~SAGE

American Academy of Political and Social Science

The Concept of Political Development Authorfs). Lucan W. Pye Source. Annals of the American Academy of Politicsl and Social Science, Vol. 358. New Netons. The Problem of Political Development (Mar .. (965), pp. 1-13 Published by, S"ge Public"t;ons.lnc. in associat ion w ith the American Acad<l11)' of Political and Soci"1 Science Stable URL, ImpJiw\\''''jstoLorg/stablc./ 1036351

The Concept of Poltical Deve lopment

By
LUCIAN

W.

PYE

JI

Accessed: 17/01/201108,17
Your use of (he JSTOR you have obtained may use content archive Indicates

hltp:h\\ww.jc;tor.org:page/info':aboulpoliciec;!remlS.jc;p. prior permission. in the JSTOR archive

acceptance of JSTOR's Tenns and Conditions of Use. available al lSTOR's Tem1S and Conditions of Use provides. in parto that unless you may 001 download an entire issue of a joumal or multiple copies of arricles. and you
your only for your personal. non-commercial Publisher use.

ABSTRACT: Considerable onf ian exists over the concept of olitcal development, which is o recent arigin in political scence. The confusion is compounded beca use particular trends in the social sciences inhibited explicit concern about p-olifcal as di tinct iram economic, develo me t. Ten definitians of \ ( r'Q9litical development" are analyzed in this articIe, and a final summary view of the ssenual dim 0 of the concept is presented in which three broadly shal'ed Gharacteristi oi olit-

Picase contact the publisher regarding any further use: of this work. hllp:i,w,,w.jstor.orF1c.tioni~howPublishC'r'!publishcrCodl::::sage. Each copy of any page of such JSTOR

contact information may be obtained

al

part of a JSTOR

transmission

must

contain the sarne copyright

notice that

appears on the screen or printed

lransmission.

conrern

service that helps scholars. researchers, and students discover. use. and build upon a wlde range of trusted digital archive. ,"'e use infonnation technology and 10015 lo increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more inJonnation about JSTOR. please contact support@jstor.org. is a not-for-profit in a

l develop~nt are outlined: concern with~~aal[;W~it~h~th~eb @pacffy.tf the political system, and with th ar pecialization oi govemmen a organizations. These three characteristics are generalIy related to certain aspects of political develapment: qualit to th olitica culture, the problems af capacity to autharitative gayernmental structures, and the question of differentiation to nonauthortative structures. This suggests a final analysis that the robl af alitical devela ment revalve around the relationship between the palitical cult~re, the utharitative structure, and the eneral olitical pracess. <:.---

Sage Publications.Lnc, and American Academy of Poitcal and Social Science are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Annals of the American Academy of Polucal and SOCial Science .

Lucan W. Pye, Ph.D., Cambridge, Mossacbuseus, is Projessor 01 Political Science and Senior Staff Member 01 the Center [or International Studies at tbe Mtusachusetts Institute 01 Technology and is currently Chairman 01 the Comparatiue Politics Committee 01 the Social Science Researcb Council. He is the author 01 Politics, Personality, and Notion-Building (1962) and 01 Guerrilla Communism in Malaya (1956), coauthor 01 The Politics 01 Deueloping Areas and 01 The Emerging Nations, and editor 01 Communications and Political Deuelopment (1963).

THE

ANNALS OY THE

AMERICAN ACADEMY

THE

CONCEPT

OF POLlTICAL

DEVELOPMENT

HE language of public policy is always in flux, for lle:.y concerns produce new terminolo ies. Yet in the language o politics, in which sloganeering is the common currency of presumed dialogues, fluency in innovation rarely signals advancement in thought. At times fresh terms herald the awareness of novel problems, but more often they indicate merely frustration with intractable circumstance. When the language of politics seeks to define in broadest terms the contemporary human condition, it tends to be sensitive mainly to the emotions of hope, anxiety, or rustration which are inherent in the mind's erra tic ability to either race ahead or fall far behind the tempo of substantive change. The political analyst in seeking the neutral ground o the observer inevitably faces the dilemma o being able neither to ignore popular terrninology nor to use it as the hard currency of disciplined intellectual exchange. And even if the analyst recognizes that the qualities of ambiguity and indeterminateness which are virtues for the politician's art may be pit.J~S falls for himself, he may still find hirn1~' """self the victim of a form of Gresham's law in political communication. AlI of this is of great relevance in trying to find meaning in current discussion of what is or should be happening in the p; and weak c9\!!ltries of the During the last decade the worldwide interest in the plight of these 50cieties has produced a .Rall~.w,,.~1.WO Some of these express the as i ions of statesmen; others are the pompous pretensions of calculating politicians; and still others are merely the euphemisms of people who think that they may be talking about delicate matters. The result is that the study of the problerns of these societies is so el t with loosely used terrns that ear and disciplined communication become difficult. Observe how it as now become

