Social Change

 Meaning of Social Change:

Change implies all variations in human societies. When changes occur in the modes of living of
individuals and social relation gets influenced, such changes are called social changes. Social
change refers to the modifications which take place in life pattern of people. Hence, social
change would mean observable differences in any social phenomena over any period of time.
Social change is the change in society and society is a web of social relationships. Hence, social
change is a change in social relationships. Social relationships are social processes, social
patterns and social interactions. These include the mutual activities and relations of the various
parts of the society. Social change may be defined as changes in the social organization, that is,
the structure and functions of the society. Theorists of social change agree that in most concrete
sense of the word ‘change’, every social system is changing all the time. The composition of the
population changes through the life cycle and thus the occupation or roles changes; the members
of society undergo physiological changes; the continuing interactions among member modify
attitudes and expectations; new knowledge is constantly being gained and transmitted.

Defining Social Change:

According to Jones “Social change is a term used to describe variations in, or modifications of
any aspect of social processes, social patterns, social interaction or social organization”.

As Kingsley Davis says, “By Social change is meant only such alternations as occur in social
organization – that is, the structure and functions of society”.

According to MacIver and Page, “Social change refers to a process responsive to many types of
changes; to changes the man in made condition of life; to changes in the attitudes and beliefs of
men, and to the changes that go beyond the human control to the biological and the physical
nature of things”.
Morris Ginsberg defines, “By social change, I understand a change in social structure, e.g., the
size of the society, the composition or the balance of its parts or the type of its organization”.

P. Fairchild defines social change as “variations or modifications in any aspects of social

process, pattern or form.

B. Kuppuswamy says, “Social change may be defined as the process in which is discernible
significant alternation in the structure and functioning of a particular social system”.

H.M. Johnson says, “Social change is either change in the structure or quasi- structural aspects
of a system of change in the relative importance of coexisting structural pattern”.

According to M.D. Jenson, “Social change may be defined as modification in ways of doing and
thinking of people.

As H.T. Mazumdar says, “Social change may be defined as a new fashion or mode, either
modifying or replacing the old, in the life of people or in the operation of a society”.

According Gillin and Gillin, “Social changes are variations from the accepted modes of life;
whether due to alternation in geographical conditions, in cultural equipment, composition of the
population or ideologies and brought about by diffusion, or inventions within the group.

Merrill and Eldredge “Social change means that large number of persons are engaging in
activities that differ from those which they or their immediate forefathers engaged in some time
before.”

Lundberg and others “Social change refers to any modification in established patterns of inter
human relationships and standards of conduct.”

Anderson and Parker “Social change involves alteration in the structure or functioning of
social forms or processes themselves.”

By analyzing all the definitions mentioned above, we reach at the conclusion that the two type of
changes should be treated as two facts of the same social phenomenon. Two type of changes are
e.g.
(i) Changes in the structure of society,

(ii) Changes in the values and social norms which bind the people together and help to
maintain social order.

These two type of changes should not, however, be treated separately because a change in one
automatically induces changes in the other.

Thus it may be concluded that social change refers to the modifications which take place in the
life patterns of people. It does not refer to all the changes going on in the society. The changes in
art, language, technology; philosophy etc., may not be included in the term ‘Social change’
which should be interpreted in a narrow sense to mean alterations in the field of social
relationships.

Characteristics of Social Change:

The phenomenon of social change is not simple but complex. It is difficult to understand this in
its entirety. To understand social change well, we have to analyze the nature of social change.

1. Social change is community change:

Society is a “web of social relationships” and hence social change obviously means a change in
the system of social relationships. Social change does not refer to the change in the life of an
individual or the life patterns of several individuals. It is a change which occurs in the life of the
entire community. In other words, only that change can be called social change whose influence
can be felt in a community form.

2. Social change is a universal phenomenon:

Social change occurs in all societies. No society remains completely static. Each society, no
matter how traditional and conservative, is constantly undergoing change. Speed and extent of
change may differ from society to society. Some change rapidly, others change slowly.

