You are viewing a free preview of this lesson.
Subscribe to unlock all 10 lessons in this course and every other course on LearningBro.
For modernisation theorists, the path to development is clear: poorer societies must industrialise — build factories, raise productivity, and move people off the land and into the cities and the modern economy. Industrialisation and the urbanisation that accompanies it have indeed transformed the fortunes of many societies, and the most spectacular development successes of recent decades — the newly industrialised countries — owe their rise to exactly this process. Yet industrial development has a darker face. Cities have grown faster than the jobs and housing to support them, producing over-urbanisation and sprawling informal settlements. And the whole project of industrial growth rests on a foundation that is now visibly cracking: the natural environment. The pollution, resource depletion and climate change that industrialisation generates raise a profound question — can the whole world really develop along the high-consumption, fossil-fuelled path the West has followed, or would that be ecologically catastrophic? This is the question of sustainable development, and it has forced sociology to confront the possibility that the Western model of progress may be not merely ethnocentric but environmentally impossible to universalise. This lesson examines industrialisation, the rise of the newly industrialised countries, urbanisation and megacities, the environmental costs of growth, and the debate about sustainability — drawing on Beck's concept of the risk society.
Key Definition: Industrialisation is the shift from an agricultural, subsistence economy to one based on manufacturing and industry. Urbanisation is the growth in the proportion of a population living in towns and cities. Sustainable development is development that meets present needs without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own.
This lesson addresses several applied areas of the Global Development specification:
Paper 2 is a single essay paper (2 hours, 80 marks across two options): one 10-mark "applying material from the Item, analyse two…" question and one 20-mark "applying material from the Item, evaluate…" essay. Remember: Paper 2 essays are worth 20 marks, not 30.
Industrialisation, urbanisation and the environment connect across the specification:
Industrialisation has long been treated as the very definition of development. For modernisation theorists, it is the heart of Rostow's "take-off": as investment rises and manufacturing expands, an economy moves from low-productivity subsistence agriculture towards self-sustaining growth and, ultimately, high mass consumption. Industrialisation raises output, creates wage employment, and is associated with rising incomes, urbanisation and the spread of "modern" values.
The most powerful evidence for this view is the rise of the newly industrialised countries (NICs) — economies that, over recent decades, transformed themselves from poor, largely agricultural societies into significant industrial producers. The East Asian "tiger" economies are the best-known examples, and as earlier lessons noted, they are claimed by more than one theory:
A second, more critical reading of industrialisation also deserves attention. Dependency theorists point out that much industrialisation in poorer countries takes the form of dependent industrialisation — factories owned by transnational corporations, located in poorer countries to exploit cheap labour, producing for export and repatriating profits. On this view, industrialisation does not necessarily build an independent national economy; it can instead lock a country into the low-value assembly stages of global commodity chains, as the trade lesson described.
A useful refinement, much discussed in development economics and sociology, distinguishes two broad strategies of industrialisation — and the contrast bears directly on the theoretical debate. Under import-substitution industrialisation, a country tries to build up its own manufacturing behind protective tariffs, producing for the domestic market goods it would otherwise import; the aim is to reduce dependence on the industrial core. Under export-oriented industrialisation, a country instead manufactures for the world market, competing internationally and seeking to climb global commodity chains.
The debate over which strategy works is, in effect, the modernisation-versus-dependency debate in applied form. Dependency theorists historically favoured a measure of protection and self-reliance, fearing that exposing infant industries to powerful core competitors would crush them. Neoliberals and modernisation theorists, by contrast, point to the East Asian experience as evidence that export-orientation and engagement with world markets drive the fastest growth. Yet, as earlier lessons stressed, even that experience is contested: the East Asian states did not simply throw their economies open but combined export-orientation with strong state direction — protecting and nurturing strategic industries before exposing them to competition. The lesson for the exam is that "industrialise" is not a single prescription: how a country industrialises, and on whose terms, shapes whether the process builds independent prosperity or deepens dependency.
Industrialisation has historically gone hand in hand with urbanisation — the movement of people from the countryside into towns and cities, drawn by the prospect of wage work and a better life. Across much of the Global South, urbanisation has accelerated dramatically, producing some of the largest cities the world has ever seen — the megacities of tens of millions of people.
