Modernization theory of the second half of the 20th century, is one of the directions in the theory of socio-historical development, which have developed in the framework of modern philosophy. Their essential feature was universalism, i.e. society they regarded as universal (universal) process having the same patterns and stages (stage) for all countries and peoples. Methodological basis of universalism was technological determinism, which displays the progress of human development technology and the economy, leading to worldwide prosperity and solving social problems. It was believed that this progress blurs socio-cultural and political characteristics of the different countries, each society dictates its own requirements / 1 /.
What was a modernization in specific areas of society according to its researchers? In the field of social modernization was associated with a clear specialization of people, public and state institutions on activities that are less dependent on sex, age, social background, personal relationships and more people — with the development of modernization — the personal qualities of the person, his qualifications, diligence, and education. Social modernization and considered as a replacement for hierarchical relations of subordination and dependence vertical relationship of equal partnership based on mutual interest / 2/. Modernization theorists investigated how the process of transition from traditional to modern society changes the role and functions of the family, demographic structure, as these changes associated rapid urbanization.
Economic modernization meant the development and application of technology based on scientific knowledge, highly efficient energy sources, deepening of the social and technical division of labor, the development of markets for goods, money and labor, and, subsequently, their regulation, increasing complexity of organization of production, the existence of incentives for the development and implementation of technological and organizational innovations.
However, already in the 60s, some researchers paid attention to the fact that in the process of modernization is necessary, first of all, to increase investment in education. F.Harbison wrote, «the central problem of all modernizing countries is to accelerate the process of human capital formation». This position meant the abandonment of the concept of technological determinism, from the desire to reduce the modernization of technical and economic innovations / 3 /.
Political Modernization involves, first, the expansion of territories and streamlining administrative and political boundaries, formation of national or federal states, strengthening the central (both legislative and executive) power, and at the same time — the separation of powers; secondly, the ability of the state to the structural changes in the economy, politics, social sphere, while maintaining stability and internal cohesion; Thirdly, an important aspect of political modernization increasingly considered including the masses in the political process (at least through the election); fourthly and finally, — the establishment of political democracy, or at least populist rule changes in the way of legitimizing power (instead of referring to «God’s work» and the «nature of things» — the ideological and political preferences of social groups). At the same time, the authors of modernization theories emphasized that in Asia, Africa and Latin America, in contrast to Western Europe and North America, there is a developed civil society, so their political modernization difficult. One of the essential features of the modernized society they considered «recruitment» of the state bureaucracy in accordance with the formal requirements for education, skills and professional qualities of people, whereas in a traditional society «input» into the ranks of politicians and officials was due status, origin and personal relations person.
Modernization involves differentiation spiritual and cultural value systems and orientations secularization of education and literacy, diversity schools and movements in philosophy and science, religious tolerance (confessional pluralism), the development of means of communication and dissemination of information, involvement of major groups to culture spread the values of individualism. In addition, modernization was associated rationalization of consciousness on the basis of scientific knowledge and the refusal of behavior according to the traditions. Some scholars, such Sh. Eyzenshtadt even thought h «the development of a new cultural stereotype of» forms «the core» of the whole process of modernization / 4 /. Modernization theorists recognize that different countries have taken place and modernization in different ways and at different rates. These distinction rightly explained by the fact that in some countries modernize organic, part of the internal development of society, and in others — held under the influence of a developing country.
Theories significant place given the socio-political mechanism modernization, the role of government, political institutions and leaders in the transformation was done. Simultaneously considered and the problem of the social subject of renovation: which social groups interested in upgrading and able to lead, what is the role of the modernizing elite in the renewal of society, particularly in developing countries. The main conclusion, which came modernization theorists was that the success of reforms depends primarily on its ability to provide elite modernizers whether the stability of society in the process of change. In this regard, it was noted that an important role in the modernization of the armed forces can play underpinning public stabilization and control of changes in the conditions of demolition of the whole social structure. In 50–60 years. some scientists who developed a general theory of modernization (D.Epter, B.Higgins, Dzh. Dzhermani, M.Levi etc.) simultaneously studied the experience of modernizing selected countries in Asia, Africa and Latin America. As part of the modernization of research, primarily by the example of the successful experience of Japan, comes the understanding that modernization does not mean fully diluted social traditions that there are traditions that can contribute to the modernization. A notable phenomenon in the literature on the problem of modernization in the 70-ies is a comparative analysis of modernization in Japan and Russia as countries that were in the past about the same level of development, where tradition. played a crucial role in the process and the nature of change, and as a result of modernization.