3. Social Change occurs as an Essential law:

Social change occurs as an essential law:. Social change may occur either in the natural course or
as a result of planned efforts. By nature we desire change. Our needs keep on changing. To
satisfy our desire for change and our changing needs social change becomes a necessity

4. Social Change is Continuous:

Society is a system of social relationship. But these social relationships are never permanent.
They are subject to change. Society is an ever-changing phenomenon. It is undergoing endless
changes. It is an “ongoing process”. These changes cannot be stopped. Society is subject to
continuous change. Here it grows and decays, there it finds renewal, accommodates itself to
various changing conditions.

5. Social Change Involves No-Value Judgment:

Social change is neither moral nor immoral, it is amoral. The question of “what ought to be” is
beyond the nature of social change. The study of social change involves no-value judgment. It is
ethically neutral.

6. Social Change is bound by Time Factors:

Social change is temporal. It happens through time, because society exists only as a time-
sequences. We know its meaning fully only by understanding it through time factors. The reason
is that the factors which cause social change do not remain uniform with the changes in time
.Social change may be Short-term and Long-term Change. The conceptualization of the
magnitude of change involves the next attribute of change, the time span. That is to say “a
change that may be classified as ‘small-scale from a short-term perspective may turn out to have
large-scale consequences” when viewed over a long period of time.

7. Speed of social change:

Speed of social change is not uniform and speed of social change is affected by and related to
time factor. While social change occurs in all societies, the rate, tempo, speed and extent of
change is not uniform In most societies it occurs so slowly that it is often not noticed by those
who live in them. Social change in urban areas is faster than in rural areas.
8. Definite prediction of social change is not possible:

It is difficult to make any prediction about the exact forms of social change. There is no inherent
law of social change according to which it would assume definite forms. Likewise it cannot be
predicted as to what shall be our attitudes, ideas, norms and values in future.

9. Social change shows chain-reaction sequence:

A society’s pattern of living is a dynamic system of inter-related parts. Therefore, change in one
of these parts usually reacts on others and those on additional ones until they bring a change in
the whole mode of life of many people.

10. Social change results from the interaction of a number of factors:

As a matter of fact, social change is the consequence of a number of factors. A special factor
may trigger a change but it is always associated with other factors that make the triggering
possible. The reason is that social phenomena are mutually interdependent. None stand out as
isolated forces that bring about change of themselves. Rather each is an element in a system.

11. Social changes may be considered as modifications or replacement:

Social changes may be broadly categorized as modifications or replacements. It may be

modification of physical goods or social relationships. There may also be modifications of social
relationships.

Change also takes the form of replacement. A new material or non-material form supplants an
old one .Similarly; old ideas have been replaced by new ideas

12. Social Change may be Small-scale or Large-scale:

A line of distinction is drawn between small-scale and large scale social change. Small-scale
change refers to changes within groups and organizations rather than societies, culture or
civilization. According W.E. Moore, by small-scale changes we shall mean changes in the
characteristics of social structures that though comprised within the general system identifiable
as a society, do not have any immediate and major consequences for the generalized structure
(society) as such.

13. Social Change may be Peaceful or Violent:

At times, the attribute ‘peaceful’ has been considered as practically synonymous with ‘gradual’
and ‘violent’ with ‘rapid’. The term ‘violence’ frequently refers to the threat or use of physical
force involved in attaining a given change.

‘Peaceful’ has to do with the changes that take place by consent, acceptance or acquisition and
that are enforced by the normative restraints of society.

14. Social Change may be Planned or Unplanned:

Social change may occur in the natural course or it is done by man deliberately. Unplanned
change refers to change resulting from natural calamities.,

Planned social change occurs when social changes are conditioned by human engineering. Plans,
programs and projects are made by man in order to determine and control the direction of social
change.

15. Social Change may be Endogenous or Exogenous:

Endogenous social change refers to the change caused by the factors that are generated by
society or a given subsystem of society. Conflict, communication, regionalism etc. are some of
the examples of endogenous social change.

On the other hand, exogenous sources of social change generally view society as a basically
stable, well-integrated system that is disrupted or altered only by the impact of forces external to
the system.

