Professional Documents
Culture Documents
of Development*
By Henry Bemsteint
SUMMARY
The focus of this article is methodological and macro-sociological. Its
purpose is to disentangle some of the issues which arise in the sociology
of development, and to question the assumptions and implications of a
particular mode of conceptualization based on the notions of modermty
and modernization which has provided the charactenstic theoretical frame-
work of the sociology of development. The principal assumptions of
modernization theory as understood here-often enough made explicit
by those who use this approach-are (I) that modernization is a total
social process associated with (or subsuming) economic development in
terms of the preconditions, concomitants, and consequences of the latter;
(2) that this process constitutes a 'universal pattern'. Obviously among
various writers there are differences of emphasis with respect to the
meaning of modernization, partly due to Its relationship with-or deriva-
tion from-that most contentious concept 'development'. For Lerner
modernization is 'the social process of which development is the economic
component' (Lerner, 1967, p. 21); while Apter sees development, modern-
ization and industrialization as terms of decreasing conceptual generality
(Apter, 1967, pp. 67-9). Some writers stress structural aspects while for
others 'the concept of modernization has to do with a transformation of
culture and of personality in so far as it is influenced by culture, rather
than of some aspect of social organization or of human ecology' (Stephen-
son, 1968, p. 265). It is hoped that the following discussion is both specific
enough to convey the essential aspects of the type of theory under review,
and flexible enough to allow for some of the variants on the basic theme
m what is a highly condensed survey of a substantial body of literature. 1
The critical approach adopted reflects certain ideas about societies and
hence the questions social scientists should ask; these preoccupations
cannot be discussed fully within present limits but are indicated in the
suggestions contained in the concluding section. The first section serves
to outline the context in which the concept of development studies arose.
This is followed by a schematic outline of the central concepts and
conceptual procedures of the sociology of development, and more specifi-
cally of modernization theory, which are then criticized on a number of
counts. These criticisms lead on to an argument for the use of a historical
perspective-moreover, one which results in a re-examination of the
concept of underdevelopment, relating it to the expansion of Western
The author would like to thank Rita Cruise O'Brien and Leslie SkJairfor encourag-
ing him to commit to paper his views on this subject, and Ronald Dore and Donal
Cruise O'Brien for their extensive comments on an earlier draft.
t Lecturer in interdisCIplinary Studtes at the University of Kent, Canterbury. This
article waswritten while the author wasa Research Assistant, Institute of Development
Stu4ies, Sussex.
142 JOURNAL OF DEVELOPMENT STUDIES
capitalism and the effects of this process on the diverse indigenous societies
of what is now called the Third World. The relationships of dependence
and exploitation created by the process are exemplified in the colonial
situation as narrowly defined though this is by no means the only situation
characterized by such relationships. This perspective, developed in the
work of certain political economists, can serve as the basis of a sociological
approach which would prove more fruitful both in understanding the
nature of underdevelopment itself, and in assessing the range of possibili-
ties of development in the Third World, than that generally employed in
the sociology of development at present.
... would awake isolated peasant minds to new possibilities, tie Japan
into a world exchange economy, stimulate new appetites requiring new
industries and expanded trade to satisfy, improve the quality of peasant
as well as technician, instil loyalty so that government can rule benignly
rather than harshly; in short, it would lay the basis for prosperity and
prestige among the nations of the world (Passin, 1965, p. 1).
of the major forms this study has assumed which are divorced from
problems of economic development. Lionel Tiger has suggested that 'the
considerable scholarly attention . . . focused on problems of political
integration' has been prompted by 'reasons as much connected with
Cold War politics as anything else' (Tiger, 1967, p. 189). This point can
be expanded in that in the West the conflict with the socialist countries,
whether the U.S.S.R., China, Cuba or North Vietnam, is conventionally
expressed in political terms, i.e. democracy or freedom vs. totalitarianism,
even when this involves including the right kind of military dictatorship in
the 'free world' and sacrificingsome of the specificallyparliamentary conno-
tations of democracy." In addition, an alternative politically derived
definition of modern status was useful in a development decade character-
ized by a general failure to achieve economic targets. IS Finally, in a period
marked by the imagery of independence, decolonization and national
self-assertion, it may not have been discreet to preach the virtues of
capitalism as a way of life to the governments of former colonies, most of
which at least proclaimed some form of socialism.u.
