MODERNIZATION AND DEPENDENCY:

Alternative Perspectives in the Study of Latin American Underdevelopment

Authors: J. Samuel Valenzuela and Arturo Valenzuela

A Critique Article by Tomi Sah 杜弥飒（2022280654）

ABOUT THE AUTHORS

Both J. Samuel Valenzuela and Arturo Valenzuela are renowned researchers in the
subject of Latin American studies. They are not related despite having the same last name.
Political scientist J. Samuel Valenzuela is from Chile and teaches at the University of Notre
Dame. He is renowned for conducting in-depth studies on Chile-specific political transitions
and democratization in Latin America. His writings on these subjects have appeared in a
number of papers and books, including "Democratic Consolidation in Post-Transitional
Settings: Notion, Process, and Facilitating Conditions" and "Politics, Markets, and
Democracy in Latin America: Essays in Honor of Juan J. Linz.". While Arturo Valenzuela is
an American political scientist and former Georgetown University. From 2009 until 2011, he
served as the Assistant Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs of the United
States. He has written extensively on a variety of subjects, including political economics,
democratization in the area, and U.S.-Latin American relations. His works include "Latin
American Political Economy: Financial Crises and Political Change" and "The Failure of
Presidential Democracy: Comparative Perspectives”. Both J. Samuel and Arturo Valenzuela
have made substantial contributions to the subject of Latin American studies and have had a
considerable impact on the direction of academic and policy discussions on the area, with a
particular emphasis on modernization and dependency views.
J. Samuel Valenzuela served as a Professor of Sociology at the University of Notre
Dame. The publications of Valenzuela have mostly dealt with concerns and theories of
development, comparative methods, political parties, labor movements, and politics, the
transition to and consolidation of democracy, the history and evolution of election systems,
and resistance to authoritarian regimes. His work is widely recognized and read, and it
generally draws on in-depth analyses of the Chilean example to place it in a comparative
framework that is typically drawn from cases in Western Europe and the Americas
(University of Notre Dame, 2023).
Dr. Arturo Valenzuela served as an Emeritus Professor of Government and
International Service at Georgetown University. From 2014 to March 2020, he worked for
Covington & Burling LLP, a worldwide law firm with its headquarters in Washington, D.C., as
Senior International Advisor for Latin America. Dr. Valenzuela has advised the Senate
Democratic Policy Committee and the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, respectively. He
is an authority on Chilean politics, U.S.-Latin American relations, electoral systems, civil-
military relations, political parties, regime transitions, and The Failure of Presidential
Democracy, which he co-edited with Juan Linz. He is also the author or co-author of nine
books. His scholarly writings have appeared in edited collections and academic magazines
like the Latin American Research Review, Rivista Italiana di Scienza Politica, Comparative
Politics, Foreign Policy, and Foreign Affairs Before joining the Georgetown faculty in 1987,
he was a political science professor and the Council of Latin American Studies' director at
Duke University. He established and oversaw Georgetown's Center for Latin American
Studies. At the Universities of Oxford, Sussex, Florence, Aix-en-Provence, Chile, and the
Catholic University of Chile, he has held visiting scholar positions. Additionally, he worked at
the Woodrow Wilson International Center as a fellow. (Wilson Center, 2023).

ABSTRACT
Dependency and modernization are two very distinct perspectives that both attempt to
describe the same phenomenon. Like the modernization perspective, the dependency
perspective is the result of extensive academic research in several social science domains.
The dependency approach disputes the claim made by modernization writers that when
analyzing underdevelopment, the national society should be regarded as the analytical unit.
The dependency perspective assumes that the only way to comprehend how a national or
regional unit has evolved is through its historical integration into the global political-economic
system, which was created with the wave of European colonization of the world. In any given
society, dependence is a complex web of associations in which many external factors play a
determining role and internal factors may even serve to enhance the exterior linkage pattern.
As a result, dependency took on a "new character," as dos Santos observed, which would
have a significant impact on Latin America.

