Review
BibTex RIS Cite

Modernleşme Teorisini Yeniden Düşünmek: Ekonomik Kalkınma ve Demokrasi İlişkisine Eleştirel Bir Bakış

Year 2019, Volume: 11 Issue: 18, 2996 - 3022, 30.06.2019
https://doi.org/10.26466/opus.561066

Abstract

1960’larda toplumların modern ekonomik gelişme aşamasına ulaşması için
kültürel ve toplumsal bir değişim sürecine ihtiyaç duyduğundan yola çıkan
modernleşme teorisi, Batı dışı toplumlarda geri kalmışlığının anlaşılması,
açıklanması ve bu toplumların gelişme pratiklerine katkı sağlanması amacıyla
sosyoloji ve siyaset biliminin de konusu haline gelmiştir. Modernleşme teorisi
“Karşılaştırmalı Siyaset” içinde de özellikle demokrasinin bir yönetim biçimi
olarak baskın hale gelmesiyle önemli bir yaklaşım olarak kendini göstermiştir.
Dolayısıyla modernleşme teorisinin demokratikleşme süreçlerinin anlaşılması ve
sebep-sonuç ilişkisinin tanımlanması, anlamlandırılması ve açıklanması
konularında oldukça sık başvurulan bir yaklaşım olduğu söylenebilir.
Karşılaştırmalı siyaset içinde modernleşme teorisinin kurucusu kabul edilen
Seymour Martin Lipset demokratikleşmeyi neredeyse doğal kabul edilen değişim
sürecinin bir parçası olarak görür ve ekonomik gelişmişliğin beraberinde sosyal
ve siyasal gelişmişliği de getirdiğini iddia eder. Lipset’in 1959 yılında
yazdığı “Demokrasinin Toplumsal Gereklilikleri: Ekonomik Kalkınma ve Siyasal
Meşruiyet” (Some Social Requisites of Democracy: Economic Development and
Political Legitimacy) başlıklı makalesi öncül çalışma niteliğindedir. Lipset
makalesinde demokrasi ve ekonomik gelişmişlik arasında var olduğunu iddia
ettiği korelasyon üzerine kurguladığı hipotezinde, bir ulusun ekonomik
gelişmeye bağlı olan refah seviyesi arttıkça, o toplum içinde demokrasinin de o
derece sürdürülebilir olacağını savunmuştur. Bu makalenin amacı karşılaştırmalı
siyaset bilimi çerçevesinde modernleşme teorisini yeniden düşünmektir. Bu
kapsamda, Lipset’in yukarıda adı geçen makalesi merkeze alınarak, modernleşme
teorisi bağlamında demokratikleşme süreçleri üzerine yapılan okumalar eleştirel
bir biçimde ele alınacaktır. 