;>

.!id..

necessary to employ such optimistic and promiseful expressions as "developing" and "~erg~t" when discussing the gloomy cass o countries that are barely holdmg themselves together, whose governments are shaky and archaic, and whose peoples are growing fas~er in numbers than in well-being. The ver terms of analysis suggest f~ at may conflict with the predictions that objective analysis is seeking to make. To a large degree this state of ~ mantic affairs can be explained by the fact that are grappling with new problems of crisis dimensions, and wnen there 15 urgency me re can rarely be order. The need is tQ get on with a job rather than to tidy U!? language. Another way of characterizing. the situation, however, is to say that scholars, who are the natural guardians of orderly thougbt and communications, were grossly unprepared for the demands of postwar history. Fortunately for those who have tender feelings for the wellbeing of scholarship, the charge of unpreparedness does not carry the same sting as when it was made against 501diers and poli ticians who failed to oresee a coming war. Yet, 1 think we can afford tbe objectivity of admitting that in...developing sound theories of social and political change, the social sciences have lagged behiiid events. As a resuH, now that we are trying to make up for lost time, we must gracefully pay a penalty and use language coined mainly b.iJ?oliticians and men of action, but in line with our calling we should also seek on occasion to elarify meaning in this language. Befort turning directly to the task of elarifying the concept of "political development" it is relevant to note some of the intellectual reasons why the social sciences were unprepared to provide Ule knowledge necessary for guiding strategles o national develQpment. Our Pilrpose is not to seek the presumed

;e

benefits of sel-criticism and mutual criticism, but rather to point to some intellectual considerations wbicb may still interfere with elear thinking about , ~ 'I(,I~ politiCiiiCieVeloDme,n t either as a ~;.oI''' retical concept or as a practical ohctm. of policy. From the perspective of intellectual history it is striking that the issue of development in its economic, social, and political guises arose to cballen~ the ~liJ social scientists just at the time when ~S"~{ we thougbt we bad ~ the presurnt,1f"ably old-ashioned and innocent concept of rP,rogr~ Althougb earlier social theonsts ad cer inly given support to the notion of man ro ess and social ~ modero socia scientists ~ been somewhat embarrassed by this popular \o\;este[~ and peculiarly AmeriCan artiele o~h. With the rise .,. (,; of the d~s and the holocaust of V { World War II, the mood of social sci(0":\ ence was at best agnostic and skeptical to any suggestion about ejther the iny evitability or even the desirability Qf progress. With this as background, the social sciences were hardly ready to ernbrace enthusiastically the concept of "development" as applied to the non) Western worId. tonsequently, we nave had to go through a period of adjustment during which there has been some suspicion that the presumably dscredited notion of progress was again appearing through a back door. Tbe problem has created some intellectual confusion and has diverted energies into marginal and unproductive skirmishes. In a nearer perspective of intellectual history, the guestion of development ~ught the social sciences at the high point in our belie i cu tura re . \ Although ~ld War a r se e question about the valdity o dispensing tolerance towards all cultures, certainl;tlieiainstream of social :;ci~nce favored the spirit o accepting the propriety o cultural differences and o re-

.> ""1

geeray

J\

IJ

specting the realities of contemporary life in every society. In countering the evils o ethnocentrism, rather strong taboos were erected against even mplying that some societies might be more ";Qyanced" or more "developef' than JS . others. Tbis meant that general stand- \ ' ~ social and poltical performance :5'r1-t\ were QllL and bdlavior in one society .,.4. should not be judged against perfonance m another. In the hght of this experience, it carne as a shock to doctrinaire champions of cultural relativism to discover that their doctrines could be cruelly degrading precisely to those to whom it was intended to give respectability. For, when crudely put, the concept of cultural relativism could be read to mean that it was in the lre o some SOcie"tiesto be rich and ~werful and for, others to be poor and "pffectllal. The doctrine could ea'SiIYbe misunderstood as a balm to the poor to make it possible ortJiem to rationalize their lot. #v( Aside from this, the tendency to lDis: understand the ethic o cultural relativism has impeded thougbt about the proiiiems of development because it has left social scientists unsure as to whether tEei should prooerIy be concerned with a~ting others to change their ways and deviate from their heritages. To be concerned with development can all too often seem the same as 9:.ying to make others over into the image of ourselves, as long as it is accepted that we are somehow more developed than they are. The very legjtimacy of develo&ment is thus brought into uesUon by e spirit o cultur vlsm. t 15 not our purpose to we on t ese issues of propriety except to point out that the manfest urgency o the bistorical problem of development has in the rnain forced social SCIentists to suppress some of their scruples of cultural relativism but has left thern without strong philosophical underpnnings to support their in-

-r-.

