THE CHARACTERISTICS OF DEVELOPMENT

PARADIGMS: MODERNIZATION,

DEPENDENCY, & MULTIPLICITY

Ameyu Etana

Graduate student of school of Journalism and

Communication, Addis Ababa University

© Ameyu Etana, May, 2014 Addis Ababa University, Ethiopia

Email: ameyuetana@gmail.com

Abstract

The name and concept of development was a bone of contention for many scholars on the globe,

mainly following the Second World War. Respectively, the modernization, dependency and

multiplicity paradigms were emerged having different approaches to development. Lamentably,

the first two paradigms were believed did not bring the desired development. Due to this, they

were exposed to many critiques. In contrast, the recent one multiplicity paradigm seems more

acceptable. However, no model is free from critique. Since, the field has not experienced a linear

evolution in which new approaches superseded and replaced previous ones; there is still a

possibility to use such models today. Therefore, this paper rigorously assessed the different

characteristics of modernization, dependency, and multiplicity paradigms.

Key Words: Development Paradigms, Modernization, Dependency, Multiplicity

I. Introduction

Though several scholars defined it differently, the following definition seems better define the

concept. Moemeka, A. (1994:12) stated, “The application of the process of communication to

achieve development process or objective.”

Accordingly, different development paradigms or models were emerged on which different

scholars have shown profound interests. These are modernization, dependency and multiplicity

paradigms. This paper will try to explore the feature of these paradigms

.

1. Modernization Paradigm (1945-1960’s)

Meaning: It is the oldest and dominant paradigm founded in Western Neo-classical economic

theory. It was the first attempt to articulate the problem of underdevelopment. This paradigm

stresses the transfer of technology, socio-political culture of developed societies

(industrialization) to the traditional societies as the quickest means to let them enjoy

development. In other words, imitation of Westerns or Westernization is development.

Modernization paradigm advances the order notion that all traditional societies should pass

through similar stages in to be a modern society. This model is authority based, top-down,

expert-driven, non-negotiable, well-intentioned and it is all about vertical communication.

Development model and development content: Theorists like Daniel Lerner, Wilbur

Schramm, Walter Rostow, Everett Rogers, and others were much dealt with this model. Almost

all theorists of this paradigm stated the stage toward development, assuming their ways fits all.

That‟s why it was called the stage or behavioral change model.

Development contents were, as cited in Pieterse, Jan N., according to Rajni Kothari, „where

colonialism left off, development took over‟ (1988: 143). This means much of the contents were

entertainment, news and trivial and not focused on development, mostly. Contents were based on

behavioral change and imported from West. I.e. democracy, education, industrialization, modern

agricultural practices, Western culture, urbanization, health and etc. In addition, broadcasting

system of the modernization paradigm privileged individualism, consumerism, patriarchy, white

male dominance, and many other westernized themes.

The messages were top down approach; perpetuating the very of Western as urban and powerful

elites controlled the media that is supposed to promote development.

The causes of underdevelopment: were internal to third world nations that can be cured by

external factors (by technological aid). Lack of (information, knowledge, big capital, expertise,

and modern social organizations), indigenous culture, backward technology, corruption,

traditional values and attitudes are all causes of underdevelopment. Anything against industrial

development was assumed as the cause for underdevelopment.

How to effect development: evolution terminating which involves a phased, lineal,

irreversible, progressive, and lengthy process modeled on the development paths of the

developed world. In addition to, resembling Western is assumed a short cut to development;

traditionalism, bad taste, superstition, and fatalism which were obstacles have to be removed. On

the other hand, the massive transfer of capital, ideology, technology, and know-how, a

worldwide Marshall Plan, and a green revolution are the means of modernization/development.

Where development is applicable: as it is centralized state model, development is applicable

mainly at cities or centers of south hemisphere countries. I.e. individuals from higher

socioeconomic strata living in cities and towns (metropolitan).

The role of media communication: Because the problem of underdeveloped regions was

believed to be an information problem, media communication was presented as the instrument

that would lead directly and play a central role to solve it. Later, even seen as, the proxy to

development. The media were both channels and indicators of modernization. They are

motivators and movers for change and modernization since the mass media could speed up and ease

the long slow transformation.

The most significant in explaining the role of communication in this paradigm are Daniel Lerner,

with his concept of „empathy‟, Everett Rogers with his idea of „Diffusion of innovations‟ and

Wilbur schramm with the importance of mass media in modernization process in persuading the

receivers to adopt it and termed it as the „magic multipliers,‟ therefore, the mass media was

regarded as, „mobility multipliers.‟

Critiques on Modernization paradigm: Albeit efforts had been made by Western scholars,

at last, what ought to be seen was lacked though there were some improvements. I.e. education,

health, and agrarian practices improved in the southern hemisphere.

