Lots of debate on Modernisation Theory on twitter. I looked at this in detail for research: a thread on literature which speaks to its Eurocentrism, methodological limitations & stagiest approach towards an ideal model of growth. (Feel free to add). 1/6 #globaldev #econhist

First, Nils Gilman’s book looks at MT as a manifestation of Postwar American Liberalism and the dominant framework in shaping postcolonial countries. The beginning quote to the book is a good summary (use search engine) 2/6 https://jhupbooks.press.jhu.edu/title/mandarins-future

Berger makes a case of how MT privileged an evolutionary conception of development to deter Soviet influence, home-grown nationalism & traces rise of 'Asian studies' as a discipline grounded in a romanticised vision of the history of the US 3/6
https://www.jstor.org/stable/20072531?seq=1

Tareq Banuri @unuwider Message underlying MT is crisis of knowledge, Western development presented as: unfettering of rationality: application of science to production, an objective view of social relations, and an increased emphasis on efficiency’ 4/6. https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/widerw/295562.html

Another by Nils Gilman looking at MT's leading progenitor, Walt Whitman Rostow, and how MT provides flattering narratives for policy and intellectual elites.5/6
https://read.dukeupress.edu/hope/article-abstract/50/S1/133/137280/Modernization-Theory-Never-Dies?redirectedFrom=fulltext

Jan K Black on MT: 'In economics, development theory presumed that with infusion of capital & acquisition of entrepreneurial skills, & the advantage of not having to reinvent the wheels, developing nations would pass at an accelerated pace.' 6/6
https://www.jstor.org/stable/24458299?seq=1