Although no hard and fast categories have yet been developed into which we can fit different
types of change, the use of the foregoing distinctions, may be helpful in clarifying one’s
conceptualization of any type of change or at least, they can help one to understand the
complexities involved in developing a definition of the subject of social change.
  Factors of Social Change or Forces Influencing Social Change

Physical Environment:

Major changes in the physical environment are very compelling when they happen. Human
misuse can bring very rapid changes in physical environment which in turn change the social and
cultural life of a people. Many human groups throughout history have changed their physical
environment through migration. In the primitive societies whose members are very directly
dependent upon their physical environment migration to a different environment brings major
changes in the culture. Civilization makes it easy to transport a culture and practice it in a new
and different environment.

Population changes:

A population change is itself a social change but also becomes a casual factor in further social
and cultural changes. When a thinly settled , secondary group relations multiply, institutional
structures grow more elaborate and many other changes follow. A stable population may be able
to resist change but a rapidly growing population must migrate, improve its productivity or
starve. Great historic migrations and conquests of the Huns, Vikings and many others have arisen
from the pressure of a growing population upon limited resources. Migration encourages further
change for it brings a group into a new environment subjects it to new social contacts and
confronts it with new problems.

Isolation and Contact:

Societies located at world crossroads have always been centers of change. Since most new traits
come through diffusion, those societies in closest contact with other societies are likely to change
most rapidly. Areas of greatest intercultural contact are the centers of change. War and trade
have always brought intercultural contact and today tourism is adding to the contacts between
cultures.
Social Structure:

The structure of a society affects its rate of change in subtle and not immediately apparent ways.
.When a culture is very highly integrated so that each element is rightly interwoven with all the
others in a mutually interdependent system change is difficult and costly. But when the culture is
less highly integrated so that work, play, family, religion and other activities are less dependent
upon one another change is easier and more frequent. A tightly structured society wherein every
person’s roles, duties, privileges and obligations are precisely and rigidly defined is less given to
changes than a more loosely structured society wherein roles, lines of authority, privileges and
obligations are more open to individual rearrangement.

Attitudes and Values:

Societies differ greatly in their general attitude toward change. People who revere the past and
preoccupied with traditions and rituals will change slowly and unwillingly. When a culture has
been relatively static for a long time the people are likely to assume that it should remain so
indefinitely. They are intensely and unconsciously ethnocentric; they assume that their customs
and techniques are correct and everlasting. A possible change is unlikely even to be seriously
considered. Any change in such a society is likely to be too gradual to be noticed. A rapidly
changing society has a different attitude toward change and this attitude is both cause and effect
of the changes already taking place. Rapidly changing societies are aware of the social change.
They are somewhat skeptical and critical of some parts of their traditional culture and will
consider and experiment with innovations. Such attitudes powerfully stimulate the proposal and
acceptance of changes by individuals within the society. Attitudes and values affect both the
amount and the direction of social change.

Cultural Factor:

Cultural Factor influences the direction and character of technological change Culture not only
influences our social relationships, it also influences the direction and character of technological
change. It is not only our beliefs and social institutions must correspond to the changes in
technology but our beliefs and social institutions determine the use to which the technological
inventions will be put. The tools and techniques of technology are indifferent to the use we make
of them. Thus cultural factors play a positive as well as negative role in bringing about
technological change. Cultural factors such as habits, customs, traditions, conservatism,
traditional values etc may resist the technological inventions. On the other hand factors such as
breakdown in the unity of social values, the diversification of social institutions craving for the
new thoughts, values etc may contribute to technological inventions.

Technological Factors:

Technology is a byproduct of civilization .When the scientific knowledge is applied to the

problems in life it becomes technology. Technology is a systematic knowledge which is put into
practice that is to use tools and run machines to serve human purpose. Science and technology go
together. In utilizing the products of technology man brings social change. The social effects of
technology are far-reaching. According to Karl Marx even the formation of social relations and
mental conceptions and attitudes are dependent upon technology. He has regarded technology as
a sole explanation of social change.

