Editing Modernization theory (section)

== Modernization and democracy ==
The relationship between modernization and democracy or [[democratization]] is one of the most researched studies in [[comparative politics]]. Many studies show that modernization has contributed to democracy in some countries. For example, Seymour Martin Lipset argued that modernization can turn into democracy.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Lipset |first1=Seymour Martin |title=Some Social Requisites of Democracy: Economic Development and Political Legitimacy |journal=American Political Science Review |date=March 1959 |volume=53 |issue=1 |pages=69–105 |doi=10.2307/1951731|jstor=1951731 |s2cid=53686238}}</ref> There is academic debate over the drivers of democracy because there are theories that support economic growth as both a cause and effect of the institution of democracy. "Lipset's observation that democracy is related to economic development, first advanced in 1959, has generated the largest body of research on any topic in comparative politics,"<ref>Przeworski and Limongi, 1997.</ref>

Anderson explains the idea of an elongated diamond in order to describe the concentration of power in the hands of a few at the top during an authoritarian leadership.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Anderson |first1=Nicholas |title=The Odd Couple: Modernization and Democratization in Southeast Asia |url=http://www.inquiriesjournal.com/articles/1232/the-odd-couple-modernization-and-democratization-in-southeast-asia |journal=Cornell International Affairs Review|year=2011 |volume=4 |issue=2 |doi=10.37513/ciar.v4i2.407 |doi-access=free |url-access=subscription }}</ref> He develops this by giving an understanding of the shift in power from the elite class to the middle class that occurs when modernization is incorporated. Socioeconomic modernization allows for a democracy to further develop and influences the success of a democracy. Concluded from this, is the idea that as socioeconomic levels are leveled, democracy levels would further increase.<ref>{{cite book |last1=Putnam |first1=Robert |chapter=Explaining Institutional Performance |title=Making Democracy Work: Civic Traditions in Modern Italy |date=1992 |publisher=Princeton University Press |isbn=9780691037387}}</ref>

[[Larry Diamond]] and [[Juan José Linz|Juan Linz]], who worked with Lipset in the book, ''Democracy in Developing Countries: Latin America'', argue that economic performance affects the development of democracy in at least three ways. First, they argue that economic growth is more important for democracy than given levels of socioeconomic development. Second, socioeconomic development generates social changes that can potentially facilitate democratization. Third, socioeconomic development promotes other changes, like organization of the middle class, which is conducive to democracy.<ref>{{cite book |title=Democracy in Developing Countries: Latin America |pages=44–46}}</ref>

As [[Seymour Martin Lipset]] put it, "All the various aspects of economic development—industrialization, urbanization, wealth and education—are so closely interrelated as to form one major factor which has the political correlate of democracy".<ref>{{cite book |first=Seymour Martin |last=Lipset |title=Political Man |year=1963 |page=41}}</ref> The argument also appears in [[Walt Whitman Rostow|Walt W. Rostow]], ''Politics and the Stages of Growth'' (1971); A. F. K. Organski, ''The Stages of Political Development'' (1965); and [[David Apter]], ''The Politics of Modernization'' (1965). In the 1960s, some critics argued that the link between modernization and democracy was based too much on the example of European history and neglected the [[Third World]].<ref>{{cite book |first=Andre Gunder |last=Frank |title=Latin America: Underdevelopment or Revolution |url=https://archive.org/details/capitalismunderd00fran |url-access=registration |year=1969 |publisher=New York, Monthly Review Press}}</ref>

One historical problem with that argument has always been [[German Empire|Germany]], whose economic modernization in the 19th century came long before the [[German Revolution of 1918–19|democratization after 1918]]. Political science professor [[Sheri Berman|Berman]], however, concludes that a process of democratization was underway in Imperial Germany, for "during these years Germans developed many of the habits and mores that are now thought by political scientists to augur healthy political development".<ref>{{cite journal |first=Sheri E. |last=Berman| author-link=Sheri Berman |title=Modernization in Historical Perspective: The Case of Imperial Germany |journal=[[World Politics]] |volume=53 |issue=3 |year=2001 |pages=431–62 [quote at p. 456] |doi=10.1353/wp.2001.0007 |s2cid=154344681}}</ref>

One contemporary problem for modernization theory is the argument of whether modernization implies more human rights for citizens or not.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Wanderley |first1=Sergio |last2=Barros |first2=Amon |date=February 2020 |title=The Alliance for Progress, modernization theory, and the history of management education: The case of CEPAL in Brazil |journal=Management Learning |language=en |volume=51 |issue=1 |pages=55–72 |doi=10.1177/1350507619869013 |s2cid=204371164 |issn=1350-5076|doi-access=free }}</ref> China, one of the most rapidly growing economies in the world, can be observed as an example. The modernization theory implies that this should correlate to democratic growth in some regards, especially in relation to the liberalization of the middle and lower classes. However, active human rights abuses and constant oppression of Chinese citizens by the government seem to contradict the theory strongly. Interestingly enough, the irony is that increasing restrictions on Chinese citizens are a result of modernization theory.

