Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Modernization and dependence

An outline and critique of competing theories

  • Articles
  • Development Theory
  • Published:
Intereconomics

Abstract

The salient feature of the theoretical discussion of development problems is still the rivalry between two approaches. An outline and critique of the dependencia school and the modernization theory is provided in the following article which also points out possibilities of combining both these sets of explanations in an attempt to overcome the dichotomy of development theory.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Cf. S. N. Elsenstadt Varieties of Political Development: The Theoretica Challenge, in: S. N. Elsenstadt, S Rokkan (eds.): Building States and Nations Vol. 1 Beverly Hills/London 1973, p. 41ff.

  2. Cf. T. T. Evers, P. von Wogau: “Dependencia”: Lateinamerikanische Beiträge zur Theorie der Unterentwicklung (“Dependencia”: Latin American contributions to the theory of underdevelopment), in: Das Argument 15, 4–6 (July) p 439f. Communist parties taking the Moscow view assessed the dependence school as petit-bourgeois radicalism.

  3. Especially F. H. Cardoso: Imper alism and Dependency in Latin America. in: F. Bonilila, G. Girling (eds.): Structures of Dependency. Stanford 1973.

  4. J. S. Valenzuela, A. Valenzuela: Modemization and Dependency. Alternative Perspectives in the Study of Latin American Underdevelopment, in: Comparative Politics, July 1978, p. 544.

  5. T. T. Evers: Bürgerliche Herrschaft in der Dritten Weit (Bourgeois rule in the Third World), Cologne/Frankfurt 1977, p. 40.

  6. D. Senghaas: Elemente einer Theorie des peripheren Kapitalismus (Elements of a theory of peripheral capitalism), in: D Senghaas (ed.) Peripherer Kapitanismus Analysen über Aphängigkelt und Unterentwicklung. Frankfurt 1974, p. 28.

  7. According to A. Cordova: Strukturelle Heterogenität und wirtschaftliches Wachstum (Structural heterogeneity and economic growth), Frankfurt 1973, p. 26ff.

  8. Cf. T. S. Kuhn: Die Struktur wissenschaftlicher Revolutionen (The structure of scientific revolutions), 3rd ed., Frankfurt 1978.

  9. Cf., e. g., J. S. Valenzuela, A. Valenzuela, op. cit., Modernization and Dependency. Alternative Perspectives in the Study of Latin American Underdevelopment, in: Comparative Politics, July 1978, p. 543. Also P. J. O’Brien: Zur Kritik lateinamerikanischer Dependencia-Theorien (On the critique of Latin American dependencia theories), in: H.-J Puhle (ed.): Lateinamerika. Historische Realität und Dependencia-Theorien, Hamburg 1977, p. 50.

  10. Cf. H. Büscher: Handlungsorientierung, Bezugsgruppenerwartungen und Erkenntrisfortschritt in der Entwicklungstheorie (Action orientation, group expectations and epistemological progress in the development theory), in: Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie, 31st year, 1979, p. 25ff.

  11. Cf. K. von Beyme: Die politischen Theorien der Gegenwart (The political theories of the present time), Munich 1972; F. Naschold Politische Wissenschaft (Politica science), Freiburg 1970.

  12. F. H. Cardoso, E. Faletto: Abhängigkeit und Entwicklung in Lateinamerika (Dependence and development in Latin America), Frankfurt 1976, p. 215.

  13. Cf. D. Nohlen, F. Nuscheler (eds.): Handbuch der Dritten Welt (Handbook of the Third World), 4 volumes, Hamburg 1974–1978, A. Boeckh: Interne Konsequenzen externer Abhängigkeit (Internal consequences of external dependence), Meisenheim 1979, and other analyses in: M. Mols, D. Nohlen, P. Waldmann (eds.), series: TRANSFINES—Studien zu Politik und Gesellschaft des Ausiandes, Meisenheim.

  14. Cf. H.-J. Puhle’s reader, op. cit., Lateinamerika. Historische Realität und Dependencia-Theorien, Hamburg 1977, p. 50, his introduction and, in particular, the essay by H. Sautter: Unterentwicklung und Abhängigkeit als Ergebnisse außenwirtschaftilcher Verflechtung Zum ökonomischen Aussagewert der Dependencia-Theorie (Under development and dependence as results of external economic ramifications On the economic relevance of the dependencia theory), p. 61ff.

  15. Cf. J. S. Valenzuela, A. Valenzuela, op. cit., Modernization and Dependency. Alternative Perspectives in the Study of Latin American Underdevelopment, in: Comparative Politics, July 1978, p. 550.

  16. Cf., amongst others, D. E. Apter: The Politics of Modernization, Chicago/London 1965: D. Lerner: The Passing of Traditional Society, Glencoe 1958.

  17. Cf., amongst others, O. Sunkel, P. Paz: El subdesarrollo latino-americano y la teoria del desarrollo (The Latin American underdevelopment and the development theory), Mexico 1970, p. 6.

  18. H. C. F. Mansilla Entwicklung als Nachahmung Zu elner kritischen Theorie der Modernisierung (Development as emulation. On a critical theory of mocernization) Me senhelm 1973

  19. Cf. J. A. Silva Michelena: Diversities among Dependent Nations. An Overview of Latin American Developments, in: S. N. Eisenstadt, S. Rokkan (eds.), op. cit. Vol. 2, p. 245. Building States and Nations, Vol. 1. Beverly Hills/London 1973,

  20. H. C. F. Mansilla, op. cit., p. 92. Entwicklung als Nachahmung. Zu elner kritischen Theorie der Modernisierung (Development as emulation. On a critical theory of modernization) Me senhelm 1978

  21. Cf. A. Boeckh, op. cit., Interne Konsequenzen externer Abhängigkeit (Internal consequences of external dependence), Meisenheim 1979, and other analyses in: M. Mols, D. Nohlen, P. Waldmann (eds.), series: TRANSFINES—Studien zu Politik und Gesellschaft des Ausiandes, Meisenheim. p. 61ff.

  22. Cf., e. g., T. Dos Santos: Dependencia económica y camble revolucionario en América Latina (Economic dependency and revolutionary change in Latin America), Caracas 1970; H. R. Sonntag (ed.): Lateinamerika: Faschismus oder Revolution (Latin America: fascism or revolution), Berlin 1974.

  23. Cf., e. g., H. Buscher, op. cit., Handlungsorientierung, Bezugsgruppenerwartungen und Erkenntnisfortschritt in der Enwicklungstheorie (Action orientation, group expectations and epistemological progress in the development theory), in: Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie, 31st year, 1979, p. 46ff.

  24. F. Nuscheler: Modernisierung—Entwicklung—Industrialisierung (Modernization—development—industrialization), in: Grundprobleme der Entwicklungsländer und der Entwicklungspolitik (II), Vortragsreihe des Akademischen Ausfandsamtes der Technischen Universität Berlin, Berlin 1978, p. 34.

  25. H. C. F. Mansilla, op. cit. Entwicklung als Nachahmung Zu ener kritischen Theorie der Modernisierung (Development as emulation. On a critical theory of modernization), Me senhelm 1978, p. 129.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute for Political Science of Heidelberg University, Heidelberg

    Dieter Nohlen

Authors
  1. Dieter Nohlen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Additional information

The article is a revised version of a lecture given by the author in January 1979 at the invitation of the Geographical Institute of Heidelberg University.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Nohlen, D. Modernization and dependence. Intereconomics 15, 81–86 (1980). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02928583

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02928583

Keywords

Search

Navigation