(3) Reductionism
One apparent means of avoiding the ethnocentrism of historically
specific models of modernization is to universalize certain traits at the
level of personality mechanisms. In this way the type of innovative and
dynamic personality designated is not necessarily tied to any particular
set of economic, social and political institutions, such as those of Western
capitalist development, but can be identified in a number of different
contexts. This approach is found in an extreme form in McClelland's
concept of 'the need for Achievement' or n. ach, which denotes 'a desire
to do well, not so much for the sake of social recognition or prestige, but
to attain an inner feeling of personal accomplishment' (McClelland, 1963,
p. 76 and passim). McClelland's formulation produces what may be called
a moral (as opposed to a hedonistic) theory of entrepreneurship which
still embraces the market-oriented acquisitive activity of capitalist society,
but also claims to be able to explain the advances made by the Soviet
Union and China in terms of rising levels of n. ach. Depsite the sophisti-
cated techniques used to analyse a wide range of data, at a more fund-
amental level McClelland's theory is riddled with contradictions. In the
first place it is subject to the logical criticism of reductionism which is
that the attributes of social structures and processes cannot be derived
MODBRNIZAl1ON THEOllY AND STUDY OF DEVELOPMENT 149
from statements about individuals.II Furthermore, McClelland makes an
unwarranted leap from correlation to a causal explanation of economic
development, this being facilitated by his lack of any social or historical
perspective (Rhodes, 1968, p. 393 and passim). Despite the obligatory
nod in the direction of Weber's thesis the latter's basis in a sociological
and historical method is ignored (Weber, 1930). As need for achievement
is the motivation to comply with internalized standards of excellence,
these are derived necessarily from a given social and cultural context in
the first place. In the final analysis, McClelland cannot avoid relating
changes in the level of n. ach. to the operation of concrete social forces,
including revolutions, even if mediated for him through ideologies-for
which read communism. So, although 'China was politically free under
Chiang Kai-Chek, . . . it lacked the dynamic of a really self-sacrificing
achievement effort until it was taken over by the Communists'. The rest
of the passage is worth quoting as it was directed to a particular audience-
the readers of the Harvard Business Review-and illustrates an alarming
ideological crudity concermng development:
Unless we learn our lesson and find ways of stimulating that drive for
achievement under freedom In poor countries, the Communists will go
on providing it all around the world. We can go on building dikes to
maintain freedom and impoverishing ourselves to feed and arm the people
behind those dikes, but only if we develop the entrepreneurial spirit in
those countries will we have a sound foreign policy. Only then can
they look after their own dikes and become economically self-sufficient
(McClelland, 1964, p, 176).
Even more serious, as a result of their hurried pace, they often disorder
the sequence of Western development (Lerner, 1967, p. 24).
CONCLUSION
In criticizing modernization theory the intention is not to replace one
abstract and rigid schema with another, and the broad generalizations
advanced are not to be understood as the necessary and universally
applicable elements of an ideal type of the colonial situation. Rather the
example ofthe colonial situation is suggested only to illustrate in a summary
way the differences between two sociological approaches and to show how
modernization theory can be stood on its head by a mode of analysis
which (1) approaches the study of development with a historical method;
and (2) is informed by questions more relevant to the pressing needs of
the present situation than those on which modernization theory is predi-
cated, which is to say questions that do not disassociate the common
concern with poverty, illiteracy and unemployment from the structural
analysis of power and exploitation in their various forms. If this approach
can be termed Marxist, all it means is that on the above criteria Marxism
as a perspective in the social sciences displays a potential for the analysis
of the underdeveloped world that is lacking in conventionally more
acceptable procedures. This by no means implies that all analysis termed
MODERNIZATION THIlOllY AND STUDYOF DEVELOPMENT ISS
Marxist or neo-Marxist is either correct or critical: Indeed, the crude
application of Marxism to problems of development often replicates some
of the features of modernization theory which have been criticized here."