References

  • Acemoglu, D. ve Robinson, J. A, (2005). Economic origins of dictatorship and democracy. New York: Cambridge University Press.
  • Altun, F. (2002), Modernleşme kuramı: Eleştirel bir giriş. İstanbul: Yöneliş Yayınevi.
  • Bowles, S. ve Gintis, H. (1996). Demokrasi ve kapitalizm: Mülkiyet, cemaat ve modern toplumsal düşüncenin çelişkileri. İstanbul: Ayrıntı Yayınevi.
  • Cheibub, J., A. ve Vreeland, J., R. (2012). Economic development, democratization and democracy, 23.12.2018 tarihinde https://www.uio.no/-english/research/interfaculty-research-areas/democracy/news-and-events/events/conferences/2012/papers-2012/Cheibub-Vreeland-Wshop7.pdf adresinden erişildi.
  • Diamond, L. (1999). Developing democracy: Toward consolidation. Baltimore: JHU Press.
  • Doorenspleet, R. (2004). The structural context of recent transitions to democracy, European Journal of Political Research, 43, 309-335.
  • Feldman, A., S. ve Hurn, C. (1966). The experience of modernization, American Sociological Association, 29 (4), 378-395.
  • Geddes, B. (1999). What do we know about democratization after twenty years?, Annual Review of Political Science, 2(1), 115-144.
  • Goorha, P. (2010). Modernization theory,In Oxford Research Encyclopedia of International Studies (1-22), New York: Oxford University Press.
  • Gürsoy, Y. (2016). Rejim değişiklikleri: Otoriterleşme ve demokratikleşme. (S. Sayarı ve H. D. Bilgin, Der.), Karşılaştırmalı Siyaset: Temel Konular ve Yaklaşımlar içinde (75-100), İstanbul: İstanbul Bilgi Üniversitesi Yayınları.
  • Heo, U. ve Tan, A., C. (2001). Democracy and economic growth: A causal analysis, Comparative Politics, 33 (4), 463-473.
  • Huntington, S., P. (1991). Democracy's third wave, Journal of Democracy, 2 (2), 12-34.
  • Inglehart, R. ve Welzel, C. (2005). Modernization, cultural change, and democracy: The human development sequence. New York: Cambridge University Press.
  • Inglehart, R. ve Welzel, C. (2010). Changing mass priorities: The link between modernization and democracy, Reflections, 8 (2), 551-567.
  • Jan, D. (2006). Einführung in die vergleichende politikwissenschaft. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag.
  • Lipset, S., M. (1959). Requisites of democracy: Economic Development and political legitimacy, The American Political Science Review, 53 (1), 69-105.
  • Lipset, S., M. (1969). Political man. Sussex: Heinemann Educational Books.
  • Lipset, S., M. (1994). The social requisites of democracy revisited: 1993 presidential address, American Sociological Review, 59 (1), 1-22.
  • Miller, M., K. (2012). Economic development, violent leader removal, and democratization, American Journal of Political Science, 56 (4), 1002-1020.
  • Moore, B., (1966). Social origins of dictatorship and democracy: Lord and peasant in the making of the modern world. Boston: Beacon Press.
  • Newton, K. ve Van Deth, J., W. (2014). Karşılaştırmalı siyasetin temelleri. Ankara: Phoenix Yayınevi.
  • O’Donnell, G., A., (1973). Modernization and bureaucratic-authoritarianism: Studies in South American politics, University of California, Berkeley: Institute for International Studies.
  • Pennock, J., R. (1979). Democratic political theory. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
  • Przeworski, A. (1991). Some problems in the study of the transition to democracy, (O’Donnell, P. C. Schmitter ve L. Whitehead Der.). Transitions From Authoritarian Rule. Comparative Perspectives. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press.
  • Przeworski, A. (2004). Democracy and economic development. (E. D. Mansfield, ve R. Sisson Der.). Democracy, Autonomy, and Conflict in Comparative and International Politics. Columbus: Ohio State University Press.
  • Przeworski, A. ve Limongi, F. (1997). Modernization: Theories and facts, World Politics, 49 (2), 155-183.
  • Rueschemeyer, D., Stephens, E. H., Stephens, J. D. (1991). Capitalist development and democracy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  • Rueschemeyer, D., Stephens, J., D., Huber, E. (1992). Capitalist development and democracy, Contemporary Sociology, 72 (3), 243-248.
  • Schoeder, R. (1998). Max Weber, democracy and modernization. London: MacMillan Press.
  • Schumpeter, J., A. (2003). Capitalism, socialism and democracy. London: Routledge.
  • Sözen, Y. (2016). Siyasi rejimler: Demokrasiler ve diğer sistemler. (S. Sayarı, ve H. D. Bilgin, Der.). Karşılaştırmalı Siyaset: Temel Konular ve Yaklaşımlar. İstanbul: İstanbul Bilgi Üniversitesi Yayınları.
  • Tilly, C. (2014). Demokrasi, (E. Arıcan çev.). İstanbul: Phoenix Yayınevi.
  • Tipps, D., C. (1973). Modernization Theory and the Comparative Study of Societies: A Critical Perspective, Comparative Studies in Society and History, 15 (2), 199-226.
  • Weber, M. (1946). Sociology in essays. New York: Oxford University Press.
  • Wucherpfennig, J. ve Deutsch, F. (2009). Modernization and democracy: theories and evidence revisited, Living Reviews in Democracy, 1, 1-9.

