Modernisation Theory and Development: An Evaluation

Modernisation theory, with its roots in evolutionary and functionalist thought, offers a dominant paradigm for understanding global development. Drawing upon Item L, this essay will critically evaluate the theory’s central claim that underdeveloped countries can achieve economic growth by emulating the historical trajectories of developed nations.

The Core Tenets of Modernisation Theory

Modernisation theorists, like Rostow (1960), posit a universal path to development characterized by distinct stages of economic growth. Traditional societies, characterized by subsistence agriculture and limited technological innovation, are urged to embrace modern values such as individualism, achievement orientation, and deferred gratification. This shift in values, coupled with urbanization and industrialization, facilitates the “take-off” stage, ultimately leading to a mass consumption-based economy.

Item L highlights this perspective: "According to modernisation theorists, undeveloped countries should try to copy what today’s developed countries did in the past." This perspective, however, warrants critical examination.

Critique of Modernisation Theory

Dependency theory offers a powerful counter-argument to modernisation theory. Scholars like Frank (1969) argue that underdevelopment is not an inherent condition but a result of historical exploitation through imperialism and colonialism. The global capitalist system, with its inherent power imbalances, relegates underdeveloped countries to the periphery, trapping them in a chain of dependency through unequal trade relations and reliance on cash crops.

Furthermore, the notion of a universal, linear path to development is problematic. Particularism, emphasizing the diversity of cultures and historical contexts, challenges the universalism inherent in modernisation theory. The theory fails to acknowledge the unique challenges faced by underdeveloped nations, such as limited access to technology and capital, as well as the legacy of colonial exploitation.

Additionally, modernisation theory's emphasis on economic growth as the sole indicator of development neglects crucial social factors. Issues like gender inequality, environmental degradation, and cultural homogenization are often overlooked in the pursuit of economic progress. This narrow focus raises concerns about the sustainability of such a development model.

Conclusion

While modernisation theory provides a framework for understanding the process of development, its Eurocentric bias and simplistic assumptions about societal evolution limit its applicability. By neglecting the historical context of colonialism and the persistence of global inequalities, the theory fails to provide a comprehensive understanding of the challenges faced by underdeveloped nations. Alternative perspectives, like dependency theory and post-development approaches, offer more nuanced and critical insights into the complexities of global development.