1.

INTRODUCTION
In this globalization era, every country in this world is eager in chasing development

especially in terms of economic, social and politic. Speaking of development, Malaysia has
turned 180 degrees since Independence in 1957, transforming itself into a thriving modern
economy and leapfrogging from a low-income to a middle-income trajectory. Formerly
known as Malaya and consists of multiracial, multi-ethnic and multi-religious society,
Malaysia is a country of diversity in unity that encompasses Malays, Chinese, Indians and the
indigenous people of Sabah and Sarawak (One World Nation, 2015).
Other than that, Malaysias economic policy settings have been remarkably stable and
consistent and it is very difficult to identify any substantial changes in policy direction, much
less the U-turns observed in major Asian countries such as China, Indonesia and Vietnam.
One of the most important stylized facts is that Malaysia has been a high-growth economy
consistently for over five decades in which in the 1970s was the decade of highest growth in
GDP per capita, at 5.2 per cent meanwhile in the 1980s, its growth rate has been less than half
that of China and significantly below that of South Korea (Taylor & Francis, 2012). Plus, in
the 1990s growth was a good deal higher as well, at 4.5 per cent, notwithstanding the Asian
financial crisis. As we can see, although policy consistency has been a dominant theme in
Malaysian economic development, there have been more or less distinct and identifiable
episodes of growth and variations in policy emphasis which is why Malaysia has been
drafting and carried out policies ever since such as The Eighth Malaysia Plan (2001-2005),
The Ninth Malaysia Plan (2006-2010) and The Tenth Malaysia Plan (2011-2015).

2.0

Malaysias Phases of Development since 2000-2015

Hypothetically, Malaysias phases of development does not start since the year 2000

until today, but Malaysia has been drafting development plans and policies since the 1957
Independence Day such as Dasar Luar Pemimpin Negara, Dasar Pro-Barat, Dasar AntiKomunis and Dasar Ekonomi Baru. However, our focus is only within the years of 2000 until
2015 period which encompasses 3 phases of development which are The Eighth Malaysia
Plan, The Ninth Malaysia Plan and The Tenth Malaysia Plan.

2.1

The Eighth Malaysia Plan (2001-2005)

The Eighth Malaysia Plan or more well-known as Rancangan Malaysia Kelapan

(RMK-8) which covered the 2001-2005 period is literally the first phase of the implementation
of the Third Outline Perspective Plan or also known as Rangka Rancangan Jangka Panjang
Ketiga (RRJP3), 2001-2010. National Vision Policy or Dasar Wawasan Negara (DWN) that
contained in RRJP3 will determined the direction of development in the first decade of the
21st century. RMK-8 combines strategy, programs and projects that were designed to achieve
DWNs objectives of sustainable growth and strengthening economic resilience and to create a
united and fair society. During RMK-8, the Malaysias economy is ought to face more
challenges due to increasing in globalization and liberalization and also the advancement of
technology, particularly Information and Communications Technology (ICT). These actions
are considered to be effective to improve the competitiveness and strengthen the economic
resilience and so as to increase the productivity factor as well as facilitating developmentbased economy knowledge. Priorities will be given for the increment of supply of the labors
quality, enhancing research and development (R & D) and the acceleration of the
development of a sector that contributed to the economic growth. However, the major
emphasis also will be placed on strengthening positive values among people and form a
community that is united and fair.
2.2

The Ninth Malaysia Plan (2006-2011)

The Ninth Malaysia Plan or RMK-9 was presented on 30th March 2006 ago with the

main objective is "Strengthening National Unity", theme "Together Towards Excellence,

Glory and Distinction". RMK-9 is also implemented with a view to fostering prosperity
which is an important national development program in the history of the country, as the
country is now at the mid-point in the journey towards 2020. The main strategy implemented
in RMK-9 is to strengthen field services, manufacturing and agriculture. In addition, RMK-9 is
ought to go through the five thrusts which have been drafted out in this plan:

1.

Improving the economy to a higher value chain

Through this foundation, the Government aims to increase the added value of existing

economic sectors, as well as creating a knowledge-based activities and opportunities in the

field of ICT, biotechnology and services. In addition, the government will also create a
conducive environment for private sector led economic development.
2.

Increase the capacity for knowledge, innovation and nurture 'first class

mentality'.
-

The future success depends on the quality of its human capital, not only intellectually

but also its character. In line with this thrust, the Government will undertake efforts to
improve the country's education system as a whole, from pre-school to tertiary and vocational
education. Plus, a favorable environment will be created to generate more business research
and development (R & D). At the same time, emphasis will be placed on nurturing civilized
society and have moral force.