However, the proper use of a Marxist method, which is to say, one that is
intrinsically critical, enables the ideological smokescreen of political
'independence' and 'decolonization' to be penetrated; and the kinds of
questions addressed to the colonial situation are seen to bejust as relevant
and necessary for the analysis of underdevelopment and development in
the post-independence setting, such as-who really rules? Who gets what
benefit from ruling? Who will benefit from the overthrow of the existing
system?'3'
NOTES
1. The following cnticisms do not apply to (1) a 'revisionist' formulation such as that
of Nettl and Robertson, 1968, which eschews any reliance on a tradition-modermty
dichotomy; (2) the use of 'traditional' and 'modem' as analytical shorthand for empiri-
cally specified traits in a particular study, as in Vidich and Bensman, 1968; and
Stephenson, 1968, who bases the definition of modernization in any given context on
the perceptions of the subjects under study, arguing that this procedure yields an
empirically meaningful scale of traditionalism and modernism at the expense of a basis
for comparison and any assumption of sets of umversal traits. It is perhaps Significant
that these two studies were concerned with aspects of American society.
2. Quoted in Magdoff, 1969, pp. 116/17. MacNamara was speaking on this occasion
in his role as U.S. Secretary of Defense and not as President of the World Bank.
3. See the pioneering volume edited by Hoselitz, 1952; and the more recent sym-
posium edited by Weiner, 1966, based on a series of talks in the Voice of America
'Forum' series.
4. For a frankly empiricist comment on modernization theory, see Dore, 1969.
5. Hoselitz, 1963; Riggs' 'theory of prismatic SOCIety' is an attempt to counter this
'propensity for dichotomous categories without imaginative intermediate concepts'-
Riggs, 1964, p. 69 and passim.
6. Parsons 1964, 1966; it has pointed out that 'when Professor Parsons turns to
what he calls "total society", he too gives us as unilinear a panorama of evolutionary
change as did any of those evolutiomsts of the nineteenthcentury whom Parsons bas often
erincized for thear monisnc, necessary, and universal schemes' (Nisbet, 1969, p. 227).
The question of the 'convergence' of mdustrial societies IS also relevant here-see
Feldman and Moore, 1962; Weinberg, 1969.
7. Scepticism concermng 'cultural mhibitions' and a call to 'put economic man back
on the stage' are expressed by Anderson, 1963.
8. E.g. 'In the economically more developed nations, economic growth is a self-
sustaining process of continuous mnovation, change, and development. It IS predicated
on a particular view regarding the significance of life on this earth, on the acceptance of
the idea of progress, that is, of a present better than the past and a future potentially
better than the present. It assumes the perfectibility of man and society as a continuous
possibility; it assumes man's ability to control and improve his natural environment,
as well as the legitimacy of man's desire to do so.' Soedjatmoko, 1965, p, xu.
9. See the series Studies in Political Development sponsored by the Committee on
Comparative Politics of the U.S. Social Science Research Council (Princeton, NJ.
1965-); and the preceding volume-Almond and Coleman, 1960.
10. Almond, 1960; Apter 1963a; Pye, 1963; Shils, 1965. It is hardly surprising that
'the AngIo-America.n polities most closely approximate the model of a modern political
system' described by Almond and Shils (Coleman, 1960, p. 533), as this model is denved
from them!
11. With reference to political 'modernization', see Bay, 1969. It is significant that
the branch of political science devoted to the study of political development is often
termed 'comparative politics'-the premises of the evolutionary conception of 'Com-
paratiVf; Method' are examined by NISbet, 1969, Ch. 6.
12. 'Modernity entails democracy, and democracy in the newstates, even where it is
not representative, must above all be egalitarian' Shils, 1962, pp. 9/10.