Rethinking Modernization Theory: A Critical Perspective on The Relationship Between Economic Development and Democracy

Year 2019, Volume: 11 Issue: 18, 2996 - 3022, 30.06.2019
https://doi.org/10.26466/opus.561066

Abstract

In the 1960s modernization theory has become one of
the dominant paradigms in sociology and political science and both disciplines
relied on it in explaining why non-Western countries remained underdeveloped.
Modernization theory, which suggests that economic development requires a
cultural and social transformation, has also affected the literature on
comparative politics, particularly when democracy has become the dominant
regime type in the Western world. As such, many studies to date has employed
this approach as a way to understand and explain the processes of
democratization in different contexts. Seymour Martin Lipset, the founding
father of modernization theory, approaches democratization as a natural outcome
of modernization and forms a linear relationship between the economic
development and the social and political development. Lipset’s article “Some
Social Requisites of Democracy: Economic Development and Political Legitimacy”
published in 1959 is considered to be a seminal work in this respect. Lipset
argues that there is a correlation between economic development and democracy
in that the higher the level of economic development and economic welfare the
higher the chances of democracy to survive. The major goal of this article is
to rethink the premises of modernization theory based on the aforementioned
article of Lipset from the perspective of comparative politics. Accordingly, in
this paper we will critically analyse the theories of democratization based on
the modernization approach and try to observe the impact of modernization
theory on the democratization literature.