3.

To address persistent imbalances constructively and productively

The government believes in eradicating poverty, generating more balanced growth and

ensuring the benefits of growth are enjoyed by people fairly and equitably.

4.

To improve the standard and sustainability of quality of life

The Government will continue to provide basic needs such as water, energy, housing,

transport and other facilities, but the emphasis should be on addressing issues relating to the
maintenance, upgrading and efficient use of resources.

5.

To strengthen the institutional and implementation capacity

The success of the design lies in the ability to execute. To that end, the Government is

committed to improving the public service delivery system at all levels. In addition, the
Government will also address issues related to corruption and integrity in the public and
private sectors, as well as among the general public.

2.3

The Tenth Malaysia Plan (2011-2015)

The Tenth Malaysia Plan or RMK-10 was presented by Prime Minister Datuk Seri

Najib Tun Razak in Parliament on June 10, 2010, with the theme "Towards Economic
Prosperity and Social Justice". Unlike RMK-9 and RMK-8, RMK-10 drafts are very critical for
the country's development agenda forward towards realizing Vision 2020 and centered on the
developed countries and high income. In line with the Gagasan 1Malaysia Rakyat
Didahulukan Pencapaian Diutamakan, the government is working on plans to provide
welfare to people regardless of race, geography and political borders. Since Model Baru
Ekonomi or New Economic Model was introduced, the government aims RMK-10 to be a
catalyst for achieving the 2020 vision of a knowledge-based economy, innovative, creative
and highly skilled, driven by the services sector will boost the aspirations of high income
countries. Countries can no longer rely solely on the export sector, agriculture, mining and
electronics after the crisis that hits the economy in 2008. This gesture can be said as a good
sign for Malaysia in the race to become a highly independent country that relies more on its
own sources. Other than that, RMK-10 is the plan of national development program designed
to support the implementation of the New Economic Model, the six National Key Result
Areas (NKRA), National Key Economic Areas and the Government Transformation Plan
(citation internet).

3.0

Modernization in Malaysia
In Malaysia, the modernization processes was implanted by British colonial rule where

they only focused in the urban areas because the colonialists seem to have neglected the rural
areas (Abdul Rahman Abdul Aziz, 2005). As a result, there was a lack of participation by the
indigenous community. Furthermore, there was different responses between the Malays and
the non-Malays towards modernization brought by the British.
In the 1960s, the independent government of Malaysia embarked on its modernization
programs which were geared towards the Malays, especially those who live in the rural areas.
In the governments view, more especially that of the Malay ruling party United Malay
National Organization (UMNO), the Malay community needed to transform their cultural
values in order to be an active participant in the new era of development. The slogan of the
youth wing of the party was revolusi mental or mental revolution, urging the Malay
4

community to change their attitudes (Senu Abdul Rahman, 1971). In fact, Senu Abdul
Rahman initiated the compilation of a book that was intended to be a guide in modernizing
the Malays.
The influence of modernization theory became in the 1960s. The focus of discussion
and policy-decision was geared towards the Malays, searching for the root causes of Malay
economic backwardness. The root causes of Malay backwardness have been classified into
two opposing views, the values system versus the structural argument (Shaharuddin Maaruf,
1988). The main exponent of the value system perspective was Parkinson (1967). Parkinson s
views were supported and in fact popularized by some Malay intellectuals. They argued that
Malays were genetically inferior to the Chinese, because of their preference for cousinsmarriages, and that the so-called national character of the Malays is mostly negative when
compared to the Chinese (Senu Abdul Rahman, 1971).
Futhermore, the notion proposed by the modernization theories could not totally be
ignored. The Malay ruling elites seem to consider that the cultural values, attitudes, and
modern exposure are lacking in the Malay community. Though the Malays seem to be
responsive to economic development and educational attainment as any other ethnic group,
but apparently majority of them failed to prove to be excellent in performance. One would
agree that in 1960s there were fewer opportunities open to Malays, in the field of economic
development and education. But, after 1970 those opportunities were widely created and
opened to Malays, but they still could not be attained as desired by the policy. This has led the
government to believe that the core problems are still related to cultural values, attitudes, lack
of exposure and backward thinking.
In fact, Dr. Mahathir Mohammad believed that the poor performances of the Malays in
economic, educational and overall management of activities are due to the backward thinking.
He initiated the establishment of Civic Bureau of Biro Tata Negara during his tenure as
Minister of Education (1974-1977). The main function of this department is to create
awareness among the Malays about their plight in Malaysias rapid economic development. It
is also the function of the department to conduct training programs so that Malays could be
continuously educated and reminded of the role in the country. Presently, the Civic Bureau is
under the control of the Prime Ministers Department. The target audiences of the Civic
Bureas sensitive training are the Malays: students (from grade Five to University); youths;
community leaders; public sector officers and private sector executives. The main objectives
5