1S6 JOURNAL OF DEVELOPMENT STtJDIllS
13. nus may reflect as much on the character of the targets as on anything eJse.
Seers. 1970, makes some telling points about the nature of the conventional statistical
ind1c:ators of economic growth.
14. Just how nominal this 'socialism' could be is indicated by the appreciation of Its
expression in the ideas of Senghor and K.enyatta by American ambassadors Mercer
Cook and William Attwood (Senghor, 1964; Attwood, 1967). The 'Colloquium on
Pohcies of Development and AfrIcan Approaches to Social1sm.' held m Dakar in Decem-
ber 1962, represented the early nadir of this 'Ideology'. Jean Lacouture observed that
'The distinction, always somewhat artificial between "revolutionary" and "reformist"
Africa. now seems altogether obsolete.... What is even more strikmg is that nobody
challenged the necessity of calling upon foreign aid and investment'. Quoted in Arrighi
and Saul, 1968, p. 158; see also Zolberg, 1964.
15. For observations on the use of this and other Parsoman pattern variables, see
Frank, 1967, p. 24 ff.
16. See, inter alia, the monographs of Epstein, 1962; Hill, 1963; Belshaw, 1964.
Recent theoretical essays relating to modernization by anthropologists are Belshaw,
1965; Nash, 1966.
17. The notion of different 'routes' to modernity is most clearly seen in the COnstruc-
tion of typologies of modernizing ehtes-this is illustrated with reference to industrial-
ization in Lamb, 1952; and, notably, Kerr et al, 1964. Typologies of regimes have con-
stituted a major analytical tool m the political modernization Iiterarure-c-see Coleman,
1960; Shils, 1965; Apter, 1963b, 1967.
18. Differential economic and financial mechanisms related to 'degrees of backward-
ness' within the pre-1914 European economy are analysed by Gerschenkron, 1952,
1962. Barrington Moore, Jr., 1967, is an outstanding wide-ranging comparative study
which deserves to have a major mfIuence m 'bnnging back history' into the sociology of
development.
19. Rostow, 1967, pp. 162/4; Andreski, 1968, although in this case the characteriza-
tion of what is 'pathological' stems from the idiosycratic and lughly irasCIble perspective
of the author rather than from the dictates of an explicit model of modernizanon,
20. Quoted in Worsley, 1964, p, 52; Kiernan, 1969, provides a wealth of references
in a fascinating historical survey of ethnocentric atutudes, many of which remain
unnemngly familiar,
21. Quoted by Gough, 1969, p. 144. See also Africa. Research Group, 1969; Chomsky,
1969.
22. See the excellent resume by Lukes, 1968. This type of reductionism, of course,
rmhtates against the rationale of any socialscience. The 'SOC1010gISm' ofBmile Durkheim,
for example, expresseda reaction against the analytical individualism of much nineteenth-
century thought.
23. For a theoretical discussion, see Gouldner, 1959.
24. Moore,1963; Bendix, 1963, 1967b. Moore, the foremost American sociologist of
industnalization, IS really a critic within modernization theory, as, say, Robert Merton,
IS within funcnonalism. Bendix IS a historical and comparative sociologist in the
WeberIan tradinon,
25. See, inter alia, Shils and Fmch, 1949; and for interpretations of Weber's meth-
odology, Aron, 1968; Freund, 1968; Parsons, 1968.
26. Parsons, 1968, pp. 601/1O-'The Ideal Type and GeneralIzed Analytical Theory'.
Parsons' cnticlsm of Weber is that the latter was too hesitant to go beyond a certain
level of abstraction.
27. Industrialization, of course, may be the crucial mecbamsm in many cases.
However, there has been a reacnon against the tendency to overemphasize the role of
industrialization-see, for example, Nettl and Robertson, 1968, pp. 38/42.
28. Smelser, 1963; and the comments on the differentiation model by Nettl, 1967,
p.110ff.
