whether that be autonomy from the Ottomans in the case of Egypt and Tunisia, or from outside imperialists in the Ottoman Empire and Persia. In order to accomplish these goals, defensive developmentalists undertook extensive reforms to establish their empires as relevant worldwide powers.

Iran has always, it seems, been the breeding ground for some kind of political upheaval or another. In recent times, back in 1979, there was a major revolution which was, in some ways, similar to the revolution we are seeing today. The people were angry and they were tired of being controlled by the government that was in power. They had concrete ideals and were incredibly passionate about their revolution. The revolution Iran is experiencing today does not appear to be quite as passionate and does not appear to maintain a belief in any real solid political system. They just know they want something different. In the following paper we present an illustration of the current revolution that is taking

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.

To decrease poverty in the country Ataturk granted lands to the farmers by implementing land reforms. This turned out to be very beneficial for the poor farmers which exempted them paying taxes hence improving their financial conditions. Ataturk improved foreign exchange by developing good relations with neighboring countries. He also boosted the industrial strength of the country which, in turn, made its rather significant contribution to Turkey’s foreign exchange. A major change was the establishment of banking systems in Turkey which contributed greatly in improving the general economy. Ataturk also improved the telecommunications and transport networks which also boosted the economy. Therefore, we understand that to effectively modernize a country it is imperative to establish and implement certain reforms. Ataturk has proven to be a very powerful and effective leader. His reforms lead the Turkish people into a new age. It cannot, however, be said that there was constant smooth sailing. Ataturk’s reforms were rejected by a certain segment as well due to their imposing a sudden change. However, gradually, due to the improving conditions of the country people highly supported Ataturk and to this day he is held in high regard not only in Turkey, but internationally as

After the fall of Amanullah Khan, Habibullah Khan Kalakani ruled for a short term and then the Musahiban family ruled over Afghanistan from 1929-1978. The Musahiban family halted the social changes that Amanullah Khan wanted to make which moved it away from developing the economy, state building and modernization. The economy was the same as it was at the turn of the century. The Musahiban family followed the policy of encapsulated modernization. They only focused on the centers the countryside areas remained untouched because of the fear of rising revolts. Under the Musahbian family they did not impose any changes or taxes, especially no taxes in cash which means they made the rural economy remain untouched. This means that there was no

Modernization theory has been one of the master theoretical narratives to understand the major institutional and cultural transformation from traditional societies to modern ones. It is developed by the founders of sociology and has dominated the prevalent understanding and explanations of many social differentiation processes including differentiation, rationalization, individualization, urbanization, and secularization for a long time. Hence, sociologists believed that the consequences of modernization were unavoidable and common destinations for modern or all modernizing societies. Sociologist also expected western modernity will be a single

Modernization theory as mentioned by Reyes is a theory that shifts underdeveloped countries to more advanced level of development by using a systematic process (as cited in Shareia, 2015). Modernization theory also suggests the idea of dual societies. In the following content, two key elements in modernization theory of development by Walt Whitman Rostow and these two elements in the context of Malaysia’s development will be explained.