Approaches to

Studying
Comparative
UNIT 2 POLITICAL MODERNIZATION
Politics
Structure
2.0 Objectives
2.1 Introduction
2.2 Modernization Theory: Evolutionary and Functional
2.2.1 Parsons Pattern Variables
2.3. Political Modernization Approach
2.3.1 Differentiation
2.3.2 Secularisation
2.3.3 Cultural Modernization
2.3.4 From tradition to modernity
2.4 Critique of Political Modernization Approach
2.4.1 Dependency Theory
2.4.2 Critical Variable Approach
2.4.3 Dichotomous Approach
2.5 Political Order in the Third World Countries
2.5.1 The Process of Democratization
2.6Let Us Sum Up
2.7References
2. 8 Answers to Check your Progress

2.0 OBJECTIVES
This unit aimsintroduces you to political modernization as an approach to
studyingcomparative politics. It will examine some of core features,assumptions and
limitationsof the political modernization approach. After going through this unit, you
should be able to:
 Discuss the evolution and origin of political modernization
 Examine the various approaches and perspectives of political modernization


Dr. ChakaliBramhayya, Assistant Professor, Department of Political Science & Human Rights,
Indira Gandhi National Tribal University(Central University), Amarkantak, Madhya Pradesh

26
  Analyze the contemporary issues and challenges of political modernization Political
Modernization
 Elucidate the criticism and significance of the political modernization

2.1 INTRODUCTION
It is not very easy to give a precise meaning of term political modernization.
However, the term is generally used to refer to changes in political attitudes and
the transformation of political institutions. It is the process of transmutation of a
traditional political system into a modern system. In the West, changes in
political culture and political institutions occurred over a long period, resulting in
the development and performance standards through the rational utilization of
resources. Modern society, as it emerged in the West, is characterized by science
and technology, social interdependence, urbanization, literacy, social mobility
etc. In politics, modernization referred to the transition from the traditional
political system to the modern democratic system.
Political modernizationemerged as a major approach in comparative politics in
the late 1950s. It is concerned with changing the characteristics of the political
system and social life in diverse spheres. It refers to the changes in political
structure and culture characteristics, transformed by modern ideas like liberalism,
secularism, transparency industrialization. It is also concerned with a change in
the outlook, political culture, and rural and urban social life. This process, it was
said, involved, among other things, the ending of the dominance of
religion/church and the establishment of a secular and central political authority.
The political modernization approach, however, lost its steam by the end of the
1960s as a result of challenges emerging from within and from scholars in the
non-Western world. Nevertheless, with the onset of the Third Wave of
democratization since the 1980s and the growing interdependence of nations
since the 1990s, there has been a revival of interest in political modernization.
Some of the feature of the modernization process such as differentiation,
secularisation, rationalization, economic development and its linkages with
sustainable democracy are gaining significance in comparative analysis. The unit
examines the core features and assumptions modernization approach. It also
examines some of the limitations of this approach and its contemporary
significance.