TIIE ANNALS OY THE AMERICANACADEMY the intellectual reasons why d.Y,namic lJl9des of analysis, so essential, for unders andin the development Erocess, are inherently more I c t, and to some degree beyond our current capabilities, if the highest standards of rigor are to be maintained. Although ortunately many social scientists have been prepared to meet the challenge o work in the imperfect research environments of the new states, they have had to risk criticism of their work being not up to the levels o exactness now expected of studies in our own society. There have, o course, always been social scientists accustomed to studying foreign societies without being inhibited by the difficulties of research rigor. Yet even this tradition has not proved to be ideal preparation for c,onceptualizing the problems of development. The emphasis an,tiJrooolou and foreign area studies has been largely in terms of the concept of cultur~, for, in the past, the prime ntellectual challenge was to explain the uniqueness of different societies and the persistence of historical traditions. The provocative question was how to explain continuity and the persistence of cultural patterns, and not social change. Consequently those who have worked most c\osely with the concept of culture and who have known foreign cultures most intimately have tended to be primarily sensitive to the limitations of rapid change and the inhfbitions to effective development. For al! of these and numerous other reasons, Western social science was peculiarly unprepared for providing reaoy intellectual guidance on the problems of pO!ltlcaI and socia] deyelooment. lndeed, the very stress of c(;iitemporary social science that knowledge must be well grounded in empirical investi ation caus many soci scientists to feel excessively ill-equipped to pass judgments on the prospects o development in strange and unknown socetes; thus,

THE CONCEPTOF POLITICALDEVELOPMENT paradoxically, men who considered themselves realists above all else often elt it appropriate to dJ,ili along with the almost euphorically optimiilic view o the possibiJities for rapid development in the new state whch wer" so common a few seasons ago. Since many of the guiding considerations which had given a sense o direction and discipline to the social sciences were directly chal!enged by the emergence of the problems o development, there was an understandable degree of confusion in the field's reactions. Although by now much of this confusion has subsided and there is a general acceptance O! the importance o understanding the nature o pohtlcaI development, th~Je is still considerable ambiguity and irnprecisioq in the use of ~ the term "political development." DIVERSITY OY DEFINITlONS 1t may therefore be helpful to elaborate some o the confusing meanings which are frequently associated with the expression political development. Our purpose in doing so is not to establish or reject any particular definitions, but rather to illuminate a situation of semantic confusion which cannot but ~ pede the deve~pment of theory and ~ cloud the purposes o public policy. (1) Political Development as the Political Prerequisite o/ Economic Develop1 mento When attention was first fixedon \ llie problem o economic growth and the need to transform stagnant economies into dynamic ones with self-sustaining growth, the econornists were quick to point out that poJitical and social conditions couId playa decIslve role in im)2!;ding or facIlitatrngadvance j~r capita mcome, and thus it was appropriate to conceive of political development aS tlleState o the pohty which liglibcJ!ltate economic rowth. . rationally, however, such a view of politicaJ development tends to be es-

volvement in the development problerns. The emergence of the guesljon of developmen't also caught pojitical science at a time when the dis~iline thought that it was successfully breaking from its earlier and strongly normative traditon. Modern political science, in seekrlg to become an empirical discipline, \ has be en anxious to be highly r~ic and to ~ with conditions and proce2ses as they actually occur in life. This fundamental trend again seems in some respects to conflict with the orientations necessary for working on the problems of development; for if Qgvelopment means anything it means a r.,ejection of current realities in ayor of hoped-for ~ities . The spirit of empirici;;;, in replacing interest in utopias and in more ideal arrangements, gave a certain sense of legitimacy to the ongoing workings of any political process, which in turn had left political scientists with the eeling that r1;formism is slightlLnaive ,and at chan e and improvement can , ,tt""- ?nll be increment. 15 outlook on t(J r.~ history was hardly ca\culateatOlJe o help and encouragement to the leaders and intel!ectuals o new states impatient for dramatic change. In addition to dominant trends in the philosophic orientations of the social sciences, the recently fashionable operating procedu.res and methodolo~i\!s have also affected our ability to deal with the problems of development. Briefly, after World War II the social ~nces felt that they wer CQIDi~ ~ as sciences, and thus they tended to Rlace a high value on precision, rigor, and exactness of measurement, qY1l!ill.es which are all more co~e with systt;.matic but essentjaJ!y statjc modes of analysis. Our awareness of the possbilities of sophisticated techniques o investigation has made us uncomfortable with loose and broad generalizations. With our methodological sophistication we have also come to appreciate ully