of the sensitivity training is the boost the morale of the Malays so that they could participate
with success and excellence in whatever their enterprise.
In fact, when Dr. Mahathir Mohamad became the fourth Prime Minister (1981
2003), Mahathir introduced two crucial policies with regard to correct Malaysian thinking
in particular the Malays. The two policies were Look East Policy and The Inculcation of
Islamic Values. The Dasar Pandang ke Timur (Look East Policy) is meant for the
Malaysians to emulate the work ethics of the Japanese. In this program, many Malaysian
youth are sent to study in Japan and there were numerous short courses attended by Malaysian
in Japan. The purpose of the visits is to study Japanese way of life and the way Japanese
manage their business, education, and other related values. In the Penerapan Nilai-nilai Islam
(The Inculcation of Islamic Values) the aim is to make Islam compatible to modernity and
development (Chandra Muzaffar, 1989). In short, the underlying assumptions of the Malay
elite were the modernization theory and the beliefs in the values and arguments forwarded by
the modernization thinkers (Norhashimah Mohd. Yassin, 1994).
Dr. Mahathir Mohamads thinking about the backwardness of the Malays was
portrayed in the Malay Dilemma (1970). One of Dr. Mahathir Mohamad s arguments among
others, stresses the importance of heredity as the cause of Malay economic backwardness.
However, he does indicate that the major factor in explaining the differences of performances
in economic and educational attainment between the Malays and the non-Malays are the
cultural experiences which each ethnic group has undergone. Dr. Mahathir Mohamads main
criticism was towards the neo-colonial government led by Tunku Abdul Rahman Putra who
ignored this situation and left the Malays on their own to face the competition of the nonMalays on unequal terms.
Syed Hussein Alatas, professor in sociology and an academic in the Departement of
Malay Studies, University of Singapore (1972), responded to the two books which were
written by politicians. Revolusi Mental was compiled in the late 1960s but published as a
book in 1971. The Malay Dilemma written by Dr. Mahathir Mohamad as a response to the
May 13,1969 incidents. It was published and printed in Singapore. As it was published the
then Prime Minister Tunku Abdul Rahman Putra banned the book and only in 1981 Dr.
Mahathir Mohamad himself lifted the banned. Syed Hussein Alatas refuted the arguments
forwarded by Senu Abdul Rahman and Mahathir Mohamad. He argued that for the centuries
the Malays have been exploited economically by their feudal rulers. This, according to him,
6

retarded the growth of the spirit of capitalism among the Malays in the Malay Peninsula.
For example, in the 19th century, the rural Malays were always loath to accumulate too much
wealth because it invited confiscation by either the Sultans or the local chief (Syed Hussein
Alatas, 1972).
On the other hand, the spirit of capitalism is present among the Chinese and other
minority groups. This is also true among the Arab Muslims, the Indian Muslims, Benggali
Muslims, and others who migrated to Malaysia (Syed Hussein Alatas, 1977). Another
important factor beside the spirit of capitalism is the immigrant ethos that existed among
the minorities mentioned above. The immigrant ethos is the powerful incentive to migrate
for reasons such as poverty that forced them to acquire the habits of drive and hard work.
For the Chinese, they had to struggle under conditions of hardship to acquire wealth. If
they did not struggle under such condition their survival and security in the new environment
would not have brought any success. Failure meant a return to seas, back to the dead-endstreet of the society they had fled. The Malays, on the other hand, lived in the security of their
homeland. They had not developed in a struggling alien environment as the Chinese and other
immigrants had (Mahathir Mohamad, 1970; Wan Hashim, 1983; Muhammad Haji Muhd.
Taib, 1993).
Another important finding on Malay economic backwardness is that the poor Malays
have been exploited by other Malays and by Chinese middlemen. The Malays peasants are
exploited by the absentee landlords many of them whom are Malay government servants,
politicians or businessmen. Swift (1067) in his study has noted that among the Malay peasants
there is a concentration of wealth especially of the landholdings. This implies that among the
Malay peasants there is a concentration of wealth in the hands of a small minority.
In the urban areas, the concentration of wealth is in the hands of Chinese millionaires
and owners of big enterprises, and also the Malays from the political and bureaucratic elite
who hold one or two dozen directorships in government-owned companies, statutary bodies or
private firms (Wan Hashim, 1983). The rationale behind this is that there are not enough
Malays of comparable caliber to hold the positions in order to be on equal terms with the
Chinese.

