Modernization Theory

As in the Cold War era, there are three prevailing theories of global evolution at the beginning of the twenty-first century. The Marxist school that equated modernization reforms with promotion of imperialism and social class exploitation has transformed into a broader left-leaning agenda, appealing to conflict against the United States and its elitist allies as a mechanism for more just economic distribution and more checks in global political development. The target of globalization more clearly pinpoints the problem of an imposed foreign model reducing cultural diversity and autonomy, raising the profile of nationalism over the old theme of class struggle.

The hegemonic globalization school may be less vocal, but it is not hard to comprehend the meaning of its warnings of threats that can only be addressed in a world mobilized under clear leadership and newly attuned to containing political development that allows security dangers to emerge. Its neoconservative message calls for imposing a single model, more than comparing alternative approaches of nations and regions while accepting the virtues of diversity.

As developed in comparative studies and by the multilateral globalization school, modernization theory accepts that convergence is a long-term process that must remain incomplete as societies seek solace in what makes them distinctive. The quickening pace of technological change will fuel accelerated integration, and there will be dangers of increased interdependence and vulnerability that will demand more security cooperation. Yet the driving forces of the global system will remain states competing to gain an advantage in boosting their economies and national power. In the context of growing world integration, states will still be in competition to capitalize on modernization and shape the global system.