A small article on modernization theory for social scientists like me.

1. Modernization Theory, Strengths and Weaknesses
By Watila
Development is an elusive concept to define. It is not simply an increase in
the Gross Domestic Product (GDP). It is rather multidimensional and there
are no universally accepted approaches which can work as a utility and
panacea for development. Development encompasses the advancement of
agriculture, village and cottage industries, the socio-economic
infrastructure, human resources, community services, human rights and the
political environment.
Phenomenally, development is the end result of the interactions between
various physical, technological, economic, social, cultural and political
institutional factors (Singh, 1999). The thrust of this paper is however, not
on definition of terms but a chronicle of the modernization theory, its basic
tenants and its critical appreciation in the development context of the third
world countries. In development discourse the modernization movement of
the 1950s and 1960s is an economic theory that is rooted in capitalism.
The concept of modernization incorporates the full spectrum of the
transition and drastic transformation that a traditional society has to
undergo in order to become modern (Hussain et al., 1981). Modernization
is about Africa following the developmental footsteps of Europe. According
to modernity, policies intended to raise the standard of living of the poor
often consist of disseminating knowledge and information about more
efficient techniques of production. The modernization theory assumes a
total change of policies intended to raise the standard of living of the poor
often consist of disseminating knowledge and information about more
efficient techniques of production. For instance , the agriculture
modernization process involves encouraging farmers to try new crops, new
production methods and new marketing skills (Ellis and Biggs, 2001). In
general, modernization led to the introduction of hybrids, the greenhouse
technology, genetically modified (GMO) food,

2. use of artificial fertilizers, insecticides, tractors and the application of other
scientific knowledge to replace traditional agricultural practices.
Smith (1973, 61) pointed out that modernization is about exchanging of
older agriculture practices with something more recent. It therefore, suffice
that modernization theory is a unilinear process by which a society has to
go through in order to develop. In this vein, the modernization theory
assumes that any society goes through various stages of development.
These are the period of primitive society, preparation for take-off, take-off,
drive to maturity and the period of mass consumption. With the above
scheme, it is possible to plot African nations on the linear development
path.
The above view is rather too theoretical. Most economies in Africa invest in
agriculture, manufacturing and tourism. It is therefore not easy to classify
economies into neat categories as suggested by the Rostowian linear
development theory. The linear development paradigm is also shared by
Gabriel (1991) who argues that the basic argument of the movement to
modernity is related to the increase in the so called modern values of
production such as automation, the use of computers, specialization, and
application of science in production of economic goods and services.
Modernity theorists believe that nations advance to modernity at different
paces depending on their adaptability and versatility. There is an element
of truth in the above idea. However, it must also be appreciated that wars,
conflict, natural disasters and pandemics may force poor countries to move
back and forth on their way to development. The recent devastating
political conflict in Zimbabwe and the current conflict in Libya and Sudan
have robbed the

3. nations of their development gains. The above idea demonstrates that the
road to development is not always smooth; it has ups and downs (Matunhu,
2011).
Modernization theory has shown a lot of backdrops both in theory and
practice. One, it assumes a top down approach to development or it
emphasizes the concentration of development in metropolitan centres and
the peripheral cities will benefit through a “trickle-down effect”. In addition,
the modernists also pointed out that the developed nations should be the
lighthouse by which all developing countries should look up to in
developing their nations. Modernists erroneously present the development
theory as a dichotomous movement from an original terminal situation to an
achieved situation with the help of the developed countries as Sachs
(1992:1 in Matunhu 2011) writes: “Like a towering lighthouse guiding
sailors towards the coast, development stood as the idea which oriented
emerging nations in their journey through post war history. . . the countries
of the south proclaimed modernization as their primary aspiration after they
had been freed from colonial domination”. This therefore created a
dependency syndrome since third world countries depended on aid from
outside.
The modernization theory was a “one-size-fit all” which did not take into
consideration the conditions which existed in Europe and America during
their time of development and the conditions in third world countries. In I
will Marry When I Want where Ngugi rhetorically asks “since when did a
person try to build his hut exactly like his neighbor?” Ngugi presents an
argument against the alleged universal applicability of the Modernization
Theory. The analogy is insightful in that it contests the fallacy that two or
more societies or races can have the same solutions to their social
problems when they have different cultures and histories. Ngugi is

