NATIONAL OPEN UNIVERSITY OF NIGERIA

FACULTY OF SOCIAL SCIENCES

DES 221:SOCIAL CHANGE AND DEVELOPMENT

COURSE GUIDE
Course Developer:
Lead Developer: ASSOC. PROF. FRANCIS O. ONU
Department of Sociology, Nasarawa State University, Keffi

CO-Developer: DR JOSEPH SHEKWO

Department of Sociology, Nasarawa State University, Keffi
Course Editor
Prof. Jonathan Agbas
Department of Economics, Plateau State University, Bokkos
 Introduction
 DES221: Social Change and Development is a two credit unit
course for Sociology students. The course is made up of 11 units
spread among 15th weeks, this course reviews the definition of
social change, process of social change theories and research
from the social sciences on social change, focusing especially at
the societal level. Theories of social conflict, interest groups, and
social movements, and such processes as consciousness-raising
are covered. Dynamics of the diffusion of innovations in society
are also be addressed.
UNIT 1 DEFINITION OF SOCIAL CHANGE AND
PROCESSES OF CHANGE
OBJECTIVES

At the end of the unit, you should be able to;

Understand what social change is

Explain the processes of social change

MAIN CONTENT
DEFINITION OF SOCIAL CHANGE
The International Encyclopedia of the Social Science looks at social
change as the change in the social structure, or in the pattern of
action and interaction in societies. Alterations may occur in norms,
values, cultural products and symbols in a society. Other definitions
of change also point out that change implies, above all other things,
alteration in the structure and functions of a social system.
Institutions, patterns of interaction, work, leisure activities, roles,
norms, and other aspects of society can be altered over time as a
result of the process of social change. While defining the social
change we can say that social change is essentially a process of
alteration with no reference to the quality of change. Changes in
society are related/linked to changes in culture, so that it would be
sometimes useful to talk about ‘socio-cultural change’.
PROCESSES OF CHANGE
Some sociologists propose that social change take place basically in
one or more of the following three ways:
Discovery: A shared human perception is an aspect of reality
which already exists, for example discovery of blood circulation in
biology. It is an addition in the world’s store of verified knowledge.
However, it becomes an actor in social change only when it is put to
use, not when it is merely known
 Invention: is the new combination or a new use of existing
knowledge, for example the assembling of the computer from an
already existing idea. The idea of combining them was new.
Inventions can be material and social. Each invention may be new in
form (i.e. in shape or action) in function (what it does) or in
meaning (its long range consequence) or in principle (the theory or
law on which it is based).
 Diffusion: refers to the spread of cultural traits from one group to
another. It operates both within and between societies. It takes
place whenever societies come into contact. Diffusion is a two
way process. The British gave us their language and made tea an
important ritual. Diffusion is also a selective process. Majority of
the Indians may adopt the English language, but not their eating
habits. Diffusion generally involves some modification of the
borrowed elements of culture either in form, function or meaning.
UNIT 2 SOCIAL SYSTEM
OBJECTIVES
At the end of the unit, you should be able to;
Understand the meaning of social system
Explain the functions of social system
MAIN CONTENT
DEFINITION OF SOCIAL SYSTEM
Talcott Parson defined social system thus: “A social system consists
in a plurality of individual actors interacting with each other in a
situation which at least has a physical or environmental aspect,
actors who are motivated in terms of a tendency to the ‘optimization
of gratification’ and whose relation to their situations, including
each other, is defined and mediated in terms of a system of
culturally structured and shared symbols”, (The Social System).
Ogbum and Nimkoff have given a simplified version of this
definition of Parsons:
“A social system may be defined as a plurality of individuals
interacting with each other according to shared cultural norms and
meanings”. A careful analysis of the above definition would show
that the emphasis has been placed on interrelationship or interaction
among individuals within the framework of a normative pattern.
That is, individuals do not behave with one another erratically or in
a haphazard manner.
On the contrary, their mutual interaction is very much patterned.
They play their roles in terms of the statuses they occupy in the
society. The relationship among individuals is thus structured.
Likewise, social groups function within the normative pattern of the
society. Here also haphazard or erratic functioning of social groups
is ruled out.
A system presupposes a structure that is designed to perform certain
functions. A watch, for instance, may be considered to be a system
because it has a structure consisting of different parts which are
interrelated with one another in such a way as to perform its
function, which in this case is to indicate correct time.
If any part gets detached or if the balance existing among the parts is
disturbed, the watch fails to fulfill its function, viz. of indicating the
time correctly. If society is looked upon as a system, it also must
have a structure consisting of various parts which are designed to
perform certain functions of the system.
What are then the parts of the social structure? From what has been
discussed above, it follows that individuals and groups in a society
may be considered to be parts of the social structure. We also noted
that individuals and groups have patterned roles in terms of the
prevailing social norms.
Again, these social norms reflect the dominant values of society.
Following Durkheim, we may consider social norms and values as
‘things’ and hence parts of the social structure.
Radcliffe-Brown has defined social structure thus:
“The components of social structure are human beings, the structure
itself being an arrangement of persons in relationship institutionally
defined and regulated”.
FUNCTIONS OF SOCIAL SYSTEM
We have seen that a system presupposes not only a structure but also
certain functions which its structure is supposed to perform. What
are the functions of the social system? Talcott Parsons has given a
four-function paradigm.
This paradigm posits that every social system must continually
confront and solve the four sets of organizational problems indicated
below. In abbreviated form, the four-function paradigm is referred
to as AGIL.
1. Adaptation: The problems of adapting the social system to its
physical and social environments. The most important problems in
this respect are procuring resources needed for its activities,
providing for protection against physical and social threats, and
developing information relating to these.
2. Goal Attainment: The organizational problem of effecting co-
ordination in any collective tasks directed outside the system itself.

