Is dependency perspective a valid
alternative to modernization perspective? Examine the main aspects or points of
debate between the two in relation to developing countries.
.png)
The end of World War II brought significant
changes to global affairs. The United States emerged as a dominant economic and
military power after defeating the Axis powers, while facing challenges from
the Soviet Union’s influence in Eastern Europe and the rise of Chinese
Communists. Revitalizing the economies of Western nations became a pressing
concern, and massive U.S. investments helped Western Europe and Japan recover
from the war. Another important change resulting from World War II was the
collapse of colonial empires, leading to the establishment of numerous
sovereign states. These “new nations” caught the attention of U.S.
policymakers and scholars, who produced extensive literature on their
development. Some economists suggested a Marshall Plan-like approach for the
Third World, but others argued that fundamental differences between Europe and
less-developed countries would hinder its success. This led to the development
of the “modernization perspective,” which emphasized considering
cultural characteristics when assessing the development potential of new
nations. Although Latin American scholars did not play a major role in shaping
the modernization literature, the perspective became dominant in influencing
methodology and conclusions. Latin American social scientists also grappled
with postwar economic stagnation, leading to the emergence of the
“dependency perspective” in the 1960s. This perspective gained
prominence in Latin American intellectual circles and influenced by scholars
such as Andre Gunder Frank. Modernization and dependency are two contrasting
perspectives seeking to explain the same reality, originating from different
areas with diverse evaluations, assumptions, methodologies, and explanations.
THE
MODERNIZATION PERSPECTIVE
This review aims to analyze the conceptual
framework of the modernization perspective, drawing insights from influential
authors, and demonstrating its application in the study of Latin America.
Assumptions:
The fundamental principles of the
modernization perspective are rooted in the parallel ideal types of tradition
and modernity, borrowed from nineteenth-century sociology. According to this
perspective, societies undergo a transition from tradition to modernity, with
the ideal types representing the opposite ends of an evolutionary continuum.
Although the exact point of transition is unclear, Third World countries,
including those in Latin America, are generally seen as being below the
threshold of modernity, characterized by a predominance of traditional
features.
The specific elements associated with each
polarity vary considerably in the literature. Traditional society is often
described as having ascriptive, particularistic, diffuse, and affective
patterns of action, an extended kinship structure with diverse functions,
limited spatial and social mobility, a deferential stratification system,
primarily engaged in primary economic activities, a tendency towards social
unit autarchy, an undifferentiated political structure with traditional elitist
and hierarchical sources of authority, and more. In contrast, modern society is
characterized by achievement-oriented, universalistic, specific, and neutral
orientations and patterns of action, nuclear family structures serving limited
functions, a complex and highly differentiated occupational system, high rates
of spatial and social mobility, a predominance of secondary economic activities
and production for exchange, the institutionalization of change and
self-sustained growth, highly differentiated political structures with rational
legal sources of authority, and so on. The literature assumes that the values,
institutions, and patterns of action in traditional society both reflect and
perpetuate underdevelopment, constituting the main obstacles to modernization.
To enter the modern world, underdeveloped societies must overcome traditional
norms and structures, thereby paving the way for social, economic, and
political transformations. Some authors argue that modernization stems from a
greater differentiation of societal functions, institutions, and roles, as well
as the development of new sources of integration Others emphasize the
transformation of individuals through the assimilation of modern values as the
basis for modernization. Overall, the primary source of change is often
discussed in terms of innovations, involving the rejection of procedures
related to traditional institutions, accompanied by the adoption of new ideas,
techniques, values, and organizations. Innovators pursuing these changes
inevitably clash with defenders of the old order, representing a struggle
between two different ways of life.
When describing the assumptions of the
modernization literature, it is important to acknowledge that the modern end of
the parallel ideal types is the central conceptual and analytical point. It
closely approximates the characteristics that societies must attain to achieve
development. Conversely, the traditional end of the dichotomy is largely a
residual category established in logical opposition to the modern end. The
basic features of the modern pole are derived from characteristics attributed
to countries already considered modern. Furthermore, since all societies
undergoing modernization will experience similar changes, the history of
currently modern nations serves as a universally applicable conceptualization.
Historian C. Black notes, “Although the problems raised by generalizations
from a rather narrow base (the now modern countries) must be acknowledged, the
definition of modernity takes the form of a set of characteristics believed to
be applicable to all societies”.