2.2 MODERNIZATION THEORY: EVOLUTIONARY

AND FUNCTIONAL
In the 1950s, modernization theory began to affect the research agenda of several
disciplines of social sciences, including political science. This occurred as a
result of the intellectual ferment in the discipline and the insights based on
advances in understanding of individual and group behavior, drawing on
psychology, sociology, and economics were incorporated into the theoretical
domain of politics. It also occurred because of the historical circumstances of the
post-World War years. The United States of America had emerged as a
superpower after the Second World War, while Britain, France, and Germany
27
Approaches to had grown weak. America emerged as a world leader, especially after
Studying
Comparative
implementing the Marshall Plan to reconstruct and rebuild the war-ravaged
Politics Western Europe. In the 1950s, America started dominating the affairs of the
world. At the same time, there was the spread of the communist movement under
the leadership of the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union extended its influence to
East European countries and China and Korea in Asia. America wanted to
contain the spread of communism. The disintegration of the European colonial
empires in Asia and Africa had given birth to many new nation-states in the post-
War period. The newly emerged independent nation-states were faced with two
alternative development models, the Socialist and the Capitalist models, to
promote their economy and consolidate their independence. In such historical
circumstances, it was natural that American political elite encouraged their social
scientists to study the „new‟, the „emerging‟, the „underdeveloped‟ or
„developing‟ nations to promote their economic development and political
stability so as to avoid losing them to the Soviet communist bloc (Chirot 1981, p.
2.61-262). With the support and patronage from the American government and
private foundations, political scientists, economists, sociologists, psychologists,
anthropologists, and demographers ventured into studies on non-Western
societies, especially those that were emerging out of decolonization.
Much of the research on development of the non-Western societies was
influenced by two theories of modernization- the evolutionary and functionalist
theories. The evolutionary theory explained modernization in terms of a
transition from traditional to modern society. This theory was an outcome of the
Industrial Revolution and the French Revolution which destroyed the old social
order and laid the foundation for a new social order. The Industrial Revolution
resulted in rising productivity with the advancement of science and technology.
The new order was a new factory production system with intensive division of
labour and the take-over of the world markets. The basic path of modernity is
known as increasing differentiation and scale. Societies most successful at
developing an intensive division of labour were able to become highly
productive. The process of division of labour accelerated with the advancement
of science and technology and changed the nature of the political system as well.
On the other hand, the French Revolution created a new political order based on
liberty, equality, fraternity, and parliamentary democracy. The classical
evolutionary theory assumed that human society invariably moves from a
primitive to an advanced stage. Thus the fate of human evolution is
predetermined. The evolution from a simple, primitive society to a complex,
modern society is a constant process that will take centuries to complete. It
imposed a value judgment on the evolutionary process. The movement toward
the final phase is good because it represents progress, humanity, and civilization.
Underlying the evolution theory is the assumption that the rate of social change is
slow, gradual, and piecemeal, that is, it is evolutionary, not revolutionary.
Another part of the theoretical heritage of the modernization school is the
functionalist theory of Talcott Parsons, whose concepts include system,
functional imperative, homeostatic equilibrium, and pattern variables. Parsons
was initially a biologist, and his early training greatly influenced his formulation
28 of a functionalist theory. For Parsons, human society is like a biological organism
and can be studied like an organism. To understanding Parsons‟s work, the Political
Modernization
organism illustration is very crucial. The different parts of a biological organism
correspond to the different institutions that make up a society. Just as the parts
that make up a biological organism such as the eye and the hand are interrelated
and interdependent in their interaction with one another, the institutions in a
society such as the economy and the government are closely related to one
another. Parsons used the concept of system to denote the harmonious
coordination among institutions. As each part of a biological organism performs
a specific function for the whole, the same way each institution performs specific
functions for the stability and growth of the society. Parson formulated the
concept of „functional imperatives‟, arguing that there are four crucial functions
that every society must perform; otherwise, the society will die. These four are
called AGIL functions (for adaptation, goal attainment, integration, latency).
1) Adaptation: to the environment-performed by the economy
2) Goal attainment: performed by the government
3) Integration: linking the institutions together performed by the legal institutions
and religion
4) Latency: pattern maintenance of values from generation to generation
performed by the family and education (Alvin Y. So: 1990:20)

2.2.1 Parsons Pattern Variables

Parsons has formulated the concept of „pattern variables‟ to distinguish
traditional societies from modern societies. Pattern variables are the key social
relations in the cultural system, the most important system in his theoretical
framework. For Parsons, there are five sets of pattern variables. The first set is
affective versus affective-neutral relationship. In traditional societies, social
relationships tend to have a preference for personal, emotional, and face-to-face
interaction. In modern societies, social relationships have an affective-neutral,
which means impersonal, detached and indirect. The second set of pattern
variables is the pluralistic versus universalistic relationship. In traditional
societies, people are inclined to join together with members of the same social
circle. In modern societies, people are bound to interact with unknown people in
their day to day life, and they tend to interact using established standards due to
the vast population. The third set of pattern variables is collective orientation
versus self-orientation. In traditional societies, loyalty is often owed to the family
and community. In modern societies, self-orientation stresses encouragement to
be individual, develop personal talent, and build a career. The fourth set of
pattern variables is ascription versus achievement. In traditional societies,
aperson was evaluated by their ascribed status, the social status of a person
assigned by birth or assumed involuntarily later in life. For instance, the
recruitment process depends on whether the employer is a good friend or the
applicant‟s relative. In modern societies, a person is appraised by his or her
achieved status, like educational qualifications. During job recruiting, the
employer cares more about the applicant‟s qualifications and past job experience.
The fifth and final set of pattern variables is functionally diffused versus
functionally specific relationships. In traditional societies, roles tend to be 29
Approaches to functionally diffused. For example, the employer‟s role is not just to hire
Studying
Comparative
employees; but also involves the team member‟s training through apprenticeship
Politics and being the guardian of employees take care of livelihood and welfare. In
modern societies, roles are functionally specific. The employer has limited
responsibility to the team member, and their relationship hardly ever extends
beyond the professional field (Alvin So, 1990, 21-23).