3. Integration: The internal problem of maintaining satisfying

relations among the interacting, members and avoiding disrupting
conflicts. For small groups, this concerns inter-personal relations.
For larger organization, it concerns inter-group relations.
Latent Pattern Maintenance:
The internal organizational problem of ordering activity patterns of the
system, and also of adjusting the role demands on members, so that these
are compatible with their other role commitments.
It is evident that the first two organizational problems concern the external
relations of the social system with its environment, including its physical
habitat, the bodily needs of its members, and other social systems with
which it comes in contact The second pair of problems concern the internal
organization of the social system as a human group of socialized and
interacting persons with cultural commitments.
How does a social system ensure that these important functions are
properly per­formed? The society sets up various institutions which are “a
constellation of socially significant customs collected around some
function or set of functions, such as ruling, fighting and worshipping”.
We may identify five of these great social institutions— namely,
family, economic, political, educational, and religious institutions —
which are found in all societies in all eras and in all parts of the
world.
These institutions “centre upon getting food and other items of
wealth, procreation, worship, and ruling. Getting a living, begetting
and rearing children, believing in higher powers, and enforcing
order are repetitive activities found in Babylon and in New York,
among the Australian aborigines and among the Australian whites”.
The social institutions are all closely interrelated and they form a
complex whole. That is why institutions are referred to as “a cluster
of institutions”, one impinging upon the others.
UNIT 3 COLONIALISM AND ITS IMPACT IN NIGERIA