29. This tendency m the work of Parsons has been cnticized by, among others,
Lockwood, 1956; Mills, 1959, Ch. 2; van den Berghe, 1967, Ch. 11.
30. Some 'modernizers' themselves have used this argument but looking to the
Soviet Union rather than to the West-for example, Nkrumah, 1963, pp. 166/7.
31. For a CllI1tiOnary statement on Japan, see Dore, 1964.
32. Worsley, 1964, p. 10 and Ch. 1 passim; see also the excellent historical survey by
Barraclough, 1967.
33. Ba1andier, 1963, Ch. 1-'La Notion de "Situation" Coloniale'; also Balandier,
1952.
34. It has been said that intellectually the distance across the Channel is sreater than
MODIlIlNIZATION 1HEOilY AND STUDY OF DEVELOPMENT 157
that across the Atlantic, and this is evident in the differential concern with the meaning
and methods of a bistonc:al sociology. See Lefebvre, 1953: Goldmann, 1969: and the
comments on the former by Same, 1964, pp. 51/2. Lefebvre and Sartre are Cited by
Balanefier with reference to his formulation of the colonial situanon as a histoncal and
total social phenomenon. Among rare statements on behalf of a historical sociology
by those conventionally regarded as sociologists in the Anglo-American concept of the
dtscipline, are Mills, 1959, CIt. 8: Barrington Moore Jr., 1963.
35. See Rhodes, 1968: Frank, 1969; Stavenhagen, 1967; also the interesting critique of
Malmowski's TIre DY1IllIIIics of Culture Clumge by Gluckman, 1947.
36. 'In a colonial state, the source of the SOCIal position of its power holders is, of
course, the metropolitan socio-political system; and any comprehensive analysis would
have to take account of this system' Kilson, 1963, p, 428.
37. Fanon, 1967, p. 120 and passim. See, inter alia, for part of the wide range of
histortcal evidence Rhodes, 1968: Frank, 1969: Barratt Brown, 1970: Arrighi, 1970.
38. See the pertinent comments in a forthcoming piece by Hamza Alavi, 1970.
39. Barrington Moore Jr., 1967: and the reference to his work in Nettl, 1969, p. 28.
REFERENCFS
Africa Research Group, 1969, African Studies in America: the Extended Family,
Cambridge, Mass.
Hamza Alavi (forthcoming), 'The Army and Bureaucracy In Pakistan Pohncs', In A.
Abdel-Malek (ed.), L'Ar",ee dons la Nation, Paris.
Gabnel A. Almond, 1960, 'Introduction: a Functional Approach to Comparative
Politics', in Almond and Coleman.
Gabriel A. Almond and James S. Coleman (eds.), 1960, The Politics of the Developmg
Areas, Princeton, N.J.
C. Arnold Anderson, 1963, 'The Impact of the Educational System on Technological
Change and Modernization', in Hoselitz and Moore.
Stanislav Andreski, 1968, TheAfrican Predicament. A Study in the Pathology ofModern-
isation, London.
David E. Apter, 1963a, Introduction to Part IX, 'Non-Western Government and
Politics', in Eckstein and Apter.
David E. Apter, 1963b, 'Political Religion in the New States', in Clifford Geertz (ed.),
Old Societies and New States. The Quest for Modernity in Asia and Africa, New York.
David E. Apter, 1967, The Politics of Modernization (paperback edmon), Chicago,
Raymond Aron, 1964, The Industnal Socrety (English translation), London.
Raymon Aron, 1968, Main Currents in Sociological Thought, Vol. n (English translation),
London.
G. ArrIghi, 19m, 'Labour Supplies in Historical Perspective: a Study of the Pro-
letarianization of the African Peasantry in Rhodesia', Journal ofDevelopment Studies,
Vol. 6, No.3.
Giovanm Arrighi and John S. Saul, 1968, 'Socialism and Econormc Development in
Africa', Journal of Modern African Studies, Vol. 6, No.2.
William Attwood, 1967, The Reds and the Blacks, London.
