Modernization Theory MT True or False PROF MARK

Modernization Theory (MT): True or False? PROF. MARK R. THOMPSON MAMAS AIS, CITYU AIS 5024: STATE AND ECONOMY IN EAST ASIA LECTURE 3

“Endogenous” MT Economic development - eventually leads to democratization - “driven by growth” (Morley et al. ) Successful industrialization ◦ complex economy ◦ differentiated social structure ◦ Social then political mobilization MT come under much criticism recently ◦ Prezworski, Alvarez, Cheibub and Limongi (2000) ◦ say no statistical support ◦ But Boix and Stokes still defend it (2003)

Duking it out statististically Achieving and sustaining democracy ◦ Dynamics different ◦ Statistical evidence for latter not former Questions remain ◦ Why did high income once to lead to democracy? ◦ But now associated with stability? ◦ Why industrializing despots less vulnerable?

East Asia as last refuge of MT Morley’s (1998) influential “driven by growth” ◦ makes East Asia in MT’s “last regional redoubt” Point to Taiwan and South Korea ◦ Did democratize after rapid development ◦ So is MT true after all?

Rich authoritarian states a problem for MT Some countries democratized “too late” ◦ Too rich to still be undemocratic for MT ◦ Most famously Singapore, but also Malaysia ◦ Doesn’t this falsify MT? ◦ Singapore - size doesn’t matter (Ortmann 2010) ◦ Singapore state’s massive infrastructural power ◦ Malaysia’s multi-racialism an excuse? ◦ Has to be shown how exactly ◦ Opposition is multi-racial but not yet successful

Other problematic cases for MT Other countries transitioned “too early” ◦ Too poor to have already become democratic ◦ Indonesia, the Philippines, and even Thailand ◦ So how come they still democratized ◦ Is MT only sometimes true? ◦ Does this also falsify theory? ◦ Failure to build up infrastructural power? ◦ To replace despotic?

“Good” cases for MT Democratized after industrialization ◦ South Korea and Taiwan ◦ But given other cases, exceptions not the rule? ◦ Was it really modernization that was key? Opposition nationalism another key factor ◦ Taiwan’s divided identity helps DPP ◦ South Korea part of a divided nation ◦ Nationalist left opposition to Park/Chun dictatorship

Cases where it is too early to tell China close to MT “threshold” ◦ but no sign of political change ◦ Business elites dependent on and pro-state ◦ Growing middle class but co-opted ◦ Working class and peasantry repressed Vietnam poorer ◦ Only marginally more open politically than China Burma and of course NK still too poor ◦ And too despotic to democratize

Summary of Attacks on MT No statistical evidence for “endogenous” MT ◦ That increasing wealth leads to democracy Does not even work that well in East Asia ◦ Though supposed to be its last refuge ◦ Singapore and Malaysia too rich to not be demos ◦ Indonesia, the Philippines, and Thailand too poor Developmentalism a better theory? ◦ Democratization only when development fails? ◦ Or nationalist opposition emerges?

Societal-driven modernization theory versus state-centric developmentalism Developmentalism a state-centered theory ◦ Modernization theory (MT) focuses on civil society State’s growing infrastructural power ◦ Not just control over but through society Society’s increasing transgressive power ◦ Opposition to despotism ◦ Democratizing infrastructural power Strategic groups ◦ Key role of leaders, big bus, cronies, technocrats ◦ Middle class (often NGOs), also labour, students etc

Key patterns Problem of establishing developmentalism ◦ Repress civil society, often violently ◦ Bring economic diversification and rapid growth Problem of “deepening” ◦ Need to limit cronyism, become more technocratic ◦ Upgrading skills, good planning, efficient admin ◦ Failure can lead to protests and demo transition Problem of “widening” ◦ Lack civil liberties and ◦ growing inequality fuel protests and democratization

But don’t through out baby with bathwater Inglehart and Welzel’s revised MT Inglehart, Ronald; Welzel, Christian. How Development Leads to Democracy Foreign Affairs 88 (Mar/Apr 2009): 33 -48. Admit past mistakes of MT ◦ Industrialization doesn’t equal democracy ◦ Fascism and communism also possible ◦ Modernization not Westernization Democracy doesn’t follow surge in growth ◦ That often legitimizes authoritarianism

MT still useful if revised But modernization does lead to value change ◦ Religious/traditional to secular/rational ◦ Acceptance authority to self-expression Conducive to democracy ◦ With modernization better able demand change ◦ With value change want democracy

Culture matters (finally!) Not just economic growth ◦ Culture hinders demo in in Arab peninsula for example Cultural change is path dependent, ◦ Dependent on religious, colonial heritage, etc. ◦ But also on level of economic development Cultural shift with modernization ◦ Self-expression values grow ◦ Though pace depends on culture

Global Cultural Map Shift to rationality/self-expression by culture

Implications for East Asia I Mixture of culture and values ◦ Confucianism in NE Asia, Singapore and Vietnam ◦ Highly rational, lower self expression ◦ Malay culture in Indonesia and Malaysia ◦ Christian Philippines ◦ Buddhist Thailand Burma ◦ Like Catholic Europe, middle rational/selfexpression

Implications for East Asia II • Confucian values may slow democratization –Takes “more” modernization for value change • But “early” democratization in Philippines –Despite Catholic Church –Similar values in Muslim Indonesia –And in Buddhist Thailand • Economic growth benefits authoritarianism –E. g. China –But signs value change evident too

Don’t forget class A few rich and many poor ◦ Poor will determine who wins elections ◦ Politicians must cater to poor ◦ Rich resentful Fear of poor may slow democratization ◦ E. g. middle class concern in China Or may undermine populist democracy ◦ E. g. overthrow of Thaksin in Thailand

After the break • More about authoritarian developmentalism – Suehiro offers model – Cumings on EA pattern – ‘German’ Japanese model/’Flying Geese’ – Deyo on labour repression – Stubbs on role of ‘hot’ Cold War • See you then

Authoritarian developmentalism’s relevance “Success” of developmentalism slows demo ◦ Demobilization of labour and others in civil society ◦ “Pragmatic acceptance” through rapid growth “Failure” of developmentalism speeds demo ◦ Too much cronyism makes regime unpopular ◦ Failed “deepening” contributes to economic crisis Successful developmentalist dicts “late” ◦ Have to “wait” for middle class to democratize ◦ And nationalist opposition to emerge