SUMMARY
The end of World War II had a profound impact on world affairs, as the United States
emerged as a dominant economic and military power, while the collapse of European
colonial empires resulted in the creation of many new nations. This led to a focus on the
developmental challenges facing these new nations, which led to the development of two
competing frameworks for understanding their situation: the modernization perspective and
the dependency perspective.
According to the modernization perspective, a country's potential for progress is mostly
determined by its cultural traits. This viewpoint contends that for new countries to experience
economic development and modernization, Western-style institutions and ideals must be
embraced. The dependency perspective, on the other hand, focused on the ways that
industrialized nations exploited poor nations and kept power over them, maintaining their
economic and political underdevelopment.
The essay analyzes and compares these two perspectives on viewpoints, showing the
disparities between their methodology, evaluative judgments, and explanations. Although the
modernization perspective may be useful in explaining the developmental difficulties faced
by Latin American states, the author argues that it is constrained by its cultural focus and its
failure to take into consideration the historical shaping influence of outside influences. The
dependence view, in contrast, emphasizes how external factors like global trade and
investment patterns sustain poverty and inequality and offers a more thorough
understanding of the processes that contribute to underdevelopment. In general, the essay
aims to present a comprehensive understanding of the complex processes determining the
developmental issues emerging nations face and to provide some recommendations for
academics and policymakers trying to solve these challenges.

The Modernization Perspective

1) The review analyzes the framework of modernization perspective by drawing the
writings of its important authors and its application to Latin America. Specialists on
Latin America did not contribute important theoretical efforts to the field due to the
close of Latin America ties to the West, which made it difficult to differentiate it from
Europe. However, students of Latin America still used the modernization literature to
interpret its development.
2) The modernization perspective makes the assumption that cultures go from tradition to
modernity, creating an evolutionary continuum with polar opposites. This perspective
sees old societies as being less sophisticated and developed than modern society,
with modernity representing the pinnacle of an evolutionary continuum. According to
the modernization approach, society can transition from tradition to modernity through
a number of stages, including the adoption of new technology, the rise of democratic
and capitalist institutions, as well as education and urbanization, and the development
of new institutions. According to this viewpoint, modernization is a normal part of social
evolution and is fueled by things like economic expansion, technological advancement,
and cultural change
3) Countries in the Third World, especially those in Latin America, are seen to be below
the modernization threshold and to have a majority of traditional characteristics. Latin
American nations are frequently regarded as Third World nations, along with nations in
Asia, Africa, and the Middle East. The modernization perspective implies that societies
can be thought of as existing along a continuum from tradition to modernity, with
 modernity being is defined by a system of occupations that is complicated and highly
differentiated, geographical and social mobility at high rates, institutionalization of
change and self-sustained growth, among other traits. It is also characterized by
universalistic, particular, and neutral attitudes and patterns of behavior.
4) Particularistic, diffuse, ascriptive, and affective patterns of behavior, an extended family
network, a deferential stratification system, primarily primary economic activities, a
tendency toward social unit autarchy, an undifferentiated political structure, and
traditional elitist and hierarchical sources of authority are all traits of the traditional
society.
5) A nuclear family fulfilling only a few purposes, a complex and highly differentiated
occupational system, universalistic, specialized, and neutral orientations and patterns
of action, achievement, and; The self-sustaining growth and institutionalization of
change; high rates of spatial and social mobility; the dominance of secondary
economic activities and production for trade; highly differentiated political systems with
rational-legal sources of authority; and so on.
6) Traditional structures and traditions are seen as barriers to modernization that
civilizations must overcome in order to live in the modern day.
7) Innovations are the foundation of modernization, which entails the rejection of
practices associated with traditional institutions together with the embrace of fresh
concepts, methods, ideologies, and institutions. Innovations are desired by innovators,
and those who hold this position are invariably opposed to the status quo.
8) The parallel ideal types' modern pole is the crucial conceptual and analytical point
since it most closely resembles the qualities that civilizations need to have in order to
advance. When compared to the modern end, the traditional end of the dichotomy is
primarily a residual category.
9) Developed countries wanted to modernize because of changes that happened within
their own cultures and systems. On the other hand, less developed countries were
influenced by outside sources to change and adopt modern values and systems from
other countries that modernized earlier.
10) Assimilation of Western ideals and behavior patterns, adoption of its technology,
importation of its financial, industrial, and educational institutions, and other practices
are all believed to be the driving forces behind the modernization of Third World elites.
11) The main distinction between industrialized and emerging nations is not the character
of the modernization process itself, but rather the intensity and speed with which the
latter can "skip stages" or "telescope time."
12) Latin American underdevelopment has frequently been explained by the modernization
viewpoint in mainstream U.S. literature on the region. According to this perspective,
 traditional beliefs and practices that date back to colonial times have hindered Latin
America's economic, social, and political development. This perspective contrasts the
Latin American experience with that of North America or Australasia and argues that
Catholicism, large populations of Indian, and Aristocratic rural elites are to blame for
"irrational" behavior patterns that hinder modernization.
13) S.M. Lipset's essay "Values, Education and Entrepreneurship" argues that cultural
values, including weak achievement orientations, instrumental behavior, and disdain
for the pragmatic and material, are among the major factors that affect the potential for
economic development in Latin America. K.H. Silvert and R. Scott also express similar
sentiments about traditional values and their impact on Latin America's economic and
political performance.
14) The "new corporatism" movement in literature highlights the enduring nature of
Catholic and "Thomistic" ideals and contends that authoritarian political structures,
corporatist economic structures, and a contempt for liberal values also democratic are
the outcomes of a "distinct tradition”. Wiarda argues that studying Latin America on its
"own terms" is important and challenges the convergence thesis that traditional
societies should be transformed in line with the United States or Western Europe.