Modernization of interest in postwar Germany, the essence of which to develop a model of a social market economy. Overcoming the legacy of the Nazi after World War II was simultaneously overcoming the model of development, which developed in Germany since the end of the last century. Responding to the challenges of the 20th century had to look again. It was necessary to preserve the achievements in social policy that does not simply mean improvements old economic order, because the old forms were filled with new content and combined with the development of new elements (policy of promoting competition and so on.). Of course, it is a combination of old and new could have a positive effect only when these elements are bound by ties of a particular order — a social market economy. The main ideas of this order came from two very close (but nevertheless different) varieties of modern (modernized) liberalism — ordoliberalizm («Freiburg School» led by v. Oykenom and F.Bemom) and neoliberalism (A.Ryustov, In. Röpke and others). The concept of the social market economy was based on the following provisions:
— A country in its economic policy should not give priority to the regulation of economic processes and the establishment of forms and rules by which the undertakings must act;
— The creation of forms and rules should be aimed at is to ensure the conditions for free competition of business entities; competitive order is the foundation of the economy and society based on the principles of freedom and democracy; by virtue of the interdependence of all aspects of social life — primarily economic and political — they need to be complex transformation to match each other, the same applies to the elements of each block separately, for example, requires that the terms of business consistent with monetary policy, the last — banking system, etc. Competition as the basis of not only economic, but also the entire public life after a period of totalitarianism was considered as the only possible mechanism for the implementation of the principle of individual freedom. But that freedom is not abused and did not use it to limit the freedom of others, sets the appropriate order. Freedom and order are the key concepts of postwar modernization program of Germany, most convincingly developed by Walter Eucken.
Thus, the content of modernization was that to move from a centrally controlled and the regulated public order, to order a free, competitive, and thus — to solve the problem of individual freedom and authority in connection with the mechanism of economic regulation. But such a transition should not occur spontaneously, but because of deliberate state policy. In other words, the new system does not grow «naturally» and nurtured (and then maintained and developed) in certain conditions and certain techniques.
However, bitter experience of the early twentieth century German theorists and politicians looking for ways to correct or appropriate adverse competitive effects of system development of competition itself, prevent negative social phenomena that threaten the stability of society and fraught slipping from democracy to dictatorship. That’s why W.Euken and his supporters, despite its commitment to free competition, tried to develop a regulatory framework to promote competition. Ordoliberalov merit and neoliberals was just that they are fundamentally determined the direction and goal of the movement, outlined (and justified) the basic contours of the future system, which with a light hand Armakom Mueller-called «social market economy». Eucken and all the «Freiburg School» were not the developers' program, «but rather the creators of the ideology of modernization of Germany. Most valuable in the concept ordoliberalizm that it substantiates the necessity of actions the state to create the institutional forms of the market and its legal regulation.
Certainly, such a policy carried a considerable risk: in fact conscious and purposeful activities for the modernization of the state social-¬ economic system could result in increased bureaucratic bureaucracy, which gradually forget about reforms, keeping only the reform rhetoric, and begins to solve own problems, primarily strengthen their power. In postwar Germany, we could avoid it and not least due to the same ordoliberals who opposed any gain power and saw opposition to this in the same competition — but political. Multiparty system and a tough competition and the parties in the Bundestag, and in local government and elections, as well as a clear system of checks and balances under divided government, the influence of public opinion (media) allows you to actually keep the state (especially the executive) under effective control. In general, the German experience confirms that democratic reform) favors a strong but limited government.
Theorists of «social market economy» and policy practitioners, primarily Adenauer and Erhard knew perfectly well that in itself democratic political system cannot automatically convert the economic system in which power structures (public, private-monopolistic or group) dictate the rules and force other economic subjects to follow them. For post-war Germany was characterized by highly specific features, which were due to the legacy of the Nazi regime. In particular, it had to deal with a very acute problem conversions huge military-industrial complex, which after World War II would be almost completely destroyed by the victorious powers of administration, and particularly the French and Soviet zones of occupation. We should not forget about the «Marshall Plan that helped Germany, like other countries of Western Europe, to lay the foundations of mass consumption society, and without which reform Erhard would be doomed to failure / 5 /.
Senior Lecturer at Kostanay State University named after A.Baitursynov
1. Modernization: Russian and foreign experience. 1994.
2. D. Lerner (With the collaboration of W. Pevsner). The Passing of Traditional Social Modernizing the Middle East. Glencoe (III), 1958.
3. Harhison F. H. Human Resources Development Planning in Modernising Economies Leading Issues in Development Economies: Selected Materials and Commentary. Ed by Mei G.M.Y. 1964 p. 273.
4. Eisenstadt S. M. Modernization: Protest and Change, p.5. Levy, M, p.61.
5. Gutnick B. How to Reform Erhard / / Financial news. 1993. № 21 Gutnick B. Reform in 1948 in Germany. Open door in a social market economy Globe. Meeyudunarodny Gazette. 1993. July 1. № 26.