Development and Modernisation - Essay Example

RUNNING HEAD: DEVELOPMENT AND MODERNISATION Institute: A "conceptual framework that articulated a common set of assumptions about the nature of American society and its ability to transform a world perceived as both materially and culturally deficient" (Latham, 2000). Development 'Development' as we understand the term today, implies, in very simple terms, 'improvement'- improvement of the body, of mental faculties, abilities, situations of living, of society etc. Development and the need to develop have been taken for granted in our understanding of ourselves- it represents the unique human urge to better oneself. The difference that marks the human race from the living things around him is that 'development' or 'betterment' is not an aspect that stops or need stop for human beings. Modernisation: An Overview What are ways in which, the means and methods through which we can attain development There can be many. Modernity and modernisation has been one such option. Having risen to concrete, visible and viable existence in the late 18th and early 19th century, modernisation was the new horizon that would revolutionise existing notions of development. Modernisation has been both beneficial and destructive. It is generally the understanding that modernisation has been responsible for the success and wealth of European countries. What one often does not recall is that the process of modernisation, seen as a mile stone in our attempts at progress, need not necessarily be the best manner that reflects development around the world. It is worthwhile to notice that while modernity and processes of modernisation originated in European countries directly influenced by specific socio-historical processes; this has not been the case in most of the former colonies, which are now independent countries. Just as modernisation is a means to development, there have been several indigenous understandings about the manner in which to develop and indeed what development itself means. The rise of modernity and the processes of modernisation that it inspired and fuelled changed all that- not only in the countries where modernity took birth, but also world wide. How did this happen One of the main features of modernity has been the mass-scale industrialisation that it brought along with it. In fact, it may rightly be said that industrialisation is the defining feature of modernisation. Capitalism and industrialisation together created a powerful source of ambition; one that could sustain itself only by appropriation and aggressive sale. These are the factors that inspired trade companies like the East India Company and subsequently entire empires to move towards colonisation. It may be said that without colonisation and the riches that it brought to Europe, industrialisation and modernisation as we know these phenomena to day, may not have existed, even dies out altogether. Colonisation, or exerting political and administrative power over weaker countries that could not resist Western intervention, was the manner in which resources and raw material required to feed industrialisation was procured. Not only material resources, but also human resource (labour-power) was extracted in this manner. Colonisation ensured that this inflow of resources into Western countries was as profitable as it could be since it did not occur through a fair or equal manner of trade; what was required by Europe was simply taken by them due to their superior military strength and unique socio-political circumstances that existed in regions that became colonised. Development and Modernisation Today, it is almost impossible to speak or think about development without a reference to modernisation, and by extension globalisation. What in reality is only one paradigm for development, a model of development that has a specific socio-historical origin, today is a force so large that development itself is understood and evaluated through the nature and extent of modernisation that has occurred. No matter how self-sufficient or content a people might be, without visible signs of modernisation and modern amenities and a language of modernisation through which development may be related, that region is not considered to be developed enough. This is a hypothetical situation. The imaginary here is the fact that if we understand that modernisation is only one way to develop, it may be possible to make room for other forms of development. This is not possible, under present international circumstances. Several points of concern arise at this juncture, with such a n impossibility laid out before us. Why are alternate models of development, if suitable, not practical The answer to this question lies with the beginnings of colonisation. Very quickly, and very simply, it may be said that colonisation depleted the resources of the colonised regions of the word, along with instituting modern forms of governance and ideas such as citizenship , democracy etc, without having a socio-historical background that may support these. Thus, adult franchise was earned through struggle in European countries, in most of the colonies, post-independence, it was assumed to be the best manner in which to forge a form of political government. The economies of most colonies were drastically altered by the time they obtained independence; it was often impossible to regain and rebuild themselves. Even the concept of a nation and state, a democratic government etc , which are modern notion of arranging human existence, need to be looked upon as only models to suggest possible means of existence and society, they are normative, but not the only ideas or models that existed in history. It is the hegemonic and normative status of modernisation today that helps mask this specificity of its, presenting itself as the only, successful, desirable