3.1

Modernization Theory Versus Dependency Theory

Both theory have their own pros and cons. These theory has been used for so many

times since a long time ago. But some people were not definitely agree with one of the theory.
Below are the viewpoints of each theory which actually diffrentiate them with each other;
Modernization Theory
Modernization has been a dominant theory in the social sciences in the West since the
1950s. It draws on the biological sciences, which, since the last quarter of the 18th century in
Western Europe , studied the growth and development of different species. The biological
metaphor was transferred to the social sciences: societies, political institutions, economies
were deemed to be growing organisms progressing according to an ordernatural to them. That
is, the development of elements of social life was naturalised: made to appear as if
development (as opposed to constant change) is directional, following a path of ever-near
perfection. In reality this naturalisation was Westernisation in disguise: the so-called natural
progress closely followed the trajectory of Western Europe and North America : how they had
transformed and developed became the blueprint for the rest of the world.
Modernization theory became the foundation stone of this evolutionary prescription
for development. The theory is not homogeneousnumerous proponents disagreed on several
key features. But in broad outline, the theory focused on deficiencies in the poorer countries
and speculated about ways to overcome these deficiencies. It viewed traditional society as a
series of negatives: stagnant and unchanging, not innovative, not profit-making, not
progressing, not growing.
It argued that about 500 years ago, most people in the world were poor or living in
traditional (often subsistence) social arrangements. Scientific innovation existed in many parts
of the world ( China , India , the Middle East ) but for a variety of reasons (not least of them
the conquest of the New World and slavery, which modernization theory bypasses), science
and entrepreneurship grew in Western Europe . The engine of this economic growth was
capitalism. Innovation and technological growth became self-sustaining in Western Europe
because they were embedded in the capitalist system. Entrepreneurs were in competition:
profits were pursued by lowering costs and increasing revenues and re-investing in order to
make more profits. This ceaseless accumulation and expansion spurred growth.

Some modernization theorists emphasised the political modernization that

accompanied this economic advance: feudal lords and autocratic monarchies were challenged
and representative forms of government were established over hundreds of years. This meant
individual freedoms, political parties, elections, rule of law: in short, western-style liberal
democracy.
The Third World did not undergo these economic or political transformations: it was
left behind. So the task of the Third World is to transform itself from tradition to modernity.
That is, to follow the footsteps of the West. In fact, because the path is now charted, these
countries can avoid the mistakes made by the West.
One of the most influential modernization theorists has been W W Rostow of the US .
His 1960 book (The Stages of Economic Growth) outlined five stagesmuch quoted now in
critical development literature -- using the metaphor of take-off: from the traditional society to
the take-off (old resistances fall, political power accrues to a group interested in promoting
economic growth, the country's savings rate grows, modern technology is applied) to the.
drive to maturity (economic growth spread, integration into international markets) and the age
of high mass consumption (fruits of growth finally transferred to the bulk of the people):
airplanes flying smoothly in the sky.
As the countries prepare to launch their airplanes or struggle to keep them flying, they
need assistance: funds, technology, new markets. Many modernization theorists stress correct
policies. So the need for all the consultants and experts in the World Bank, the UN, all
constantly advising different governments. All operating according to formula.
The flaws in this theory are numerous. It does not consider what will happen if the
aeroplanes fail to take-off or if the ones already flying start to slow down or lose the power
to lift the planes on the ground. This means developed countries must continue to grow if they
are to keep afloat and if they are to assist the developing countries. The theory also does not
consider such factors as the instability existing inequalities may create. It sees no conflict
between the interests of the rich and of the poor; it ignores the fact that the world's resources
and benefits may be limited, that the accumulation of wealth in some hands might actually
diminish the chances of others. However, even more serious critiquessuch as dependency
theory -- refer to its a-historicity and its Eurocentricism.