OBJECTIVES
At the end of the unit, you should be able to;
Understand the concept of colonialism
Explain the impact of colonialism in Nigeria
MAIN CONTENT
CONCEPT OF COLONIALISM
Colonialism means a system which the Europeans adopted in
ruling the colonies of Africa and their benefits. It also means foreign
rule on foreign lands. Colonialism is a practice of domination,
which involves the subjugation of one people to another. The term
colony comes from the Latin word colonus, meaning farmer. This
root reminds us that the practice of colonialism usually involved the
transfer of population to a new territory, where the arrivals lived as
permanent settlers while maintaining political allegiance to their
country of origin.
IMPACT OF COLONIALISM
Negative Impact
Economic impact: The main negative impact on the economy of Nigeria was
slavery. It is true that hundreds of thousands of people were kidnapped and sold
as slaves in the new colonies of the world due to colonization; it was a painful
experience for so many Nigerian families. The second negative effect was the
stealing of Nigeria’s resources. A large amount of resources were exported out of
Nigeria due to colonization. The British Empire and other colonial powers
extracted and sold a lot of unique minerals belonging to the Nigerian people.
Political impact: The most obvious negative political impact is the dependence
of Nigeria on the Great Britain. Nigeria is one of the commonwealth countries
which were former British colonies ruled by the British government. Some
Nigerians were given the chance to take part in the governance of the country,
however, they held powers that were either too small or completely irrelevant.
The British Governors decided the fate of the nation without consulting the people
of Nigeria.
 Technological impact: It is true that Nigeria became more
industrialized because of colonialism; at the same time, it drastically
changed the simple lives of Nigerians at the time. The old
instruments and tools used by Nigerians became irrelevant in the
face of the technology brought by the British Empire. Therefore, the
old technologies got forgotten and seized to exist.
 Social impact: Slavery also brought some negative social impacts to
Nigeria, It is impossible to deny the fact that Nigerians became more
cruel because of slave trade. A lot of Africans became agents for
slave trading companies all over the world. They helped the British
slave traders to kidnap people and turn them into slaves.
 Educational and medical impacts: The traditional education in
Nigeria was killed by colonialism; this is also same for traditional
medicine. However, this is not so bad considering that Nigeria got
introduced to new and better forms of medicine and education.
Positive impacts of colonialism in Nigeria
Economic Impact: the British colonial authorities encouraged Nigerians to be
involved in agriculture for the production of certain crops such as coffee, cotton,
cocoa, rubber, groundnut, palm produce and hides and skin. With the production
of these agricultural crops, new cash crops were introduced so that the inhabitants
would no longer rely on food crops but also export crops. More so, raw materials
were evacuated from the hinterlands for onward transportation to the industries of
the colonizers and this led to the development of transport system thus, linking
roads and railways were constructed by the colonial masters to enhance the
evacuation of these agricultural products.
 Political impacts: Nigerians learned about a new kind of
organized government system from colonialism. The British
Empire brought a new judicial system together with some pieces
of democracy and a lot of tribes in Nigeria started to get along.
The British Government also helped to write peace treaties
amongst tribes. Therefore, Europeans helped to protect Africans
from their most devastating enemy – themselves. Colonization
made a huge impact in decreasing tribal conflicts in Nigeria.
 Technological impacts: Colonialism in Nigeria provided an
industrial and agricultural boom to the country. It also helped
Nigerians to solve their medical problems. Europeans were
exposed to new disease from Africa and had to find ways to treat
them, and in the process, provided cures for sick Africans too.
 Social impacts: socially, the colonial masters alongside with the
Christian missionaries brought education to us in 1864. The
curriculum was based on 3Rs which means reading, writing and
arithmetic. This helped Nigerians to become literate. It was as a
result of the education that Nigerians became exposed to the
injustice of colonialism and realized the need to struggle to be
free from colonial domination.
UNIT 4 THEORIES OF SOCIAL CHANGE
OBJECTIVES
At the end of the unit, you should be able to;
Understand the assumptions of the theories of social
change
Give a critique of the various theories
MAIN CONTENT
EVOLUTIONARY THEORIES
Evolutionary theories are based on the assumption that societies gradually change
from simple beginnings into even more complex forms. Early sociologists
beginning with Auguste Comte (1798-1857) believed that human societies evolve
in a unilinear way- that is in one line of development. According to them social
change meant progress toward something better.
They saw change as positive and beneficial. To them the evolutionary process
implied that societies would necessarily reach new and higher levels of
civilization. L.H Morgan believed that there were three basic stages in the
process: savagery, barbarism and civilization. Auguste Comte's ideas relating to
the three stages in the development of human thought and also of society namely-
the theological, the metaphysical and the positive in a way represent the three
basic stages of social change. This evolutionary view of social change was highly
influenced by Charles Darwin's theory of Organic Evolution.
Those who were fascinated by this theory applied it to the human society and
argued that societies must have evolved from the simple and primitive to that of
too complex and advanced such as the western society. Herbert Spencer a British
sociologist carried this analogy to its extremity. He argued that society itself is an
organism. He even applied Darwin's principle of the survival of the fittest to
human societies. He said that society has been gradually progressing towards a
better state. He argued that it has evolved from military society to the industrial
society. He claimed that western races, classes or societies had survived and
evolved because they were better adapted to face the conditions of life. This view
known as social Darwinism got widespread popularity in the late 19th century. It
survived even during the first phase of the 20th century. Emile Durkheim
identified the cause of societal evolution as a society's increasing moral
density.Durkheim viewed societies as changing in the direction of greater
differentiation, interdependence and formal control under the pressure of
increasing moral density. He advocated that societies have evolved from a
relatively undifferentiated social structure with minimum of division of labor and
with a kind of solidarity called mechanical solidarity to a more differentiated
social structure with maximum division of labor giving rise to a kind of solidarity
called organic solidarity.
CYCLICAL THEORY
Cyclical theories of social change focus on the rise and fall of civilizations
attempting to discover and account for these patterns of growth and decay.
Spengler, Toynbee and Sorokin can be regarded as the champions of this theory.
Spengler pointed out that the fate of civilizations was a matter of destiny. Each
civilization is like a biological organism and has a similar life-cycle, birth,
maturity, old-age and death. After making a study of eight major civilizations
including the west he said that the modern western society is in the last stage i.e.
old age. He concluded that the western societies were entering a period of decay
as evidenced by wars, conflicts and social breakdown that heralded their doom.
A variant of cyclical process is the theory of a well-known American sociologist
P.A. Sorokin (Social and Cultural Dynamics, 1941), which is known as ‘pendular
theory of social change’. He considers the course of history to be continuous,
though irregular, fluctuating between two basic kinds of cultures: the ‘sensate’
and the ‘ideational’ through the ‘idealistic’. According to him, culture oscil­lates
like the pendulum of a clock between two points.
The pendulum of a clock swings with the passage of time, but ultimately it comes
