Political Development
Political Development is a difficult term to define, as a nation’s prosperity can be difficult to inventory; in many instances, a small network of institutional rulers benefit at the expense of the entire nation, (Dickovick, J.T., p. 98). The term “development” is defined the by Oxford Dictionary of Politics as “a normative concept referring to a multidimensional process… customarily translated into improvements in certain social indicators and indicators of the (physical) quality of life, such as life expectancy,” (Oxford, Loc. 9340). Citing North and South Korea, J. Tyler Dickovick writes of the difficulty that lies in the discernment of what exactly qualifies as development; “[s]ome countries are incredibly rich and give their citizens high ‘capability’ to achieve the ends they set for themselves, and others are poor, leaving their citizens with far fewer resources and opportunities,” (Dickovick, J.T., p. 98). While it may be difficult to discern what exactly qualifies development, historian J. Tyler Dickovick expounds, “[t]he simplest indicator of a country’s economic development is how much the economy produces, or how much income its people earn,” Dickovick, J. T., p. 99). Beyond production, there are four distinct theories that can be used to compartmentalize development into specific categories, and draw specificity to its origin.
Both the Dependency Theory and the Modernization Theory remain points of contention among political comparativists; on one hand, dependency offers a rational explanation; while modernization asserts that economic development leads to democracy. J Tyler Dickovick elaborates, writing that the Dependency Theory “holds that low-income countries will remain in a subordinate economic position relative to wealthy countries, depending on markets in the rich world as a place to sell their low-value goods while importing high-value goods from those rich countries,” (Dickovick, J.T., p. 113); while the Modernization Theory remains a central matter of debate, and reserves that “economic development facilitates democratization and democratic consolidation,” (Dickovick, J.T., pp. xviii, 133). Neither dependency nor modernization can be fully attributable in all instances of development; the external progress of a nation is often misrepresentative of the civic morale and the general welfare of its citizens. The Oxford Handbook of Political Development’s José Antonio Cheibub et al., cites Seymour Martin Lipset’s 1959 study as the first to demonstrate modernization theory, (Lancaster, C., p. 4). PEW Research Center writes that “[i]n an influential 1959 article, the political sociologist Seymour Martin Lipset found that wealthier countries had a higher likelihood of sustaining democracy; writers, researchers, and policymakers have been debating his findings ever since,” (PEW). Cheibub cites opposition to modernization theory was “persuasively argued by Samuel Huntington (1968), the politicization of rural, poor, and illiterate societies was as likely to lead to political conflict as to political harmony; and charismatic figures and mass parties proved more likely to create authoritarian than democratic regimes,” adding that “[i]t was Vietnam that marked the eclipse of modernization theory,” (Lancaster, C., p.65). Carnegie Endowment for International Peace declares Huntington’s 1968 Political Order in Changing Societies to be “the last major attempt to write a general theory of political development,” (CarnegieEndowment). According to historian James Mahoney et al., the rise of dependency theory originated from Marxism; its proponents criticize modernization theory as a one-size-fits-all path to modernity, (Lancaster, C., p. 23). Political comparativists assert that both Dependency Theory and Modernization Theory are Theory Frames; in that they exist as templates whose specificities lie dependent on the context, variables, and history, (Lancaster, C., p. 25).
The four categories are market versus state institutions; institutionalism, both historic and rational; cultural values; and domestic and international structures, (Dickovick, J.T., p. 106).
First, are institutions in “the role of the market and the state in promoting development,” J.T. Dickovick, p. 108). These institutions are either market-led or state-led. In market-led, J. Tyler Dickovick adds that market-led development the individual decisions of free economic agents ensure the proper allocation of resources; whereas state-led development requires state involvement in the economy to create self-sustaining growth, (Dickovick, J.T., p. 105). These cannot exist independently; in esse proponents of market-led development require the existence of a state; whereby advocates of state-led developments refute totalitarian rule, without a free market, (Dickovick, J.T., p. 106).
Second, is institutionalism itself; this includes both rational and historical institutionalism. Rational institutionalism defines the outcome of policy, utilizing the previous debate of free market versus state-controlled, (Dickovick, J.T., p. 108). Historical institutionalism uses consequences over time; this depends of other factors as how and when they were formed, and what contributions the institution implements accordingly.
Third, “cultural values;” play an immense role in development; so much that scholars will often include cultural values into their definition of what specifically constitutes development. Dickovick writes that the public square, referred to as “civic society,” is a space to engage in “social exchange and public deliberation,” one that is not fully controlled by the state. In the contemporary age, that notion is drastically changing with the onslaught of individual privacy through means of intrusive surveillance; facilitating a persistent state of fear and the development of crises is a fruitful endeavor for big government, as the rapid expansion of wireless technology continues. Social capital is defined by J. Tyler Dickovick as an “advantage that individuals or groups hold by virtue of their social relationships,” (Dickovick, J.T., p. 110).