Dependency Theory
Dependency theorists sharply critique the modernization school. The earliest
formulation of dependency theory came up alongside modernization theory. The theory
emerged first in Latin America , amongst social scientists such as Raul Prebisch, an
Argentinian economist, who was Secretary to the UN Economic Commission for Latin
America in the 1950s. The ideas of dependency were also developed, amongst others, by
other Latin American social scientists such as Celso Furtado, Theotonio Dos Santos and F H
Cardoso; by Samir Amin of Senegal, by Andre Gunder Frank of Germany and by Paul Baran
and Immanuel Wallerstein (who later formulated another, related version, called worldsystems theory) of the US.
Dependency is also not a homogeneous, unified theory which is a serious analytical
differences persist within the school. But in essence, dependency theory argues that the
origins of persistent global poverty cannot be understood without reference to the entire
international economic system. Underdevelopment is not a condition: it is an active process of
impoverishment linked to development. That is, some parts of the world are underdeveloped
because others are developed. They are not separate processes but two aspects of the same
process.
In other words, economic growth in advanced countries created Third World poverty
in its wake: not simply that the Third World is poor in comparison with the industrialised
world; rather that it is poor because development of the industrial system in Western Europe
and North America changed and impoverished many societies of Asia, Africa and Latin
America, through colonialism, imperialism and extractive terms of trade.
Dependency argues that before the era of modern economic growth (until about 500
years ago), the world's major regions were not densely connected to each other (though
extensive trade networks existed). When capitalism began to spread, the ceaseless search for
profit began: through the production of agricultural goods in colonies or other lands, and
Western Europe s ability to drive unequal bargains. This fundamentally changed the social
structures of the Third World .
The term dependency comes from this link: Some say the exploitation of various
regions for their raw materials and labour impoverished them and made them depend on the

10

West. Others point out that in fact it is the other way around: that the West has been dependent
on the Third World though history in order to be able to grow and prosper.
So, poverty in the Third World is not traditional or accidental. It is a necessary
companion to the richness of the developed world. The expansion of the industrial world
deformed the rest of the world. Historian Eric Williams, for example, argues that the slave
trade between Africa and the Caribbean islands was responsible for the emergence of a
commercial middle class in Britain and eventually for Britain 's industrial revolution. Slaves
were taken from Africa to the Caribbean ; their unpaid and coerced labour produced such
profitable commodities as sugar or cotton, which were taken to Europe for huge profits. This
provided the conditions for take-off for Britain s industrial revolution.
Similarly, in the late-18th century, Haiti , now the poorest country in the northern
hemisphere, produced one-half of all the sugar and coffee consumed in Europe and the
Americas , as well as substantial amounts of indigo and cotton. The approximately 500,000
slaves working on the colony's 8,000-odd plantations generated two-fifths of France 's
overseas trade
These examples show the dependency approach: the actual creation of
underdevelopment at the cost of development. West African societies were uprooted by
centuries of the slave trade; in the Caribbean the plantation system (set up to meet the needs
of the colonists) met no local needs and impoverished workers. Mines in the Third World
produced bauxite, tin, iron and other metals and minerals for the industries of the West. All of
this depended on cheap indentured or slave labour. Many of the regions of the world were left
with skewed, impoverished economies and devastated populations while the now-developed
countries gained prosperity.
This was a grossly unequal exchange: the Third World gave much more than it got.
The exchange may have created some new wealth in the Third World , some infrastructure
maybe, but it also created an international system of inequality. Members of dependency see
this process as continuing. For example, transnational corporations bargain from a position of
strength, distort the local economy, create vast income gaps, impose their own priorities, and
damage the environment. Or the World Bank and IMF pursue policies that indirectly favour
rich countries.

11

So, modernization theory sees capitalism as a creative force, causing growth and
progress. Dependency sees international capitalism as the ruin of the Third World .
Modernization sees rich countries as helpers of poor countries; dependency sees them as the
main obstacle to the well-being of the poorer countries. Not all of dependency theorists
prescriptions are anti-capitalism however: some see some good in using capitalism and
protectionism to enhance national economies.
An offshoot of dependency has been world-systems theory and it also emphasises the
expansion of a capitalist world economy from the beginning of the 16th century. It views the
global economy in long-term perspective and sees the world system in a constant state of flux.
There are no fixed rankings and locations but cyclical rhythms of expansion and stagnation.
Countries are capable of upward and downward mobility over very long periods which is
there is no uni-directional development.
It has been argued that all such approaches are ultimately partial. Each looks at
different patterns and comes up with different explanations. The world is like a ball of tangled
string: one theory figuratively cuts it across with a knife and sees one intricate pattern; another
cuts across another side to see another pattern. This often results in this or that arguments
when reality is much more complex.