and pervasive form of development. Having said this, is it possible to avoid the forces of modernisation No. Why so It seems to be the case that modernisation and globalisation fuelling and feeding on modernisation, along with unimaginable high power, resources and an already high index of development among first world countries(they may alternately be called formal colonisers) have given these privileged centres free reign over the market and economy of several important self-interests. To keep itself going and to meet the basic needs its citizens, most newly independent countries have at least partially taken to the modern of modernisation that their colonisers gifted them in the from of legacy. Post-decolonisation, countries around the world embarked on projects of national development developing indigenous industries for export or increasing industrial production. Industrialisation was understood to be the key to development by the major powers of the world. For the newly independent countries, the complete equation of development with economic growth forced them into a frenzy for industrialisation, the highest standard on which their eyes were set being the West. An entire system of production that imitated apparatus in the West along with the urgent modernisation projects in these countries set the trend of the times. Thus, building of dams, roadways, new systems of education modelled on the West, and an apparatus of governance that was modelled on Western democracy became hallmarks of decolonised countries. The accompanying framework of theory that supported this drive was the modernisation theory of which the ideas of the modernisation school of economists greatly influenced developmental projects. (Joshi, Sharmila, 2005) A word on the modernisation theory Modernity was a project of global conquest originating in Europe. There are two ways to understand this. One is that there is a Eurocentric position which holds that because of the exceptional characteristics of European culture and rationality, the people were able to transcend their limitations and extend their influence across the world. The second conceives Europe as having priority as the historical point of reference in any process of change from the 15 th century onwards (Jameson and Miyoshi, 1998). This position, though does not consider Europe as the normative centre of modernity. Some theorists understand modernization and its intellectual portrayal as a political and economic proposition that came to the fore post World War II. Thus the intellectual cultural and technological advances of the countries that were victorious in the war were set as the standard against which the rest of the world will measure themselves. This standard needed to be emulated by the poorer and the less civilized peoples of the world and was invariably connected with the process of modernity. Since the last quarter of the 18th century, after Darwinian 'Evolution of the Species', the studies conducted in biological science concentrated on the growth and development of different species. This model was incorporated into, rather formed, the epicentre from which the evolution of the modernisation theory can be located. People in structures and society were viewed as continuously developing looked over by what was naturally ordained to them. The stories of development of major western powers became recorded as history itself, and the ideal and natural way to progress for all others. All that was native and traditional was abandoned as stagnant, non-progressive and non-ambitious, the new focus was on deficiencies thus located in poorer countries, and overcoming them. The arguments that the theory presents are as follows: most people in the world were poor or living in traditional social arrangements about five hundred years ago. While scientific discoveries and inventions did exist in many parts of the world, it was Western Europe where science flourished with entrepreneurship, powered by the instrument of capitalism. The capitalist system also helped sustaining these. Competition and profiteering then started hampering growth, and this led to an increasing stress on political modernisation, which brought in various new ideas and ideoloigies to drive the governance, including communism and liberalism. But again all these changes were more pronounced in the western world, while the traditional societies were 'left behind', so to say. Modernisation theorists posited a sharp distinction between traditional (read poor) and modern (read United States) societies. They took for granted that economic development, from traditional to modern, proceeded along a single straight, unambiguous line. Finally, modernisation advocates expected that contact with vital modern societies would accelerate progress in stagnant traditional societies. Before we go on, it might be worthwhile to note that this has been the most influential politico-economic theory since the 1950s. The new emphasis was on leaving traditional societies behind, breaking hierarchies of political power and vested economic interest, increasing the economies' savings rate, developing the modern technology, aiming at high mass-consumption, etc. beginning with a strained economic condition and depleted resources, the newly decolonised countries has to depend heavily on the international organisations like the UN, and the help of the first-world countries like the US and Britain, for financial support. However, like any other theory, this one has its own, and numerous, shortcomings. This theory overlooks the fact that the major European countries need to continuously lend support to the underdeveloped countries. It doesn't address the unequal distribution of wealth between the first and third-world nations; the colonisation of the latter by the former being one of the primary reasons. Moreover this