LATIN
AMERICA AND MODERNIZATION PERSPECTIVE
The dominant perspective in U.S.
scholarship regarding Latin America has relied on the modernization perspective
to explain the region’s underdevelopment. This perspective often contrasts the
Latin American experience with that of the United States or Western Europe,
arguing that traditional attitudes and institutions stemming from the colonial
past have hindered indigenous efforts to achieve economic, social, and
political development. Scholars have attributed the influence of Catholicism,
large indigenous populations, and aristocratic rural elites as contributing to
“irrational” behavioral patterns that are detrimental to
modernization.
S.M. Lipset’s influential essay, “Values, Education, and
Entrepreneurship,” draws on the ideas of T Parsons and D. McClelland,
suggesting that the failure of Latin American countries to develop on par with
North America or Australasia is partially due to variations in value systems.
The Protestant Ethic and the absence of feudal elements in the formation of
“New Societies” in the overseas offspring of Great Britain are seen
as advantages that Latin America lacks due to its Catholic heritage. Lipset
focuses primarily on explaining economic underdevelopment as a result of
insufficient entrepreneurial activity. He highlights the absence of
instrumental behavior, weak achievement orientations, and a disdain for
pragmatism and materialism, which hinder the emergence of a risk-taking
business sector focused on rational competition and bureaucracy. Lipset further
contends that the educational system perpetuates the problem by instilling
inappropriate attitudes among the population. Similar arguments are echoed in
recent textbooks on Latin America, emphasizing the unique social climate of the
region and suggesting that socio-economic change and business activities may
follow different paths than in other regions.
Scholars like K.H. Silvert and R.
Scott also emphasize the impact of traditional values on Latin America’s
economic and political performance. They argue that Latin America’s experience
should be judged based on comparisons with more advanced countries,
highlighting cultural qualities that have hindered the region’s pursuit of
modernization. The notion of altering the value system of the population is proposed
as a long-term solution to address the inefficiencies of Latin America’s
political structures. The belief in the dominance of traditional psychocultural
traits in Latin America is not limited to the literature of the 1960s or
textbooks but continues to be prevalent in the writings of U.S. historians and
political scientists. Some scholars advocate a “new corporatism”
approach, emphasizing the durability of Catholic and “Thomistic”
values as explanations for authoritarian political patterns, corporatist
economic organizations, and the resistance to democratic and liberal values. H.
Wiarda, a proponent of this approach, argues that the focus should be on
studying Latin America on its own terms, rather than assuming the desirability
or inevitability of change along Western lines.
However, this perspective still
operates within the framework of the tradition-modernity dichotomy and does not
challenge the basic assumptions of the modernization perspective. It
acknowledges the adaptability of some traditional values and institutions to
outside influences, which has occasionally resulted in impressive examples of
economic development in Latin America. Nonetheless, the implicit argument is
that such adaptability has been the exception rather than the norm, leading to
the region’s lag in the path of development.
DEPENDENCY
PERSPECTIVE
The dependency perspective, similar to the
modernization perspective, emerged from the collective work of scholars across
various social science disciplines. Initially, economists at the Economic
Commission for Latin America (ECLA) sought to explain Latin America’s
underdevelopment by highlighting the unequal terms of trade between raw
material exporters and manufactured goods exporters. The ECLA
“doctrine” called for diversifying export bases and promoting
industrialization through import substitution. However, as difficulties
persisted with this development model, attention shifted towards internal
constraints on industrialization, focusing on factors such as distortions
caused by unequal land ownership and the corrosive effects of structural
inflation rather than monetary factors.
Eventually, these two strands of thought
converged as scholars, including Osvaldo Sunkel, combined the early focus on
external variables with internal development constraints. The dependency
perspective, however, was foreshadowed by Latin American historians who had
long studied various aspects of economic history. Studies by scholars like
Sergio Bagfi emphasized the interrelation between domestic developments in
Latin America and changes in metropolitan countries. In Brazil, sociologists
such as Florestan Fernandes, Octaivio lanni, Fernando Henrique Cardoso, and
Theot dos Santos conducted broad structural analyses of the factors
contributing to underdevelopment. The presence of many of these scholars in
Santiago during the 1960s further facilitated the development of the dependency
perspective. Drawing on Marxist insights and related to the Marxist theory of
imperialism, the dependency literature examines the expansionary nature of
capitalism and offers a structural analysis of society. However, it also makes
important revisions to classical Leninist formulations, both historically and
in response to recent trends. While the focus is on explaining Latin American
underdevelopment, some authors argue that their efforts contribute to
understanding capitalism and its contradictions.
Assumptions:
The dependency perspective challenges the
assumption made by modernization scholars that the national society is the
primary unit of analysis for understanding underdevelopment. According to this
perspective, the domestic cultural and institutional features of Latin America
alone do not explain the region’s relative backwardness. While domestic
structures play a critical role as intervening factors, the tradition-modernity
polarity is considered of limited value as a fundamental concept. Instead, the
dependency perspective argues that the development of a nation or region can
only be understood in the context of its historical integration into the global
political-economic system that emerged through European colonization.