3.2

Comparison between the two theory

Dependency theory and modernisation theory are two of the dominant post-colonial

theoretical interpretations of development. Both theories have been influenced by significant

global, political events and key intellectual figures in the field of development and the social
sciences. Dependency theory is a critique of modernisation theory and the global capitalist
system in which the west has encouraged it be administered by the developing world. These
two theories therefore characteristically contrast with one another. However, this viewpoints
will also argue that there is an underlying commonality that can be viewed. The first contrast
studied in this viewpoint will be the way in which both theories view the effects of
colonialism on the developing world, based upon their epistemological stance. Argentinas
president Nestor Kirchner once noted at a summit that In reference to Neo-liberalism 'US
policy not only generated misery and poverty but also a great social tragedy that added to
12

institutional instability in the region, provoking the fall of democratically led

governments.(Gibbs, 2006).This demonstrates the split in opinion between the neo-liberal,
US influencers of modernisation theory and the post colonial, Latin-American and western
influencers of dependency theory. It will be argued that this contrast in the two theories is the
most important. The second contrast will be the difference in opinion held regarding the role
the state ought to play in creating economic and social development. Thirdly, modernisation
theory uses the industrial revolution in England as its blueprint for development. Dependency
theory offers no suggestion or actual plan for good development. Finally this viewpoint will
show the commonality that is visible between the two theories in question. That both make
absolute statements regarding the relationship between the developed and the developing
countries, based upon the political and economic environment of the time surrounding their
creation
Structural functionalism is a theory that provides an archetype for building society,
based on strong social structures and institutions. This perspective views society as a network
of individual functions, working together to operate as an organic whole. The state being
defined as that set of institutions that uphold order and deliver social stability(Heywood,
2007) The principles of Structural functionalism are relevant to this essay as they form the
skeleton for modernisation theories blueprint for development. This also offers an explanation
regarding modernisation theories holistic approach to development. Modernisation theory
initially drew on Keynesian economics with state regulated development seen as ideal. Since
the 1980s and the rise of neo-liberalism, it has nuanced to encourage market fundamentalism
as a system of free market led development. Modernisation theory assumes that undeveloped
countries remain so because they have not been industrialised, countries such as Great Britain
and France.Societies are treated as structural functional wholes As such, they are adaptive
systems and progress from one evolutionary stage to another In particular, there is a need
for 'special entrepreneurs or an elite able to offer solutions to the new range of problems. And
the stronger the elite the greater the progress. (Harrison, 1988) .This contrasts with
dependency theory which can be seen to form its basis in historical materialism and its
critiquing of political economy. Historical materialism criticises the class divisions it claims
are inherent within the capitalist system, which comprises of workers and the owners of the
means of production. Historical materialism states that the colonised countries were bought
into the global capitalist system as dependencies of their former colonial masters therefore can

13

not enter the global capitalist system such as modernisation theory suggests. This
demonstrates a clear contrast in the two theories.
Dependency theory argues that due to diffusionary influences the former colonies are
unable to enter the global capitalist system they already belong to as dependencies.
Modernisation fails to recognise this, according to dependency theory, as the theory has been
manufactured by the very countries that are the fundamental cause. Metropolitan capitalism
depends on the exploitation and active underdeveloped of an already capitalist periphery
old style colonialism has simply given way to neocolonialism dominated by the IMF and the
multinationals, and enforced by transfer pricing and unequal exchange in world trade.
(Corbridge, 1995). If it is true that due to diffusionary influences, the underdeveloped
countries are unable to develop it would demonstrate a paradox in modernisation theory. The
paradox being that the very blueprint for development that modernisation theory requires
underdeveloped countries to adhere to is the original cause for their underdeveloped state and
the cause of their inability to modernise in the way modernisation theory requires.
The major influences that each theory draw on to construct their opinion regarding
development can also help explain and demonstrate the next contrasting theme.
Modernisation theories holistic approach to development is inspired by its structural
functionalist influences, and just as importantly, by the works on values and attitudes by Max
Webber (Calvert & Calvert, 2007). Modernisation requires a shift from traditional to modern
society. This is made possible by institutional transformations, change from the top down.
modernisation theorists saw traditionalism and modernity as two poles, and in zero-sum
relationship with one another (Calvert & Calvert, 2007). This contrasts with dependency
theory, which is concerned primarily with the political and economic functionality of
modernisation theory and its impacts on the developing countries. It could be argued from this
that dependency theory does not argue against a shift from traditional to modern society. It
does however criticise how modernisation theory states the transition to modernity be made.
The influences of Marxism on dependency theory can be seen in its critical analyses of the
international division of labour and unequal class relations that it claims are inherent to the
global capitalist system. However, there is no clear suggestion that socialism is the, ideal
paradigm for development. Instead placing emphasis on state led development as a
mechanism for wealth redistribution. This essay will follow on from this point to present the
third contrast between dependency theory and modernisation theory.