theory is 'Eurocentric' in its imagination, foreclosing any possible attempt towards alternate developmental programmes. Then came the ideological, political, and economic earthquake of the 1960s and culture was conceptually pushed aside as the social sciences came to be strongly influenced if not dominated by Structuralism, Institutionalism, Marxism and Dependency Theory. "Modernisation" theory was not only criticized, it was ultimately pronounced dead (Wallerstein, 1976). The post-war version of modernisation theory had seriously neglected external factors, such as colonialism and imperialism, as well as the newer forms of economic and political domination. The emerging neo-Marxist and world-systems theorists emphasised the extent to which rich countries exploited poor countries, locking them into positions of powerlessness and structural dependence (Frank, 1966; Chase-Dunn, 1989; Chirot, 1977; Chirot, 1994; Wallerstein, 1974). "Culture" was replaced with the specificity of class, race and gender in the developmental process, all of which are still prominent in the social sciences as analytical constructs. From this perspective, culture is a diversion from the allegedly real processes in the contemporary world or may even be a purposeful cover for capitalist, racist, and sexist oppressors. Samuel Huntington (1998) strongly affirmed the importance of culture as the primary variable for both development, and the conflict generated by that development. He asserts that the world is divided into eight major "cultural zones" based on cultural differences that have persisted for centuries. These zones were shaped by religious traditions that are still powerful today, despite the forces of modernisation. The zones are Western Christianity, the Orthodox world, the Islamic world, and the Confucian, Japanese, Hindu, African, and Latin American zones. The leading article in Harrison and Huntington (2000) is probably the most significant in setting the tone of the debate. David Landes begins with the sentence "Max Weber was right." Weber (1958), trained in law and economics, was one of the earliest social scientists who asked prescient questions about the relationship between economy and culture. He argued that European capitalism was predicated upon a unique and fortuitous combination of a particular institutional matrix and certain cultural values (or "spirit"). In subsequent works on India, China, and the ancient Hebrews Weber presented contrasting cases of situations in which either the institutional or cultural environment was not conducive to the development of rational capitalism. For Landes the key to the success of the West has been its exceptional values and institutions, which were and still are lacking in the rest of the world. Thus, Landes refers to China as a culturally and intellectually homeostatic society that had indifference to technology. Michael Porter (2000) turns the Landes argument around taking a global perspective. Rather than arguing that particular culture traits are a pre-requisite for economic development, he argues that it is the "international economic culture" that is pushing every society toward productivity and values that are conducive to a global homogenous culture. Jeffrey Sachs, noted for his crash through or crash advice to transitional economies (Blanchard, et.al., 1994; Sachs, 1990) in his chapter for Harrison and Huntington, generalises the culture thesis, proposing that "capitalist institutions", such as respect for property rights, a rule of law, and efficient markets, are the key factors in economic development. This is similar to an earlier argument put forward by Cox (1993) that tied globalisation to world capitalism, as a materialist product of its dictates and compulsions; and not excessively different from Friedman's proposition (1999) that culturally speaking, globalisation is largely Americanisation - from Big Macs to iMacs to Mickey Mouse. A major critique of the modernisation theory and its campaign for concomitant development is offered by the dependency theory. In very simple terms, it urges an evaluation of the entire international economic system and evaluates the continuance of global poverty to development itself. Thus underdevelopment in one part of the world has to directly do with development in another. I have discussed this point earlier while mentioning the exploitative aspects of colonialism. Other processes through which the third-world countries have been impoverished by first-world countries are imperialism and extractive terms of trade. Prior to industrialisation, prosperity and growth did not have patterns of existence as they do today; the mad rush for profits and markets has much to do with originating most of the complexities associated with modernisation and development in third-world countries today. One example among thousands, is Haiti, presently the poorest country in the northern hemisphere, used to produce one-half of all the sugar and coffee consumed in Europe and the Americas , as well as substantial amounts of indigo and cotton. It generated two-fifths France's overseas trade. Demolition of West-African societies through slave-trade, and plantation systems in the Caribbean that met none of the local population's needs are two other examples. It is often argued that the colonising nations introduced modernity in their colonies, eradicated barbaric ways of living, brought in education and healthcare, installed extensive infrastructural facilities, etc. true. But what all these were for was not the development of the native, but convenience in political and economic administration for the white man. The introduction of modernisation along with an almost complete drainage of resources in the colonies has resulted in what is termed today as the "not yet" phenomenon. Third-world countries have a blue-print of models of