LUCIAN PYE,
ASPECTS OF POLITICAL DEVELOPMENT: THE CONCEPT OF POLITICAL DEVELOPMENT,
1966
The scholar’s world is always closer to the world of newspaper headlines
than either scholars or laymen realize. The increasing academic interest
in the problems of the new states in the process of political development
has been inspired more by events in world politics than by any indigenous
advances in political science theory. Thus, in large measure, the concept
of political development was defined first by statesmen and policy-makers
and not by scholars. The state of our current knowledge reflects this fact
and so do the very words we use to discuss the problems of development.
The language of public policy is always in flux,
for new concerns produce new terminologies. Yet in the language of politics,
in which sloganeering is the common currency of presumed dialogues, fluency
in the innovation of expressions rarely signals advancement in thought.
At times fresh terms herald the awareness of novel problems, but more often
they indicate merely frustration with intractable circumstances. When the
language of politics seeks to define in broadest terms the contemporary
human condition, it tends to be sensitive mainly to the emotions of hope,
anxiety, or frustration that are inherent in the mind's erratic ability
to either race ahead or fall far behind the tempo of substantive change.
The political analyst in seeking the neutral ground of the observer inevitably
faces the dilemma of being able neither to ignore popularterminology nor
to use it effectively as the hand currency of disciplined intellectual
exchange. And even if the analyst recognized that the qualities of ambiguity
and imprecision which are virtues for the politician's art may be pitfalls
for himself, he may still find himself the victim of a form of Gresham's
law in political communication.
All this is of great relevance in trying to find
meaning in current discussion of what is or should be happening in the
poor and weak countries of the world. During the last decade the worldwide
interest in the plight of these societies has produced a Babel of terms.
Some of these express the aspirations of statesmen, others are the pompous
pretensions of calculating politicians, and still others are merely the
euphemisms of people who think that they may be talking about delicate
matters. The result is that the study of the problems of these societies
is so cluttered with loosely used terms that clear and disciplined communication
has become difficult. We can observe how it has now become necessary to
employ such optimistic and promiseful expressions as "developing" and "emergent"
when discussing the gloomy cases of countries that are barely holding themselves
together, whose governments are shaky and archaic, and whose peoples are
growing faster in numbers than in well-being. The very terms of analysis
suggest forecasts that may conflict with the predictions objective analysis
is seeking to make.
To a large degree this state of semantic affairs
can be explained by the fact that we are grappling with new problems of
crisis dimensions, and when there is urgency there can rarely be order.
The need is to get on with a job rather than tidy up language. Another
way of characterizing the situation, however, is to say that scholars,
who are the natural guardians of orderly thought and communications, were
grossly unprepared for the demands of postwar history.
In the next chapter we shall have to examine some
of the reasons why scholars were unprepared to handle many of the problems
of conceptualizing the processes of political and social development. Before
turning to this bit of intellectual history it will be helpful to separate
all the various conflicting and overlapping notions anti ideas commonly
used ill popular as well as professional interpretations of what is involved
in political development. Although by now much of this confusion has subsided
and there is a general acceptance of the importance of understanding the
nature of political development, there is still considerable ambiguity
and imprecision in the use of the mere term "political development."
DIVERSITY OF DEFINITIONS
It may therefore be helpful to elaborate some of the confusing meanings
frequently associated with the expression "political development." Our
purpose in doing so is not to establish Or reject any particular definitions,
but rather to illuminate a situation o[semantic confusion which cannot
help but impede the development of theory and becloud the purposes of public
policy.
1. Political Development as the Political Prerequisite
of Economic Development. When attention was first fixed on the problems
of economic growth and the need to transform stagnant economies into dynamic
ones with self-sustaining growth, the economists were quick to point out
that political and social conditions could play a decisive role in impeding
or facilitating advance in per capita income, and thus it was appropriate
to conceive of political development, as the state of the polity which
might facilitate economic growth.
