Articles

Modernization as a political course: analysis of the main conceptual approaches and implementation practices

Received: 15.07.2024 Published: 15.07.2024

UDC: 321 EDN: HDITME DOI: 10.22394/2079-1690-2024-1-4-199-207

Full text

Abstract

The article analyzes the transformation of the conceptual provisions of modernization theories into political courses. The author systematized the main provisions of these theories, which were reflected in the reform programs, and were recommended by international intergovernmental organizations as approaches to the implementation of state transformations. Based on the analysis, the author draws attention to the fact that the concept of «modernization» has received a practical refraction mainly in the neoliberal political course, which absolutizes the ideas of classical modernization theories about economic growth and economic freedom as the foundations of progressive development. The neoliberal interpretation of modernization has become fundamental to the political course that defines approaches to the implementation of «structural reforms» in «developing» countries. According to the author, the reasons for such dominance are related to both political factors, history, and the peculiarities of the conceptual provisions of modernization theories. The dominance of the neoliberal interpretation of modernization has provoked a number of negative trends: reducing the value of freedom exclusively to economic freedoms and freedom of choice, increasing economic inequality, strengthening the political status of economic elites, etc. Despite the emergence of non-classical modernization theories in response to these contradictions, they did not become the dominant conceptual basis for reforms due to political and discursive reasons. The author comes to the conclusion that the transformation of the conceptual provisions of classical modernization theories into a neoliberal political course, postulating its provisions at the level of world political discourse significantly limited the potential of applying this theory to develop and substantiate a political course. At the same time, many of the tasks facing the state as an institution at the present stage lie in the plane of understanding modern, non-classical theories of modernization.

Keywords

How to cite

Для цитирования:

Сонина Е.О. Модернизация как политический курс: анализ основных концептуальных подходов и практики реализации // Государственное и муниципальное управление. Учёные записки. 2024. № 4. С. 199–207. https://doi.org/10.22394/2079-1690-2024-1-4-199-207

For citation:

Sonina E.O. Modernization as a political course: analysis of the main conceptual approaches and implementation practices // State and Municipal Management. Scholar Notes. 2024. no. 4. P. 199–207. https://doi.org/10.22394/2079-1690-2024-1-4-199-207

How to Cite

Sonina E.O. Modernization as a political course: analysis of the main conceptual approaches and implementation practices // State and Municipal Management. Scholar Notes. 2024. no. 4. P. 199–207. https://doi.org/10.22394/2079-1690-2024-1-4-199-207

References

  1. Поцелуев С. П. Теория политической модернизации// Политическая концептология. 2022. № 3. С. 198–215.
  2. Побережников И. В. Теория модернизации: основные этапы эволюции// Проблемы истории России. 2001.№ 4. С. 217–246.
  3. Ростоу У. У. Стадии экономического роста Нью-Йорк: Прегер, 1961. 236 с.
  4. Welch C.E. Political Modernization: A Reader in Comparative Political Change. Belmont: Wadsworth Publishing Company, 1967. 383 р.
  5. Гордон А. В. Сэмюэл Хантингтон и его концепция политической модернизации// Политический порядок в меняющихся обществах. Москва: Прогресс-Традиция, 2004. С. 3–16.
  6. Стедмен-Джоунз Д. Рождение неолиберальной политики: от Хайека и Фридмена до Рейгана и Тэтчер. М.; Челябинск: Социум; Мысль, 2019. 522 с.
  7. Стиглиц Д. Цена неравенства: чем расслоение общества грозит нашему будущему. М.: Эксмо, 2016. 512 c.
  8. Харви Д. Краткая история неолиберализма. Актуальное прочтение. М.: Поколение, 2007. 288 с.
  9. Русакова О. Ф., Хмелинин А. А. Неолиберальный дискурс: стратегии и технологии конструирования новой субъектности // Антиномии. 2012. №12. С. 259–271.
  10. Дардо П., Лаваль К. Неолиберализм и капиталистическая субъективация // Логос. 2001. № 1(80). С. 103–117.
  11. Krugman Paul. Who Was Milton Friedman?// The New York Review of Books. 2007. February. 2007. 15. [Электронный ресурс] URL: https://www.nybooks.com/articles/2007/02/15/who-was-miltonfriedman/ (дата обращения 06.08.2024).
  12. Хантингтон С. Политический порядок в меняющихся обществах. М.: Прогресс-Традиция, 2004. 480 с.
  13. Eisenstadt S. N. Some Observations on Multiple Modernities // Reflections on Multiple Modernities: European, Chinese and Other Interpretations. BRILL, 2002. P. 27–41.
  14. Этатистские модели модернизации. Москва: ИФ РАН, 2002. 151 с.
  15. Rodrik D. Good Bye Washington Consensus, Hello Washington Confusion? [Электронный ресурс] URL: https://drodrik.scholar.harvard.edu/files/dani-rodrik/files/goodbye-washington.pdf (дата обращения 09.08.2024).
  16. Крауч К. Странная не-смерть неолиберализма. М.: Дело, 2012. 272 с.