Modernisation is the process of western culture spreading from North America and Western Europe to their countries and the continents of Asia and Africa, as Europe and North America form the centre of modern development (Eishenstadt, 1996). Development is frequently agreed to be a process of becoming ‘modern’ (usually like ‘the West’), which is why modernisation theory is a development theory, with economical growth as the basis of the process, as well as a change of values within the population of a society also being required (Wehler, 1975). Often a political change is necessary, particularly a change to have democratically elected governments rather than tribal or family lineage (Willis, 2005). In this essay I will be critiquing this theory by evaluating its capacity to account for the development experiences in the global South, in particular Uganda, which is low income country; and China, which is an upper middle income country (World Bank, 2017).
Modernisation was a movement of the 1950s and 1960s, incorporating the transition and drastic transformation that a traditional society has to undergo in order to become ‘modern’ (Hussain and Tribe, 1981). The policies tend to raise the standard living of the poor, often through spreading knowledge and information about more efficient techniques of production (Ellis and Biggs, 2002). It emerged after the Second World War as the Western world believed that this model would be the solution to reconstruct European economies that had struggled with neo-classical economic policies in the post WWI period, and also to bring developing countries to a western standard (Bussmann, n.d.). It aimed to impose certain values to developing societies to boost the development process, as developing countries were seen to be caught in a vicious circle known as the “poverty trap” by Ragnar Nurske, that could only be overcome with a strongly intervening state (Martinussen, 1997). This approach was favoured by Rostow, who focused on top-down ‘trickling’ of capitalist development from urban-industrial areas to other regions (Power, 2003), and developed his Five Stages of Economic Growth. In 1960, he predicted that nations would ‘take off’ into development, having gone through five stages, ranging from stage one, ‘traditional society’, to stage five, ‘the age of high mass consumption’ (Power, 2003). It is similar to the postcolonial theory as modernisation can be criticised to be a contribution of colonialism, under the false pretence of aid programmes and other development policies. This is because the analysis that Rostow provided was taken up by the United States Agency of International Development (USAID) and other international aid agencies in the early 1960s (Power, 2003). It was argued that without external aid, the poorer countries of the world would never develop (Willis, 2005), however this creates a ‘partnership’ in the form of neo-colonialism providing conditions for take-off in exchange for economic realignment. It also encourages a path to development taken by former colonial powers, leading to a lack of considering problems made by international politics, imperialism, colonial regimes and war (Wehler, 1975).
Modernisation theory is implemented as a poverty reduction strategy for sub-Saharan African countries, such as Uganda. In 2008, Green found that sub-Saharan countries proposed agricultural development, infrastructure, education, and political reform to boost a favourable business environment to enhance and “take-off” such as the modern condition mentioned by Rostow (Green, 2008). In Uganda, since President Musevenu came into power in 1986, the country has experienced massive changes in the political, economic, cultural, and social spheres, and these changes have been heavily influenced by Western state and development actors. The government has eagerly yielded to foreign policy interventions and accepted structural adjustment measures (SAPs) in order to receive international development aid, which now makes up a large portion of the Ugandan national budget (Ndikumana & Nannyonjo, 2007). For example, there is a high presence of Western aid workers in all parts of the country, but notably in the north, and the expansion of the mass media has influenced the dreams and expectations of Ugandans and led to a change in consumer trends and popular culture (Vorhölter, 2012).
However, there is evidence to show that Ugandan elites have profited from these developments more than the poorer citizens, and problems remain widespread, especially in rural areas and in the north, where the majority of the population still suffers from poverty, high unemployment rates and limited access to quality education (Ndikumana & Nannyonjo, 2007; Branch, 2008). Furthermore, rapid processes of social change have created feelings of uncertainty and ambivalence amongst most of the population, and has led to discussions of whether the rate of change is too fast, and whether it is actually for the better or the worse (Vorhölter, 2012). This is due to the fact that modernisation measures often fail to consider the poor as the focus in poverty reduction initiatives, and by ignoring the involvement and participation of the target community, modernity achieves the marginalisation of their commitment, creativity, and support of the intervention’s strategies (Matunhu, 2011). Therefore, this shows that the historical experience of Uganda does not match up with the theory’s predictions, because although there have been attempts to modernise the country and bring in ‘Western’ values and ideas, the country is still an underdeveloped, low income country, attempting to reach Rostow’s final stages of growth.
In the case of China, modernisation is understood to be the ‘catching up’ with developed countries, and it served to push for extraordinary economic growth. In 1964, to catch up with the West, the Third National People’s Congress set the objective of modernising agriculture, industry, national defence, and science and technology by 2000. In the 1990s, a new version of ‘Four Modernisations’ was formulated, which emphasised the coordinated modernisation of economy, society, politics & culture, and paid more attention on non-material domains than the 1964 initial ‘Four Modernisations’ did (Zhang et al., 2007). China is seeing positives of modernisation, as in order to serve the implementation of their goals, various Chinese governmental authorities, research institutes, and local governments have been involved in the formulation, measurement, and monitoring of modernisation indicators. For example, in 2001 Premier Zhu Rongji announced that China had achieved the first two steps, which were to resolve inadequate food and clothing, and realising a comfortable life. At the same time, Zhu suggested that because China’s GDP had topped 8.9 trillion yuan (US $800 per capita) by the end of 2000, that the new millennium marked the beginning of the last of Deng’s steps towards China’s modernisation (Zhang et al., 2007). China has put a focus on increasing people’s material wealth, promoting their cultural and ethical progress, and pushing forward all-around development, and this comprehensive plan shows that they have made great progress towards their drive to modernisation.
However, the Chinese government has not followed the Western modernisation theory, as they have formed a modernisation outlook with Chinese characteristics (Fangjun, 2009). They have advocated industrialisation with the primary task to develop a modern economy, transforming their economy from being reliant on agriculture to an economy where the tertiary sector plays a central role, and established structures in economics, politics, and society that resemble those in the West (Fangjun, 2009). China’s modernisation theory is different to the model of Western modernisation, as it includes socialist characteristics, rather than capitalist, guided by Marxism and China’s realities, as they are the essential guarantee that modernisation in China will advance efficiently. Furthermore, they believe in the importance of harmony between economic development and social progress, which places the overall advancement of society in a position of deliberate importance and emphasises the sustainable development of economy and society (Fangjun, 2009). By drawing on ideas of the Western modernisation theory and studying China’s own practice, it’s clear they have found a way to modernise with their own characteristics, showing that the theory as we see it is not capable of explaining the development experiences of China.
In conclusion, modernisation theory cannot be used to explain development, as demonstrated through the analysis of two case studies, Uganda and China. In Uganda, it has not been successful in helping modernise the country, as it has benefitted the elite, often failing to consider the poor as the centrepiece in poverty reduction initiatives, as the intervention strategy becomes an imposed strategy, which disregards the cultural, social, political and traditional values of the recipient countries (Matunhu, 2011). This was felt in Uganda and is shown by Vorhölter’s research, as he found that the high pressure to change caused confusion and uncertainty amongst all members of society, and not everyone is ready to accept changes according to a Western model. In the case of China, they have adapted the Western modernisation theory into their own, involving their own customs and beliefs, showing the weakness of the western model in helping develop countries in the global South. Dependency theorists, such as Harrison, criticise it saying that it has “hindered development”, as today, a market-led economy around privatised companies and private initiative is preferred, as putting the market at the centre is a neo-liberalist element and is a break with core modernist conception of the state as the predominant actor in promoting development (Easterly, 2005). Therefore, modernisation theory does not have a high capacity to account for the development experiences of countries in the global South.