Operationally, however, such a view of political development tends
to be essentially negative because it is easier to be precise about the
ways in which performance of a political system may impede or prevent economic
development than about how it can facilitate economic growth. This is true
because historically
1. Studies which in varying degrees lake such
an approach to political development include Paul A. Baran, The Political
Economy of Growth (New York: Monthly Review Press, 1957); Norman S. Buchanan
and Howard S. Ellis, Approaches to Economic Development (New York: The
Twentieth Century Fund, 1955); Benjamin Higgins, Economic Development:
Principles, Problems and Policies (New York: W. W. Norton, 1959); Albert
O. Hirschman, The Strategy ol Economic Development (New 1laveri: Yale University
Press, 1958); Barbara Ward, The Rich Nations and the Poor Nations (London:
Hamish Hamilton, 1962).
economic growth has taken place within a variety of political systems and
with quite different ranges o[ public policies. This leads to the more
serious objection that such a concept o£ political development
does not focus on a common set of theoretical considerations, for in some
cases it would mean no more than whether or not a government is following
intelligent and economically rational policies, while in other situations
it would involve far more fundamental considerations about the basic organization
of the polity and the entire performance o£ the society. The
problems of political development would thus vary according to particular
economic problems in each country.
Another fundamental difficulty with such a view
of political development has become increasingly apparent during the last
decade as the prospects for rapid economic development have become exceedingly
dim in many of the poor countries. Economics manifestly change far more
slowly than political arrangements, and in many countries substantial economic
growth--to say nothing o£ industrial development--is not likely
in our generation although there may still be substantial political change
and much that might, according to other concepts, seem to deserve the label
o£ political development.2
Finally there is the objection that in most underdeveloped
countries people clearly are concerned with far more than just material
advancement; they are anxious about political development quite independent
of its effects on the rate of economic growth. Therefore, to link political
development solely to economic events would be to ignore much that is of
dramatic importance itl the developing countries.
2. Political Development as the Politics Typical
of Industrial Societies. A second common concept of political development,
which is also closely tied to economic considerations, involves an abstract
view o£ the typical kind o£ politics basic to already
industrialized and economically highly advanced societies. The assumption
is that industrial life produces a more-or-
2. See David Apter, "Steps Toward a Theory of
Political Development," and "System, Process, and the Politics of Economic
Development," both mimeo., n.d.
less common and generic type of political life which any society can seek
to approximate whether it is in fact industrialized or not. In this View
the industrial societies, whether democratic or not, set certain standards
of political behavior and performance that constitute the state of political
development and represent the appropriate goals of development for all
other systems.
The specific qualities of political development
thus become certain patterns of presumably "rational" and "responsible"
governmental behavior: an avoidance of reckless actions that threaten the
vested interests of significant segments of the society, some sense of
limitations to the sovereignty of politics, an appreciation of the values
of orderly administrative and legal procedures, an acknowledgment that
politics is rightfully a mechanism for solving problems and not an end
in itself, a Stress on welfare programs, and finally an acceptance of some
form of mass participation.
3. Political Development as Political Modernization.
The view that political development is the typical or idealized politics
of industrial societies merges with the view that political development
is synonymous with political modernization. The advanced industrial nations
are the fashion-makers and pacesetters in most phases of social and economic
life, and it is understandable that many people expect the same to be true
in the political sphere. However, precisely the too easy acceptance of
this view agitates the defenders of cultural relativism who question the
propriety of identifying industrial--i.e., Western--practices as the contemporary
and universal standards for all political systems.
Granting this objection, particularly when significance becomes attached
to mere fad and fashion, it is still possible to discern in the movement
of world history the emergence o£ certain conventions and even
social norms that have increasingly been diffused throughout the world
and that people generally
3. Walt W. Rostow emphasizes the relationship
between stages of economic growth and forms of political organization in
The Stages of Economic Growth (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1960);
and in The Process o[ Economic Growth (New York: W. W. Norton, 1952).
