According to the history of development theory, there are a wide variety of development paradigms that was emerged to assist all societies to develop economic, political, and social including cultural sectors. In order to eradicate the problem of poverty from all societies, especially third world nations; one of the most significant development paradigms that would effectively guide to overcome the problems is modernisation theory. Modernisation theory was formulated as a tool of capitalism.
It is generally based on the change of society from backwardness to modernity.It is also identify the development process from less developed societies to become developed by implement the same development pattern from advanced industrialized countries. Moreover, modernisation theory in which is well known, particularly the Rostow theory of stages - of – growth. The Rostow’s model, contradicts Marxist theory, due to the nature philosophical differences between capitalism and communism.
However, both paradigms have some aspects in common. Thus, it cannot be deemed that modernisation theory completely against Marxist.This essay will examine the relationship between modernisation theory through the stages-of-growth and Marxist theory. To structure the statement it will be divided into four parts.
The first part will provide the background and logic of modernisation theory, followed by the development theorist’s perspectives on the theory of Modernisation. The second part, it will demonstrate the stages - of - growth presented by Rostow including with the criticisms. In the third part, it will elaborate the overview of Marxian theory and logic of Marxism that related to the growth stages.Finally, it will examine the point that modernisation theory by Rostow anti - Marxist, followed by comparison between the similarities and the differences of two paradigms as well as analyses whether the theory of modernisation anti – Marxist or not. Modernisation theory Background of theory The modernisation theory can be defined as the effective development model and it was considered to be adopted in the Third World after the Second World War.
In addition, modernisation was first emerged in the western capitalist countries through the commercialisation and industrialisation processes.The empirical evidences from modernisation were considered for different occasions such as the financial aid programme, military assistance and the implementation of technologies for production. These examples can be represented as a foundation of modernity from the western to the undeveloped world (Apter, 1967: 43). During the 1950s and 1960s, the modernisation theory framework was related to the USA political concerns of Third World countries. The background to formulate this theory can be defined by three factors. i).
First is International bipolarity, the period of post second World War, USA and USSR were took placed as the superpower countries in the global system and that was recognized as a bipolarity. ii) Second is the conception of containment an example being the USA resisting the pervasion of communism and play a major in rebuilding the damaged world in their own perspective as well as taking responsibility to structure the world. iii) Finally, the competition of aid - donor between the USSR through a form of socialism and USA through the model of capitalism (Preston, 2002: 166 – 169).Overall, all these elements significantly constituted the modernisation theory structure that for the benefit of many and to give a better understand the background of its theory.
The logic of Modernisation theory Modernization paradigm is central to the transition process from backwardness to modernity. The characteristics of traditional societies were mostly concern on individuality rather than generality. Moreover, other characteristics of traditional societies are normally seen as raw– material (agriculture), dominance and the low rates of growth production.On the contrary, all traditional features were considered vice versa modern areas (Leys, 1996: 65 – 66).
Some scholars, including Max Weber also distinguished the traditional from modern perspective by highlight on the values and attitudes. Similarity as the sociologist Talcott Parsons perceived, that although countries may vary in structure and institution; however, all societies must retain the certain pattern in order to support development for their societies (Tornquist, 1999: 45- 46).In the realm of process to structure modernisation theory, there are two significant features that can be viewed from the theorists’ materials. The first is the complexity of the economic growth. This can be summed up as the paradigms of growth models, but these become more sophisticated and less specificity to deal with due to changes of society and institutions.
This includes the difficulties to distinguish between the theories of economic growth and the social change paradigms, which were hard to differentiate. It will be considered that the systems in various countries vary in the context of evolution experiences.However, the development process in the post – Second World War, the modernisation theory can effectively address different types of societies. This is due to the essential factors of this ideology, identified as the process for the third world can shift from traditional to become developed. The industrial society is the destination to motivate all undeveloped societies to become modernized (Preston, 2002: 169 - 172). The perspectives on theories of growth and modernisation.
According to the logic of modernisation theory and in order to image the characteristic of theory more.Obviously this can be magnified by explanation of the growth theories from different views of theorists of economic development that make contribution for development paradigm as follows: Rosenstein – Rodan and Nurkes: Balance growth The both Rosenstein – Rodan and Nurked are related to the paradigm of balance growth. In Rosenstein – Rodan perspective, he emphasized on the market expansion that can lead to the growth. The emergence framework in Third World nations can be identified as a crucial device to explain the failure of market as well as the significance of the role of the state to intervene in the market.Moreover, Nurkes also agreed with Rosenstein – Rodan in term of the important to drive through the both domestic and foreign resources for investment. However, his conception also focuses on damaging the cycle of poverty, assumed as the cause of undeveloped as well as limitation to any future development.
(Hunt, 1989: 53-56). Both scholars argued on the expansion of the market, which resulting from the increasing of capital investment that will proceed to grow further in response with continued inducement of market generally.Hirschman and Kuznets: Unbalanced growth and income Distribution According to the conception of balance growth, in contrast, Albert Hirschman imagined on the significant to retain imbalance in the less developed countries. However, there are other constraints to growth rather than the aspect of the market and the power of investment.
According to Hirschman, it is importance for the Third World nations to focus on the major sectors that had various backward and forward links in the economy, thus it could integrate other parts to become inclusive into the economic system.Another economist, Simon Kuznets gave an alternative opinion regarding economic growth. Kuznets put forward another economic scenario where, at the beginning, the economic growth may be below the average, and that would be the cause for widening the gap of inequality. The distribution of income will produce a steadily growing economy and equality (Martinussen, 1997: 60). In other words, if the Kuznet’s thesis is correct, it can therefore be identified that the tendency of the income of the poor could grow at a faster rate than the average at the end of process.
Lewis: Dual – economy model Attention to the economic development with unlimited supplied of labour which is published in 1954 by Arthur Lewis. He highlights on the construction of dualistic in economic area of backward countries. He creates a model to elaborate the labour surplus through the relationship between two sectors. The first is modern sector (capitalist), recognized as the use of wage labour. Another is traditional sector (subsistence) that is deemed as family – employment (Hunt, 1989:62).The importance of economic expansion as the expanding of modern sector, it could lead labour to move from tradition into employment system.
Consequently the surplus, then, becomes increasing, and that would lead to create profits re-investment. Moreover, The capitalist sector will further continues to expand until the transition of surplus from traditional sector is completed with the point of capital accumulation and that finally, it would meet with labour supply and wage for begin to increase (Oman and Wignaraja, 1990: 38 -39).In the light of the development theories above, it can be noted that the key elements of the modernisation theories is the contradiction between two economic system of countries, traditional and modernity, though, they are several kind of paradigms to identify, but the heart of modernisation theories is the development toward new modern societies. Rostow’s Stages of Growth Development Model Regarding the development theories, W. W.
Rostow is one of the most important theorists of modernisation theory.Rostow creates an economic model that was appeared in 1960s to impose for USA foreign policy. His perspective of model is identified from his book called The Stage of Economic Growth: A Non – Communist Manifesto. According to this book, it focused mainly on the perspective of economic from the history of Western Europe countries and it based on the liberal framework. Moreover, the central of his modernisation paradigm highlight on the economic benefits which is derived from elites to the entire society due to the enlargement of economic market (Shalom, 2006: 295).
The process development will go through five stages of growth in which that can cultivate the modernity; at the same time it also damages the sense of traditional. The new sense of modernity can lead to build society of democratic and finally it also turn out to support social and political of societies respectively. Furthermore, Rostow notes that modernisation is the same definition as democracy which is provided opportunities for people to be participate in their communities as well as being effective to shape their life (Shalom, 2006: 296).
