Editing Modernization theory (section)

==Criticisms and alternatives==
From the 1970s, modernization theory has been criticized by numerous scholars, including [[Andre Gunder Frank]] (1929–2005)<ref>{{cite book |editor-first=Sing |editor-last=Chew |editor2-first=Pat |editor2-last=Lauderdale |title=Theory and methodology of world development: The writings of Andre Gunder Frank |publisher=Springer |year=2010}}</ref> and [[Immanuel Wallerstein]] (1930–2019).<ref>{{cite journal |first=Theda |last=Skocpol |title=Wallerstein's world capitalist system: a theoretical and historical critique |journal=[[American Journal of Sociology]] |year=1977 |volume=82 |issue=5 |pages=1075–90 |jstor=2777814 |doi=10.1086/226431 |s2cid=146717096}}</ref> In this model, the modernization of a society required the destruction of the indigenous culture and its replacement by a more Westernized one. By one definition, ''modern'' simply refers to the present, and any society still in existence is therefore modern. Proponents of modernization typically view only Western society as being truly modern and argue that others are primitive or unevolved by comparison. That view sees unmodernized societies as inferior even if they have the same standard of living as western societies. Opponents argue that modernity is independent of culture and can be adapted to any society. Japan is cited as an example by both sides. Some see it as proof that a thoroughly modern way of life can exist in a non western society. Others argue that [[Japan]] has become distinctly more Western as a result of its modernization.

As Tipps has argued, by conflating modernization with other processes, with which theorists use interchangeably (democratization, liberalization, development), the term becomes imprecise and therefore difficult to disprove.<ref name="Tipps1973" />

The theory has also been criticised empirically, as modernization theorists ignore external sources of change in societies. The binary between traditional and modern is unhelpful, as the two are linked and often interdependent, and "modernization" does not come as a whole.

Modernization theory has also been accused of being [[Eurocentrism|Eurocentric]], as modernization began in Europe, with the [[Industrial Revolution]], the [[French Revolution]] and the [[Revolutions of 1848]]<ref>{{Cite book|last=Macionis, John J.|title=Sociology: a global introduction|date=2008|publisher=Pearson Prentice Hall|others=Plummer, Kenneth.|isbn=978-1-282-35044-1|edition=4th|location=Harlow, England|oclc=911071107}}</ref> and has long been regarded as reaching its most advanced stage in Europe. Anthropologists typically make their criticism one step further and say that the view is ethnocentric and is specific to [[Western culture]].

===Dependency theory===
One alternative model is [[dependency theory]]. It emerged in the 1950s and argues that the underdevelopment of poor nations in the Third World derived from systematic [[imperialism|imperial]] and [[neocolonialism|neo-colonial]] exploitation of raw materials.<ref>Abhijeet Paul, "Dependency theory." in John Mackenzie, ed. ''The Encyclopedia of Empire'' (2016) {{doi|10.1002/9781118455074.wbeoe242}}</ref> Its proponents argue that resources typically flow from a "periphery" of poor and [[Developing country|underdeveloped states]] to a "core" of [[Developed country|wealthy states]], enriching the latter at the expense of the former. It is a central contention of dependency theorists such as [[Andre Gunder Frank]] that poor states are impoverished and rich ones enriched by the way poor states are integrated into the "[[world system]]".<ref>{{cite book |editor-first=Patrick |editor-last=Manning |editor2-first=Barry K. |editor2-last=Gills |title=Andre Gunder Frank and global development: visions, remembrances, and explorations |publisher=Routledge |year=2013}}</ref>

Dependency models arose from a growing association of southern hemisphere nationalists (from Latin America and Africa) and Marxists.<ref>{{cite journal |first=Tony |last=Smith |title=The underdevelopment of development literature: the case of dependency theory |journal=World Politics |volume=31 |issue=2 |year=1979 |pages=247–88 |doi=10.2307/2009944 |jstor=2009944 |s2cid=16643810 }}</ref> It was their reaction against modernization theory, which held that all societies progress through similar stages of development, that today's underdeveloped areas are thus in a similar situation to that of today's developed areas at some time in the past, and that, therefore, the task of helping the underdeveloped areas out of poverty is to accelerate them along this supposed common path of development, by various means such as investment, technology transfers, and closer integration into the world market. Dependency theory rejected this view, arguing that underdeveloped countries are not merely primitive versions of developed countries, but have unique features and structures of their own; and, importantly, are in the situation of being the weaker members in a world [[market economy]].<ref>Newschool, [http://homepage.newschool.edu/het/schools/develop.htm "Economic Development"] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090714063027/http://homepage.newschool.edu/het/schools/develop.htm |date=2009-07-14}}, retrieved July 2009.</ref>

===Barrington Moore and comparative historical analysis===
Another line of critique of modernization theory was due to sociologist [[Barrington Moore Jr.]], in his [[Social Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy]] (1966).<ref>Barrington Moore, Jr. ''Social Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy: Lord and Peasant in the Making of the Modern World'', Beacon Press, Boston, 1966.</ref> In this classic book, Moore argues there were at least "three routes to the modern world" - the liberal democratic, the fascist, and the communist - each deriving from the timing of industrialization and the social structure at the time of transition. Counter to modernization theory, Moore held that there was not one path to the modern world and that economic development did not always bring about democracy.<ref>Jørgen Møller, ''State Formation, Regime Change, and Economic Development''. London: Routledge Press, 2017, Ch. 6.</ref>

===Guillermo O'Donnell and bureaucratic authoritarianism===
Political scientist [[Guillermo O'Donnell]], in his ''Modernization and Bureaucratic Authoritarianism'' (1973) challenged the thesis, advanced most notably by Seymour Martin Lipset,<ref name="Seymour Martin Lipset 1959"/> that industrialization produced democracy. In South America, O'Donnell argued, industrialization generated not democracy, but bureaucratic authoritarianism.

===Acemoglu and Robinson and institutional economics===
Economists [[Daron Acemoglu]] and [[James A. Robinson (economist)|James A. Robinson]] (2022), 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"/>