feel should be recognized by any self-respecting government. Many of these
standards do trace back to the emergence of industrial society and the
rise of science and technology, but most of them have by now a dynamic
of their own. Mass participation, for example, reflects the sociological
realities of industrialized life, hut it also has been taken to be an absolute
right in the spirit of current world views. Other ideals, such as the demand
for universalistic laws, respect for merit rather than birth, and generalized
concepts o[ justice and citizenship, seem now to hold a place above any
particular culture and thus reasonably belong to some universal standards
of modern political life.4
The question immediately arises as to what constitutes
form and what is substance itl this view of political development. Is the
test of development the capacity o[ a country to equip itself with such
modern cultural artifacts as political parties, civil and rational administrations,
and legislative bodies? I[ so, then the matter of ethnocentrism may be
of great relevance, for most of these institutions do have a peculiarly
Western character. If, on the other hand, importance is attached only to
the performance of certain substantive functions, then another difficulty
arises because all political systems have historically, in one fashion
or another, performed the essential functions expected of these modern
and Western institutions. Thus, what is to distinguish between what is
more and what is less "developed''? Clearly the problem of political development--when
thought of as being simply political "modernization"--runs into the difficulty
of differentiating between what is "Western"
4. Several scholars have sought to compile indices
of social and economic change and relate these to political and especially
democratic development. See in particular James S. Coleman, "The Political
Systems of the Developing Areas," in Gabriel A. Almond and James s. Coleman,
eds., The Politics of the Developing Areas (Princeton: Princeton University
Press, 1960); Seymour Martin Lipset, "Some Social Requisites of Democracy:
Economic Development and Political Legitimacy," American Political Science
Review, LIII, No. I (March 1959) 69-105; Karl W. Deutsch, "Social Mobilization
and Political Development," American Political Science Review, Vol. LV,
No. $ (September 1961).
and What is "modern." Some additional criteria seem to be necessary if
such a distinction is to be made.
4. Political Development ,ts the Operation of
a Nation-State. To some degree these objections are met by the view
that political development consists of the organization of political life
and the performance of political functions in accordance with the standards
expected of a modern nation-state. In this point o[ view there is an assumption
that historically there have been many types of political systems and all
communities have had their form of politics, I)ut that with the emergence
of the modern nation-state a specific set of requirements about politics
came into existence. Thus, if a society is to perform as a modern state
its political institutions and practices musk adjust to these requirements
of state performance. The politics of historic empires, of tribe and ethnic
community, or of colony must give way to the politics necessary to produce
an efficient nation-state which can operate effectively in a system of
other nation-states.
Political development then becomes the process by
which communities that are nation-states only in form and by international
courtesy become nation-states in reality. Specifically, this involves the
development of a capacity to maintain a certain level of public order,
to mobilize resources for a specific range of collective enterprises, and
to make and effectively up-hold types of international commitments. The
test of political development would thus involve, first, the establishment
of a particular set of public institutions that constitute the necessary
infrastructure of a nation-state, and, second, the controlled expression
in political life of the phenomenon of nationalism. That is to say, political
development is the politics of nationalism within the context of state
institutions.5 It is important to stress that from this point of view nationalism
5. This approach appears iii K. H. Silvert, Expectant
Peoples: Nationalism and Development (New York: Random House, 1964); Edward
Shils, Political Development in the New States (The Hague: Mouton, 1962);
and William McCord, The Springtime o[ Freedom: Evolution of Developing
Societies (New York: Oxford University Fiess, 1965).
is only a necessary but far from sufficient condition to ensure political
development. Development entails the translation of diffuse and unorganized
sentiments of nationalism into a spirit of citizenship, and equally the
creation of state institutions that can translate into policy and programs
the aspirations of nationalism anti citizenship. In brief, political development
is nation-building.
5. Political Development as Administrative and
Legal Development. If we divide nation-building into institution-building
and citizenship development we have two very common concepts of political
development. Indeed, the concept o£ political development as
organization building has a long history, and it underlies the philosophy
of much of the more enlightened colonial practices. For, as we have already
observed in the history of the Western impact on the rest of the world,
one of the central themes was the belief of Europeans that in building
political communities it was essential to have, first, a legal order and
then an administrative order.
