Session 2
Samuel Huntington, “Goals of Development” in Huntington and Weiner,
eds., Understanding Political Development, 1987, pp. 3-32
The Concise Summary: Huntington’s article traces prevailing development goals and theory since
the mid-1950’s. He starts with compatibility assumption (1955-through 60’s), moving on to the
conflict theories (1970s) and concludes with reconciliation policies (current), in which he asserts
that cultures of development should be the locus of the current debate. Examining
cultural/regional groupings and their specificities, believes Huntington, leads to a better
understanding of historical development patterns.
Specifically: Huntington attempts to “summarise briefly the development of the goals that have
been thought important for development and discuss theories concerning the relations among
those goals. The conclusion, however, suggests an alternative explanation for the varied ways in
which countries have and have not achieved these goals. . .” (p.4). By ‘alternative explanation,
he means culture.1
Huntington sets out five major goals of development: 2 economic, 2 political, and 1 politicaleconomic:
1)economic growth -as defined by increases in per capita GNP
2) equity – as defined by reduction in both absolute poverty and wealth inequality
3)democracy or establishment thereof – defined in “almost exclusively Western model”
4)political order and stability – defined implicitly in a domestic context
5)autonomy -defined as the ability of the nation-state to make independent economic and
political decisions, most famously espoused by dependency theorists we read of elsewhere
Compatibility Assumption
The earliest theory Huntington analyzes is the compatibility assumption, which held that societies
viewed modernization as “a comprehensive systemic process in which societies changed
fundamentally and across the board from an approximation of the traditional model to an
approximation of the modern model”. Compatibility asserted that progress towards any of the five
goals were related to and reinforced by movements towards others. While goals were not
simultaneously achieved, modernization constituted a relatively coherent process of change.
Naïve and misguided as it may have been, the assumption arose on the basis of western
experience, in which the five goals were largely achieved together, and informed much of past US
policy towards the developing world. Huntington identifies three “locomotive theories” of
development that played major roles in the perpetuating the compatibility assumption: liberal
model, Marxist model, and dependency theorist. These three theories “focused on one single
source of evil – poverty, injustice, dependency (respectively) - the removal of which would almost
inevitably lead to the elimination of other evils that flowed from it.” (p.10)
Conflict Theories
“By the 1970’s, the demonstrated limits of the compatibility assumption generated increased
awareness that good things often did not and could not go together. A new body of literature
emerged. . .emphasizing the necessity for choice among goals.” (p.11)
Though Huntington outlines several subcategories of these theories, all share an understanding
that there are trade-offs among the goals and that conflicts existed between growth and other
goals such as socio-economic equity, political stability, political democracy and national
Huntington though, is famous for being a culture vulture – his (arguably) most famous article appeared in Foreign
Affairs several years ago, called the clash of civilisations, argued that the future conflict, absence the ideology clashes
that reigned during the Cold War, will center on cultural differences and will likely occur along fault lines of
civilizations. With Bosnia, ethnic wars in Africa, etc, his article received a lot of attention and he has since written a
book on this. Point is though, he has a vested interest in pointing the finger at culture with respect to development
processes as well.
1
autonomy. Such theories were supported by Kuznets curve (equality is higher in poor and rich
countries, but much higher in between, generating a n-shaped growth-equality curve), and
Brazilian/Chinese models of growth, which sacrifice some goals (equity/democracy) for others
(growth). Other important components of the conflict theories held that:
 Creation of democratic political system in countries with low social
mobilization (thus participation) would lead to less, not more equality
 Democratic systems were generally unable to achieve redistribution of assets
 A high level of instability may be necessary to achieve a minimal degree of
equity in the short-run (radical conflict theorists)
 “rate/level paradox” : a high level of two variables (e.g. growth and
democracy) may be associated with each other, but a high rate of increase in
one of those variables may be associated with no rate of increase or even
decrease in the other variable.
Reconciliation Policies
The third body of literature was “devoted to exploring the ways in which development goals could
be reconciled with one another. Assumed compatibility, in short, was undermined by the
perceived pervasiveness of conflict, which in turn gave birth to the psychological and physical
desire to resolve those conflicts. Emphasis on the cruel need for choice was replaced by
emphasis on the urgent need for reconciliation.” (p. 18)
Reconciliation focused on sequencing, structures, and strategies. Reconciliation policies
generally agree upon a sequencing priority for political ends (national unity should be emphasized
before governmental authority before political equality) but are unsure on whether to focus on
equity or growth as an economic priority. Certain institutional structures (such as two party
system or limited state role in economy) may facilitate the reconciliation of the goals. And
strategies such as extensive education investment, promotion of labor-intensive industries and
early redistribution of economic assets are also more likely to help achieve development goals.
Reconciliation however, tends to “involve either political scientists attempting to reconcile stability
and democracy or economists attempting to reconcile equity and growth. Rarer were crossdisciplinary effort to show how the achievement of political goals might be reconciled with the
achievement of political ones.” (p.20-21).
Can democracy, growth and equity be reconciled? The Japan model would have us believe that
it is possible. But could the Japan model be reproduced outside Japan? This leads into
Huntington’s alternative (and admittedly amorphous) assertion that culture explains such differing
patterns of development. “To explain why reconciliation, like harmony and conflict, is not
universal, one is forced back to things unique to particular countries. These include natural
resources, geographical location, character of the population, and of course, historical
experience. In terms of explaining different patterns of political and economic development
however, a central independent variable is culture – that is subjective attitudes, beliefs, values
prevalent among the dominant groups in the society. “ (p.22)
Huntington fits the world into nine cultural groupings which encompasses 85% of the world’s
population 1)Nordic 2)Latin 3)Arab 4)Slavic 5)Indian 6)Sinic 7) Japanese 8)Malay 9) African.
Caveats notwithstanding, these groupings contain societies that have developed in very different
ways. Comparing patterns of development worldwide, it may be difficult to understand why
Ghana and South Korea, similar countries by most measures in the early 60s, are so different
today. If one compared regional/cultural patterns of development however, the difference
appears to make more sense.
Huntington proposes that the goals of development (which the 3 major theories espoused) are
Western-centric, and may not accord with another culture’s image of an ideal society. Perhaps,
Huntington tentatively asserts, “the time has come to change the model, to develop models of a
modern Islamic, Confucian or Hindu society that would be more relevant to countries where those
cultures prevail.” (p.25).
Modernization, Huntington concludes, is different from Westernization, and indigenous cultures
are assuming increasing importance in shaping development of different societies. “If the study
of development leads back to a major focus on culture and the differences among major cultural
traditions, then the time is perhaps appropriate for closer links between comparative politics
scholars (developmentalist subbranch)and area specialists. . . .[S]urely a primary place has to be
accorded the comparative analysis of culture, how and why it develops, how it is transmitted,
what patterns it forms, how its various dimensions can be defined and measured, and how and
under what circumstances it changes.” (p. 27-28).