Georges Balanefier, 1952, 'Contribution a une Sociologie de la Dependance', Cahiers
Internationaux de Sociologie, Vol. 12.
Georges Balandier, 1963, Sociologie Actuelle de l'A.,{nque Noire (revised edition), Pans.
Geoffrey Barraclough, 1967, An Introduction to Contemporary History, Harmondsworth.
Michacl Barratt Brown, 1970, After Imperio/ism (revised edition), London.
Christian Bay, 1969, 'The Cheerful Science of Dismal Politics', in Roszak.
Cynl S. Belshaw, 1964, Under the Ivi Tree. Society and Economic Growth in Rural Fiji,
London.
Cyril S. Belshaw, 1965, Traditional Exc/uznge and Modern Markets, Englewood Cliffs
N.J.
Reinhard Bendix, 1963, 'Concepts and Generalizations in Comparative Sociological
Studies', American Sociological Review, Vol. 28, No.4.
Reinhard Bendix, 1967a, 'Tradition and Modernity Reconsidered', Comparative
Studies in Society and History, Vol. 9, No.3.
Reinhard Bendix, 1967b, 'The Comparative Analysis of HIstorical Change', in Tom
Burns an J. B. Saul (eds.), Social Theory and Economic Clumge, London.
Noam Chomsky, 1969, AmericanPower and the New Mandarins, Hannondsworth.
Frederick CIairmonte, 1960, Economic Liberalism and Underdevelopment. Studies in the
Disintegration ofan Idea, Bombay.
158 JOUIlNAL OF DEVELOPMENT STUDIfS
James S. Coleman, 1960. 'Conclusion: The Political Systems of the Developing Areas',
in Almond and Coleman.
Isaac Deutscher, 1969, 'Roots of Bureaucracy'. in :Ralph Miliband and John Saville
(eds.), 'I'M SocioJist .Register, 1969. London.
Ronald P. Dore, 1964, 'Japan as a Model of Economic Development', Euro]JeQ1l
Journal of SociololJY, Vol. 5.
Ronald P. Dore, 1969, 'On the Possibility and Desirability of a Theory of Moderniza-
tion', Institute of Development Studies, Communicotions Series, No. 38.
Harry Eckstein and David E. Apter (eds.), 1963, Comparative Politics, New York.
S. N . .Etsensta4t, 1966, Modernization: Protest and Change, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
T. Scarlett Epstein, 1962, Economic Development and SociIIJ Clumge in South India,
Manchester.
Frantz Fanon, 1967, 'I'M Wretched ofthe Earth (English translation). Hannondsworth.
Arnold S. Feldman and Wilbert E. Moore, 1962, 'Industrialization and Industrialism.
Convergence and Differentiation', in TriJ1lSDCtions of the Fifth World Congress of
Sociology, Vol. n, Washington.
Andre Gunder Frank, 1966, 'The Development of Underdevelopment', Monthly
Review, Vol. 18, No.4.
Andre Gunder Frank, 1967, 'Sociology of Development and Underdevelopment of
Sociology', Catalyst (University of Buffalo), No.3.
Andre Gunder Frank, 1969, Capitalism and Underdevelopment in Latin America.
Historical Studies of Chile andBrazil (revised edition), New York.
Julien Freund, 1968, 'I'M Sociology of Max Weber (English translation), London.
Carl J. Friedrich, 1952, 'Some Observations on Weber's Analysis of Bureaucracy'. in
Robert K. Merton et al (eds.), Reader in Bureaucracy, Toronto.
Celso Furtado, 1964, Development and UnderdeveloPment (English translation),
Berkeley, California.
Alexander Gerschenk:ron, 1952, 'Economic Backwardness in Historical Perspective', in
Hoselitz.
Alexander Gerschenk:ron, 1962, 'Typology of Industrial Development as a Tool of
Analysis'. in Second Inter1llltional Conference of Economic History: Aix-en-Provence,
Vol. n, The Hague.
Max Gluckman, 1949, 'Malinowski's "Functional" Analysis of Social Change', Africa,
Vol. 17.