1)

oe

sentially negative, beca use it is easier to be precise about the ways in which performance of a pohtlcaI system may irn>de or prevent economic development than about how it can facilitate economic growth. This is true because, lstoncally, economic growth has taken place within a variety of political systems and with quite different ranges of ptilic policies. This leads to the more serious objection that such a ~ of politic.ifdevelopment does not focus on a common set of theoretical considerations, for in some cases it would mean no more than ~a ~oyernment is following intelligent aod economically rational policies while in other situations it would "Volvefar more fundamental considerations about the basjc or~anjzatiQn of the polity and the entire performance of the Sodety. The problems o political development would thus vary entirely according to the particular economic problems. Another fundamental difficulty with such a view of political development has become increasingly apparent during the last decade as the prospects for rapid economic development have become exceedingly dim in many of the poor countres. E.coillnies manifestly change far more slowly than political arrangement~ and in large numbers of countries substantial economic growth-to say nothing of industrial development-is not likely in OUTgeneration although there may stll be substantial political change, much of which might, according to other concepts, seem to deserve the label of poltical development. Fmany there 15 the objection that in most underdeveloped countries people clearly are concerned with lar m';)re than just material advancement, and lj-re anxious about political development quite independently of its effects on the rate of econorruc gtOwth. Therefore to ~k polillcaI development soJely to eco-

THE ANNALS OF THE AMERICANACADEMY

THE CONCEPT OF POLITICALDEVELOPMENT hand, il!!.P..0rtance is attached only to the performance 01 certam substanuVl! functions, then another ddficulty arises inthit all political systems have, historically, in one fashion or another, performed the essental functions eXQected of these modern and Western institutions. Thus, what is to distinguish between what is more and what is less "deveJoped"? Clearly the problem o poJitical deve!opment-when thought o as being simp!y poltica! "moderniza' tion"-runs into the difficulty of diffe-;;ntiatinlL between what. is I,We~ ) and what is "rnodern." Some additional criteria seem to be necessary if such a distinction is to be made. (4) Poltical Development as the Operations o/ a Nation-State. To some degree these obJections are met by the view that political development consists of the wganization of political Iife and the performance of poJitical functions in accordance with the standards expected of a modern nation-state. In this point of view there is an assumption that, historically, there have been many types of politH:.al Syst~~ and that all communities have had eir form o ~s, but that with the emergence of the modern natio~state a specific set of requirements about politics carne into e~e, Thus, if a society is to perform as a modern "siate, its political institutions a~ practices must adjust to these requirements of state performance. The politics of historie elnpires, o tribe and ethnic community, or of colony must give way to the politics necessary to produce an effective nation-state which can operate successfully in a system of other nation-states. Political development thus becomes 1/ theprcess by which commumues that are nahon-states on!y 10 form and by international courtesy become nabn:1 states in reality. Specifcally, thlS 10volves the development o a .capacity toll