This tradition has given great strength to current
theories that the establishment of effective bureaucracies lies at the
heart of the development process. Ill this view administrative development
is associated with the spread of rationality, the strengthening of secular,
legal concepts, and the elevation of technical and specialized knowledge
in the direction of human affairs.6
Certainly no state can presume to be "developed"
if it lacks completely the capacity to manage public affairs effectively,
and wherever new states do have competent administrative institutions many
problems are made manageable. On the other hand, as we observed in the
first chapter, administration is not enough, and indeed when it is over-stressed
it can create imbalances in the polity that may impede political development.
In particular the concept of political development as merely
6. Max Weber, The Theory o! Social and Economic
Organization, trans. by A. M. Henderson and Talcott Parsons (Glencoe: The
Free Press, 1947); Joseph LaPalombara, ed., Bureaucracy and Political Devalopment
(Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1964).
improved administration overlooks entirely the problems of citizenship
training and popular participation, both of which are clearly aspects of
political development.
6. Political Development as Mass Mobilization
and Participation. Another aspect of political development involves
primarily the role of the citizenry and new standards of loyalty and involvement.
Quite understandably, in some former colonial countries the dominant view
of what constitutes political development is a form of political awakening
whereby former subjects become active and committed citizens.
In some countries this view is carried to such an extreme that the
effective and mass-demonstrational aspects of popular politics become an
end in themselves, and leaders and citizens feel that they are advancing
national development by the intensity and frequency of demonstrations of
mass political passion. Conversely, some countries that are making orderly
and effective progress may nevertheless be dissatisfied if they feel that
their more demonstrative neighbors are experiencing greater "development."
7
According to most views, political development does
entail some degree of expanded popular participation, but it is important
to distinguish among thc conditions of such expansion. Historically in
the West this dimension of political development was closely associated
with the widening of suffrage and the induction o£ new elements
of the population into the political process. This process of mass participation
meant a diffusion of decision-making, and participation brought some influence
on choice and decision. In some of the new states, however, mass participation
has not been coupled with an electoral process but has been essentially
a new form of mass response to elite manipulation. It should be recognized
that even such limited participation has a role to play in nation-building
since it
7.See in particular Clifford Geertz, ed., Old
Societies and New States (New York: Free Press of Glencoe, 1963); Rupert
Emerson, From Empire to Nation (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1960);
Bert F. Hoselitz, ed., The Progress of Underdeveloped Areas (Chicago: University
of Chicago Press, 1952).
represents a means of creating new loyalties and a new feeling of national
identity. Thus, although the process of mass participation is a legitimate
part of political development, it is also fraught with the dangers of either
sterile emotionalism or corrupting demagoguery, both of which can sap the
strength of a society. The problem of course is the classic issue of balancing
popular sentiments with public order; that is the fundamental problem of
democracy.9
7. Political Development as the Building of Democracy.
This brings us to the view that political development is or should be synonymous
with the establishment of democratic institutions and practices. Certainly
implicit in the view of many people is the assumption that the only form
of political development worthy of the name is the building of democracies.
Indeed, there are those wino would make explicit this connection and suggest
that development can have meaning only in terms of some form of ideology,
whether democracy, communism, or totalitarianism. According to this view,
development only has meaning in terms of the strengthening of some set
of values, and to try to pretend that this is not the case is self-deceiving?
As refreshing as it is to find examples of forthright
and explicit identification of democracy with development, there is substantial
resistance within the social sciences to such an approach.
8. For a penetrating discussion of the problems
of equality and citizenship in transitional societies see Lloyd Failers,
"Equality, Modernity, and Democracy in the New States," in Geertz, ed.,
op. cit.; S. N. Eisenstadt, "Breakdown of Modernization," Economic Development
and Cultural Change, Vol. XII, No. 2 (July 1964); and Edward Shils, "The
Concentration and Dispersion of Charisma: Their Bearing upon Economic Policy
in Underdeveloped Countries," World Politics, Vol. XI, No. 1 (October 1958).
