Since the 1970s, strong critiques of developmentalism—especially modernization theory—have emerged. Latin American thinkers argued that underdevelopment was not merely an initial stage, but the product of an exploitative global structure.
PELAKITA.ID – Developmentalism is one of the major streams in the social sciences, especially sociology, that places development at the center of social change.
It emerged after World War II, when many newly independent countries in Asia, Africa, and Latin America sought ways to catch up with the West. In this context, sociology provided a theoretical framework for understanding how societies evolve, what the indicators of progress are, and what roles the state and social actors play in this process.
However, developmentalism is not a single, unified current. On the one hand, there were modernization theorists who believed that all societies could move through linear stages toward modernity.
On the other hand, critiques arose from dependency theory and world-systems theory, which viewed development as an unequal relationship between the core and the periphery. This article examines three major currents: modernization, the developmental state, and structural critique.
Historical Roots: From Comte to Positivist Sociology
Ideas about social progress had already appeared in the 19th century. Auguste Comte, the father of sociology, introduced the law of three stages: theological, metaphysical, and positive. For Comte, societies move linearly toward more rational and scientific forms. Although he did not yet speak of economic development, Comte’s ideas laid the foundation that social change could be understood as a universal, stepwise process.
For example, Comte’s framework was later used implicitly in colonial and postcolonial discourses, where “traditional” societies were often seen as existing in earlier stages of development, waiting to be guided toward a more ‘positive’ or scientific stage by modernization programs.
This tradition was later inherited by early 20th-century sociologists who regarded Western modernization as the ultimate point of progress. This was the seed of developmentalism that flourished after World War II.
Modernization Theory: The Linear Path to Progress
The main wave of developmentalism came through modernization theory in the 1950s–1970s. Its leading thinkers included Talcott Parsons, Walt W. Rostow, Daniel Lerner, Alex Inkeles, and Marion Levy Jr.
-
Talcott Parsons, through his functionalist theory, saw society as a system that becomes increasingly differentiated. Modernization meant the emergence of new institutions that were more rational and efficient.
For instance, Parsons interpreted the U.S. political and educational systems as examples of advanced differentiation, in which specialized institutions ensured both stability and innovation. -
Walt W. Rostow, in The Stages of Economic Growth (1960), introduced five stages of development: traditional society, preconditions for take-off, take-off, drive to maturity, and age of mass consumption. This model emphasized development as a universal path.
His stages were famously used to frame U.S. foreign policy in the 1960s, for example in Vietnam, where policymakers believed American aid and investment would push the country through the “take-off” stage toward modernization. -
Daniel Lerner, in The Passing of Traditional Society (1958), highlighted the role of mass media, urbanization, and political participation in transforming traditional values into modern ones.
His fieldwork in Turkey illustrated how exposure to radio and newspapers correlated with greater political awareness and willingness to embrace modern values. -
Alex Inkeles and David Smith emphasized the emergence of the “modern man”—an individual with rational, open, and participatory attitudes.
In their comparative surveys across six countries, factory workers exposed to industrial discipline were found more likely to develop modern attitudes such as punctuality, trust in science, and civic participation. -
Marion Levy Jr. interpreted traditional societies as “incomplete” versions of modern societies, so development was simply a matter of closing the gap.
For example, Levy compared family and kinship structures in Japan with those in the United States, arguing that Japan’s rapid postwar modernization showed how societies could move from “incomplete” to “complete” forms.
Within this framework, development was synonymous with westernization. Postcolonial nations were considered in need of imitating Western institutions in order to advance. However, this approach was soon criticized for being overly deterministic and neglecting contextual diversity.
The Developmental State: The Role of the State in Modernization
Alongside modernization theory, another approach emerged that emphasized the role of the developmental state.
-
Samuel Huntington, in Political Order in Changing Societies (1968), stressed that modernization could generate instability if not accompanied by strong political institutions. For Huntington, stability was more important than liberal democracy.
He pointed to postcolonial Africa, where rapid expansion of political participation without robust institutions often led to coups and authoritarian backlashes. -
Gunnar Myrdal, a Swedish economist and sociologist, argued that Asian development required active state intervention. In Asian Drama (1968), he emphasized the problems of inequality, poverty, and the need for centralized planning.
Myrdal highlighted India as a case where laissez-faire approaches were inadequate, arguing that strong planning institutions were essential to break cycles of poverty and caste-based inequality.
This stream provided legitimacy for East Asian countries such as South Korea, Taiwan, and Japan, which later became known for their successful developmental state model. In this view, the state was not merely a spectator but a key actor driving industrialization, investment, and redistribution.
Structural Critique: Dependency and World-Systems
Since the 1970s, strong critiques of developmentalism—especially modernization theory—have emerged. Latin American thinkers argued that underdevelopment was not merely an initial stage, but the product of an exploitative global structure.
-
Andre Gunder Frank, with dependency theory, argued that peripheral countries could not simply imitate the West, since economic dependency kept them underdeveloped. International trade relations created “metropolis-satellite” dynamics that perpetuated inequality.
Frank often cited Latin American economies like Brazil or Chile, where raw material exports enriched the industrialized North but left local societies dependent and unequal. -
Fernando Henrique Cardoso and Enzo Faletto refined this theory by emphasizing the internal dynamics of developing countries, including the role of local elites allied with foreign capital.
In their analysis of Brazil, they showed how domestic industrial elites often collaborated with multinational corporations, ensuring that growth benefited a small class while reinforcing structural dependence. -
Immanuel Wallerstein, through world-systems theory, viewed global capitalism as a system composed of core, semi-periphery, and periphery. Development in one region often meant underdevelopment in another.
Wallerstein’s historical example was the rise of Western Europe in the 16th century, which was made possible by extracting surplus from peripheral regions such as Eastern Europe and Latin America.
These critiques shook the foundations of developmentalism. Whereas modernization saw development as a universal path, dependency highlighted it as an unequal, exploitative relationship.
Contemporary Relevance
Despite extensive criticism, the legacy of developmentalism remains alive. East Asian countries are often cited as evidence of the success of the developmental state model. On the other hand, the failures of many African and Latin American countries demonstrate that linear modernization does not always apply.
In contemporary sociology, developmentalism is approached with greater caution. New perspectives—such as sustainable development theory, postcolonial studies, and globalization—attempt to synthesize lessons from modernization and dependency. The central question remains the same: how can societies progress without falling into dependency or exploitation?
***
Developmentalism in sociology reflects the intellectual struggle to define the meaning of development. From Comte’s emphasis on social stages, to Parsons and Rostow with modernization theory, to Huntington and Myrdal with the developmental state, and finally Frank and Wallerstein with structural critiques—all have contributed to this long-standing debate.
For developing countries, understanding this legacy is crucial to avoid the determinism of modernization or the pessimism of dependency. Contemporary development sociology demands approaches that are more plural, contextual, and sustainable. In this way, development can be understood not as merely imitating the West, but as creating one’s own path suited to the needs of society.