Lucien Goldman, 1969, 'I'M Human Sciences and Philosophy (English translation),
London.
Kathleen Gough, 1969, 'World Revolution and the Science of Man', in Roszak:.
Alvin W. Gouldner, 1959, 'Reciprocity and Autonomy in Functional Theory', in
Llewellyn Gross (ed.), Symposium on Sociological 'I'Mory, New York.
Jamil Hilal, 1970, 'Sociology and Underdevelopment', Department of Social Theory
and Institutions, University of Durham (mimeo).
Polly Hill, 1963, Migrant Cocoa-Farmers ofSouthern Ghana. A Study in Rural Capitalism,
London.
Bert F. Hoselitz (ed.), 1952, 'I'M Progress of Underdeveloped Areas, Chicago.
Bert F. Hosehtz, 1963, 'Main Concepts m the Analysis of the Social Implications of
Technological Change', in Hoselitz and Moore.
Bert F. Hosehtz and Wilbert E. Moore (eds.), 1963, Industrialization and Society,
Paris.
Clark Kerr et al; 1964, Industrialism and IndustrioJ Man, New York.
Martin Kilson, 1963, 'Mncan Political Change and the Modernization Process',
Journal of Modern African Studies, Vol. 1, No.4.
V. G. Kiernan, 1969, 'I'M Lords of Human Kind. Euro]JeQ1l Attitudes to the Outside
World in the Imperial Age, London.
Robert K. Lamb, 1952. 'Political Elites and the Process of Economic Development', m
Hoselitz.
Henri Lefebvre, 1953, 'Perspectives de Ia Sociologic Rurale', Cahiers Internationaux de
Sociologie, Vol. 13.
Daniel Lerner, 1964, 'I'M Passing of Traditional Society. Modernizing the Middle East
(paperback edition), Toronto.
Daniel Lerner, 1967, 'Comparative Analysis of Processes of Modernisation', in Miner.
David Lockwood, 1956. 'Some Remarks on "The Social System"', British Journal of
Sociology, Vol. 7. No.2.
Steven Lukes, 1968, 'Methodo1ogicaI Individualism Reconsidered', British Journal of
Sociology, Vol. 19. No. 2.
MODBRNIZAnON THEORY AND STUDY OF DEVELOPMENT 159
Harry Mqdotr, 1969, The Age of ImperioJism. The Eco1lOmics of U.S. Foreign Policy,
New York.
Ali A. Mazrui, 1968, 'From Social Darwinism to Current Theories of Modernization.
A Tradibon of AnaIysJS', World Politics, Vol. 21, No.1.
David C. McClelland, 1963, 'The Achievement Motive in Economic Growth', m
Hoselitz and Moore.
David C. McClelland, 1964, 'Business Drive and National Achievement', in Amitai
Etzioni and Eva Etzioni (eds.), Socilll Clumge, New York.
e. Wright Mills, 1959, The Sociological ImoginDtion, New York.
Horace Miner (ed.), 1967, The City in Modern Africa, London.
Barrington Moore, Ir., 1963, 'Strategy in Social Science', in Maurice Stein and Arthur
Vidlch (eds.), Sociology on Trial, Englewood CWfs, NJ.
Barrington Moore, Jr. 1967, The Socilll Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy. Lord
and Peosant m the Making of the Modern World, London.
Wilbert E. Moore, 1963, 'Introduction: Social Change and Comparative Studies',
Intemattonal Socud Scumce Journal, Vol. 15, No.4, The Sociology of Development in
Latin America.
MannIng Nash, 1966, Primitive and Peasan: Economic Systems, San Francisco.
J. P. Nettl, 1967, Political Mobilization. A Sociological AnalysIS ofMethods and Concepts,
London.
J. P. Nettl, 1969, 'StrategIes in the Study of Political Development', in Colin Leys (ed.),
Politics and Clumge in Developing Countries, London.
I. P. Nettl and Roland Robertson, 1968, International Systems and the Modernizatwn
of Societies. The Formation of Natwnal Goals and Attitudes, London.