progress animated by the first-world countries and the burden of reminders of unfinished work in their own space. Yet, the damages done by colonisation and similar projects which continue till date makes development as it occurs in first world nations impossible. Yet there is no other model of development. There is no other source of aid. Help extended from prosperous locations is always with a hidden motive of vested interest. For example, transnational corporations bargain from a position of strength, distort the local economy, create vast income gaps, impose their own priorities, and damage the environment. Or the World Bank and IMF pursue policies that indirectly favour rich countries. The net result is: third-world countries being caught in a vicious circle of forever planning for a development which is possible only through massive amounts of resources they can never get hold of, in an economic and socio-political scenario that has no resemblance to Europe. Development becomes a quagmire that only perpetrates inequality. Thus we see that the modernisation theory postulates capitalism as a creative force that encourages growth and progress whereas the dependency theory understands international capitalism as detrimental to the third world. The dependency theory understands aid from rich countries to the third world as forever engaging the latter in a bond of servitude. It may also be noted that some dependency theorists believe in using capitalism and protectionism by third world countries national economies, strategically. There is another interesting development that finds its origin in the dependency theory: the world-systems theory. Its view of the global economy is that of a long-term perspective and of a world in a constant state of flux in which the development of an economy can look up or down: it is not unidirectional. All said and done, all the theories and approaches are ultimately viewed as partial except by a few. No theory has a universal acceptance, and this, points towards a probable lack of the complete grasp of any of them on what they set out to address: perhaps reality is not that simple. Perhaps it is. India: Development and Women Let us now look at women and projects of women-related development to further assess the utility of modernisation in relation to development as well as development projects in general and their relation with women. We will use a third-world country, India, and development projects implemented there towards this purpose. India obtained independence from Britain in 1947. What followed after this was a flurry of national developmental projects intended to modernise the country. There were several programmes that directly or indirectly involved and affected women. In the early phases of development project from the 1950s, women-centred development interventions were heavily invested in. it is now readily observable that most of these development models were gender biased in that they assumed men to be the most productive workforce. It is also a fact that women's reproductive role gained high visibility. Existing gender inequality within the society was reflected in the conception and implementation of the development projects as well. An excellent example is the Indian government's population-control programme. Second only to China, India's huge population was evaluated as the primary reason for poverty and backwardness. It was widely understood that the resources possessed by the country were not enough to even met the population's basic necessities such as food, shelter and clothing. The solution to this was to bring down the country's population through population-control programmes. The primary targets for these programmes were women. Several studies since then have indicated that the distribution of condoms failed to produce a significant impact on population-control. One of the several reasons was the male anxiety and inhibition towards using this 'piece of rubber'. It was clumsy, inconvenient, and somehow not manly. The government sought to address this problem through offering monetary and material incentives for vasectomy and tubectomy, after the birth of two or three children. It soon became apparent that not only were men reluctant to undergo this procedure but also that prevailing notions of gender and fertility influenced its popularity negatively. To rob a man of his fertility was unacceptable as it was considered to rob him of his life-force and make him a 'eunuch'. Due to these reasons, the population control programmes aimed towards women, not only through the procedure of tubectomy but also birth-control pills. There are several accounts of women who underwent this 'operation' complaining of severe illnesses following the procedure, due to the unhygienic and careless manner in which it was conducted in massive scales. One can also find several narratives were women were urged to undergo the operation because the family had a financial crisis, to which the husband considered this offer of the government a temporary relief. The global development apparatus saw women until the 1970s almost completely, as mothers, procuring water for cooking and cleaning, taking care of the house and their children's welfare as well as engaging in agricultural activity which is nonetheless domestic, supplementing provisions for family-food. Development projects saw men as the only ones engaging in productive activities. Thus programmes targeting agricultural production for example, would solely operate on the assumption that men are the only agricultural workers. Thus it can be observed that agencies such as the FAO and the USAID providing international training programmes operated on the assumption that agricultural programmes would be for men, and home economy programmes would be for women. It is worthwhile to observe at this point that at least