Fourth, “the domestic and international structures that condition development, including a country’s place in the international system,” (Dickovick, J.T., p. 105). This includes a nation’s geographic limitations and advantages; those closer to the sea may experience greater trade than those landlocked, (Dickovick, J.T., p. 114). Geography may give a nation an advantage in cultivating particular agriculture or obtaining natural resources, while other geographically disadvantaged nations must rely on trade in order to gain access to these resources. This also includes the necessity of becoming a part of the international system connected to all nations.
Utility is another theory to a nation’s development; J. Tyler Dickovick writes that it is “[u]tility [that] gives a notion of the value people derive from consuming or having access to that which pleases them,” (Dickovick, J.T., p. 102). By the theory of utility, citizens will always choose what provides them with greater utility, or means of personal value through satisfaction.
Xinjiang represents an example of the difficulty of defining development, the city of a vital component to China’s development and Belt and Road Initiative its rapid expansion over the past decade has led to U.S. tycoons like Elon Musk to open factories in this region, (Reuters). However, according to the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), “[t]he Chinese government has reportedly arbitrarily detained more than a million [Uyghur] Muslims in reeducation camps since 2017,” these ethnically detained individuals are positioned in factors where they are subjected to forced labor (laogai) to reeducate themselves with Chinese Communist Party (CCP) thought. Instances like this resemble the difficulty in discerning whether or not political development has occurred.
In order to gain an accurate depiction of a nation’s development, the political comparativist must ensure not to jump to conclusions built off personal opinion; J Tyler Dickovick reminds us that “[w]ith the intent of developing your skills as a [political] comparativist, we will not conclude by saying which answer is ‘correct.’ Instead, we offer two observations.” Therefore, it remains even more analytic whether a nation can be considered to be “developed,” or if political “development” has occurred at all. In Psalms we are reminded of development as God defines the origin of the term; as Psalms 90:12 (CSB) reads “[t]each us to number our days carefully, so that we may develop wisdom in our hearts.” Only then can man truly understand the nature of development, whether be it political or economic; its origin begins supernaturally.
Conclusion
Decades later, the source of a nation’s development remains debatable. While modernization theory has been debated to its own demise, there still exists some validity to its framework. Nations that cannot afford the means to sustain their own population are likely to have a more difficult time securing their own state of democracy. As Huntington displayed, totalitarian regimes are likely to assert authority in developing nations that receive foreign aid, without proper structures in place; North Korea and China are two examples. Dependency theory places contingent reliance on national resources; rather than innovating new methods to implement modernization, nations are left to rely on international systems of hierarchy to shape their government’s methodology. In both instances, the developing nation is left subservient to those already developed; and relies fully on external means to facilitate democracy. Lipset’s analysis that democracy derives from a nation’s wealth, negates the influence of nefarious forces of self-interest; yet provides the Theory Frame for the path to democratization for the modern age. Nations like Iran have found democracy through revolution, yet their population remains divided. These theories show there are far more variables to a nation attain democracy, yet each Theory Frame provides a platform for expounding each position in context to a nation’s need. It is through comparative politics we are able to grasp the origin of each nation’s development and further predict the means to achieving a lasting state of democracy.
–September 28th, 2023
Bibliography
Carnegieendowment. (Accessed on September 28th, 2023). Samuel Huntington's Legacy - Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. https://carnegieendowment.org/2011/01/05/samuel-huntington-s-legacy-pub-42242.
Dickovick, J. T. et al. (2018). Comparative Politics: Integrating Theories, Methods, and Cases, 3rd Edition. [VitalSource Bookshelf 10.3.1]. Retrieved from vbk://9780190086305
CFR. (Accessed on September 26th, 2023). China’s Repression of Uyghurs in Xinjiang | Council on Foreign Relations. https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/china-xinjiang-uyghurs-muslims-repression-genocide-human-rights
Lancaster, C. et al. (2018). The Oxford Handbook of the Politics of Development (Oxford Handbooks). Oxford University Press: New York, NY; Sheridan Books, Inc.
Pew. (Accessed on September 28th, 2023). The Global Middle Class | Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2009/02/12/the-global-middle-class/.
Psalms 90:12 (CSB)
Reuters. (Accessed on September 27th, 2023). U.S. lawmakers call Tesla expansion in Xinjiang 'misguided' | Reuters. https://www.reuters.com/world/china/us-lawmakers-call-tesla-expansion-xinjiang-misguided-2022-01-20/.