References

  • Acemoglu, D. ve Robinson, J. A, (2005). Economic origins of dictatorship and democracy. New York: Cambridge University Press.
  • Altun, F. (2002), Modernleşme kuramı: Eleştirel bir giriş. İstanbul: Yöneliş Yayınevi.
  • Bowles, S. ve Gintis, H. (1996). Demokrasi ve kapitalizm: Mülkiyet, cemaat ve modern toplumsal düşüncenin çelişkileri. İstanbul: Ayrıntı Yayınevi.
  • Cheibub, J., A. ve Vreeland, J., R. (2012). Economic development, democratization and democracy, 23.12.2018 tarihinde https://www.uio.no/-english/research/interfaculty-research-areas/democracy/news-and-events/events/conferences/2012/papers-2012/Cheibub-Vreeland-Wshop7.pdf adresinden erişildi.
  • Diamond, L. (1999). Developing democracy: Toward consolidation. Baltimore: JHU Press.
  • Doorenspleet, R. (2004). The structural context of recent transitions to democracy, European Journal of Political Research, 43, 309-335.
  • Feldman, A., S. ve Hurn, C. (1966). The experience of modernization, American Sociological Association, 29 (4), 378-395.
  • Geddes, B. (1999). What do we know about democratization after twenty years?, Annual Review of Political Science, 2(1), 115-144.
  • Goorha, P. (2010). Modernization theory,In Oxford Research Encyclopedia of International Studies (1-22), New York: Oxford University Press.
  • Gürsoy, Y. (2016). Rejim değişiklikleri: Otoriterleşme ve demokratikleşme. (S. Sayarı ve H. D. Bilgin, Der.), Karşılaştırmalı Siyaset: Temel Konular ve Yaklaşımlar içinde (75-100), İstanbul: İstanbul Bilgi Üniversitesi Yayınları.
  • Heo, U. ve Tan, A., C. (2001). Democracy and economic growth: A causal analysis, Comparative Politics, 33 (4), 463-473.
  • Huntington, S., P. (1991). Democracy's third wave, Journal of Democracy, 2 (2), 12-34.
  • Inglehart, R. ve Welzel, C. (2005). Modernization, cultural change, and democracy: The human development sequence. New York: Cambridge University Press.
  • Inglehart, R. ve Welzel, C. (2010). Changing mass priorities: The link between modernization and democracy, Reflections, 8 (2), 551-567.
  • Jan, D. (2006). Einführung in die vergleichende politikwissenschaft. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag.
  • Lipset, S., M. (1959). Requisites of democracy: Economic Development and political legitimacy, The American Political Science Review, 53 (1), 69-105.
  • Lipset, S., M. (1969). Political man. Sussex: Heinemann Educational Books.
  • Lipset, S., M. (1994). The social requisites of democracy revisited: 1993 presidential address, American Sociological Review, 59 (1), 1-22.
  • Miller, M., K. (2012). Economic development, violent leader removal, and democratization, American Journal of Political Science, 56 (4), 1002-1020.
  • Moore, B., (1966). Social origins of dictatorship and democracy: Lord and peasant in the making of the modern world. Boston: Beacon Press.
  • Newton, K. ve Van Deth, J., W. (2014). Karşılaştırmalı siyasetin temelleri. Ankara: Phoenix Yayınevi.
  • O’Donnell, G., A., (1973). Modernization and bureaucratic-authoritarianism: Studies in South American politics, University of California, Berkeley: Institute for International Studies.
  • Pennock, J., R. (1979). Democratic political theory. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
  • Przeworski, A. (1991). Some problems in the study of the transition to democracy, (O’Donnell, P. C. Schmitter ve L. Whitehead Der.). Transitions From Authoritarian Rule. Comparative Perspectives. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press.
  • Przeworski, A. (2004). Democracy and economic development. (E. D. Mansfield, ve R. Sisson Der.). Democracy, Autonomy, and Conflict in Comparative and International Politics. Columbus: Ohio State University Press.
  • Przeworski, A. ve Limongi, F. (1997). Modernization: Theories and facts, World Politics, 49 (2), 155-183.
  • Rueschemeyer, D., Stephens, E. H., Stephens, J. D. (1991). Capitalist development and democracy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  • Rueschemeyer, D., Stephens, J., D., Huber, E. (1992). Capitalist development and democracy, Contemporary Sociology, 72 (3), 243-248.
  • Schoeder, R. (1998). Max Weber, democracy and modernization. London: MacMillan Press.
  • Schumpeter, J., A. (2003). Capitalism, socialism and democracy. London: Routledge.
  • Sözen, Y. (2016). Siyasi rejimler: Demokrasiler ve diğer sistemler. (S. Sayarı, ve H. D. Bilgin, Der.). Karşılaştırmalı Siyaset: Temel Konular ve Yaklaşımlar. İstanbul: İstanbul Bilgi Üniversitesi Yayınları.
  • Tilly, C. (2014). Demokrasi, (E. Arıcan çev.). İstanbul: Phoenix Yayınevi.
  • Tipps, D., C. (1973). Modernization Theory and the Comparative Study of Societies: A Critical Perspective, Comparative Studies in Society and History, 15 (2), 199-226.
  • Weber, M. (1946). Sociology in essays. New York: Oxford University Press.
  • Wucherpfennig, J. ve Deutsch, F. (2009). Modernization and democracy: theories and evidence revisited, Living Reviews in Democracy, 1, 1-9.
There are 35 citations in total.

Details

Primary Language Turkish
Subjects Political Science
Journal Section Articles
Authors

Şebnem Yardımcı-geyikçi 0000-0001-6444-5920

Uğur Çil This is me 0000-0002-4550-5550

Publication Date June 30, 2019
Acceptance Date June 26, 2019
Published in Issue Year 2019 Volume: 11 Issue: 18

Cite

APA Yardımcı-geyikçi, Ş., & Çil, U. (2019). Modernleşme Teorisini Yeniden Düşünmek: Ekonomik Kalkınma ve Demokrasi İlişkisine Eleştirel Bir Bakış. OPUS International Journal of Society Researches, 11(18), 2996-3022. https://doi.org/10.26466/opus.561066