9 Edward Shils, "Demagogues and Cadres in the Political
Development of New States," in Lucian W. Pye, ed., Communications and Political
Development (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1963).
l0 For an excellent discussion of the relationship of
democracy to development see Joseph LaPalombara, chapters I and II in LaPalombara,
ed., op. cit.
In part this is no doubt the result of a common aspiration
within the social sciences to become a value-free science. Even when it
is recognized that ill an extreme form this aspiration is naive, there
is still a sense of propriety which dictates that the categories of social
science analysis should reflect reality rather than values.
Also, as a practical matter in the conduct of foreign aid policies,
Americans have for interesting and revealing reasons believed, probably
quite falsely, that it would be easier for us in our relations with underdeveloped
countries to talk* about "development" rather than "democracy." The argument
in any case is that democracy is a value-laden term while development is
more value-neutral. To use the building of democracy as the key to political
development can thus be seen as an effort to push upon others American,
or at least Western, values.
The problem of the relationship of democracy to
political development is far too complex to be covered in this brief survey
of attitudes, but since it is such an important issue, we shall devote
a whole chapter to examining its various ramifications. In the meantime
we need only note here that there are many people who would assert that
development is fundamentally different from democracy, and that the very
attempt to introduce democracy can be a positive liability to development.
8. Political Development as Stability and Orderly
Change. Many of those who feel that democracy is inconsistent with
rapid development conceive of development almost entirely in economic or
social-order terms. The political component of such a view usually centers
on the concept of political stability based on a capacity for purposeful
and orderly change. Stability that is merely stagnation and an arbitrary
support of the status quo is clearly not development except when its alternative
is manifestly a worse state of affairs. Stability is, however, legitimately
linked with the concept of development in that any form of economic and
social advancement does generally depend upon an environment in which uncertainty
has been reduced and planning based on reasonably safe predictions is possible?
This view of development can be restricted mainly
to the political sphere because a society in which the political process
is capable of rationally and purposefully controlling and directing social
change rather than merely responding to it is clearly more "developed"
than one in which the political process is the hapless victim of social
and economic "forces" that willy-nilly control the destiny of the people.
Thus, just as some have argued that in modern societies man controls nature
for his purpose while in traditional societies man sought mainly to adapt
to nature's dictates, we can conceive of political development as depending
upon a capacity to either control social change or be controlled by it.
And of course the starting point in controlling social forces is the capacity
to maintain order.
The problem with this view of development is that
it leaves unanswered how much order is necessary or desirable and for what
purpose change should be directed. There is also the question of whether
the coupling of stability and change is not something that can occur only
in the dreams of a middle class, or at least in societies that are far
better off than most of the currently underdeveloped ones. Finally, on
the scale of priorities there is the feeling that the maintenance of order,
however desirable and even essential, stands second to getting things done;
and thus development calls for a somewhat more positive view of action?
9. Political Development as Mobilization and
Power. The recognition that political systems should meet some test
of performance and be of some utility to society leads us to the concept
of political development as the degree of capability of a system. When
it is argued that democracy may reduce the efficiency of a system, there
is an implied assumption that it is
ll. For an extremely sophisticated and original
interpretation of the relationship of order, control, and decision in social
life see Karl W. Deutsch, The Nerves of Government: Models of Political
Communication and Control (New York: Free Press of Glencoe, 1963).
12. For an imaginative treatment of the relationship
between stability and effective action see Fred W. Riggs, Administration
in Developing Countries (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1964).
possible to measure the efficiency of a system, and in turn the notion
of efficiency suggests theoretical or idealized models against which reality
can be tested.
This point of view leads to the concept that political
systems can be evaluated in terms of the level or degree of absolute power
which the system is able to mobilize? Some systems that may or may not
be stable seem to operate with a very low margin of power, and the authoritative
decision-makers are close to being impotent in their capacity to initiate
and consummate policy objectives? In other societies such decision-makers
have at their command substantial power, and the society can therefore
achieve a wider range of common goals. States naturally differ according
to their inherent resource base, but the measure of development is the
degree to which they are able to maximize and realize the full potential
of their given resources.