nomic events would be to ignore much standable that many people expect the that is of dramatic rnportance In ffie same to be true in the political sphere. It is, however, precisely the too easy developing countries. acceptance of this view that agitates the (2) Political Development as the Poli~jcs Typical 0l Industrial Societies. A efenders of cultural relativism who second common concept of pohucal dequesuon t e propnety o I entifying in- \ velopment, which is also closely tied to dustrial, that is, Western. practices as economic considerations, involves an abt~ntemporary and universal standstract view of the typical kind of poliards for all pohhcal systems. . Grantmg this objection, particularly tics basic to already industrialized and economically highly advanced societies. when significance becomes attached to Tlu:.. assumption is that industrial life mere fad and fashion, it is still possible produces a more-or-less common and to discern in the movement of world generic type o DolItJcaJ lIfe which any history the emergence of certain consociety .can seek to approximate whether ventions and even social norrns which it is in act. in.dllStrialized or not. In this have increasingly been diffused throughview the industrial societies, whether out the world and which people generdemocratic or not, set certain standards ally feel should be recognized by any of political behavior and performance self-respecting government. Many of which constitute the state of political these standards do trace back to the development and which represent the emergence of industrial society and the ~propriate goals of development for all rise of science and technology, but most other systems. of them have by now a dynamic o their The sp"cific qualities of political de- own. Mass participation, for example, velopment thus become certain patterns reflects the sOClologlcaJ realities of inof presumably "rational" and "respondustrialized life, but it also has been sible" governmental behavior: an avoidtaken to be an absolute right in the ance of reck1ess actions which threaten spirit of current world views. Other the vested interests of significant segideals, such as the demand for univerments of the society, some sense of salistic laws, re~et for merit rather limitations to the sovereignty of politics, ~an bir.0, a.nd generaIzeacollceptsof \ an appreciation of the values o orderly iustice and citizenshi[l' seem now to administrative and legal procedures, an hold a place above any garticular culacknowled!QIlent that politics is rightture and thus reasonably belong to some fully a mechanism Ior solving problems Universal standards of modern political and not an end in itself, a stress on wel- life. fare programs, and finally an acceptance ~ question immediately arises as to what constitutes form and what is sub.o~orm of mass par1icipatioll. (3) Political Development as Politistance in this view of political developcal M odernization. The view that poment. (Is fhe tesf o 4"elopme!!P the litical developmen t is the typical or capacily of a country to eguip itself idealized politics o industrial societies with such modern cultural artifacts as merges easily with the view that poli tip'olitical parties, civil and rationar adcal development is synonymous with po- ministratlOns, and legislative bodies? If litical modernization. The advanced in- so, then the matter 01 ethnocentrism dustrial nations are the fashion-makers may be of great relevance, for most of and pace-setters in most phases of so- these institutions do have a peculiarly cial and econorriic life, and it is underWestern character. If, on the other

maintain certain kinds of public order, ,\ t'i5"mobilizeresources ror a specifc ra~ge 01 collectlve enterpnses, and to make uplold effectlvely {ypes 01 international cornmitments. The ~t o l?9.!itical dtvelopment would thus involve, rst, {he establishment o a particular set of public institutions which constitute the necessary iniistructure of a naton-state, and, second, the controlled expresswn in poJitical life o ~he nom~on of nationalism. That is to say, Rolitical development is the politics \ \ Qf oatjonaJism within the 1:ontext of I state institutions. It is important to stress that frorn this point o view nationa!ism is only a necessary but f~E frol!l.~ufE..en!. condition to ensure political development. DeveJopment entails the translation 9f d'ffse and unorganized sentiments of nationaJism into a SPlrit o citfzenship d, equally, die creation of state mstutions which can trans!ate into poJicy a~grarns the as irations of nationaI ltizens 'p. In brief, politcal } development is nation-building. (5) Polltcal Development as.M; ministrative and Legal Development. If we divide nation-building into insti- \ tution-building and citizenship development we have two very common con"CePts of political develoQment. 1ndeed, The concept of poJitical development as or~anization-buiJding has a long 1istory, an it underhes the phiJosophy o much o the more enlightened colonial practices. Historically, when the Western nations carne in contact with the societies o the rest of the world, one of the principal sources of tension was the discovery that such societies did not share the same Western concepts about law and the nature of pubJic authorl1Y in the adjudication o pnvate dIsputes. Wherever the European went one of his first revealing queries was: "Who is in

aa

l .~TI
I~

<\ el'

THE

ANNALS OF THE

AMERICAN ACADEMY

THE

CONCEPT

or

POLlTICAL

DEVELOPMENT

charge here?" According to the logic lhe European mi!1d, every territory should fan under some sovereignty, and all people in the same geographic location sMuld have a COI~llonloyalty and teSai'e legal obligations. Also, in these ear!y cIashes oi culture the European response was to search for legal redress, and the absence of a recognizable legal order made {fe uncomfortable ~ these early Europe~s. The Western mind, in groping for a modus vivendi to carry out day-to-day relations with what appeared to be exotic and bizarre cultures, naturally turned to the law as a means for achieving order and predictability; and in doing SOit established the notion that poli tical development rested upon the existence of an orderly legal process. In time, however, it was discovered that the smooth operation of an ~t and formalized legal system de en ed u on the existente of ao ord lDinistttlve system. The rea ization of law an order tbus called for bureaucrabc structures and the development of public administration, and throughout the colonial period the concept of deVelOpment was closel ass i d with t e mtro uctJon of rationalized jnstitu) And certainly \ tions of administration. one of the principal heritages o the colonial era for the area of nationbuilding was that it left behind, in varying degrees, administrative structures which have become the important eTements in the infrastructures of now independent nation-states. Indeed, ft1S now common to evaluate the relative s~s of vari9us. colonial govemments according to the extent to which t"heY succeeded in leaving behind workable administrative systems. foday the tradition continues, as most newly independent countries consider the strengthening of bureaucra5iies to be a fi~ask in political develop-