fifty percent of the world's food for direct consumption (FAO) is produced by women and women do two-thirds of the world's work. We may safely say that 'development' modernised patriarchy, when it held a potential to reverse existent gender inequalities within society. It was often the case that women's socio-economic status declined following their exclusion from agricultural development programmes. It is a known fact that economic power is bargaining power not only within society in general but also within the sacred spaces of family. Women's exclusion from development programmes that could enhance their economic security now relegated them to subsistence activities. Following the introduction of technology in agriculture, women remained untrained to operate these machines. The result was two-pronged. First, women lost economic and social power and second, due to the emphasis on male-priority, whenever labour was displaced by new technology, the first preference went to the female labour. For example, if grain mills were introduced to replace mortar and pestle, women were rendered jobless; their skill was marginalised. (Joshi, Sharmila, 2005) An example for this can be seen in Kenya where women were traditionally rice-cultivators. Following the mechanisation of agriculture aimed at greater yields after the Second World War, due to the above mentioned reasons, women were relegated to low-wage labour in manual farming activities. Displacement from intensive production activities aimed at market-profit forced women to work in the unorganised work-sector for extremely low wages. We observe from these examples a phenomenon that has been termed "feminisation of poverty" which directly results from women's inclusion in the development process. (Joshi, Shramila, 2005) Women were not only ignored, but their social and economic status has also considerably deteriorated. As has already been mentioned, a device that could perhaps address the issue of patriarchy and the women's question, instead complicated it a little more. There are several questions that arise here: is modernisation a harbinger of change for better If so, then is there a possibility of a holistic theory that could be indicative of such a state With the advancement of the feminist theory, there are several issues, ones that never saw the light of the day, waiting out in the open to be dealt with, not just in economic terms, but on social and political platforms too. As can be seen, the theories advanced so far have not been successful in tackling these issues. If development comprised in industrial or economic progress alone, it would, in all probability, have failed miserably to find solutions to most of the problems that plague the world today- not only the poor, undeveloped countries, but also the developed nations. Also, the post-modernist movement in the arts, and then the socio-political sphere have now helped understand a significant portion of, and thrown open new doors to, the ways of progress of a wider spectrum of the society and of nation-states. The last decade, especially, saw the institution of marriage being radically brought to questioning, even among the developing nations. While on one hand this is a result of an increased awareness among women of the fact marriage isn't the purpose they are born, it is also impact of globalisation of media that has helped spread the idea. Thus one finds themselves in the centre of a tangle where making a choice or having an opinion is a rather difficult thing to do. The question that crosses my mind in the feminist context is, is development scientific progress alone If no, which, on the basis of what we have seen so far is the answer, then we are looking at the process of modernisation in recognition of issues which would have been unimaginable a century ago. Jamaica Elliott and Harvey (2000) argue in a case study on Jamaica that: "development problems will never be solved by policies that ignore the fundamental underlying problem: the vast inequities in power arising frompolitical, social, and economic history." The link between economic progress and cultural values that encourage pro-market, pro-private property-based institutions is mostly created by a neoclassical economic perception of Western European development (see for instance Scully 1988). Not value-weakness, but the presence of slavery, owners who were never present, the status of being colonized, slavery, as well as the unique geographical features of the Jamaican island favoured the creation of the plantation economy (Elliott and Harvey, 2000: 398). As can very well be understood, such a historical situation led to great inequalities in terms of the ownership of property that was useful and productive in Jamaica s well as the continuation of slavery. The agricultural land base was monopolized and a new low-wage urban worker was created (Bakan, 1990). The creation of such huge differences within the indigenous population by creating fundamental structures that perpetuate this disparity is further reinforced by the fact that those who are in a privileged position, that is the elites, will do all that they can to maintain this unequal status quo as it brings them huge advantages. This ensures that the masses are relegated to their low status. Further, when economic activity is not directly concerned with maintaining class position, the existence of inequality leads both elites and the lower sections in the society to try to obtain status by means of conspicuous consumption. "The most significant current problem is the monopoly of power held by Jamaican elites. They control economic activity, and they have no immediate incentive to do any more than work to maintain the status quo. The roots of this inequity go back 300 years". (Elliott and Harvey, 2000: 399). Conclusion In this paper I have discussed the terms 