In a nutshell, it ignored indigenous ways, historical and cultural traits of third world nations,

focuses on individual level, ignored the issue of media ownership, control, content, and structure,

at the expense of these, contents were based on, mostly, Americanization. On the other hand,

lack of participation is a failure for dominant paradigm. In addition, it promoted external causes

of poverty and underdevelopment, and blames the victims themselves for their poverty.

2. Dependency Paradigm (Late 1960s to 1980s)

Meaning: This paradigm came as counteract to dominant paradigm and it is the first

development theory that was formulated in poorer nations. The chief architect of dependency

theory was Raiil Prebisch, an Argentine economist. This paradigm was informed by Marxist and

critical theories and highly focused on the effects of dependency.

Theorists of this paradigm believed underdevelopment is a result of the world process of capital

accumulation and it cannot be seen apart from development. Dependency paradigm is well

known for its cultural imperialism approach that proposes a dominant sociopolitical group

influences and shapes the culture of weaker groups, or nations, through mass media and other

practices and institutions.

Development Model and Development Content: Herbert Schiller and others stated the

foundation for a theory of cultural imperialism. It rested on three key ideas: first, in a free market

the economically powerful will become more powerful while the poor will get poorer, second,

further concentration of media ownership will influence and reduce the variety, plurality, and

type of messages in the media, and third, media technology is a social tool, created and used for

sociopolitical means and economic ends (Cited in Mcphail, T.L.2009 :24).

Theorists like Paul Baran, Andre Frank, Cardoso, paul Prebisch, Paulo Freire, Dos Santos, Samir

Amin, Beltran, Diaz-Bordenave and others were forerunners of the paradigm. Development

contents were focused local industrialization, political revolution, mass mobilization, socialism

themes and extensive coverage of local issues and others, though there were also imported

programs from Second world nations.

The causes of underdevelopment: External; political or underdevelopment caused by their

reliance and dependence on more economically developed countries. I.e. capitalism. The flip

side of developed world became underdevelopment for the third world nations. The developing

world politically and culturally dependent on Western nation particularly US.

How to effect development: „Dissociation‟ (political, economic and cultural self-

determination) strategy for developing nations from world market and information system and

develop a „self-reliant‟ development strategy. A change in media structures, break away from the

capitalist system and turn towards socialist system are stated by proponents of the paradigm.

Unlike modernization, which gave emphasis to „economic struggle‟, dependency reflects the

guest for „political struggle‟ (the way out and heading for socialism).

Where development is applicable: National and international. Nationally, developing

countries on the periphery were to become economically self-reliant and less dependent on

foreign imports. Internationally, they would form alliances among themselves to create a

stronger political presence. The ultimate goal would be to change the overall international set of

relationships by forming a bloc of many countries with similar aspirations.

The role of media communication: put the media in the service of the people to promote

national and public goods rather than as pipelines for capitalist ideologies. This paradigm did not

undermine the role of media for development; rather, departure was on the balance of

information flow and the creation of self-reliant media system instead of relying on Western

media outlets to support development albeit greater state control.

Moreover, mass media were not independent variables but seen as dependent on environmental

factors and concerned more with revolutionary theory of the press. Their communication model

was basically the same with modernization as a one-way Communication flow, with the main

difference between the two theories being who was controlling and sending of the message and

for what purpose.

Critiques of Dependency paradigm: Dependency theory also commits the fallacy of

composition by equating economic development with development. This is partly because it

deems import substitution industrialization as a key pathway to development. Secondly, its

core/periphery dichotomy serves merely to analyze the structure of economic relationships

between the developed and the Third Worlds. Hornick, (1998) stated two broad categories for its

failure, „Theory failures‟ and „program failures.(Birhanu,2009: 136). In contrast, McAnany

(1983:4) characterized dependency theory as „... good on diagnosis of the problem ... but poor on

prescription of the cure‟ (Cited on Servaes, J. 2008:163).

Hence, the inability of explaining fully the causes of underdevelopment, inability of offering

relevant alternatives for development and communication; and reliance on historical, political,

material analysis of dependistas was the most crippling weaknesses of dependency block.

Similar critiques on Modernization and Dependency Paradigm: they have things to

share, especially in their use of media and communication, which is elitist, linear and top-down

process for both of them. Both theories make the mistake of treating LDCs and capitalist

societies as homogeneous ignoring the difference of their nature. Additionally, both

overemphasized on quantitative criteria to the exclusion of social and cultural factors, and again

both, too economically focused and for not paying enough attention to social and cultural factors.

3. Multiplicity Paradigm (Since 1980s)

Meaning: This paradigm is also referred as participatory communication for development or

another development. It came up with a new say which stresses, one way or another, there is

interdependence of nation states. Development is an integral, multidimensional, and dialectic

process that can differ from society to society. This paradigm emphasizes on cultural identity.