to its original position and re-proceeds to its previous journey. Thus, it is just like
a cyclical process but oscillating in character. A sensate culture is one that appeals
to the senses and sensual desires.
It is hedonistic in its ethics and stresses science and empir­icism. On the other
hand, the ideational culture is one in which expressions of art, literature, religion
and ethics do not appeal to the senses but to the mind or the spirit. It is more
abstract and symbolic than the sensate culture.
The pendulum of culture swings from sensate pole and leads towards the
ideational pole through the middle pole called ‘idealistic’ culture, which is a
mixed form of sensate and ideational cultures—a somewhat stable mixture of
faith, reason, and senses as the source of truth. Sorokin places contem­porary
European and American cultures in the last stage of disintegration of sensate
culture, and argues that only way out of our ‘crisis’ is a new synthesis of faith and
sensation. There is no other possibility.
In Sorokin’s analysis of cultures, we find the seeds of both the theories—cyclical
and linear change. In his view, culture may proceed in a given direction for a time
and thus appear to conform to a linear formula. But, eventually, as a result of
forces that are inherent in the culture itself, there will be shift of direction and a
new period of development will be ushered in. This new trend may be linear,
perhaps it is oscillating or it may conform to some particular type of curve.
Vilfredo Pareto’s (1963) theory of ‘Circulation of Elites’ is also essentially of this
variety. According to this theory, major social change in society occurs when one
elite replaces another, a process Pareto calls it ‘circulation of elites’. All elites
tend to become decadent in the course of time. They ‘decay in quality’ and lose
their ‘vigour’. According to Marx, history ultimately leads to and ends with the
communist Utopia, whereas history to Pareto is a never-ending circu­lation of
elites. He said that societies pass through the periods of political vigour and
decline which repeat themselves in a cyclical fashion.
Diffusionism
Diffusionism as an anthropological school of thought, was an
attempt to understand the distribution of culture in terms of the
origin of culture traits and their spread from one society to another.
Versions of diffusionist thought included the conviction that all
cultures originated from one culture center (heliocentric diffusion);
the more reasonable view that cultures originated from a limited
number of culture centers (culture circles); and finally the notion
that each society is influenced by others but that the process of
diffusion is both contingent and arbitrary (Winthrop 1991:83-84).
Diffusion may be simply defined as the spread of a cultural item from its
place of origin to other places (Titiev 1959:446). A more expanded
definition depicts diffusion as the process by which discrete culture traits
are transferred from one society to another, through migration, trade, war,
or other contact (Winthrop 1991:82).
Diffusionist research originated in the middle of the nineteenth century as
a means of understanding the nature of the distribution of human cultural
traits across the world. By that time scholars had begun to study not only
advanced cultures, but also the cultures of nonliterate people (Beals and
Hoijer 1959:664). Studying these very diverse cultures stimulated an
interest in discerning how humans progressed from primeval conditions to
“superior” states (Kuklick 1996:161). Among the major questions about
this issue was whether human culture had evolved in a manner analogous
 to biological evolution or whether culture spread from innovation centers
by means of processes of diffusion (Hugill 1996:343).
Two schools of thought emerged in response to these questions. The most
extreme view was that there were a very limited number of locations, possibly
only one, from which the most important culture traits diffused to the rest of the
world. Some Social Evolutionists, on the other hand, proposed that the “psychic
unity of mankind”  meant that since all human beings share the same
psychological traits, they are all equally likely to innovate (see Social
Evolutionism in this site for more on the psychic unity of mankind). According to
social evolutionists, innovation in a culture, was considered to be continuous or at
least triggered by variables that are relatively exogenous. This set the foundation
for the idea that many inventions occurred independently of each other and that
diffusion had relatively little effect on cultural development (Hugill 1996:343).
During the 1920’s the school of cultural geography at the University of
California, Berkeley purposely separated innovation from diffusion and argued
that innovation was relatively rare and that the process of diffusion was quite
common. It generally avoided the trap of the Eurocentric notion of the few
hearths or one hearth origination of most cultural traits. The school of cultural
geography combined idealism, environmentalism, and social structural
explanations, which made the process of diffusion more feasible than the process
of innovation (Hugill 1996:344).
Franz Boas (1938) argued that although the independent invention of a
culture trait can occur at the same time within widely separated societies
where there is limited control over individual members, allowing them
freedom to create a unique style, a link such as genetic relationship is still
suspected. He felt this was especially true in societies where there were
similar combinations of traits (Boas 1938:211). Boas emphasized that
culture traits should not be viewed casually, but in terms of a relatively
unique historical process that proceeds from the first introduction of a
trait until its origin becomes obscure. He sought to understand culture
traits in terms of two historical processes, diffusion and modification.
Boas used these key concepts to explain culture and interpret the meaning
of culture. He believed that the cultural inventory of a people was basically
the cumulative result of diffusion. He viewed culture as consisting of
countless loose threads, most of foreign origin, but which were woven
together to fit into their new cultural context. Discrete elements become
interrelated as time passes (Hatch 1973:57-58).
The American, Lewis Henry Morgan,  demonstrated that social change involved both
independent invention and diffusion. He agreed with British sociocultural anthropologists
that human progress was often due to independent innovation, but his work on kinship
terminology showed that diffusion occurred among geographically dispersed people
(Kuklick 1996:161).
During the mid-twentieth century studies of acculturation and cultural patterning replaced
diffusion as the focus of anthropological research. Ethnological research conducted among
Native American tribes, even though influenced by the diffusionist school of thought,
approached the study of culture traits from a more holistic interpretation. Presently, the
concept of diffusion has value in ethnological studies, but at best plays a secondary role in
interpreting the processes of culture change (Winthrop 1991:84).
Recently there have been theoretical developments in anthropology among those seeking to
explain contemporary processes of cultural globalization and transnational culture
flows. This “anthropology of place” approach is not an attempt to polarize autonomous
local cultures against the homogenizing movement of cultural globalization. Instead, the
emphasis of this line of research is to understand and explain how dominant cultural forms
are “imposed, invented, reworked, and transformed.” In order to do this, an ethnographic
approach must be taken to study the interelations of culture, power, and place: place
making, identity, and resistance. Anthropologists have long studied spatial units larger than
“the local” (Gupta and Ferguson 1997:5-7).
In spite of the fact that diffusion has its roots in anthropology,
archaeology, and cultural geography, modern research involving the
process of diffusion has shifted from these areas to agriculture
business studies, technological advancement (Rogers 1962),
economic geography (Brown 1981), history (McNeill 1963),
political science, and rural sociology. In all of these areas, except for
history, research involves observing societies, how they can be
influenced to innovate, and predicting the results of such innovation
(Hugill 1996:343).
UNIT 5 FUNCTIONALIST, CONFLICT AND
MODERNIZATION THEORIES