14

Dependency theories critique of the global capitalist system can be seen to stem, in
particular from the writings of Karl Marx. In a preface to his book A contribution to the
Critique of Political Economy Marx notes that The mode of production of material life
conditions the general process of social, political and intellectual life. It is not the
consciousness of men that determines their existence, but their social existence that
determines their consciousness. At a certain stage of development, the material productive
forces of society come into conflict with the existing relations of production (Marx, 1859).
The result of this conflict within society, would be a social revolution according to Marxism,
where the dissatisfied workers overthrow the owners of the means of production. Marxist
thinking can be viewed as the raison d'etre in regards to dependency theories critique of the
economic 'medicine modernisation theory demands be administered. Modernisation theory as
already shown in this essay, accepts structural inequality as a natural part of the organic body
of society. With the Industrial revolution serving as a historical demonstration of the power of
modernisation. It could be argued that the creators of modernisation theory envisioned the
developing countries adopting the same measures which turned the rolling green hills of
Warwicshire and Tyneside into the 'Black Country and the fields and wastes of Lancashire
into the cotton center of the world (Corbridge, 1995).Dependency theory fails to suggest an
alternative actual plan for development which demonstrates a clear contrast in the two
theories. And in the opinion taken in this essay, also demonstrates a weakness. The failure as
suggested by this essay, can be explained by the uncertainty that Marxist analyses, and
consequently dependency theorists hold regarding the suitability of socialism for the
developing countries. The principles of historical materialism specify that societies become
capitalist before they can go through a further revolutionary transformation to socialism, but
dependency theory is based upon the argument that Europes colonies were brought into the
capitalist economic system as dependencies during the colonial period. (Spybey, 1991).
The underlying commonality shared by both modernisation theory and dependency
theory is the fact that both make absolute statements regarding the relationship between the
developed and the developing world. This does not suggest that they share the same opinion.
This commonality is however, a crucial element in understanding development theory in the
context of the twenty first century. Both theories construct their arguments based upon a
mirror of changing economic and social capacities, priorities and choices. (Pieterse, 2009).
This is visible in the way that modernisation theory has nuanced over the last 60 years to
adapt to the rise of neo-liberalism; the growing influence of MNCs, the World Bank, the IMF
15

and the industrialisation of countries within the developing world. This commonality can be
seen as more of an observation of development theory in a more general sense, rather than a
commonality in the content of either theory. The role that paradigms has to play in deciding
what the possible future of impoverished people across the globe might be, offers the
opportunity to place dependency theory into a slightly more historical context. Through the
means of revolution, Classic Liberalism and an aspiring middle class emerged in French
society in the 1800s, as a direct response to mercantilism, as 'Liberals criticized the political
and economic privileges of the landed aristocracy and the unfairness of a feudal system.
(Haywood, 2007). The very industrial revolution that provided the environment in which a
middle class could emerge, is viewed by dependency theory to be reason that post-colonial
countries can not 'develop in the context that modernisation theory states. While
modernisation theory views the emergence of a middle-class in France in the 1800s as a
satisfactory model of how development ought to occur in the 21st century.
This viewpoints that were outlined has demonstrated how modernisation theory and
dependency theory contrast with each other at a fundamental level whilst also highlighting an
extremely important commonality. The contrasts made have been explained and discussed,
utilising the key theoretical workings, and major influences surrounding them. It has been
shown that the paradigm which each theory can be said to operate within, is responsible for
the economic and political arguments it makes or does not make. It has been shown also that
the role of the state is a key dimension when demonstrating the contrasting themes in each
theory. Thirdly it has been argued that dependency theory offers no suggestion or actual
blueprint for development, unlike modernisation theory which is characteristically an
archetype for development due to the influence of structural functionalism. The commonality
observed in this essay, that both make absolute statements about the relationship between the
developed and the developing countries, has also been outlined. It could be argued from this
essay that both development theories are a reflection of the political, economic and social
environment in which they were created. The implications of this being that the next stage in
development is sure to be a reflection of whatever climate surrounds it. The global financial
crisis of recent years may be the end of Neo-liberalism as we know it and a shift to the left in
popular opinion may well have unknown consequences on what is termed as 'ideal
development for the post-colonial countries.

