Economic and Social Modernization: Key Theories
In the 1950s and 1960s, Walt Rostow was a key thinker on modernization, blending academic work with political roles, such as advising U.S. Presidents Kennedy and Johnson. Rostow proposed that all societies go through five stages of economic growth:
- Traditional Society: Focus on agriculture, with low productivity.
- Preconditions for Takeoff: Political unity, trade expansion, and increased investment set the stage for growth.
- Takeoff: Economic growth becomes constant, investment rises, and technology spreads.
- Drive to Maturity: The economy modernizes with advanced technology.
- High Mass Consumption: Focus shifts to consumer goods and services.
However, Rostow’s ideas faced criticism. Some countries achieved parts of “takeoff” but didn’t sustain growth, suggesting his theory might oversimplify the process.
Alexander Gerschenkron, another modernization theorist, emphasized “backwardness”—the idea that less-developed nations could leapfrog by adopting advanced technologies from industrialized countries. He argued that lacking prerequisites (like capital markets) could be overcome with creative substitutes, like state-run industrial banks. Gerschenkron believed modernization paths varied based on historical and relational factors.
Albert Hirschman expanded Gerschenkron’s ideas with his concept of unbalanced growth. He suggested focusing development on key industries and regions, which would generate growth linkages. Growth would eventually spread to less-developed areas, though unevenly.
Gunnar Myrdal was more critical, highlighting how modernization often caused economic activities to concentrate in cities or centers, leading to inequality. He coined terms like spread effects (positive spillovers) and backwash effects (negative pullbacks) to explain this uneven development.
John Friedmann, a geographer, built on these ideas with his core-periphery model, showing how modernization focused growth in urban “cores” while neglecting rural “peripheries.” His work in Venezuela, for example, demonstrated efforts to spread development to underdeveloped areas using massive investments.
Later, quantitative geographers like Gould and Soja explored modernization using mathematical methods. However, their findings were often criticized for being too narrowly focused on urban areas and not explaining the broader modernization process.
Economic Modernization and its Challenges
Natural Resources: Some countries like the U.S. and the U.K. used natural resources like coal and oil to drive growth, but for others (e.g., Japan, Taiwan), these weren’t crucial. Countries like Venezuela and Nigeria, despite having resource wealth, struggled to achieve long-term growth.
- For example, Venezuela appeared to be progressing economically in the 1960s and 1970s but later experienced decline and stagnation.
Social and Cultural Modernization
Another view of modernization focuses on cultural and social factors. Max Weber was a key figure here, contrasting traditional societies (based on customs and routine) with modern societies (focused on rational, logical systems).
Parsons’ Pattern Variables
Sociologist Talcott Parsons expanded on Weber’s ideas, identifying four key shifts from traditional to modern societies:
- Affectivity vs. Affective Neutrality: Traditional roles focus on emotional rewards (e.g., family roles), while modern roles emphasize impersonal duties (e.g., professional jobs).
- Ascription vs. Achievement: Status in traditional societies is based on characteristics like age or family, but in modern societies, it’s based on performance.
- Diffusion vs. Specificity: Traditional relationships (e.g., family) cover many areas of life, while modern ones (e.g., employer-employee) are specific.
- Particularism vs. Universalism: Traditional roles are based on personal relationships, while modern roles are more standardized and universal.
Parsons argued that societies with flexible roles and merit-based systems were better suited for economic growth, as seen in the U.S. and Japan.
Gino Germani’s View
- Germani, an Argentine sociologist, agreed with Parsons but emphasized that modernization is asynchronous—different parts of society modernize at different speeds.
- Traditional and modern institutions coexist, leading to conflict and crises during the transition.
- Germani identified three key differences between traditional and modern societies:
- Actions in traditional societies are prescriptive (following set norms), while in modern societies, they are elective (based on choices).
- In traditional societies, change is rare and seen as a violation of norms, while in modern societies, change is normal.
- Traditional societies have undifferentiated structures (few institutions do many tasks), while modern societies have specialized institutions.
Germani argued that modernization also requires changes in knowledge, science, and social mobility:
- Knowledge becomes specialized and separated from religion or philosophy.
- Economies require rational and efficient institutions.
- Social systems shift from being based on inherited attributes (like family status) to achievement-based systems.
Key Differences Between Parsons and Germani
- Parsons viewed modernization as a cohesive process, while Germani saw it as fragmented and full of conflict.
- Germani highlighted geographical, institutional, and social divides (e.g., core-periphery gaps) that make modernization harder for developing countries compared to earlier industrialized nations.
In summary, while Parsons saw modernization as a smooth, unified process, Germani viewed it as uneven and challenging, especially in developing regions like Latin America. His ideas connect to Gerschenkron’s economic theory, showing how modernization in today’s developing nations differs from earlier experiences in advanced countries.