The Dependency Perspective

1) The dependence perspective is a historical framework that places more emphasis on
actual cases and diachronic analysis than it does on precise theoretical ideas.
2) The literature on dependency distinguishes between several periods of the global
system, such as the mercantilistic colonial period, the time of dependent outward
development on primary exports, the collapse of the liberal paradigm, and the current
era of transnational capitalism.
3) From the colonial era onward, Latin American production structures were oriented
toward the export market, restricting the growth of a sizable internal market and
industrial sector.
4) Important variances between regions and nations were caused by variations in the
natural resources, production methods, and colonial governments, as well as the level
of local elite control over export output.
5) In export-oriented economies, the two world wars and the Great Depression created a
crisis that prompted the establishment of policies promoting the domestic market and
the expansion of an industrial sector under government supervision.
6) Alliances between middle-class and lower-class organizations supported state
development strategies in enclave settings in Mexico and Chile, ultimately bolstering
the urban bourgeoisie.
7) Bolivia, Peru, Venezuela, and Central America are examples of non-enclave regions
with unique structural circumstances that delayed internal development till later stages.
8) Industrialization that replaces imports grew significantly in Argentina, Brazil, and
Mexico but was constrained by a reliance on foreign capital and foreign currency
sources.
9) The emergence of a new "transnational" system, in which multinational businesses
looked for less expensive production locations for their highly technical manufacturing
process, was the collapse of import substitution industrialization.
10) Recent writers in the dependency framework have used a variety of research
methodologies, concentrating on the current "new situation" of dependence,
dependent capitalism's place as a contribution to the Marxist analysis of capitalist
society, examining actual dependence cases, and defining the new capitalist system's
characteristics.

KEY TAKEWAYS
1) The paper discusses two different perspectives, modernization and dependency, that
seek to explain the Latin America’s relative underdevelopment. The modernization
perspective argues that cultural characteristics of 'new' nations must be considered in
determining their potential for development, while the dependency perspective is
primarily a historical model that pays less attention to precise theoretical constructs
and more attention to the specification of historical phases. The paper compares the
conceptual approaches of these two perspectives and provides some judgment as to
their relative utility in explaining Latin American underdevelopment.
2) According to modernization theory, Western-style institutions, industrialization, and
advances in technology can all contribute to economic development through rendering
it a linear process. According to this theory, social and political advancement will
ultimately arise from economic expansion and that all nations can pursue the same
path to development.
3) Dependency theory, on the other hand, argues that Latin America's historical ties to
wealthy nations, rather than a lack of modernization, are responsible for the region's
underdevelopment. This thesis holds that Latin American economies depend on
advanced economies for technology, capital, and markets, which maintains their
underdevelopment and strengthens their status as raw material suppliers in the global
economy.
4) The authors argue that both modernization theory and dependency theory have their
strengths and weaknesses, and that they offer complementary perspectives on the
issue of underdevelopment. They suggest that a more nuanced approach that
 combines elements of both theories is needed to fully understand the complex factors
that contribute to underdevelopment in Latin America.
5) The paper additionally emphasizes how crucial political and historical circumstances
are to understanding underdevelopment. The authors argue that political instability,
authoritarianism, and inequality are the main drivers of underdevelopment in the
region, and that neither modernization theory nor dependence theory is sufficient to
account for these causes.
6) The study emphasizes the demand for policy responses that consider the distinctive
historical and political context of each Latin American nation. The authors contend that
boosting democracy, lowering inequality, and diversifying the economy are all crucial
first steps in addressing the region's underdevelopment.