Therefore, development problem is a relative one. Servaes labeled this theory of development as

“The best of both world views”.

This was the first time that greater emphasis had been put on the interpersonal channels.

Therefore, participatory communication model emphasize people as the nucleus of development.

Unlike, modernization paradigm, it encourages the subject to be the active participator –people

centered approach. Therefore, we can call it as bottom-up approach or horizontal communication

to development as it depends on dialectic process.

Development Model and Development Content: Development is assumed

multidimensional as it includes social development and good governance, eliminating poverty,

developing democracy, and others, other than economic growth or the struggle to be free.

In Multiplicity Paradigm more attention is paid to the content of development, which implies a

more normative approach. It favors a multiplicity of approaches on the context, the basic, felt

needs, and the empowerment of the most oppressed sectors of various societies at different

levels. I.e. Cultural identity, local knowledge and capability, gender equality, empowerment,

good governance, participation, human right, eradication of poverty, basic needs, and

democracy.

The causes of underdevelopment: Internal as well as external factors inevitably influence

the development process. Development has to be studied in a global context, in which Center

and Periphery, as well as their interrelated subdivisions, have to be taken into consideration.

(Servaes, 2002: 271).

How to effect development: By giving choice for local people and by contextualizing

development issues. Participation, mobilizing and giving much emphasis for the public will bring

the intended development.

Where development is applicable: Locally. In addition, since development is carried out

interdependently, applicable regionally, nationally, as well as at international levels.

The role of media communication: Participatory approaches give much emphasis to poor

people so that to make them active participants in their own development. In the participatory

model, communication is a process, not a series of products. The role of mass communication

here was to narrow the knowledge gap between the information rich and the information poor.

Moreover, communication was considered as a catalyst for change and assumed vital of mass

media when used in non-commercial and non-Western style of communication.

The participatory school (alternative paradigm), which rejects the two extremes (imitation and

dissociation) advocates a two way communication through creating a media landscape that could

relate to the grassroots specific realities and needs. Therefore, as a social institution, the ultimate

goal of communication for development is to democratize citizens and cause positive, effective

and sustainable change in a society. People empowerment, mutual understanding, creating

awareness, dialogue, initiating for participation and mobilization as well.

The critics of Alternative Development have focused on the inadequate concern with the role of

external factors and the process of globalization.

II. Conclusion

As mentioned so far, since 1940‟s, different works of scholars in different models have been

entertained towards bringing development. However, no model is free from critique. Since, the

field has not experienced a linear evolution in which new approaches superseded and replaced

previous ones there is still a possibility to use such models.

References

Ameyu Etana (2011) The practice of Development Journalism at FM 96.3: The case

of Tila Program. Unpublished BA thesis, School of journalism and

Communications, AAU.

Birhanu Olana (2009) Journalism in the context of Ethiopian Mass Media; Essays,

Researches, and Reflections, first edition, Z secretarial service, Ethiopia.

Huntington, S. P.(1971) The Change to Change: Modernization, Development, and

politics, City university of New York, USA.

Kazan, F.E.(1993) Mass Media, Modernity, and Development: Arab States of the Gulf,

Praege publishers, USA.

McPhail, T. L. (2009). Development Communication: Reframing the Role of the Media,

Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

Mefalopulos, P. (2008). Development communication sourcebook: broadening the

Boundaries of Communication. The World Bank, Washington, DC, 20433.

Melkote, S.R. (2002). Theories of Development Communication in Gudykunst. W.B., &

Mody,B. Handbook of International and Intercultural Communication (2nd Ed).

London: Sage Publications.

Melkote, S.R. & Steeves, H. L. (2001) Communication for Development in the Third World:

Theory and Practice for Empowerment, 2nd

edition, sage publications, New Delhi.

Moemeka, Andrew A. (1994) Communicating for Development, university of New York,

USA

Negeri Lencho (2010) Media and Communication for Development and Democratization in

Ethiopia: Journalistic Practices and Challenges. Unpublished PhD thesis, AAU.

Pieterse, N. Jan (2010). Development Theory: Deconstructions/Reconstructions, second

edition, London: Sage Publications.

Quebral, C. Nora (2012). Development Communication Primier, SouthBound , Penang,

Malaysia.

Servaes, J. (1999). Communication for development: One world, multiple cultures.

Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.

Servaes, J (2008) Communication for Development and Social Change, UNESCO, Sage

Publications, New Delhi, India.

Todaro, M.P. and Smith, S.C. (2012). Economic Development (11th edition). Addison Wesley

Pearson Education, LTD.

Urquidi, M.M., (1979) Dependency and Development in Latin America, by Cardoso, F.H.

& Faletto, E. university of California press, USA.

Waisbord, Silvio (nd) Family Tree of Theories, Methodologies and Strategies in

Development Communication. Available at:

http://www.communicationforsocialchange.org/pdf/familytree.pdf