Editing Modernization theory (section)

== History ==
{{Main|History of modernisation theory}}
The modernization theory of the 1950s and 1960s drew on [[Unilineal evolution|classical evolutionary theory]] and a Parsonian reading of Weber's ideas about a transition from traditional to modern society.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Gwynne |first1=Robert N. |title=Modernization Theory |journal=International Encyclopedia of Human Geography (Second Edition) |date=2009 |pages=163–167 |doi=10.1016/B978-0-08-102295-5.10107-6 |isbn=978-0-08-102296-2}}</ref> Parsons had translated Weber's works into English in the 1930s and provided his own interpretation.<ref>Smelser, Neil J. 1992. "External and Internal Factors in Theories of Social Change," pp. 369–94, in Hans Haferkamp and Neil J. Smelser (eds.), ''Social Change and Modernity''. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, pp. 370-81.</ref><ref>{{cite book |first=Jeremiah I. |last=Dibua |title=Modernization and the Crisis of Development in Africa: The Nigerian Experience |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=eRLBjz2pWQMC&pg=PA20 |year=2006 |publisher=Ashgate |pages=20–22 |isbn=0-7546-4228-3}}</ref><ref>{{cite book |editor-first=Leon H. |editor-last=Mayhew |title=Talcott Parsons on institutions and social evolution: selected writings |location=Chicago |publisher=University of Chicago Press |year=1985 |isbn=0-226-64749-8}}</ref>

After 1945, the Parsonian version became widely used in sociology and other social sciences. Some of the thinkers associated with modernization theory are [[Marion J. Levy Jr.]], [[Gabriel Almond]], [[Seymour Martin Lipset]], [[Walt Rostow]], [[Daniel Lerner]], [[Lucian Pye]], [[David Apter]], [[Alex Inkeles]], [[Cyril Edwin Black]], [[Bert F. Hoselitz]], [[Myron Weiner]], and [[Karl Deutsch]].<ref>Andrew C. Janos, ''Politics and Paradigms: Changing Theories of Change in Social Science''. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1986, pp. 44-64; Nils Gilman, ''Mandarins of the Future: Modernization Theory in Cold War America''. Johns Hopkins University Press, 2003, p. 2.</ref>

By the late 1960s opposition to modernization theory developed because the theory was too general and did not fit all societies in quite the same way.<ref name="Tipps1973">{{cite journal |first=Dean C. |last=Tipps |title=Modernization theory and the comparative study of national societies: A critical perspective |journal=Comparative Studies in Society and History |volume=15 |issue=2 |year=1973 |pages=199–226 |doi=10.1017/S0010417500007039 |s2cid=145736971}}; Andrew C. Janos, ''Politics and Paradigms: Changing Theories of Change in Social Science''. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1986; Paul Anthony Cammack, ''Capitalism and Democracy in the Third World: The Doctrine for Political Development''. London: Leicester University Press, 1997.</ref> Yet, with the end of the Cold War, a few attempts to revive modernization theory were carried out. Francis Fukuyama argued for the use of modernization theory as [[Universal history (genre)|universal history]].<ref name="Francis Fukuyama 1992, pp. 68-69"/> A more academic effort to revise modernization theory was that of [[Ronald Inglehart]] and [[Christian Welzel]] in ''Modernization, Cultural Change, and Democracy'' (2005).<ref name="Christian Welzel 2005">Ronald Inglehart and Christian Welzel, ''Modernization, Cultural Change, and Democracy''. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press, 2005.</ref> Inglehart and Welzel amended the 1960s version of modernization theory in significant ways. Counter to Lipset, who associated industrial growth with democratization,<ref name="Seymour Martin Lipset 1959">Seymour Martin Lipset, "Some Social Requisites of Democracy: Economic Development and Political Legitimacy," ''American Political Science Review'' Vol. 53, Nº 1 (1959): 69–105.</ref> Inglehart and Welzel did not see an association between industrialization and democratization. Rather, they held that only at a latter stage in the process of economic modernization, which various authors have characterized as [[Post-industrial society|post-industrial]], did values conducive to democratization – which Inglehart and Welzel call "self-expression values" – emerge.<ref name="Christian Welzel 2005"/>

Nonetheless, these efforts to revive modernization theory were criticized by many, and the theory remained a controversial one.<ref>{{cite book |last=Knöbl |first=Wolfgang |title=Handbook of Historical Sociology |year=2003 |editor-last=Delanty |editor-first=Gerard |editor-link=Gerard Delanty |pages=96–107 [esp p. 97] |chapter=Theories That Won't Pass Away: The Never-ending Story |editor2-last=Isin |editor2-first=Engin F.}}; "Should Modernization Theory Survive?", a special issue of The Annals of Comparative Democratization 16, 3 (2018) [https://connect.apsanet.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/26/2018/10/2018_16_3-Annals_of_CD_September.pdf]</ref>