In this literature review, the author aims to explore functionalist notions within Development Studies (DS) and the sociology of development (SOD). For this purpose, he will firstly give a short introduction to three related theories of social change: functionalism, structural functionalism and neofunctionalism. In the next step, two important theories in DS that build on them will be presented: modernisation theory (MT) and dependency theory (DT). As this literature review is explicitly not intended to be a mere presentation of theoretical elaborations, the author follows an approach that is informed by case examples
Only a handful of social scientific terms can be considered to be as disputed as the presumable catch-all phrase 'development' that is also occasionally called an 'empty signifier'. Historically, the term went hand in hand with other well-intended terms such as 'empowerment', 'participation' or 'poverty reduction', ultimately resulting in one size fits all development recipes that are rather apolitical. On a rather abstract level, 'development' can also be considered a bundle of normatively positive and interconnected processes which, by now, only took place in some parts of the world.
The term quickly gained momentum after the end of the Second World War, when the so-called developed countries began attempting to 'modernise' so-called undeveloped countries (oftentimes their former colonies). Typically, the inauguration address of former US-President Harry S. Truman in 1949 is said to mark the onset of the era of development policy, with the discipline of Development Studies (DS) starting to evolve only a few years later. Initially considered to be mainly economically oriented, DS soon included approaches from a wider range of subjects and even led to the emergence of new sub-disciplines such as the sociology of development (SOD).
Table of Contents
1 Introduction
2 Theoretical framework
3 Sociological Functionalism and Development
4 Critical Discussion
5 Conclusion and Outlook
Research Objectives and Themes
This literature review explores the persistence and influence of functionalist and neofunctionalist notions within Development Studies (DS) and the sociology of development (SOD), examining how these theoretical frameworks have shaped perspectives on social change, modernization, and dependency.
- The theoretical evolution from classical functionalism to structural functionalism and neofunctionalism.
- The historical and ongoing influence of Modernisation Theory (MT) within Development Studies.
- The relationship between functionalist paradigms and the interpretation of dependency and underdevelopment.
- Critical perspectives on the sociology of development, including the "development impasse" and the role of ethnicity.
- The potential for future research to bridge theoretical sociology with grassroots development practice.
Excerpt from the Book
1 Introduction
Only a handful of social scientific terms can be considered to be as disputed as the presumable catch-all phrase 'development' that is also occasionally called an 'empty signifier' (Ziai 2009). Historically, the term went hand in hand with other well-intended terms such as 'empowerment', 'participation' or 'poverty reduction', ultimately resulting in one size fits all development recipes (Cornwall & Brock 2005) that are rather apolitical (Ferguson 1994). Ziai (2012: 4) summarises Ferguson's (1994) understanding of the term, which he laid out in his widely read and highly influential monography Anti-Politics-Machine, as follows: “'Development' is the name not only for a value but also for a dominant problematic or interpretative grid through which the impoverished regions of the world are known to us.” More precisely, on a rather abstract level, 'development' can also be considered a bundle of normatively positive and interconnected processes which, by now, only took place in some parts of the world (Ibid.). Moreover, and crucially, “[d]evelopment seems as a consensual, non-conflictive goal to be achieved by technical processes to which no one can object.” (Ziai 2016a: 160)
The term quickly gained momentum after the end of the Second World War, when the so-called developed countries began attempting to 'modernise' so-called undeveloped countries (often times their former colonies). Typically, the inauguration address of former US-President Harry S. Truman in 1949 is said to mark the onset of the era of development policy (e.g. Kolland 2005; Ziai 2016b), with the discipline of Development Studies (DS) starting to evolve only a few years later. Initially considered to be mainly economically oriented, DS soon included approaches from a wider range of subjects and even led to the emergence of new sub-disciplines such as the sociology of development (SOD).
Summary of Chapters
1 Introduction: This chapter introduces the contested nature of the term 'development' and outlines the objective to explore functionalist notions within Development Studies and the sociology of development.
2 Theoretical framework: This section provides an overview of social change theories, tracing the conceptual development from classical functionalism and structural functionalism to neofunctionalist perspectives.
3 Sociological Functionalism and Development: This chapter examines the historical influence of Modernisation Theory and Dependency Theory as major functionalist-rooted frameworks in the study of development.
4 Critical Discussion: This part addresses meta-theoretical challenges such as the 'development impasse', the role of ethnicity in social systems, and the limited impact of sociologists on development practice.
5 Conclusion and Outlook: The final chapter summarizes the findings, noting the decline of traditional functionalism and proposing the application of neofunctionalist ideas to contemporary development challenges.
Key Words
Development, Sociology of Development, Functionalism, Structural Functionalism, Neofunctionalism, Modernisation Theory, Dependency Theory, Social Change, Ethnicity, Development Studies, Development Impasse, Global South, Globalization, Social Systems, Political Economy.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the primary focus of this literature review?
The review explores the presence and influence of functionalist and neofunctionalist theoretical notions within the fields of Development Studies and the sociology of development.
Which theoretical frameworks are discussed in the work?
The paper covers functionalism, structural functionalism, neofunctionalism, Modernisation Theory (MT), and Dependency Theory (DT).
What is the central goal of the author?
The goal is to analyze how these functionalist-based theories have historically shaped the understanding of development and to evaluate their current relevance in light of sociological criticism.
What research methodology does the paper employ?
The work utilizes a literature review approach, substantiated by case examples and a critical discussion of the theoretical foundations of development research.
What themes are covered in the main body of the text?
The text covers the shift from modernization to dependency paradigms, the historical emergence of sociology of development, the conceptualization of ethnicity, and the critique of development policies.
Which keywords best characterize this work?
The core themes are characterized by keywords such as functionalism, modernization, development studies, sociology of development, and the development impasse.
How does the author view the 'Modernisation 1.5' concept mentioned in the text?
The author discusses this via the work of Alpermann and Fukuyama, interpreting it as an attempt to update the teleological modernization paradigm without successfully transitioning to a fundamentally new model.
What is the significance of the "Green Revolution" example used in the paper?
It serves as an illustrative case for how technical 'modernization' interventions often overlook sociological contexts, resulting in unintended negative environmental and social consequences.
What does the paper conclude regarding the future of sociology in development?
The paper suggests that sociology can play a bridging function, moving beyond dogmatic ideologies toward more meso-level data analysis and 'thick' explanations of social change.
- Quote paper
- Max Schmidt (Author), 2019, Digging to a hidden Sociological Core. (Neo)Functional Notions within Development Studies, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/502732
