1. Modernization Theory (MT): True or False?
Prof. Mark R. Thompson
MAMAS
AIS, CityU
AIS5024: State and Economy in East Asia
Lecture 3

2. “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)

3. 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?

4. 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 after rapid development
So is MT true after all?

5. 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

6. 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 the theory?
Failure to build up infrastructural power?
To replace despotic?

7. “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

8. 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

9. 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?

10. 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

11. 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

12. 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 ):
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

13. 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

14. 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

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

16. 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 and Burma
Like Catholic Europe, middle rational/self- expression

17. 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

18. 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

19. After the break More about authoritarian developmentalism See you then
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

20. 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