Check Your Progress 1

Note i) Use the Space given below for your answer.
ii) Check your answers with the model answers given at the end of the unit.

1) Explain the evolutionary theory of political modernization.

.................................................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................................................

2.3 POLITICAL MODERNIZATION APPROACH

The modernization approach in comparative politics can be traced to the
evolutionary explanations of the social change in 19th century Europe. The
French philosophers and founders of modern sociology Auguste Comte and
Emile Durkheim, the British philosopher Herbert Spencer, Max Weber and Karl
Marx, gave different explanations of the transformation from pre-industrial to
industrial society. The modernization theory has long been divided into two
major streams. The first is the Marxist description, which argues that economy,
politics, and culture are intimately associated since economic development
determines a society‟s political and cultural characteristics. The second,
Weberian version, maintain that culture shapes the economy and political life.
Despite a continuing debate between the two streams, they have the same opinion
on a central point, that the socio-economic change follows consistent and
relatively expected patterns. Thus they imply that crucial social, political and
economic characteristics are not randomly related; they tend to be closely
[Link] elements that were common in their explanations of social
change were the belief in continuity and progress. The change was not only
continuous but also progressive. For these thinkers, change implied advancement
and improvement from agriculture to industry, from feudalism to capitalism,
from traditional to modern. This kind of change involved two sets of processes,
increased complexity and greater specialization of human organization and
activity. These processes were described in terms of greater differentiation in
society. The industrial capitalist societies of the West supposedly have achieved
greater differentiation than other societies. A transforming society, in other
words, was the one that acquires most of the characteristics common to most
developed countries.

30
2.3.1 Differentiation Political
Modernization

French philosopher and sociologist Emile Durkheim has propounded social

differentiation and strongly advocated the idea of division of labour in society.
Social activities have been divided among various institutions. Division of labour
was extended due to communications, urbanization, and population.
Differentiation has been defined in terms of more significant heterogeneity and
institutional specialization in society. The family played many roles in traditional
societies. In contrast to that, modern societies have specialized institutions for
education, socialization. The role of the family has been restricted, and new
institutions have played numerous roles in modern societies. The specialization
of political roles has been reflected in the modern polity as per the analysis of
neo-evolutionists. S. N. Eisenstadt (1966) has argued that structural
differentiation has affected stratification. The modernization process has led to
fragmentation. Military leaders, intellectuals, bureaucrats, political élites, and
entrepreneurs have played a pivotal role in the process of political modernization.

2.3.2 Secularisation
Societies have become more rationalized due to secularisation. Secularisation
enables the individual to differentiate between sacred and not sacred. Finally, it
will lead to rational scrutiny. Max Weber, a German sociologist, was the pioneer
in developing modernization theory based on social action. Social action has
been distinguished between actions determined by reason and actions determined
by habit or emotion (Weber 1965). Weber‟s bureaucracy system was based on
rational government. The rational-legal authority has combined the idea of means
and ends based on rules and regulations. Greater rationality has been supported
by technological and scientific knowledge. Political modernization has been
associated with institutions, which will contribute to the development of human
knowledge.
Rustow has defined modernization as a rapidly widening control over nature
(1967). Barrington Moore has equated modernization with the process of
rationalization of social behaviour and social organizations. Modernization has
resulted from increasing control over nature. To understand the significance of
the political modernization approach, it is essential to know the salient features of
the traditional societies (Higgott 1978, Smith 2003) whose institutions and values
were considered as obstacles to political modernization.