ment. Much of foreign aid and technical assistance which is conceived to be a value for political development centers on programs in public administrations. Yet recent history, Iike the longer hstory of colonialism, has demonstrated that political development involves much ~e than the building of the authoritative structures of goyernmenl. More irnpor tan t, when such development moves conspicuously ahead of other aspects of social and political development, it may create imbalances in the system which become in time impediments to nationbuilding in the full sense. Unquestionably the strengthening of public admin~tion is ~ral in any program of nation-building: the point is only that political development must also cover ( the nonauthoritative instituTIOs of a polity. (6) Political Deuelopment as ~ M obilization and Participation. AnotEer aspect of political development involves primarily the rQ!e of the citizenry and new standards of loyalty and involvernent. Quite understandably, in some former colonial countries the dominant view of what constitutes political development is a form of political awakening whereby forrner subjects become aCtIve and committed citizens. In some countries this view is carried to sucb an extreme that the affective and mass ~strationa! aspect of popular politics becomes an end in itself, and leaders and citizens feel that they are advancing nationa! development by the intensity and frequency of demonstrations of mass political passion. Conversely, some countries which are making orderly and effective progress may, nevertheless, be dissatisfied, for they feel that : their more demonstrative neighbors are experiencing greater "development." According to most views, political de- \ velo.pment does entail some-degree of expanded popular participation, but it is

//1

important to distinguish among the conditions of suexpanslon. Historically, in the West this dimension of political development was closely associated with the widening of suffrage and the induction of new elements of the pQJ;?ulalli;m into the political process. This process of mass participation meant a ~ } of decision-makin~, and participation brought some nfluence on choice and decision. In some of the new states, l~, mass participation has not been coupled with an electoral process, but has been essentially a new form of mass response to elite manipulation. It should be recognized that even such Iimited participation has a role to play in nation-building, for it represents a means of cre;rt'ing new loyalties and a new Jeeling of national identity. Thus, although the process of mass participation is a legitimate part oi""imlit"icaT"devel9pment it is also fraught with the dangers of either st~motio~ or corrupting demagoguery, both of which can sap the strength of a society. The problem, of course, is the classic issue of balancing popular sentments with public order: that is, the fundamental pr061em""@ democracy. (7) Politicai Development as the Building o/ Democracy, Ths brings us to the view that politica! devflop~t is or should be synonymous with the establishment of democratic institu) tions and practices. Certainly implicit in many people's views is the assurnption that the only form of political developmeI}t worthy of the name is the building of democracies. Indeed, there are those who would make explicit this connection and suggest that deve~ment can only have meaning in terms ID some form of ideolo.,gy, whether democracy, commumsm, or totalitarianGm. According to this view, develop~t only has meaning in terms of the strengthening of some set of values, and

to try to pretend that this is not the case is se.If-deceivin~. As refreshing as it is to find examples of forthright and explicit igentification of democracy with development, there is substantial resistance within the social sciences to such an approach. In part this is no doubt the result of a c2,mmon aspiration within the socia!"sciences to become a value-free science. Even when t is recognized that in an extreme form this aspiration is naive, there is still a sense of propriety which dictates that the categories of social science analysis should reRect reality rather than values. Also, as a practical matter in the conduct of foreign aid policies Americans have for interesting and revealing reasons believed, probably quite falsely, that it would be easier for us in our relations with underdeveloped countries to talk about "development" rather than "democracy." In this brief survey of attitudes and views we cannot go any deeper into the complex ambiguities which surround the view that development is close to, but not really the same as, democracy. We must instead proceed with our analysis and note that there are those who are egually forth- \ nght ID asserting that development is fundamentally different from democracy, and that the very attempt to introduce democrac>," can be a po~e liability to (U rotlJ ~ development. p J 11 (8) Political Development as Stabi.!: ity and Orderly Cha'P!.' Many of those \ w1o feel that democracy is inconsistent with rapid development conceive of development almost entirely in economic or social order terms. The political cornponent of such a view usually centers on the concept of political stability based on a capacity for purpo~ful and or<k!'ly change. StabiJity that is merely stagnation and an arbitrary support of the status quo is c1early not develop-