OBJECTIVES

At the end of the unit, you should be able to;

Understand the assumptions of the functionalist, conflict and

modernization theories of social change

Give a critique of the various theories

MAIN WORK
FUNCTIONALIST THEORIES
In the middle decades of the 20th century a number of American sociologists shifted
their attention from social dynamics to social static or from social change to social
stability. Talcott Parsons stressed the importance of cultural patterns in controlling the
stability of a society. According to him society has the ability to absorb disruptive
forces while maintaining overall stability. Change is not as something that disturbs the
social equilibrium but as something that alters the state of equilibrium so that a
qualitatively new equilibrium results. He has stated that changes may arise from two
sources. They may come from outside the society through contact with other societies.
They may also come from inside the society through adjustment that must be made to
resolve strains within the system. Parsons speaks of two processes that are at work in
social change. In simple societies institutions are undifferentiated that is a single
institution serves many functions. The family performs reproductive, educational,
socializing, economic, recreational and other functions. A process of differentiation
takes place when the society becomes more and more complex. Different institutions
such as school, factory may take over some of the functions of a family. The new
institutions must be linked together in a proper way by the process of integration. New
norms must be established in order to govern the relationship between the school and
the home. Further bridging institutions such as law courts must resolve conflicts
between other components in the system.
 CONFLICT THEORIES
Whereas the equilibrium theories emphasize the stabilizing processes
at work in social systems the so-called conflict theories highlight
the forces producing instability, struggle and social disorganization.
According to Ralf Dahrendorf the conflict theories assume that -
every society is subjected at every moment to change, hence social
change is ubiquitous. Every society experiences at every moment
social conflict, hence social conflict is ubiquitous. Every element in
society contributes to change. Every society rests on constraint of
some of its members by others. The most famous and influential of
the conflict theories is the one put forward by Karl Marx who along
with Engel wrote in Communist Manifesto 'all history is the history
of class conflict.' Individuals and groups with opposing interests are
bound to be at conflict. Since the two major social classes the rich
and poor or capitalists and the proletariat have mutually hostile
interests they are at conflict..
History is the story of conflict between the exploiter and the
exploited. This conflict repeats itself off and on until capitalism is
overthrown by the workers and a socialist state is created. What is to
be stressed here is that Marx and other conflict theorists deem
society as basically dynamic and not static. They consider conflict
as a normal process. They also believe that the existing conditions in
any society contain the seeds of future social changes. Like Karl
Marx George Simmel too stressed the importance of conflict in
social change. According to him conflict is a permanent feature of
society and not just a temporary event. It is a process that binds
people together in interaction. Further conflict encourages people of
similar interests to unite together to achieve their objectives.
Continuous conflict in this way keeps society dynamic and ever
changing
 3 MODERNIZATION THEORY
Modernization theory casts development as a uniform evolutionary route
that all societies follow, from agricultural, rural, and traditional
societies to postindustrial, urban, and modern forms (Bradshaw,
1987; Escobar, 1995; Chirot and Hall, 1982; Shrum, 2000). In other
words, all societies, once engaged in the modernization process, follow
a predetermined sequence of developmental stages: traditional
economies, transition to takeoff, takeoff itself, drive to maturity, age of
high consumption, and postindustrial society (Chirot and Hall, 1982:
82). Modernization theory emphasizes internal forces and sources
of socioeconomic development such as formal education, market-based
economy, and democratic and secular political structures. Although
modernization theory does not rule out external forces and sources of
social change and economic development, it focuses less on foreign
influences (Jenkins and Scanlan, 2001; Shrum, 2000).
Among external influences, however, science is exceptional because it is
considered beneficial to developing countries by way of ‘knowledge and
technology transfer’ from developed countries (Shrum, 2000). In other
words, societies can be fast-tracked to modernization by ‘importing’
Western technical capital, forms of organization, and science and
technology to developing countries (Herkenrath and Bornschier,
2003; Shrum, 2000). W.W. Rostow argues that adoption of scientific
methods and scientific ways of thinking and acquisition of techno
scientific skills are critical at the ‘transition to takeoff’ stage of
development (Chirot and Hall, 1982). Essentially, proponents of
modernization theory view science and technology as catalysts for
development. Science and technology provide conducive environments for
economic growth in developing countries through their ability to provide
rational protocols in decision making for the efficient use of material and
human resources (Shrum and Shenhav, 1995).
As far as modernization theory is concerned, development is simply a
matter of knowledge and technology transfer that is unproblematic and
straightforward, context free, and not disruptive of existing social and
cultural arrangements in developing countries (Herkenrath and Bornschier,
2003). Modernization theory also seems to be unmindful of the fact that
much of the knowledge and technology critical for national development
and national competitiveness are within the domain of proprietary
knowledge production. In a way, modernization theory implies a
monolithic, one-way, and top-down development scheme that holds true
for all identities, for all time, for all places, and for all contexts. The same
holds true for knowledge generation, production, dissemination, and
representation. In this top-down development model, the sources of
knowledge are foreign to the places and identities to which knowledge is
applied or exported. As a model for social change and development,
modernization theory fails to consider the possibility of having an
interactive and multifarious process of knowledge generation and
exchange, which is made possible by recent advances in ICT.
As far as modernization theory is concerned, science is seen as
exceptional and different from other institutions in Western
developed countries, and is assumed to be independent of and
invariant to the limitations of contexts of interpretation and use, and
further is viewed as a search, by means of generating objective and
rational knowledge claims, for empirical truths and universal laws.
Such casting of science is reminiscent of the limited translation
model that Callon (1995) critiques. In other words, modernization
theory emphasizes the beneficial role of objective, rational science
in national socioeconomic development. It de-emphasizes science's
possible higher order and negative interactional effects upon local
contexts and the identities that populate such contexts.
UNIT 6 DEPENDENCY AND WORLD SYSTEM
THEORY

OBJECTIVES

At the end of the unit, student should be able to;