2.3.3 Cultural Modernization

Rationalization and secularisation have resulted in changes in the dynamics of
cultural modernization. It has been recognized and described by Talcott Parsons
as pattern variables. It has been associated with values, and people make
judgments about their society. Social changes help to understand the dynamics of
territorial communities, social organizations, the family and occupations. Further,
Parsons has argued that modern societies represent universalism. Modern society
also makes judgments at universal criteria irrespective of social relationships.
31
Approaches to Further, as we saw, Parsons has contrasted ascribed status with achieved status.
Studying
Comparative
Ascribed status means implied the inherent qualities of the individuals. The
Politics achieved status means acquired qualities of the individual like educational
qualifications. Individuals attain status in modern society due to their educational
qualifications. In traditional societies, individuals will acquire status by
inheritance. A person occupies the office in the ascriptive society based on the
hereditary principle, whereas bureaucrats are appointed based on merit and
educational qualifications. Parsons has analyzed cultural patterns of affectivity
with neutrality. Affectivity‟ leads to emotional feelings and sentiments among the
people. Neutrality leads to personal relationships. Finally, he has contrasted
diffuseness with specificity. Diffuseness implies a complex web of
interconnections (Smith 2003). Specificity enables the social system to diffuse
relations between employer and employee, landlord or tenant. Individuals play
multiple roles in modern societies. Specificity indicates the division of social
relations and relative independence. Diffuse relations enable the individual to
play multiple tasks in society. These variables indicate the transition and progress
of modern society. Finally, these developments have played a vital role in the
development of the political modernization approach.

2.3.4 From Tradition to Modernity

In the 18th and 19th centuries, political modernization was associated with the
emergence of the national-state and industrialization. In the latter half of the 20th
century, political modernization came to refer to the transformation of traditional
or feudal and semi-feudal political systems to modern democratic systems.
Political modernization describes the political system in terms of changes in
social, economic and cultural aspects. Early political modernization scholars have
argued that economic development leads to cultural and social change, which in
turn leads to changes in the political behaviour of citizens. Thus, there is a
correlation between political and economic factors. As countries progress and
modernize economically, the transition takes place from agriculture to
industrialization. Industrialization leads to urbanization which in turn results in
better access to media, information and education. It leads to the emergence of
the middle class that takes an active part in the political decision-making process.
Karl Deutsch (1961), the American political sociologist, building on Parsons‟s
work, developed the concept of social mobilization. He regarded social
mobilization as a vital component of political modernization. Social mobilization
implies changes in society and the transition from traditional to modern as
countries progress towards industrialization, urbanization creating a conducive
atmosphere for citizens to participate in politics. Education, social networks,
urbanization were considered to be crucial aspects of social mobilization as they
created political awareness among the citizens. Citizen‟s awareness, in turn,have
raised demands for the introduction of various welfare schemes for the holistic
development of the citizens.
Seymour Martin Lipset (1959) has argued that modernization will lead to the
emergence of democracy and its consolidation in the developing world. As
countries develop economically, they witness the rise of the middle class, which
32
actively participates in civil society and politics. Further, he has argued that Political
Modernization
education contributes to the empowerment of the citizens. It has been evident that
educated citizens have actively participated in politics and decision-making
Governments will be implementing various welfare schemes and providing sops
to the educated middle class. This process will be leading to the emergence of
more robust democracies in the contemporary global world.
It was however the framework evolved by Gabriel A Almond, the head of the
Committee on Comparative Politics that heralded a number of studies on political
modernization. In the Politics of Developing Areas (1960), Almond presented his
functionalist framework that relied on modernity-tradition dichotomy and input-
output functions of Easton‟s political system.
In Almond‟s framework, all political systems had these things in common:
1) There are political structures. Comparisons could be made according to the
degree and form of structural specialization. Almond rejected the state/non-state
distinction: political functions take place in all societies, though they might be
discharged by very different structures.
2) They have the same political functions. Comparisons could be made based on
what structures perform these functions and how regularly they do so. A main
task of political theory is to identify these functions. Almond, like David Easton,
divided the functional elements of political systems into “inputs” and “outputs.”
The political inputs were (a) political socialization and recruitment; (b) interest
articulation; (c) interest aggregation; and (d) political communication. The
outputs were (a) rule making; (b) rule application; and (c) rule adjudication.
3. All political structures are multifunctional. The „degree of specificity‟could be
compared. The degree of „political modernity‟ or „political development‟was
essentially to be determined by this degree of specificity.
As we can see, Almond‟s preference for tradition - modern dichotomy and linear
path to development were built into the framework. In fact, he made this clear
when wrote that “The political scientist who wishes to study political
modernization in the non-Western areas will have to master the model of the
modern, which in turn can only be derived from the most careful empirical and
formal analysis of the functions of modern Western polities”. He drew his
categories from the experience of the „advanced‟ countries. For example, it was
evident that the categories ofrule making, rule adjudication, and rule application
mapped almost identicallyonto the Western legislative, executive, and judicial
branches of government.
With the Committee on Comparative Politics (CCP) that was headed by Almond
receiving generous support from the US government and private endowments,
Almond‟s functionalist framework and studies on political modernization
received a big boost in comparative politics. Several members of the CCP such as
Lucian Pye, Myron Weiner, Joseph La Palombara, Robert Ward, Sidney Verba,
Leonard Binder, and James Coleman came out with a number of studies dealing
with political modernization [Link] several universities also getting into
similar studies, political modernization emerged as the broad approach to study
developing countries in comparative perspective in the 1960s.
33
Approaches to
Studying
2.4 CRITIQUE OF POLITICAL MODERNIZATION
Comparative
Politics
APPROACH
The political modernization approach in comparative politics has been challenged
in the latter half of the 1960s. It has been argued that underlying the
categorization of states as traditional and modern is the implicit prescription that
the developing countries have to adopt the characteristics of the political systems
of Western Europe and the United States. Apart from this charge of
ethnocentrism, modernization theory has also been challenged for its excessive
emphasis on the correlation between political and economic development.
Further, dependency theory has studied and explains the political systems of few
Latin American countries that have criticized modernization theory for neglecting
external factors that affect economic and political development.