\l

J .4

10

THE

ANNALs

OF THE

AMERICAN ACADEMY

THE

CONCEPT

OF POLlTlCAL

DEVELOPMENT

11

J.t)
ment, except when its alternative is manifestly a worse state of affairs. ~bility is, however, legitimately linked with the concept of deyelQpme'lt in that any form of economic and social advancement does generally depend upon an enyironment in which IIDcertainty has been reduced and planning based on reasonably safe predictions is possible. - This view of development can be restricted mainly to the poli tical sphere beca use a societv in which the politjcal p:ocess is capaple of ratiQDally and pur~efully controlJing and directing socia! change rather than merely resoonding to it is elearly IJNre "developed" than one in which the political process is the hapless victim of social and economic "forces" that ilIy-nilly control the destin e people. Thus, in the sa ashion, as it has been argued that m modern societies man controls nat)Jre for his purpose, whiJe in traditional 50cjetjes man sQught mainly to adapt to nature's dictates, we can conceive of 129liticaraevelopment as depending upon a c'!;pacity either to control social change 2!..to be controlIed by it, And, of course, the starlmg pomt m controlling social fq.tW is the capacity to maintain order. The problem with this view of development is that it lea ves unanswered how much order is necessary or desirable and for what purposes change should be directed. There is also the question of whether the coupling of stability and change is not something which can only occur in the d!:ll.ams o L!Djdd!e *55, or at least in societies that are far better off than most of the currently underdeveloped ones. Finally, on the scale of priorities there is the feeling that the maintenance of order, however desirable and even essential, stands s~ to getting things done, and thus development calls for a somewhat more positive view of action. (9) Political Development as Mobilization and Pouier. The recogntion that political systems should meet some test of performance and be of some utility to society leads us to the concept of political development as the capabilities oi a system. When it is argued that democracy may reduce the efficiency of a system there is an impTIed assumption that it is possible to measure political efficiency; and in turn the notion of efficiency suggests theoretical or idealized models against which reality can be tested. This point of view leads to the con- \ cept that poli tical systems can be evaluated in terms o the leve! or degree of absolute power which the system is able to mobilize. Some systems which may or may not be stable seem to opera te with a very low margin of power, and the authoritative decision-makers are elose to being impotent in their capacity to initiate and consummate po!icy objectives. In other societies such deCslo;'makers have at their cornmand substantial power, and the society can therefore achieve a wider range of common goals. States naturally differ according to their inherent resource base, but ~ measure of development is the \ de~ree to which they are able to maximize and realize the full potential of their given resources. It should be noted that this does not necessarily lead to a crude authoritarian view of development as simply the eapacity of a government to elaim resources from the society. The<$aeacitY to mobilize and allocate resources is usually crucially affected by the popular ~t which the regime cornmands, and this is why democratic systems can often mobilize resources more efficiently than repressive authoritarian ones. Indeed, in practical terms the problem of achieving greater political development in many societies may involve primarily the realization of greater popular favor -n2!..because of any absolute value of democraS}' but because only wlth such
I~

\\(/"V

1 I ~.

.,t""'"
/, ,..

l'

\ 1

)I

support can the system realize a higher degree of mobilization of power. When political development is conceived of in terms of mobilization and an increase in the absolute level of power in the society, it becomes possible to distin~l!jsh both a purpos~ for <i!;velopment and also a range of characterstics associated with development. Many of these characteristics, in turn, can be measured, and hence it is possible to construct indices of developI~s in such indices might inelude: prevalence and penetration of the mass media measured in terms of newspaper circulation and distributio~f radios, the tax basis of the society, fue proportion of population in government and their distribution in various categories of activities, and the proportion of reS0l![ces alJocated to educatjon, de.ft.nse, and social welfare. (10) Political Deuelopment as ~ Aspect o/ a Multidimensional Preces Social Chang,e. The obvious need for theoretlcal assumptions to guide the selection of the items that should appear in any index for measuring development leads us to the view that political dev!!gpment is somehow intimately associated with other aspects of social ami economic chane. This is true because any item which may be relevant in explaining the power potential of a country must also refiect the state of the econQmy and the social order. Te argument can be advanced that it is unn$essary and inappropriate to tryto ~e political development too cornpletely from other forms of development. Although to a limited extent the political sphere may be autonomous from the rest of socety, for sustained political development to take place it can only be within the context of a multidimensional process of social change In which no segment or dimension of fue society canlong lag behind. According to this point of view, all

forms of development are related, development is much the same as modermzation, and it takes place within a historical context in which infiuences from outside the society impi~ge on the processes of social change just as change in the different aspects of a society-the eC.Q!!Qrny,--1hLRQ!ity and social orderall impinge on each other.
THE DEVELOPMENT SYNDROME

. J\J

I ~'"