In the 1990s, the Chinese government wanted to reform the legal system and emphasized governing the country by law. This led to a legal awakening for citizens as they were becoming more educated on the law, yet more understanding of their inequality in relation to the government. Looking down the line in the 2000s, Chinese citizens saw even more opportunities to liberalize and were able to be a part of urbanization and could access higher levels of education. This in turn resulted in the attitudes of the lower and middle classes changing to more liberal ideas, which went against the CCP. Over time, this has led to their active participation in civil society activities and similar adjacent political groups in order to make their voices heard. Consequently, the Chinese government represses Chinese citizens at a more aggressive rate, all due to modernization theory.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Cho |first=Sungmin |date=2023-01-04 |title=Does China's Case Falsify Modernization Theory? Interim Assessment |url=https://doi.org/10.1080/10670564.2022.2163586 |journal=Journal of Contemporary China |volume=32 |issue=144 |pages=1034–1052 |doi=10.1080/10670564.2022.2163586 |s2cid=255687727 |issn=1067-0564|url-access=subscription }}</ref>

[[Ronald Inglehart]] and [[Christian Welzel]] contend that the realization of democracy is not based solely on an expressed desire for that form of government, but democracies are born as a result of the admixture of certain social and cultural factors. They argue the ideal social and cultural conditions for the foundation of a democracy are born of significant modernization and economic development that result in mass political participation.<ref>{{cite journal |first1=Ronald |last1=Inglehart |author-link=Ronald Inglehart |author-link2=Christian Welzel |first2=Christian |last2=Welzel |title=How Development Leads to Democracy |journal=[[Foreign Affairs]] |year=2009 |volume=88 |issue=2 |pages=33–48 |jstor=20699492}}</ref>
 
[[Randall Peerenboom]] explores the relationships among democracy, the rule of law and their relationship to wealth by pointing to examples of Asian countries, such as Taiwan and South Korea, which have successfully democratized only after economic growth reached relatively high levels and to examples of countries such as the [[Philippines]], [[Bangladesh]], [[Cambodia]], [[Thailand]], [[Indonesia]] and [[India]], which sought to democratize at lower levels of wealth but have not done as well.<ref>{{cite book |first=Randall |last=Peerenboom |title=China Modernizes: Threat to the West or Model for the Rest? |year=2008 |page=63}} He suggests [[China]] will grant democratic rights when it is as modern and as rich as the West per capita.</ref>

[[Adam Przeworski]] and others have challenged Lipset's argument. They say political regimes do not transition to democracy as per capita incomes rise. Rather, democratic transitions occur randomly, but once there, countries with higher levels of gross domestic product per capita remain democratic. Epstein et al. (2006) retest the modernization hypothesis using new data, new techniques, and a three-way, rather than dichotomous, classification of regimes. Contrary to Przeworski, this study finds that the modernization hypothesis stands up well. Partial democracies emerge as among the most important and least understood regime types.<ref>{{cite journal |first1=David L. |last1=Epstein |first2=Robert |last2=Bates |first3=Jack |last3=Goldstone |first4=Ida |last4=Kristensen |first5=Sharyn |last5=O'Halloran |display-authors=1 |title=Democratic Transitions |journal=[[American Journal of Political Science]] |year=2006 |volume=50 |issue=3 |pages=551–69 |doi=10.1111/j.1540-5907.2006.00201.x |url=http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:3322248|url-access=subscription }}</ref>

[[Daron Acemoglu]] and [[James A. Robinson (economist)|James A. Robinson]] (2008) further weaken the case for Lipset's argument by showing that even though there is a strong cross-country correlation between income and democracy, once one controls for country fixed effects and removes the association between income per capita and various measures of democracy, there is "no causal effect of income on democracy."<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Acemoglu|first1=Daron|first2=Simon|last2=Johnson|first3=James A. |last3=Robinson|first4=Pierre|last4=Yared|title=Income and Democracy|journal=American Economic Review|volume=98|number=3|year=2008|pages=808-42}}</ref> In "Non-Modernization" (2022), they further argue that modernization theory cannot account for various paths of political development "because it posits a link between economics and politics that is not conditional on institutions and culture and that presumes a definite endpoint—for example, an '[[end of history]]'."<ref name="annualreviews.org">{{cite journal|first1=Daron|last1=Acemoglu|first2=James|last2=Robinson|title=Non-Modernization: Power–Culture Trajectories and the Dynamics of Political Institutions|journal=Annual Review of Political Science|volume=25|number=1|year=2022|page=324|url=https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/epdf/10.1146/annurev-polisci-051120-103913}}</ref>

Sirianne Dahlum and Carl Henrik Knutsen offer a test of the Ronald Inglehart and Christian Welzel revised version of modernization theory, which focuses on cultural traits triggered by economic development that are presumed to be conducive to democratization.<ref>Ronald Inglehart and Christian Welzel, ''Modernization, Cultural Change, and Democracy''. Cambridge University Press, 2005; Dahlum, S., & Knutsen, C., "Democracy by Demand? Reinvestigating the Effect of Self-expression Values on Political Regime Type." ''British Journal of Political Science'' 47(2)(2017): 437-61.</ref> They find "no empirical support" for the Inglehart and Welzel thesis and conclude that "self-expression values do not enhance democracy levels or democratization chances, and neither do they stabilize existing democracies."<ref>Ronald Inglehart and Christian Welzel, ''Modernization, Cultural Change, and Democracy''. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press, 2005; Dahlum, S., & Knutsen, C., "Democracy by Demand? Reinvestigating the Effect of Self-expression Values on Political Regime Type." ''British Journal of Political Science'' 47(2)(2017): 437-61, p 437.</ref>

A meta-analysis by [[Gerardo L. Munck]] of research on Lipset's argument shows that a majority of studies do not support the thesis that higher levels of economic development leads to more democracy.<ref name=":2">Gerardo L.Munck, "Modernization Theory as a Case of Failed Knowledge Production." ''The Annals of Comparative Democratization'' 16, 3 (2018): 37-41. [https://mk0apsaconnectbvy6p6.kinstacdn.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/26/2018/10/2018_16_3-Annals_of_CD_September.pdf] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190813130345/https://mk0apsaconnectbvy6p6.kinstacdn.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/26/2018/10/2018_16_3-Annals_of_CD_September.pdf|date=2019-08-13}}</ref>