2.4.1 Dependency Theory

Dependency theory has criticized the political modernization approach and
argued that economic development might undermine social mobilization and
democratic political system instead of promoting them. Dependency theory has
pointed out that the country‟s development can be explained based on its
historical role in the economic development of the global world. Scholars who
studied Latin America pointed out that in the economic relations between the
highly industrialized developed countries and predominantly primary good
producing underdeveloped countries, the terms of trade have always been in
favour of the economically developing countries in the world.
They have therefore argued that integration into the world economy is not
suitable for developing countries. It indicates that stable economic growth will
not be possible unless they overcome their dependence on developed countries.
In his The Development of Underdevelopment, Andre Gunder Frank (1970)
studied Latin American countries and showed that these countries have been
trapped in the cycle of economic underdevelopment and that their integration
with the world economy has immensely benefited the developed countries rather
than Brazil and Chile. When financial investment is affected in the global world,
these countries have also suffered.
However, in the early 1980s, the dependence theory has been discredited due to
various reasons, prominent among them being that its forecast of
underdevelopmenttrap, Argentina, Brazil and few other developing countries
have emerged economically strong in the 1970s and 1980s.

2.4.2 Critical Variable Approach

Critique also came from scholars working within the American universities and
reached its apogee in the essay written by Dean Tipps in 1973. In this essay he
was critical of the two broad approaches that modernization studies were
[Link] first was the critical variable approach, which equated
modernization with some other singular factor, such as industrialization,
rationalization, or differentiation. Some advocates of this approach had equated
34
modernization with industrialization (Marion Levy, for instance) and others had Political
Modernization
used “modernization” to indicate the social and political consequences of
industrialization. Since this substitution of terminology spawned needless
confusion, Tipps suggested that it would make more sense to drop the word
“modernization” and instead use the more specific term.