There are other possible interpretations of political development-for example, the view common in many ormer colonies that development means a sense O!ational self-respect and dignity in international affairs,..2! the view more common in advanced societies that PQlitical develQpment should refer to a postnationalism era when the nationstate will no long-er -be the basic unit of ~litical life. It would also be possible to distinguish othr variations on the theme which we have just presented. For our purposes we have gone far enough to point out, first, the degree of confusion that exists with the term political development and, second, the extent to which behind this cQnfusion there does seem to be a certain more solid basis of agreement. Without trying to assert any particular philosophical orientation or theoretical frarnework, it may be use ul to sean the various definitions or points of view whIch we have just reviewed in order to ~e those characteristics of p'olitical development wllich seem to be m9$t Widely hld and most fundamental in general thinking about the problems of development.'
1 Tbe themes basic to the concept of poltical deveJopment wbich follow reflect the work of the Committee on Com .r.tive Poltics of the ociai dence Research Couno and wi e develope In mu greater detail in a forthcoming volume, Tbe Political System and Poltical Development, to be publshed in the series, "Studies in Politica! Deve!opment," by the Princelon University Press.

\ ~

1\\

12

THE

ANNALS

OF THE

AMERICAN ACADEMY

THE

CONCEPT

OF POLITICAL DEVELOPMENT

13

The first broadly sbared cbaracteristic which .we would note is a ?:eneral spirit I or attitude toward ~ In most iews on the subjeCtPOilical development does involve mass participation '!!,d popular involvement In pohtlcal actJvlt.es. ParuClpation may be eitber democratc or a form of totalitarian mobiiization, but the key consideration is that subjects sbould become actjye cj,ti~ and at least the pretenses of popu\) l~ are necessary. Equality also means that ~ sbould be of a 1Uli.versalistic nature, applicable ~l and more or less il!!Eersonal in tlneir operations. Finally, equahty means that recruitment to political office sbould reflect achievement standards of performance and not the ascriptive conSderations of a traditional social system. A second major therne wbicb we find in most concepts of political development deals witb the ~f a po,; - !jtjca1 :u'stem. In a sense capacity is re1ated to the outDUts of a political svstem and the extent to wbicb tbe politisvstem can affect the rest of the 50cil:ty and ecoPOJI!Y. Capacity is also cIosely associated to governmental perfor_1UaEce and the conditions which aect such performance. More specifcally, capacity entails first of all the sheer magnitude, scope and scale of political and governmental performance. Developed systems are presumed to be able to do a lot more and touch upon l!... far wider variety of social ]ife than leS deyelooed systems can. Secondly, ca;pacity means effectiveness and effi) ciency in the execuhon o public polkY. TIeve10ped systerns presumably not on1y do more than otbers but perforrn faster and with much greater thoroughness. Ftaally, capaci~ is related to r~aljty in administration and a secular orientation toward polic~. A third the~ which runs through much of the discussion of political de-

IJ

car

3'"

velopment is that of@erentlation and SpeclahzatJoil. This is particularIy true In the analysis of institutions and structures. Thus, this aspect of development Volves first of alI the differentiation and specialization of structures. Offices and agencies tend to ba ve their diStict and limited functions, and there is an equivalent of a division of labor within the reatm of government. Witb differentiation there is also, of course, .IDcreased functional speciliciy of the various political roles witbin the system. And, finally, differentiation also involves \ the integration of comolex structures ami processes. That is, differentiation s not fragmentation and the i~ of the different parts of the political system but sRecialization based on an ulti- \ mate sense of integration. In recognizing these three dimensions of quality, capacity, and differentiat~n as ying at theneart of tbe development process, we do ll2.t mean to suggest that they necessarily lit easily together. On the contrary, historicalIy, the tendency has usually been that there are acute tensiol}S between the demands for e~ i!L.. the, reguirements for capacity, and the processes of greate~ differentiation. Pressure for greater equality can challenge the capacity of the system, and differentiation can reduce equality by stressing the importance of quali ty and specialized knowledge. Indeed, it may, in fact, be possible to distin.yisb different Datterns of deyelop~nt according to the sequential order in which different societies bave dealt with the difierent aspects of the development :Edro.me. In this sense d;.velop- \ \ ment 15 cIearly not unilinear, nor is it governed by sharp an"d distlnct stages, but rather by a range of problems that may arise separately or concurrentJy. In seeking lo pattern these different courses o development and to analyze the different types of problerns, it is useful to

note that the problems of egualit.y are generalIy related to the political culturf and sentiments about legitimacy and commitment to the system; the problems of capacity are generalIy related to the ~rformance of the authoritatjye structures of government, and the questions of differentiation touch mainly on

the performance o tbe DQDautboritative structures and the general political process in tbe society at large. Tbis suggests tbat in the last analysis the problems of political development revolve around tbe relatiQnsbips between the political culture, the autboritative struct~s, and the general political process.