It should be noted that this does not necessarily
lead to a crude, authoritarian view of development as simply the capacity
of a government to claim resources from the society. The capacity to mobilize
and allocate resources is usually crucially affected by the popular support
which the regime commands, and this is why democratic systems can often
mobilize resources more efficiently than repressive authoritarian ones.
Indeed, in practical terms the problem of achieving greater political development
in many societies may involve primarily the realization of greater popular
favor--not because of any absolute value of democracy but because only
with such support can the system realize a higher degree of mobilization
of power.
When political development is conceived of in terms
of mobilization
13. For the analysis of the concept of capacity
as basic to political development see James S. Coleman, "The Development
Syndrome," in the forthcoming final volume of the Social Science Research
Council's Committee on Comparative Politics' Series in Political Development
to be published by the Princeton University Press. Also see Talcott Parsons,
"Evolutionary Universals in Society," American Sociological Review, Vol.
XXVII (June 1964); Gabriel A. Almond, "Political Systems and Political
Change," The American Behavioral Scientist, Vol. VI (June 1963).
14. For the impotencies of developing systems see Eisenstadt,
"Breakdown of Modernization," op. cit.
and an increase in the absolute level of power in the society, it becomes
possible to distinguish both a purpose for development and also a range
of characteristics associated with development. Many of these characteristics
in turn can be measured, and hence it is possible to construct indices
of development. Items in such indices might include prevalence and penetration
of the mass media measured in terms of newspaper circulation and distribution
of radios, the tax basis of the society, the proportion of population in
government and their distribution in various categories of activities,
the proportion of resources allocated to education, defense, and social
welfare?
10. Political Development as One Aspect of a
Multi-Dimensional Process of Social Change. The obvious need for theoretical
assumptions to guide the selection of the items that should appear in any
index for measuring development leads us to the view that political development
is somehow intimately associated with other aspects of social and economic
change? This is true because any item that may be relevant in explaining
the power potential of a country must also reflect the state of the economy
and the social order. The argument can be advanced that it is unnecessary
and inappropriate to try to isolate too completely political development
from other forms of development. Although to a limited extent the political
sphere may be autonomous from the rest of society, for sustained political
development to take place it can only be within the context of a multi-dimensional
process of social change in which no segment or dimension of the society
can long lag behind.
According to this point of view all forms of development
are related, development is much the same as modernization, and it takes
place within a historical context in which influences
15. For a detailed listing of the indices of
mobilization see Deutsch, "Social Mobilization and Political Development,"
op. cit.
16.This is the approach underlying Max F. Millikan and
Donald L. M. Blackruer, The Emerging Nations (Boston: Little, Brown, 1961).
See also Daniel Lerner, The Passing o[ Traditional Society (New York: Free
Press of Glencoe, 1958).
from outside the society impinge on the processes of social change just
as changes in the different aspects of a society--the economy, the polity,
and the social order--all impinge on each other.
THE DEVELOPMENT SYNDROME
There are other possible interpretations of political
development- for example, the view common in many former colonies that
development means a sense of national self-respect and dignity in international
affairs, or the view more common in advanced societies that political development
should refer to a post-nationalism era when nation-state will no longer
be the basic unit of political life. And it would also be possible to distinguish
other variations on the theme that we have just presented. For our purposes
we have gone far enough to point out, first, the degree of confusion that
exists with the term political development, and, second, the extent to
which, behind this confusion, there does seem to be a certain more solid
basis o£ agreement. Without trying to assert any particular philosophical
orientation or theoretical framework, it may be useful to scan the various
definitions or points of view just reviewed in order to isolate those characteristics
of political development which seem to be most widely held and most fundamental
in the general thinking about problems of development.
The first broadly shared characteristic noted is
a general spirit or attitude toward equality. In most views on the subject,
political development does involve mass participation and popular involvement
in political activities. Participation may be either democratic or a form
of totalitarian mobilization.