CRITICAL EVALUATION
This paper provides a helpful comparison of two theoretical frameworks for
comprehending underdevelopment in Latin America and is well written and insightful.
However, there are some critiques and evaluations that can be made of the paper:
1) The paper is somewhat dated. he theoretical discussions and empirical facts
surrounding underdevelopment in Latin America have dramatically changed over the
past few decades, despite the fact that the 1978 publication of the study was
revolutionary at the time. As a result, some of the arguments and supporting data in
the study might not be as persuasive or relevant to modern scholars and policymakers.
2) The impact of globalization is not extensively discussed in this work. While
acknowledging the significance of outside causes in influencing Latin America's
underdevelopment, the article does not adequately address the consequences of
globalization for the area. An in-depth examination of the effects of globalization on
Latin America would be useful in light of the substantial shifts in the world economy
and politics over the past few decades.
3) More empirical data would improve the paper. Although the paper offers a detailed
theoretical comparison of dependency theory and modernization theory, it may benefit
from more empirical data to bolster its claims. While the authors do include some
historical and modern examples, a more thorough and methodical examination of the
empirical data would strengthen the paper's argument.
4) The essay may have been more critical on modernization theory. Modernization theory
and dependency theory are fairly compared by the author, however they do not
completely address the criticisms of modernization theory that have surfaced in the
years since the work was released. For instance, current scholars have criticized
 modernization theory for its Eurocentric biases and for failing to take into consideration
the complexity of social and political transformation in developing nations.
5) The paper is limited by its focus on Latin America. The applicability of modernization
and dependency theories to other countries may be constrained, notwithstanding the
authors' persuasive argument for their relevance to understanding underdevelopment
in Latin America. Because of the distinctive historical and political setting of Latin
America, it may not be possible to apply this paper's findings to other continents or
nations.
6) The paper could be more explicit about its normative assumptions. While the authors
acknowledge that both modernization and dependency theories have normative
implications for policy, they do not fully explore the ethical and political implications of
these theories. A more explicit discussion of the normative assumptions underlying
each theory would help to clarify the implications of each for policy and practice.
7) The study might be clearer about the assumptions it makes regarding norms. Although
the authors accept that the dependency and modernization theories have normative
policy consequences, they do not adequately examine these theories' ethical and
political implications. The implications of each theory for policy and practice should be
made clearer by engaging in a more thorough discussion of the normative
presumptions that each theory is based on.
8) The paper could benefit from a more integrated approach to theory and evidence. The
authors compare modernization and dependency theories in a beneficial way, but they
do not fully reconcile their theoretical analyses with actual data. The writers may
support their claims and offer a more in-depth study of the elements that lead to
underdevelopment in Latin America by more closely integrating theory and evidence.

REFERENCE
University of Notre Dame. (2023). Faculty Fellow: J. Samuel Valenzuela.
https://kellogg.nd.edu/people/j-samuel-valenzuela#bootstrap-fieldgroup-nav-item--
research
Valenzuela, J. S., & Valenzuela, A. (1978). Modernization and dependency: Alternative
perspectives in the study of Latin American underdevelopment. Comparative
politics, 10(4), 535-557.
Wilson Center. (2023). Biography of Arturo Valenzuela.
https://www.wilsoncenter.org/person/arturo-valenzuela-0