2.4.3 Dichotomous Approach

Tipps and other social scientists also became critical of the other more common
variety of modernization theory, the dichotomous approach. Dichotomizing
theories of modernization, as we noted earlier, posited an evolutionary
relationship between the ideal-types of „tradition‟ and „modernity‟. This approach
was criticized at three levels: (i) ideological, (ii) empirical, and (iii)
methodological.
1. The Ideological Critique: dichotomous tradition was highly criticized since it
was a product of an ethnocentric worldview. Social evolutionists have developed
a dichotomous approach during the late nineteenth century. Critics have
condemned the explicit racism of the theory. Thus, political scientists have
criticized the ideology and the terminology of the dichotomous approach towards
orientations. Scholars have argued that „“modern” means being Western without
the onus of dependence on the West‟. Modernization theorists have analyzed
non–Western societies according to the prevailing socio, economic, political and
cultural conditions of the developing countries (Bendix, 1967, Rudolph and
Rudolph, 1967, Tipps 1973). The dichotomous approach has been shaped on the
lines of tradition-modernity contrast and enabled the political modernization
scholars to have an analytical outlook on modern political systems. The
ideological critique of modernization theory has addressed the cognitions,
motivations, and purposes. Analyses of the ideological bases of modernization
theory will facilitate the prediction of its empirical shortcomings. Thus, the
ideological critique has to be supplemented by other critical perspectives.
2. The Empirical Critique: Theories of political modernization has been criticized
for analyzing the transformation of societies as a result of processes of change (
Bendix, 1967, Collins, 1968, Nisbet, 1969, Tipps 1973).). Political cognitions
and modernization have extensively focused on indigenous aspects of culture and
social structure. Modernization theorists have ignored the significance of
practical aspects and external sources or influences on the political system. As
Huntington has pointed out, “modernity and tradition are essentially
asymmetrical concepts. The modern ideal is set forth, and then everything which
is not modern is labelled traditional” (Huntington, 1971).
3. The Metatheoretical Critique: The final critique is methodological, or
„metatheoretical‟, and it has focused on conceptualizing the political
modernization approach. Modernization is a multifaceted process involving
changes in all areas of human thought and activity (Huntington, 1968: 32).
Durkheim has condemned the developmental theory of Auguste Comte. Social
scientists have criticized the theoretical and methodological underpinnings of
political modernization (Tipps, 1973).
35
Approaches to
Studying
2.5POLITICAL ORDER IN THE THIRD WORLD
Comparative
Politics
COUNTRIES
Samuel P Huntington, in his seminal work Political Order in Changing Societies
(1968), has posed challenges to the political modernization approach. Huntington
has analyzed that political development and economic modernization are not the
same but have distinct processes. Further, instead of leading to stable
democracies, rapid social changes and economic development will lead to the
decay of the political institutions. Modernization has witnessed that it has
encountered challenges in the early stages of economic growth. Socio, economic
changes will result in higher aspirations that the political institutions are unable
to meet. This will lead to the decay of the political system (Huntigton 1968;
Sokhey, 2011). Huntington has therefore argued that a stable authoritarian system
is better than an unstable democratic political system. Some scholars have argued
it has undermined the significance of the political modernization approach in
democratic political systems.

2.5.1 The Process of Democratization

Modernization acts as a catalyst in the process of the democratization of
societies. As discussed above, societies have become more rationalized and
secularised in the process of modernization. Industrialization incorporated the
division of labour, which led to massive production, leading to economic
development. Economic prosperity creates room for democratization as economic
freedom creates pressure on the political system for political freedom and rights.
The industrial revolution gave stimulus to capitalism, which created a business
class. The business class wants more control on taxation and property rights and
is hard-pressed for a representative, limited and accountable government. Thus
rationalization, secularisation and industrialization resulted in democratization.
Substantive democracy focuses on creating an environment for the involvement
of all sections of the society in the democratic processes.
It has delineated the correlation between the policy realm and academic theories.
In their The Civic Culture (1963), Almond and Verba have detailed the
prerequisites for democratic [Link] his The Stages of Economic Growth,
Rostow suggested a policy framework designed a policy to prevent the spread of
Communism to South Vietnam and Indonesia. Rostow argued that policies for
economic development are the prerequisite for the successful functioning of
democratic political systems. In his The Third Wave: Democratization in the Late
Twentieth Century (1991), Huntington has pronounced that democracies will
flourish in stable political systems. However, economic growth may not be the
single factor responsible for establishing democratic political systems (Sokhey,
2011)
In the Logic of Political Survival, Bruce Bueno de Mesquita (2003) has analyzed
the types of political regimes and their implications for foreign policy. Free and
fair elections, freedom of the press, human rights, and civil liberties have
immensely contributed to establishing democratic political systems. It has been
recommended that incentives should be given to the political leaders to establish
36
stable democratic systems (Mesquita 2003). Aron Acemoglu and James Political
Modernization
Robinson (2006), in their Economic Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy,
have suggested that the success of democracy depends on the nature of political
elites. (Sokhey 2011).All these suggest that the relationship between economic
development and democracy postulated during the early days of political
modernisation continue to resonate in contemporary comparative politics.