4. contending that trajectories to modernity will invariably be different because
of these historical and cultural nuances (Ngugi, 1981; Moyo and Gonye
2011, 91). For example, the hybrid maize crops which were brought to
Zambia under the GTZ organization did not suit the soils and the aid turned
into an appalling fiasco. This rather compromised the livelihoods because
the cassava crop was destroyed and replaced by the new hybrid maize
crop.
The systems theory also criticizes modernization theory as creating
dependency and exploitation of the poor. The core countries exploit the
poor periphery countries (Wallerstein, 1970) Another deficiency of
modernization theory and the reason why it is not relevant to third world
countries is that the theory is criticized for failing to consider the poor as the
centerpiece in poverty reduction initiatives. By ignoring the involvement and
participation of the target community, modernity achieves the
marginalization of their commitment, creativity and support of the
intervention strategies. The intervention strategy becomes an imposed
strategy and such a strategy fails to construct adequate notions of both the
causal powers of social structures and the role of human agency in shaping
social relations in general (Mlambo, 1997).
The most notable weakness of the modernization theory is its
oversimplified view of social change (Coetzee et al., 2007: 101). Human
nature has a propensity to resist change in favour of the status quo.
Change is resisted because it brings in elements of uncertainty. For
instance development strategies such as New Partnership for Africa‟s
Development (NEPAD) were drafted, packaged and sent to Africa for
implementation. Because of its elitist nature, NEPAD has received
condemnation from many African Heads of States and Government. The
post-

5. colonial states in the continent need to engineer a new theory to socioeconomic prosperity of Africa.
The other intriguing weaknesses of the modernization theory is that it is
based on deterministic reason which states that within the linear model of
socio-economic development, changes are initiated externally. The
determinist reason gives little room for the reciprocal relationship between
causation from within the developing region and from outside the
developing region. The premise encourages the foreign powers to
prescribe the route to Africa‟s development. For instance, in the 1980s
Africa was victim of the failed IMF-imposed economic structural adjustment
programme (ESAP). The ESAP project failed because it was developed
with a total disregard of the cultural, social, political and traditional values of
the recipient countries. Broadly expressed, the ESAP project was a
„Eurocentric‟ experiment which failed to pull the continent out of poverty
and underdevelopment (Kanyenze, 2003). Simply put, ESAP created the
new millennium poor person of Zimbabwe. Between 20 500 and 30 000
persons were retrenched by 1994 (Mlambo, 1997). Western creditors
convinced the government to disregard the plight of the multiplying
retrenchees, who themselves instinctively turned to their women and
children for additional sustenance. This indirectly increased pressure on the
poor rural lands (Muzondidya, 2009: 189).
Ideas of modernization impoverished Africa. The theory failed to recognize
the creativity and initiative of the Africans. Instead it places value on
externally sourced aid without attending to the inhibiting conditionalities
attached to such aid. The failure of the theory to attend to such
conditionalities may demonstrate the hidden hand behind the metropolitan
states‟ application of

6. the theory to Africa. The theory‟s emphasis on the supremacy of the
metropolis in the development of Africa is a cause of concern in
contemporary discourse on Africa‟s development. It is this supremacy of
the metropolis that altered Africa‟s superstructure of beliefs and value
system. According to Rodney (1972), the colonial conquest that followed
the 1884 to 1885‟s Berlin Conference (partition of Africa) established a
comprehensive economic and political domination of Africa by the West.
Africa‟s endogenous development path was discarded in favour of an
„external driven development path‟ which was and is still manipulated by
the metropolis. There has to be a paradigm shift if Africa is to reclaim its
right to chat a new way to development.
Sustainability and participatory issues were left out in modernization theory
both in its theory and practice. The emphasis on metropolitan centres to
spearhead development shows that the local people who are direct actors
and not recipients of development were not involved in the identification of
problems, planning, formulation, implementation, monitoring and
evaluation. Hence, this theory was an alien and is still an alien to the third
world countries. Sustainability issues are just but an insult on the injury.
Development projects under modernization theories did not take into
account the continuity after the aid and there was no provision for self drive
for development. Moreover, the modernization approach failed to recognize
the local indigenous knowledge systems for comprehensive development
strategies which will spur sustainable livelihoods (Mararike, 2011).
In conclusion, the above essay has interrogated the modernization theory
by highlighting its major assumptions, its applicability in the third world
countries and the major weaknesses

