Richard Peet and Elaine Hartwick’s book Theories of Development explains about Development as Modernization in chapter 4. In the beginning of this chapter, Peet and Hartiwick provided history of approaches to modern economic progress through explaining about Naturalism and Rationalism. Herbert Spencer clarified about Naturalism which is if there were great environments, these were able to create increased economic and make better politics and well supported societies. Also, they explained about Rationalism which is the opposite of naturalism, so Rationalism assumes that social institution and human behavior to be founded on natural bases (123). After this, they explored how theorists identified theories of modernization, five historical stage
…show more content…
Everett Hagen argued that there are links between human personalities and technological progress, social change. Modernization theorists think old people are uncreative and authoritarian, on the other hand, new people are more creative and use technological power. Second of all, they talk about 5 stages about modernization, which are traditional societies, preconditions for take off, take off, the drive toward maturity and high mass consumption. Furthermore, they clarify what modernization is. There are several ideas about modernization and who created modernization. One is that places where has been grown are important, but rest of them are not, so the Third countries were isolated and technically undeveloped economics. Basically, Modernization theorists say that modernization is depended on locations, which mean if there are some places where are developed economically and technically, the close to these places could take advantage of the location to acquirer to get information about technology or whatever things to be richer. Therefore, modernization was seen as a spatial diffusion …show more content…
There are two things that I would like to analyze about what authors argued. The first my thing I will analyze is critique of Sachs. In this Argument, Peet and Hartiwick tell us that there are two disagreements about Sachs opinions. Two disagreements are about economic and the second ethnical. The first argument is not believable that foreign assistance can not be used to end poverty, because there are not enough aid will be sent. And I also think aid will affect their lives for a while, but not long enough, there are nothing left after using these foreign aid. Instead of giving aid, people should teach somethings that can be used to help their lives for longer period. The second thing is that Sachs assumes that rich people should invest their asests to poor countries for their securities that prevent from people become terrorists. I agreed with their critiques about this, because there are not many terrorists compared to how many populations in the world, also I don’t think investing foreign aid change minds of people who become terrorists. Therefore, I don’t think theory of modernization don’t work for both
Everett Hagen argued that there are links between human personalities and technological progress, social change. Modernization theorists think old people are uncreative and authoritarian, on the other hand, new people are more creative and use technological power. Second of all, they talk about 5 stages about modernization, which are traditional societies, preconditions for take off, take off, the drive toward maturity and high mass consumption. Furthermore, they clarify what modernization is. There are several ideas about modernization and who created modernization. One is that places where has been grown are important, but rest of them are not, so the Third countries were isolated and technically undeveloped economics. Basically, Modernization theorists say that modernization is depended on locations, which mean if there are some places where are developed economically and technically, the close to these places could take advantage of the location to acquirer to get information about technology or whatever things to be richer. Therefore, modernization was seen as a spatial diffusion …show more content…
There are two things that I would like to analyze about what authors argued. The first my thing I will analyze is critique of Sachs. In this Argument, Peet and Hartiwick tell us that there are two disagreements about Sachs opinions. Two disagreements are about economic and the second ethnical. The first argument is not believable that foreign assistance can not be used to end poverty, because there are not enough aid will be sent. And I also think aid will affect their lives for a while, but not long enough, there are nothing left after using these foreign aid. Instead of giving aid, people should teach somethings that can be used to help their lives for longer period. The second thing is that Sachs assumes that rich people should invest their asests to poor countries for their securities that prevent from people become terrorists. I agreed with their critiques about this, because there are not many terrorists compared to how many populations in the world, also I don’t think investing foreign aid change minds of people who become terrorists. Therefore, I don’t think theory of modernization don’t work for both