Check Your Progress 2

Note i) Use the Space given below for your answer.
ii) Check your answers with the model answers given at the end of the unit.

1) Explainchallenge posed by Dependency Theory to Political Modernization.

……………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………
2) Explain the process of democratization in Third World Societies.
……………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………

2.6 LET US SUM UP

Political modernization means the discarding of feudal and traditional structures
and cultures. It is also becoming free from religion and church domination by
establishing secular political authority. It is the process of transforming the
traditional political system into a modern one. Change in political culture and
political institutions has led to the development and improved performance
standards. Political modernization has played a vital role in democracy,
industrialization and economic growth in the contemporary global world. The
political modernization approach has explained the political outcomes and
processes in the political systems.
Further, the analysis of political modernization has been explained with the help
of the duality of structure. The political modernization approach had lost its
credibility in the 1970s as military and authoritarian regimes swept through most
of the developing countries. It was the dependency theory that came to the fore.
However, there has been a revival of political modernization. There is now being
acknowledged that political and economic changes have a vital role in
determining the social structures and social values. The secularisation process has
consequences for the political system, political recruitment and political
behaviour of the individual. Economic growth and forms of democracy are
therefore being redefined. Democracy and economic growth have to be analyzed
based on the freedoms in society and the political system. Political modernization
will be leading to democratization which will enrich the citizens
37
Approaches to
Studying
2.7 REFERENCES
Comparative
Politics Almond, G., &Verba, S. (1963). The Civic Culture: Political Attitudes and
Democracy in Five Nations. Princeton, NJ:Princeton University Press.
Alvin Y. So. (1990). Social Change and Development: Modernization,
Dependency, and World-system Theories. New Delhi: Sage publications India
Pvt. Lld.
Deutsch, K. (1961). Social Mobilization and Political [Link]
Political Science Review, 55(3),
Eisenstadt, S. N. (1966) Modernization: Protest and Change. Englewood Cliffs,
NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Frank, A. G. (1970). The Development of [Link] R. I. Rhodes
(Ed.), Imperialism and Underdevelopment: AReader (pp. 4 17). New York:
Monthly Review Press.
Huntington, S. (1968). Political Order in Changing [Link] Haven, CT:
Yale University Press.
Ingelhart, R. (1990). Culture Shift in Advanced Industrial Society, Princeton, NJ:
Princeton University Press.
Lipset, S. M. (1960). (Ed.), Political Man: The Social Bases of Politics. New
York: Anchor Books.
Robinson, J. (2006). „Economic Development and Democracy‟.Annual Review of
Political Science, 9, 503 527.
Smith B.C. (2003). Understanding Third World Politics: Theories of Political
Change and Development. New York: Palgrave
Sokhey Sarah Wilson. (2011). „Political Development and Modernization‟. In
21st Century Political Science: A Reference Hand Book. London: Sage.
Tipps, D. (1973).„Modernization Theory and the Comparative Study of Societies:
A Critical Perspective‟, Comparative Studies in Society and History, vol. 15.

2.8 ANSWERS TO CHECK YOUR PROGRESS

Check Your Progress 1
1) Evolutionary theory has shaped the political modernization paradigm that
dominated studies on non-Western countries in the 1950s. It explained political
modernization in terms of a transition from traditional to modern society. This
theory was an outcome of the Industrial Revolution and the French Revolution.
These two revolutions destroyed the old social order and laid the foundation for a
new one.

Check Your Progress 2

1) Dependency theory argued that economic development might undermine
38 social mobilization and the emergence of democratic political systemDependency
theory has pointed out that the country‟s development will be explained based on Political
Modernization
its historical role in the economic development of the global [Link]
dependency, development and underdevelopment are two sides of the same coin
and that the development of one led to the underdevelopment of the other.
2)Various scholars have explained the process of democratization in their
seminal works. Huntington‟s The Third Wave: Democratization in the Late
Twentieth Century (1991)” has delineated that democracies will flourish in stable
political systems. Policies of economic development are the prerequisite for the
successful functioning of a democratic political system. Economic development
will be leading to democratization.

39