Explain the major assumptions of the dependency and world

system theory

They should be able to effectively apply the theory in explaining

social change and development
MAIN WORK
DEPENDENCY THEORY
Dependency Theory developed in the late 1950s under the guidance of the
Director of the United Nations Economic Commission for Latin America,
Raul Prebisch. Prebisch and his colleagues were troubled by the fact that
economic growth in the advanced industrialized countries did not
necessarily lead to growth in the poorer countries. Indeed, their studies
suggested that economic activity in the richer countries often led to serious
economic problems in the poorer countries. Such a possibility was not
predicted by neoclassical theory, which had assumed that economic growth
was beneficial to all (Pareto optimal) even if the benefits were not always
equally shared.
Dependency can be defined as an explanation of the economic development
of a state in terms of the external influences--political, economic, and
cultural--on national development policies. Theotonio Dos Santos
emphasizes the historical dimension of the dependency relationships in his
definition:
[Dependency is]...an historical condition which shapes a certain
structure of the world economy such that it favors some countries to
the detriment of others and limits the development possibilities of
the subordinate economics...a situation in which the economy of a
certain group of countries is conditioned by the development and
expansion of another economy, to which their own is subjected.
There are three common features to these definitions which most
dependency theorists share. First, dependency characterizes the
international system as comprised of two sets of states, variously
described as dominant/dependent, center/periphery or
metropolitan/satellite. The dominant states are the advanced
industiral nations in the Organization of Economic Co-operation and
Development (OECD). The dependent states are those states of
Latin America, Asia, and Africa which have low per capita GNPs
and which rely heavily on the export of a single commodity for
foreign exchange earnings.
Second, both definitions have in common the assumption that
external forces are of singular importance to the economic activities
within the dependent states. These external forces include
multinational corporations, international commodity markets,
foreign assistance, communications, and any other means by which
the advanced industrialized countries can represent their economic
interests abroad.
Third, the definitions of dependency all indicate that the relations
between dominant and dependent states are dynamic because the
interactions between the two sets of states tend to not only reinforce
but also intensify the unequal patterns. Moreover, dependency is a
very deep-seated historical process, rooted in the
internationalization of capitalism. 
The Central Propositions of Dependency Theory
There are a number of propositions, all of which are contestable,
which form the core of dependency theory. These propositions
include:
1. Underdevelopment is a condition fundamentally different
from undevelopment. The latter term simply refers to a condition in
which resources are not being used. For example, the European
colonists viewed the North American continent as an undeveloped
area: the land was not actively cultivated on a scale consistent with
its potential. Underdevelopment refers to a situation in which
resources are being actively used, but used in a way which benefits
dominant states and not the poorer states in which the resources are
found.
2. The distinction between underdevelopment and undevelopment
places the poorer countries of the world is a profoundly different
historical context. These countries are not "behind" or "catching up"
to the richer countries of the world. They are not poor because they
lagged behind the scientific transformations or the Enlightenment
values of the European states. They are poor because they were
coercively integrated into the European economic system only as
producers of raw materials or to serve as repositories of cheap labor,
and were denied the opportunity to market their resources in any
way that competed with dominant states.
3. Dependency theory suggests that alternative uses of resources are
preferable to the resource usage patterns imposed by dominant states.
There is no clear definition of what these preferred patterns might be,
but some criteria are invoked. For example, one of the dominant state
practices most often criticized by dependency theorists is export
agriculture. The criticism is that many poor economies experience
rather high rates of malnutrition even though they produce great
amounts of food for export. Many dependency theorists would argue
that those agricultural lands should be used for domestic food
production in order to reduce the rates of malnutrition.
4. The preceding proposition can be amplified: dependency theorists
rely upon a belief that there exists a clear "national" economic
interest which can and should be articulated for each country. In this
respect, dependency theory actually shares a similar theoretical
concern with realism. What distinguishes the dependency
perspective is that its proponents believe that this national interest
can only be satisfied by addressing the needs of the poor within a
society, rather than through the satisfaction of corporate or
governmental needs. Trying to determine what is "best" for the poor
is a difficult analytical problem over the long run. Dependency
theorists have not yet articulated an operational definition of the
national economic interest.
WORLD SYSTEM
The main characteristics of this theory, which will be discussed in
more detail throughout the lesson, are:
The world systems theory is established on a three-level hierarchy
consisting of core, periphery, and semi-periphery areas.
The core countries dominate and exploit the peripheral countries
for labor and raw materials.
The peripheral countries are dependent on core countries for
capital.
The semi-peripheral countries share characteristics of both core
and peripheral countries.
This theory emphasizes the social structure of global inequality.
In his book, The Modern World System: Capitalist Agriculture and the
Origins of the European World Economy in the Sixteenth Century,
Immanual Wallerstein develops a theoretical framework to understand the
historical changes involved in the rise of the modern world. The modern
world system, essentially capitalist in nature, followed the crisis of the
feudal system and helps explain the rise of Western Europe to world