Robert A. Nisbet, 1968, Social Clumge and History. Aspects of the Western Theory of
Development, New York.
Kwame Nkrumah, 1963, Africa Must Unite, London.
Talcott Parsons, 1964, 'Evolutionary Universals In Society', American Sociological
Review, Vol 29, No.3.
Talcott Parsons, 1966, Societies. Evolutwnary and Comparative Perspectives, Englewood
Cliffs, N.J.
Talcott Parsons, 1968, The Structure of Social Action (paperback edition, 2 volumes),
New York.
Herbert Passin, 1965, Society and Education in Japan, New York.
Robert I. Rhodes, 1968, 'The Disguised Conservatism in Evolutionary Development
Theory', Science and Society, Vol. 32, No.3.
Fred W. Riggs, 1964, AdminIStration in Developing Countries. The Theory of Prismatic
Society, Boston.
W. W. Rostow, 1967, The Stages of Economic Growth. A Non-Communist Manifesto,
(paperback edition), London.
Theodore Roszak (ed.), 1969, The Dissenting Academy, Harmondsworth.
Jean-Paul Same, 1964, The Problem of Method (English translation), London.
Dudley Seers, 1970, 'The Meaning of Development', Institute of Development Studies,
Communications Series, No. 44.
Leopold Sedar Senghor, 1964, On Afncan Socialism (translated and with an Introduction
by Mercer Cook), New York.
Edward ShiIs, 1962, 'The Military in the Political Development of the New States',
in John I. Johnson (ed.), The Role of the Military in Underdeveloped Countries,
Princeton, N.I.
Edward Shils, 1965, Political Development m the New States, The Hague.
E. A. Shils and H. A. Finch (eds.), 1949, Max Weber: Essays in the Methodology ofthe
Socilll Sciences, Glencoe, Illinors,
Neil I. Smelser, 1963, 'Mechanisms of Change and Adjustment to Change', in Hoselitz
and Moore.
Neil I. Smelser, 1968, 'Toward a General Theory of Social Change', in Smelser, Essays
in Socwlogical Explanation, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Soedjatmoko, 1965, 'Memorandum on Scope and Purpose of Seminar', in R. N. Bellah
(cd.), Religion and Progress in Modern Asia, New York.
Rudolfo Stavenhagen, 1969, 'Seven Erroneous Theses about Latin America', in Irvmg
Louis Horowitz et al (eds.), Latin American Rodicalism, New York.
John B. Stephenson, 1968, 'Is Everyone Going Modern? A Critique and a Suggestion
for Measuring Modernism', American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 74, No.3.
Lionel Tiger, 1967, 'Bureaucracy and Urban Symbol Systems', in Miner.
Pierre L van den Berghe, 1967, South Africa. A Study in C01fllict, Berkeley, California.
160 JOURNAL OF DIlVBLOPIIBNT SfUDIIIS
Arthur J. Vidich and Joseph Bensman, 1968, SmoJl Tollllt in Man Society (fe'Yiscd
edition), Princeton, NJ.
Max Weber, 1930, The Protestant EtJuc andtireSpirit 0/ Capitalism (English translation),
London.
Ian Weinberg. 1969, 'The Problem of the Emergctx:e of Industrial Societies:a Critical
Look at the State of a Theory', Comparative Studiu in Society and History, Vol. 11,
No.1.
Myron Weiner (ed.), 1966, Modernizotion, New York.
Peter Worsley, 1964 The Third World, London.
Peter Worsley, 1965, 'BureaIlCl"aCY and Decolonimtion: Democracy from the Top',
in Irving Louis Horowitz (cd)., The New Sociology, New York.
Aristide R. Zolberg. 1964,'The Dakar Colloquium the Search for a Doctrine', in William
H. Friedland and Carl G. Rosberg. lr. (eds.), A/ricon Sociolism, Stanford, Cali-
fornia.
Copyright 2002 EBSCO Publishing