This global system is characterized by the
unequal but combined development of its various components. The center,
consisting of industrialized and advanced countries, benefits from the global
links, while the periphery, including Latin American nations, experiences a
reflexive type of development constrained by its incorporation into the global
system. Dependency is defined as a situation in which certain countries have
their economy conditioned by the development and expansion of others, resulting
in a backward position exploited by the dominant countries.
Understanding this process requires
considering its historical dimension and analyzing the total network of social
relations as they evolve over time in different contexts. Dependency theorists
emphasize that underdevelopment cannot be solely attributed to external
constraints or measured solely through clusters of external variables. Instead,
it is a complex set of associations in which both external and internal
dimensions play determinative roles. Historically, dominant local interests in
peripheral economies have tended to favor the preservation or rearticulation of
patterns of dependency that serve their own interests. Moreover, the
interdependence of the world capitalist system and the qualitative
transformations it undergoes make it unrealistic to expect peripheral nations
to replicate the developmental experiences of already developed countries.
The emphasis on global structural processes
and variations in internal structural arrangements implies that contextual
variables shape and guide the behavior of groups and individuals in the long
run. The dependency perspective assumes that individuals in different societies
are capable of pursuing rational patterns of behavior, but the structural
foundations of incentive systems produce different forms of behavior given the
same rational calculus. Thus, anomalies in the modernization literature can be accounted
for by focusing on contextual processes in the dependency literature.
Dependency theorists highlight the
importance of understanding the connections between internal and external
structural components in shaping the context of underdevelopment. Dependency
cannot be reduced to external constraints alone, and it cannot be operationalized
solely through external variables. The relationship between external and
internal dimensions is complex, and changes in the world system can alter the
impact of dependent relations in specific contexts. Therefore, studying
concrete national and historical situations comparatively is essential.
The dependency perspective is primarily a
historical model that does not claim universal validity. It pays less attention
to precise theoretical constructs and focuses more on specifying historical
phases as part of its framework. The literature distinguishes between different
periods, such as the colonial period, the period of outward growth, the crisis
of the liberal model, and the current period of transnational capitalism. The
productive structures of Latin America were initially oriented toward the
export market due to the need for raw materials and foodstuffs for
industrialization in Europe. Economic specialization was imposed during the
colonial period, and the logic of the productive system limited the development
of a large industrial sector. Expansion of exports depended more on political
factors than economic ones, and success relied on saleable export commodities, ample land, and labor.
Differences between regions and countries emerged due to variations in colonial
administrations, natural resources, and types of production.
SUMMARY
AND CONCLUSION
The modernization and dependency
perspectives are two competing frameworks for explaining the relative
underdevelopment of Latin America. These perspectives differ in their
assumptions, methodologies, and research strategies. The modernization
perspective focuses on individual behavior and values at the microsociological
level, while the dependency perspective takes a macrosociological approach,
analyzing structures, trade patterns, and political-economic linkages. The
modernization perspective considers the national society as the basic unit of
analysis, while the dependency perspective emphasizes the global system and its
interaction with national societies.
The time dimension is crucial in the
dependency perspective, which recognizes that replicating the developmental
experiences of already developed nations may not be feasible due to changes in
the world system. Change in the dependency perspective results from the
realignment of dependency relations over time, and the prescription for change
varies depending on the ideological outlook of the authors. In contrast, the
modernization perspective sees change as the result of innovations stemming
from the adoption of modern attitudes by elites and eventually followers.
Methodologically, the modernization
perspective is more parsimonious and allows for precise explanatory
propositions at the micro level. However, the dependency perspective, with its
broader range of phenomena and richer body of evidence, holds more promise and
provides a more comprehensive approach to understanding underdevelopment. The
modernization perspective’s fundamental flaws make it difficult to test its
assumptions objectively. The preestablished conceptual framework and the focus
on individuals limit the consideration of contextual variables that could
challenge the assumptions.
The dependency perspective, although
requiring further clarification of its concepts and causal interrelationships,
is open to historically grounded conceptualization in underdeveloped contexts.
This flexibility is an advantage over the modernization perspective, which
remains limited by its assumptions and illustrative methodology.
In conclusion, the dependency perspective
offers a more comprehensive and promising approach to the study of
underdevelopment in Latin America. While the modernization perspective has its
strengths, its flaws and limited methodology hinder a fair test of its
assumptions. The dependency perspective’s focus on structures, historical
context, and interrelationships provides a more nuanced understanding of
underdevelopment.