supremacy between 1450 and 1670. According to Wallerstein, his theory
makes possible a comprehensive understanding of the external and internal
manifestations of the modernization process during this period and makes
possible analytically sound comparisons between different parts of the
world.
Wallerstein argues that Europe moved towards the establishment of a
capitalist world economy in order to ensure continued economic growth.
However, this entailed the expansion of the geographical size of the world
in question, the development of different modes of labor control and the
creation of relatively strong state machineries in the states of Western
Europe. In response to the feudal crisis, by the late fifteenth and early
sixteenth centuries, the world economic system emerged. This was the first
time that an economic system encompassed much of the world with links
that superseded national or other political boundaries. The new world
economy differed from earlier empire systems because it was not a single
political unit. Empires depended upon a system of government which,
through commercial monopolies combined with the use of force, directed
the flow of economic goods from the periphery to the center. Empires
maintained specific political boundaries, within which they maintained
control through an extensive bureaucracy and a standing army. Only the
techniques of modern capitalism enabled the modern world economy,
unlike earlier attempts, to extend beyond the political boundaries of any
one empire.
 The new capitalist world system was based on an international division
of labor that determined relationships between different regions as well
as the types of labor conditions within each region. In this model, the
type of political system was also directly related to each region's
placement within the world economy. As a basis for comparison,
Wallerstein proposes four different categories, core, semi-
periphery, periphery, and external, into which all regions of the world
can be placed. The categories describe each region's relative position
within the world economy as well as certain internal political and
economic characteristics.
The Core
The core regions benefited the most from the capitalist world economy.
For the period under discussion, much of northwestern Europe (England,
France, Holland) developed as the first core region. Politically, the states
within this part of Europe developed strong central governments, extensive
bureaucracies, and large mercenary armies. This permitted the local
bourgeoisie to obtain control over international commerce and extract
capital surpluses from this trade for their own benefit. As the rural
population expanded, the small but increasing number of landless wage
earners provided labor for farms and manufacturing activities. The switch
from feudal obligations to money rents in the aftermath of the feudal crisis
encouraged the rise of independent or yeoman farmers but squeezed out
many other peasants off the land. These impoverished peasants often
moved to the cities, providing cheap labor essential for the growth in urban
manufacturing. Agricultural productivity increased with the growing
predominance of the commercially-oriented independent farmer, the rise
of pastoralism, and improved farm technology.
The Periphery
On the other end of the scale lay the peripheral zones. These areas lacked
strong central governments or were controlled by other states, exported
raw materials to the core, and relied on coercive labor practices. The core
expropriated much of the capital surplus generated by the periphery
through unequal trade relations. Two areas, Eastern Europe (especially
Poland) and Latin America, exhibited characteristics of peripheral regions.
In Poland, kings lost power to the nobility as the region became a prime
exporter of wheat to the rest of Europe. To gain sufficient cheap and easily
controlled labor, landlords forced rural workers into a "second serfdom"
on their commercial estates. In Latin America, the Spanish and Portuguese
conquests destroyed indigenous authority structures and replaced them
with weak bureaucracies under the control of these European states.
Powerful local landlords of Hispanic origin became aristocratic capitalist
farmers.
Enslavement of the native populations, the importation of African slaves,
and the coercive labor practices such as the encomienda and forced mine
labor made possible the export of cheap raw materials to Europe. Labor
systems in both peripheral areas differed from earlier forms in medieval
Europe in that they were established to produce goods for a capitalist
world economy and not merely for internal consumption. Furthermore, the
aristocracy both in Eastern Europe and Latin America grew wealthy from
their relationship with the world economy and could draw on the strength
of a central core region to maintain control.
The Semi-Periphery
Between the two extremes lie the semi-peripheries. These areas
represented either core regions in decline or peripheries attempting to
improve their relative position in the world economic system. They often
also served as buffers between the core and the peripheries. As such, semi-
peripheries exhibited tensions between the central government and a
strong local landed class. Good examples of declining cores that became
semi-peripheries during the period under study are Portugal and Spain.
Other semi-peripheries at this time were Italy, southern Germany, and
southern France. Economically, these regions retained limited but
declining access to international banking and the production of high-cost
high-quality manufactured goods. Unlike the core, however, they failed to
predominate in international trade and thus did not benefit to the same
extent as the core. With a weak capitalist rural economy, landlords in
semi-peripheries resorted to sharecropping. This lessened the risk of crop
failure for landowners, and made it possible at the same time to enjoy
profits from the land as well as the prestige that went with landownership.
According to Wallerstein, the semi-peripheries were exploited by the core
but, as in the case of the American empires of Spain and Portugal, often
were exploiters of peripheries themselves. Spain, for example, imported
silver and gold from its American colonies, obtained largely through
coercive labor practices, but most of this specie went to paying for
manufactured goods from core countries such as England and France
rather than encouraging the formation of a domestic manufacturing sector.
Understanding Socio-cultural Dimension of Development