7. aligned to it. The theory has shown that it is a one size fit all and does not
take into account participants as directors of development. Moreso,
Sustainability is a dominant deficiency both in theory and practice. The
theory is entirely an economic measure of development which assumes the
development of the economy particularly the Gross Domestic Product
(GDP) will eventually spiral down to the last person in the development
ladder. This economic growth does not imply economic development,
technological advancement, human rights advancement and democracy, or
social and cultural progress. In fact, this theory has led to massive
exploitation and expropriation of the poor countries by the rich. In essence,
modernization theory has shown that it is borrowed from foreigners and is
not applicable both in theory and practice and this is evidenced by a series
of approaches developed after it such as the actor oriented approach,
participatory development and sustainable development.

8. REFERENCES
Coetzee KJ, Graaf J, Heindricks F, Wood G (2007). Development: Theory,
Policy and Practice. Cape Town: Oxford University Press.
Ellis F, Biggs S (2001). Development Policy Review, 19(4): 437-448.
Gabriel T (1991). The Human Factor in Rural Development. London:
Belhaven Press
Hussain A, Tribe K (1981). Marxism and the Agrarian Question: German
Social Democracy and the Peasantry 1890-1907. Hong Kong: MacMillain
Press Ltd.
Kanyenze, G (2003). “The Performance of the Zimbabwean Economy,
1980-2000” in Darnolf S, Laakso (Eds). Twenty Years of Independence in
Zimbabwe: From Liberation to
Authoritarianism. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan Mararike, C. G (2011)
Survival Strategies in Rural Zimbabwe: The Role of Assets, Indigenous
Knowledge and Organizations. 2nd Ed. (1st Ed pub in 1999) Harare, Best
Practices Books
Matunhu, J (2011). A critique of modernization and dependency theories in
Africa: Critical assessment. African Journal of History and Culture Vol. 3(5),
pp. 65-72, June 2011
Mlambo, A.S (1997). The Economic Structural Adjustment Programme:
The Case of Zimbabwe, 1990-1995. Harare: University of Zimbabwe
Publications

9. Moyo, T and Gonye, J (2011) Apemanship: A critique of the modernization
theory in Ngugi‟ s selected works and Clement Chihota‟ s”Shipwreck” in
No More Plastic Balls. Journal of English and literature Vol. 2(4), pp. 89-95,
May 2011
Muzondidya J (2009). “From Buoyancy to Crisis, 1980-1997” in
Raftopoulos, B, Mlambo A. (Eds). Becoming Zimbabwe: A History from the
Pre-colonial Period to 2008. Harare: Weaver Press. Ngugi, W (1981).
Writers in Politics: A Re-engagement with issues of literature and society.
Oxford: James Currey.
Rodney, W (1972) How Europe Underdeveloped Africa, Washington, D.C.
Howard University Press
Singh K (1999), Rural Development: Principles Policies and Management,
Sage Publications, New Delhi
Smith AD (1973). The Concept of Social Change. London: Routledge and
Kjegab Paul.
Wallerstein, I. (1974). The modern World System I: Capitalist Agriculture
and the Origins of the European World-Economy in the Sixteenth Century.
New York: Academic Press.

10. NAME:
CHUPICAL SHOLLAH MANUEL
ASSIGNMENT QUESTION: Critically discuss the relevance of the
modernization or dependency theory to development in Third world
countries.