16

4.0

Conclusion
It is without a doubt that Malaysias phases of development that encompasses RMK-8,

RMK-9 and RMK-10 during 2000-2015 are very critical for Malaysia in progress of pursuing
the 2020 Vision. However, though the drafts and plans has been outlined clearly, the
implementation part will always be the most difficult part to bear with as economic status can
change over time as well as other social and political factors that also could slow down the
process of development. But then again, that is where modernization theory comes in and
being applied to develop Malaysia and same goes to the opposite view which is dependency
theory. Knowing the fact that the modernization theory is focused on the foundation stone of
this evolutionary prescription for development, not all society seems to agree with the idea.
This is because the modernization processes that have been introduced are only focused on
the urban areas while the rural areas are being ignored back in the days on 1950s and seems to
be both efficient and not efficient at some point for the Government these days to promote
rapid development in which turns out catastrophically as unequal prosperity and internal
social and economic division are often occurs in Malaysia.

17

References
Abdul Rahman Abdul Azis (2005). The State and Modernization Perspectives
in Malaysias Development Planning.
Calvert & Calvert. (2001) Politics and society in the third world. Pearson
Education Ltd, Malaysia.
Chandra Muzaffar. 1989. Hard Work The Cure All? in Jomo K. Sundaram
(ed). Mahathirs Economic Policies. INSAN: Kuala Lumpur
Clifford, M.L. 1968. The Land and People of Malaysia. USA: JB Lippincott
Corbridge, S. (1995) Development Studies: A Reader. Arnold, London.
Gibbs, T. (2006) 'Business as Unusual:what the Chaves era tells us about
democracy under globalisation Third World Quartlery, vol. 27, no 2, pp. 265-279.
Haywood, A. (2007) Politics, 3rd edition. Palgrave Macmillan, Hampshire.
Harrison, D. (1988) The sociology of modernization and development. Unwin
Hyman Ltd, London.
Marx, K. (1977) A contribution to the critique of political ecomomy. Progress
Publishers, Moscow.
Muhammad Haji Muhd. Taib. 1993. Melayu Baru. Kuala Lumpur: IBS Buku
(sdn. Bhd.)
Moore, Wilbert. 1963. Social Change. New Jersey: Prentice Hall
Norhashimah Mohd Yassin. 1994. Islamization or Malayunisation: A Study on
the role of Islamic Law in the economic development of Malaysia 1969 1993. Ph.D.
thesis. School of Law, University of Warwick. England

18

Parkinson, Brian, K. (1967). Non-economic factors in the economic retardation

of the rural Malays Modern Asia Studies, vol. 1, pt. 1, January
Pieterse, J, N. (2009) Development Theory. Sage Publishers Ltd, London.
Taylor, Francis (2012). Graduating from the middle.Malaysias Development Challenges.
Routledge Publisher, NY.
Senu Abdul Rahman (1970). Revolusi Mental. Kuala Lumpur: Utusan Melayu.
Shaharuddin Maaruf. (1988). Economic Concentration and Malay Peasant
Society in Freedman M. Social Organisation. London: Frank Cass
Spybey. T. (1991) Social change, Dependency & Development. Blackwell
Publishers, Cambridge.
Syed Hussein Alatas. 1972. Modernisation and Social Change in Southeast Asia.
Sidney: Angus and Robertson, 1977. The Myth of the Lazy Native. London: Frank Cass
Wan Hashim. 1983. Race Relations in Malaysia. Kuala Lumpur: Heinemann
Educational Books.
Retrieved from; http://www.nationsonline.org/oneworld/malaysia.htm. One World Nation.
Retrieved from; http://pmr.penerangan.gov.my/index.php/ekonomi/7800-rancangan-malaysiake-10-qrancangan-kemakmuran-ekonomi-dan-keadilan-sosialq.html. RMK-10
Rancangan Kemakmuran Ekonomi dan Keadilan Sosial.
Retrieved from; http://pmr.penerangan.gov.my/index.php/ekonomi/1355-rancangan-malaysiakelapan-.html. RMK-8.
Retrieved from; http://ww1.utusan.com.my/utusan/info.asp?
y=2001&dt=0423&pub=Utusan_Malaysia&sec=
Terkini&pg=bt_01.htm.

19

Retrieved from; http://pmr.penerangan.gov.my/index.php/penafian/1354-rancangan-malaysiakesembilan.html. RMK-9

20