17. The specific themes which follow, relating
to the "development syndrome,'' were identified by members of the Comparative
Politics Committee of the Social Science Research Council and they will
be elaborated upon in much greater detail in James S. Coleman's contribution
to the final volume of the Committee's Series in Political Development
to be published. The remaining paragraphs of this chapter merely summarize
the work of several members of the Committee, including in particular Leonard
Binder, James S. Coleman, Joseph LaPalombara, and Myron Weiner.
but the key consideration is that subjects should become active citizens,
and at least the pretenses of popular rule are necessary.)
Equality also means that laws should be of a universalistic
nature, applicable to all and more or less impersonal in their operation.
Most often this has meant the development of a codified legal system and
explicit legal procedures. The critical consideration, however, is the
recognition that all people, whether rich or poor, strong or weak, should
submit to the same dictates of law.
Finally, equality means that recruitment to political
office should reflect achievement standards of performance and not the
ascriptive considerations of a traditional social system. The assumption
in a developed political system is that people must have displayed appropriate
merit to gain public office and that officeholders should have met some
competitive test of competence.
A second major theme we find in most concepts of
political development deals with the capacity of a political system. In
a sense, capacity is related to the outputs of a political system and the
extent to which the political system can affect the rest of the society
and economy. Capacity is also closely associated with governmental performance
and the conditions that affect such performance.
More specifically, capacity entails first of all
the sheer magnitude, scope, and scale of political and governmental performance.
Developed systems are presumed to be able to do a lot more and touch upon
a far wider variety of social life than less developed systems can. In
a sense, with development government moves from the stage of being a social
preoccupation to becoming an industry.
Second, capacity means effectiveness and efficiency
in the execution of public policy. Developed systems, presumably, not only
do more things than others but also do them faster and with much greater
thoroughness. There is thus a trend toward professionalization of government.
Concern with efficiency and effectiveness leads also to universally recognized
standards o£ performance.
Finally, capacity is related to rationality in administration
and a secular orientation toward policy. Government's actions are guided
more by deliberations and justifications that seek to relate ends and means
in a systematic manner. Planning becomes possible.
A third theme running through much of the discussion of political development
is that of differentiation and specialization? This is particularly true
in the analysis of institutions and structures. Thus this aspect o£
development involves first of all the differentiation and specialization
of structures. Offices and agencies tend to have their distinct and limited
functions, and there is an equivalent of a division of labor within the
realm of government.
With differentiation there is, of course, increased functional specificity
of the various political roles within the system. And, finally, differentiation
also involves the integration of complex structures and processes. That
is, differentiation is not fragmentation and the isolation of the different
parts of the political system but specialization based on an ultimate sense
of integration.
In recognizing these three dimensions of equality,
capacity, and differentiation as lying at the heart of the development
process we do not mean to suggest that they necessarily fit easily together.
On the contrary, historically the tendency has usually been that there
are acute tensions between the demands for equality, the requirements for
capacity, and the processes of greater differentiation. Pressure for greater
equality can challenge the capacity of the system, and differentiation
can reduce equality by stressing the importance of quality and specialized
knowledge.
Indeed, it may in fact be possible to distinguish
different patterns of development according to the sequential order in
which different societies have dealt with the different aspects of the
development syndrome.
18. The concept of differentiation in relationship
to political development is analyzed in S. N. Eisenstadt, "Social Change,
Differentiation, and Evolution,'' American Sociological Revlow, Vol. 29
(June 1964); Nell J. Smelser, "Mechanisms of Change and Adjustment to Change,"
in Bert F. Hoselitz and Wilbert E. Moore, eds., Industrialization and Society
(The ltague: UNESCO, Mouton, 1963).
In this sense development is clearly not unilinear nor is it governed by
sharp and distinct stages, but rather by a range of problems that may arise
separately or concurrently. In seeking to pattern these different courses
of development and to analyze the different types of problems it is useful
to note that the problems of equality are generally related to the political
culture and sentiments about legitimacy and commitment to the system; the
problems of capacity are generally related to the performance of the authoritative
structures of government; and the questions of differentiation touch mainly
on the performance of the non-authoritative structures and the general
political process in the society at large. This suggests that in the last
analysis the problems of political development revolve around the relationships
between the political culture, the authoritative structures, and the general
political process.