'modernity' and 'modernisation' looking into its social and historical origin. We have observed that modernization is fundamentally linked with the phenomenon of colonisation and the process of the rapid industrialization that Europe went through. Modernisation was a phenomenon that was unique to European countries which spread across the globe mostly through its colonising power. We have also seen how recently decolonised countries had internalised aspects of modernity, in culture, language, governance, concepts of progress and subsequently in evaluation of oneself. The effort prt-independence, for these countries was to catch-up with the western model and pace pf progress and development, possible only through similar lines of modernisation. Following this phase, recently, we see a large body of literature and theory that re-inspects the premise of modernisation. I have discussed in this paper a wide range of theorists and theories that are dedicated to this project from here we understand that modernisation was a particular form of movement that occurred at a specific time in European countries particularly following from social and historical circumstances that were unique to European conditions. This awareness has helped us today in numerous fronts to re-evaluate and approach from a fresh angle, the constant despair and hindrances met with in the unsuccessful attempt to modernise third-world countries and make them similar to European countries. Using a number of examples from various third-world contexts i have substantiated the argument that modernisation is a specific phenomenon and models of development need not strain to fit the frame of modernisation. I have demonstrated, in fact that ti is the constant attempt not only from within third-world countries, but also from outside in the form of aids and projects of development from first-world countries and international organisations lioke the UN and the IMF that have detrimentally affected the progress of formerly colonised countries. Economic Development, culture, modernisation and globalisation are better interpreted as the complex processes resulting from the interaction of many different variables, than as a distinctive causal processes in their own right. It is not intellectually helpful to explain specific events and phenomena in terms of the macro processes or structures, and pointless to subsume anything or everything under the umbrella of any single causal agent or process (Jessop, 2000: 19). References Bakan, Abigail B. (1990). Ideology and Class Conflict in Jamaica: The Politics of Rebellion. McGill: Queens University Press Blanchard, Oliver J., Froot, Kenneth A., Sachs, Jeffrey, and Blanchard, Jean O. (1994). The Transition in Eastern Europe: Restructuring. Chicago: University of Chicago Press Chase-Dunn, Christopher (1989). Global Formations: Structures of the World-Economy. Cambridge: B. Blackwell. Chirot, Daniel (1994). How Societies Change. Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge. Chirot, Daniel (1977). Social Change in the Twentieth Century. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich. Cox, Robert (1993). Structural Issues of Global Goverance: Implications for Europe, in Gill, Stephen (ed.) Gramsci's Historical Materialism and International Relations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press: 259-289. Elliott, Dawn R. and Harvey, John T. (2000). Jamaica: An Institutionalist perspective. Journal of Economic Issues, June: 393-401. Frank, Andre Gundar (1966). The development of underdevelopment. Monthly Review, 18: 17-31. Friedman, Thomas (1999). The Lexus and the Olive Tree: Understanding Globalization. New York: Farrar-Straus-Giroux: 8. Harrison, Lawrence E. and Huntington, Samuel P. (eds.) (2000). Culture Matters: How Values Shape Human Progress. New York: Basic Books. Huntington, Samuel P. (1998). The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order. Carmichael, CA: Touchstone Books Jameson, Fredric and Miyoshi, Masao (eds.) (2000). The Culture of Globalization. Durham, N.C.: Duke University Press. Jessop, Bob (2000). Reflections on globalisation and its (il)logic(s), in Olds, Kris, Dicken, Peter, Kelly, Philip F., Kong, Lily and Yeung, H.W. (eds.) Globalisation and the Asia-Pacific. London: Routledge: 19-38. Joshi, Sharmila. (2005). Dictionary of Development. Infochange Development Dictionary. Retrieved 9 December 2005 from http://www.infochangeindia.org/devp_dictionary_04.jsp Joshi, Sharmila. (2005) How Development modernized patriarchy Infochange Development Dictionary. Retrieved 9 December 2005 from http://www.infochangeindia.org/devp_dictionary_04.jsp Joshi, Sharmila. Theories of Development: Modernisation vs. Dependency. Infochange Development Dictionary. Retrieved 9 December 2005 from http://www.infochangeindia.org/devp_dictionary_04.jsp Latham, Michael E. (2000). Modernization as Ideology: American Social Science and Nation Building in the Kennedy Era. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press. Porter, Michael, Sachs, Jeffrey, Warner, Andrew and Schwab, Klein (eds.) (2000). The Global Competitiveness Report 2000. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Sachs, Jeffrey and Lipton, David (1990). Creating a Market Economy in Eastern Europe: The Case of Poland. Brooking Papers on Economic Activity 1, April. Scully, Gerald (1988). Institutional Framework and Economic Development. Journal of Political Economy 96(3): 622-662. Wallerstein, Immanuel (1976). Modernization: Requiescat in Pace, in Coser, L. A. and Larsen, 0. N. (eds.) The Uses of Controversy in Sociology. New York: Free Press: 131-35. Wallerstein, Immanuel (1974). The Modern World System. Vol. 1. New York: Academic Press. Weber, Max 1958 (1904). The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. Translated by T. Parsons. Reprint, New York: Charles Scribner's Sons. Read More