For modernisation theorists, urbanisation is part of the package of progress: cities are centres of industry, education, innovation and modern values, and (as Hoselitz argued) they are channels through which traditional attachments give way to achievement-oriented, individualistic attitudes. Urban life is associated with the impersonal, role-specific relationships that Parsons linked to modernity.
But rapid urbanisation in poorer countries has often diverged sharply from the historical Western experience, producing the phenomenon of over-urbanisation — a situation in which cities grow faster than the industrial jobs, housing, sanitation and services needed to support their populations. Where Western industrial cities grew broadly in step with the jobs that drew people to them, many cities in the Global South have grown through a combination of natural increase and rural-to-urban migration that has outpaced economic capacity. The consequences include:
Over-urbanisation complicates the modernisation assumption that urban growth is simply a marker of progress. It suggests that the relationship between industrialisation and urbanisation matters: urbanisation without sufficient industrial employment can produce poverty and hardship rather than development.
It would be one-sided, though, to portray rapid urbanisation as simply a catastrophe. Cities concentrate not only problems but possibilities: they offer access to education, healthcare, services and markets, foster the exchange of ideas and innovation, and have historically been engines of economic dynamism and social change. The informal settlements that alarm outside observers are also sites of enormous ingenuity, enterprise and self-organisation, where residents build livelihoods and communities with little outside support — a point that guards against the ethnocentric habit of seeing only deficiency where there is also agency. The balanced sociological judgement is that urbanisation is neither inherently developmental nor inherently disastrous: its consequences depend on whether economic opportunity, infrastructure and governance keep pace with the growth of the urban population.
The most fundamental challenge to the industrial model of development is environmental. Industrialisation, by its nature, consumes resources and generates pollution, and the cumulative environmental costs of global growth have become impossible to ignore:
Three sociological points about environmental harm are central for this topic.
First, the costs are unequally distributed. The wealthiest societies, historically, have contributed the most to global environmental damage through their high-consumption industrial development, yet the poorest societies and the poorest people often bear the worst consequences — droughts, floods, failed harvests and rising seas — while having contributed least. This is a stark form of global stratification, and it raises a question of justice that runs through the sustainability debate.
Second, environmental limits cast doubt on the universalisability of the Western model. If every society developed along the high-consumption, fossil-fuelled path the West followed, the ecological consequences would, on the evidence of climate science, be catastrophic. This is a profound challenge to modernisation theory: the Western "destination" may simply be impossible for everyone to reach without destroying the planet — a point that sharpens the ethnocentrism critique into an ecological one.
Third, conventional measures of development treat environmental destruction perversely. As the measurement lesson noted, growth achieved by exhausting forests or fisheries registers as success in GDP, even though it destroys the basis for future well-being. This is precisely why sustainability rose to prominence as a criterion of genuine development.
A helpful way to make the inequality of environmental impact concrete is the idea of the ecological footprint — a measure of how much of the earth's productive capacity a population's consumption requires. The footprint of an average person in a wealthy, high-consumption society is, in qualitative terms, many times that of an average person in a low-income society. This exposes a profound double standard at the heart of debates about environment and development: the societies that have consumed most of the planet's ecological "budget," and contributed most to climate change, are the richest — yet the pressure to constrain growth for environmental reasons falls heavily on poorer societies that have consumed least and are only now industrialising. Whether it is fair to ask those societies to forgo the cheap, polluting development that enriched the West — and who should bear the cost of a cleaner path — is one of the sharpest questions in the whole topic, and it connects the environmental critique directly to the justice and ethnocentrism themes that run through the option.
A valuable theoretical frame for the environmental dimension is the German sociologist Ulrich Beck's concept of the risk society. Beck argued that in late modernity, the central problem facing societies is no longer the production and distribution of goods (the classic concern of industrial society) but the production and distribution of "bads" — the hazards and risks that industrial development itself generates, above all environmental and technological dangers such as pollution, nuclear accidents and climate change.
Several features of Beck's analysis are important for development:
Subscribe to continue reading
Get full access to this lesson and all 10 lessons in this course.