 Socio-cultural dimension of development is though an ambiguous term and

development as a concept or practice is not limited to economics but include
both social and cultural dynamics hence it is a multidimensional phenomenon.
So if we think of development only in terms of economic growth, defined as
the increase of goods and services made available to a given population over
a given period of time, we will have left a fundamental aspect or part of
development out. The idea of development requires that we take into
consideration the combination of all the multi-dimensions which includes
social and cultural elements among others. According to Nonsin (2001)
development in this direction entails fundamental changes in the institutional
and ideological (including cultural) apparatus of society and the strengthening
of these so that members of society would develop the capacity for
autonomous and efficient management of their affairs for their own welfare
and happiness.
Socio-cultural Elements

 Traditional knowledge (vernacular languages, oral history, scientific

knowledge), skills and expression (artisanal skills, traditional architecture and
technologies, natural resource management methods), creative
communication (stories, poetry, music, dance, theatre) and culturally
significant sites are all expression of who we are , how we learn, and how we
relates with others, are critical for national and international market.
 Perhaps the most crucial elements of most society’s culture are its values and
beliefs. Values are a culture’s standard for discerning what is good and just in
society. Values are deeply embedded and critical for transmitting and
teaching a culture’s beliefs. Beliefs are the tenets or convictions that people
hold to be true. Individuals in a society have specific beliefs, but they also
share collective values. To illustrate the difference, Americans commonly
believe in the American Dream—that anyone who works hard enough will be
successful and wealthy. Underlying this belief is the American value that
wealth is good and important.
Maximizing Socio-cultural Elements for
Societal Development
 Tourism, increasingly seen as an important economic activity, has become a significant engine of overall
development in many destinations. It generates 10% of employment around the world and accounts for 10.4%
of global GDP. Promoting tourism can attract regional investment, create commercial opportunities, and support
other industries within a destination area. For example, tourism can upgrade local life through better local
infrastructure and common devices (for the sake of sustaining tourism) that can ameliorate health care,
education resources, job opportunities, and income levels (WTTC, 2018).
 Tourism can help propel poverty reduction in the least developed countries since even unskilled laborers in
remote areas can find jobs in this diverse and labor-intensive industry. Additionally, in developing countries
tourism development creates benefits for the social culture of host communities. The socio-cultural value of
tourism may include a great sense of community identity, a heightened sense of linking with local
environments, and increased social capital following an increase in tourists (Ryan, 2003; Zaei &Zaei, 2013).
 Given its impact on changing the country’s global image and its huge potential to bring major economic
benefits, Nigeria’s entertainment industry can become a very relevant piece of the country’s economic
development. Worth over USD5 billion and producing more films than Hollywood, Nollywood is today the
second-largest movie industry in the world by volume after Bollywood and contributes 5% to Nigeria’s GDP. It
is also the second-largest employer of labour in the country, proving its huge socio-economic impact. Through
Nollywood movies, Nigerians have been able to influence viewers worldwide and export the “Nigerianness” -
our culture, lifestyle and even our accent.
DEFINITION OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

 The precise definition of economic development has been contested: while

economists viewed development primarily in terms of economic growth
accompanied by change, sociologists instead emphasized broader processes
of change and modernization (David, 1998). Seidman (2005) further
summarized economic development as a process of creating and utilizing
physical, human, financial, and social asset to generate improved and broadly
shared economic well-being and quality of life for a community or region.
ORIGIN OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

 The origin of economic development is though uncertain; some scholars have

argued that, development is closely bound up with the evolution of capitalism
and the demise of feudalism. Others link it to the postcolonial state. But
economic development first became a major concern after World War II. As
the era of European colonialism ended, many former colonies and other
countries with low living standard came to be termed underdeveloped
countries, to contrast their economies with those of the developed countries,
which were understood to be Canada, the United States, those of western
Europe, most eastern European countries, the then Soviet Union, Japan,
South Africa, Australia, and New Zealand. As living standards in most poor
countries began to rise in subsequent decades, they were renamed the
developing countries or emerging economy (Hirschman, 1981).
INDICATORS/INDICES FOR MEASURING ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

 As a country develops the nature of its internal structure, finances and

population changes; while several gauges are available to measure these
changes, the most common indicators of economic development are Gross
Domestic Product (GDP) per capita which is the economic value of a country's
output of goods and services and indicates the strength of its economy. A
higher GDP per capita is a sign of a more sophisticated stage of economic
development. According to Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) (2011) data, the
nations with the highest GDP per capita are Liechtenstein, Qatar, Monaco,
Macau and Luxembourg. The countries with the lowest GDP per capita are
Malawi, Niger, Mozambique, Tokelau, Democratic Republic of the Congo,
Burundi and the Central African Republic. Other indicators for measuring
development are poverty level, life expectancy, the proportion of workers in
agriculture and changes in the physical quality of life.
 sociologist used more physical indicators/indices for measuring economic
development. Seers’s cited in Alubo, (2012) present the physical
indicators/indices for measuring economic development of any variant posed
as questions; it provide a more clearer understanding and means through
which economic development can be measured and clearly identified. The
indicators/indices posed as questions are: What is happening or have
happened to poverty? What is happening or have happened to unemployment?
What is happening or have happened to illiteracy? These questions posed as
indicators/indices to measuring and identifying economic development or
development as a whole can further be extended to food security, health and
transportation and so on. When all these indicators are on the increase or
increasing, inference cannot be drawn that, such a nation has attained or has
high economic development has even if there is visible economic growth; but
if on the contrary, conclusion or inference can be safely drawn that there
have attained or have high economic development (Onu & Onuche, 2015).
DEVELOPMENT AND SOCIAL CHANGE

 Parsons (1937) believe in the existence of structural and functional sub-

systems within the social system; the change in structural and functional sub-
systems of the social system is called social change. According to Jenson
(cited in Jadhav, 2012), social change may be defined as modification in the
ways of doing and thinking of people. But Dawson (2010) asserted that,
cultural change is social change. Cultural change can then be grouped into
two categories: material and non-material. Material aspects of culture deal
with the materials of utility while the non-material part constitutes habits,
ideals, beliefs, attitudes and values. State of social development is called
civilization. In the light of the above facts, social change means change in
material and non-material aspects of the society.
DEVELOPMENT AS AGENT OF SOCIAL
CHANGE
 Development and Social Change
 Education as Agent of Social Change
 Industry as Agent of Social Change
 ICT as Agent of Social Change
 Health Sector as Agent of Social Change
 Technology as Agent of Social Change