According to the history of development theory, there are a wide variety of development paradigms that was emerged to assist all societies to develop economic, political, and social including cultural sectors. In order to eradicate the problem of poverty from all societies, especially third world nations; one of the most significant development paradigms that would effectively guide to overcome the problems is modernisation theory. Modernisation theory was formulated as a tool of capitalism. It is generally based on the change of society from backwardness to modernity. It is also identify the development process from less developed societies to become developed by implement the same development pattern from advanced industrialized countries. Moreover, modernisation theory in which is well known, particularly the Rostow theory of stages - of – growth. The Rostow’s model, contradicts Marxist theory, due to the nature philosophical differences between capitalism and communism. However, both paradigms have some aspects in common. Thus, it cannot be deemed that modernisation theory completely against Marxist. This essay will examine the relationship between modernisation theory through the stages-of-growth and Marxist theory. To structure the statement it will be divided into four parts. The first part will provide the background and logic of modernisation theory, followed by the development theorist’s perspectives on the theory of Modernisation. The second part, it will demonstrate the stages - of - growth presented by Rostow including with the criticisms. In the third part, it will elaborate the overview of Marxian theory and logic of Marxism that related to the growth stages. Finally, it will examine the point that modernisation theory by Rostow anti - Marxist, followed by comparison between the similarities and the differences of two paradigms as well as analyses whether the theory of modernisation anti – Marxist or not.
Background of theory
The modernisation theory can be defined as the effective development model and it was considered to be adopted in the Third World after the Second World War. In addition, modernisation was first emerged in the western capitalist countries through the commercialisation and industrialisation processes. The empirical evidences from modernisation were considered for different occasions such as the financial aid programme, military assistance and the implementation of technologies for production. These examples can be represented as a foundation of modernity from the western to the undeveloped world (Apter, 1967: 43). During the 1950s and 1960s, the modernisation theory framework was related to the USA political concerns of Third World countries. The background to formulate this theory can be defined by three factors. i). First is International bipolarity, the period of post second World War, USA and USSR were took placed as the superpower countries in the global system and that was recognized as a bipolarity. ii) Second is the conception of containment an example being the USA resisting the pervasion of communism and play a major in rebuilding the damaged world in their own perspective as well as taking responsibility to structure the world. iii) Finally, the competition of aid - donor between the USSR through a form of socialism and USA through the model of capitalism (Preston, 2002: 166 – 169).
Overall, all these elements significantly constituted the modernisation theory structure that for the benefit of many and to give a better understand the background of its theory.
The logic of Modernisation theory
Modernization paradigm is central to the transition process from backwardness to modernity. The characteristics of traditional societies were mostly concern on individuality rather than generality. Moreover, other characteristics of traditional societies are normally seen as raw– material (agriculture), dominance and the low...
Bibliography: Apter, D. (1967) The Politics of Modernization, Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press.
Cooper, F. & Packard, R. (eds) (1997) International Development and the Social Sciences: Essays on the History and Politics of Knowledge, London: University of California Press.
Crane, G. T. & Amawi, A. (eds) (1997) The Theoretical Evolution of International
Political Economy (second edition), New York: Oxford University Press.
Dickson, A. (1997) Development and International Relations: A critical Introduction, Malden: Blackwell.
Escobar, A. (1995) Encountering Development: The making and unmaking of the third world, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
Harrison, D. (1988) The Sociology of Modernization and Development, London: Unwin Hyman.
Hettne, B. (1995) Development Theory and The Three World (second edition), Essex: Longman.
Hunt, D. (1989) Economic Theories of Development: An analysis of competing paradigm, Hertfordshire: Harvester Wheatsheaf.
Itagaki, Y. (2007) ‘Criticism of Rostow’s Stages Approach: The concepts of stage, system and type’, The Developing Economies, 1(1): 1-17.
Leys, C. (1996) The Rise and Fall of Development Theory, Oxford: James Currey.
Nayar, B. (1974) ‘The Modernization Imperative versus Social Mobilization’, Comparative Politics, 6(3): 341-366.
O’brien, D. (1971) ‘Modernization, Order, and The Erosion of a Democratic Ideal’, Journal of Development Studies, 7: 141-60.
Oman, C. and Wignaraja, G. (1990) The Postwar Evolution of Development Thinking, Riverside: University of California Press.
Preston, P. (1996) Development Theory: An introduction, Oxford: Blackwell.
Rostow, W. W. (1971) The Stages of Economic Growth (second edition), London: Cambridge University Press.
Simon, D. (2006) Fifty Keys Thinkers on Development, Oxon: Routledge.
Sowell, T. (1985) Marxism: Philosophy and Economics, London: George Allen &
Thirlwall, A. (1987) Keynes and Economics Development, London: Macmillan.
Todaro, M. (1992) Economic Development in The Third World (fourth edition), Essex: Longman.
Tornquist, O. (1999) Politics and Development: A critical introduction, London: Sage.
Please join StudyMode to read the full document