 Types of Social Movements Or Dimensions of Social Change

Reform Movements:
Reform movements are organized to carry out reforms in some specific areas. The reformers
endeavor to change elements of the system for better.

Revolutionary Movements:
These movements are deeply dissatisfied with the social order and work for radical change. They
advocate replacing the entire existing structure. Their objective is the reorganization of society in
accordance with their own ideological blueprint.

Reactionary or Revivalist Movement:

Some movements are known as reactionary or regressive movements. These aims to reverse the
social change .They highlight the importance and greatness of traditional values, ideologies and
institutional arrangements. They strongly criticize the fast moving changes of the present.
Resistance Movement:
These movements are formed to resist a change that is already taking place in society. These can
be directed against social and cultural changes which are already happening in the country.

Utopian Movement:
These are attempts to take the society or a section of it towards a state of perfection. These are
loosely structured collectivities that envision a radically changed and blissful state, either on a
large scale at some time in the future or on a smaller scale in the present. The Utopian ideal and
the means of it are often vague, but many utopian movements have quite specific programs for
social change.

 Social Mobility
Every society of the world has social mobility, though the rate of mobility is different in
all the societies depending upon their cultural condition.

Definition

Fairchild: “social mobility is a movement from one condition to another.”

Bredemeyer and Stephensen say that: “social mobility is moving of an individual or

group of people from one status to another.”

Horton and Hunt: “social mobility may be defined as the act of moving from one social
class to another.”

From these above definitions it is clear that social mobility is a movement of an

individual or group; of people from one condition to another; is adaptation of a change which
may be social progress; or is rejection of previous social conditions and adjusting into the new
changes of life Social mobility is change in occupation in residential place and in status upward
or downward.

Types of social mobility

1. Territorial Mobility
 “It is the change of residence from one place to another.” In rural areas of Pakistan this
mobility is seldom found because the people of a community dislike leaving their ancestral place
of living. In urban areas, the people sell one house and purchase another leave one and get
another on rent; leave one city and migrate to another.

Some people migrate to cities due to modern facilities of education, health, recreation and
transportation. Some for jobs and some migrate for other reasons.

2. Vertical Mobility

“It is defined as any upward or downward change in the absolute or relate rank of any
individual or group.” Promotion in job, change in income, marrying woman of high status, are
the examples of vertical mobility.

It has two types

A: Upward Mobility. The upward mobility is from down to upward and takes place
when one is progressing in income, status, job, education or any other role.

Vertical mobility in upward direction is at its fast ratio in urban areas. Because here the
socio-economic conditions are rapidly progressing, in rural areas this rate of upward mobility is
slow due to limited socio-economic resources.

B: Downward Mobility. The downward move takes place when there is loss in business,
loss in income, fall in status or job or loss of wealth and property. In both the cases, the social
change is there.

The downward mobility is seen when an inefficient son wastes his inherited property in
adultery, gambling, drinking and other social evils. After some time he comes down to lower
class from upper.

3. Horizontal Mobility

An alteration of profession with no significant movement up or down in the system of

social status is called horizontal mobility.
 A manager of store shifts to another store on the rank, pay and prestige, will be called
horizontal mobility. It is a change in profession with no change in income and status. A person
working on medical store opens general store. It is horizontal mobility. A clerk form education
department shifts to health department at the =same pay and facility, it is horizontal mobility.

The rural people in Pakistan infrequently change their professions. It means horizontal
mobility is least found there. In urban areas, all the members in a family almost belong to
different professions. It is due to high rate of change in horizontal mobility.

4. Inter-generational mobility

This type of social mobility was introduced by Cohen in his book “introduction to Sociology”.

“Inter-generational mobility refers to social mobility that takes place between generations.”

For example, Son of a taxi driver earns a college education and becomes a successful doctor,
intergenerational mobility has occurred.

5. Intra-generational mobility

“It refers to change or changes or changes in the social status of an individual or group of
individuals with in the same generation.” For example, among four brothers, one became CSP
officer and other brothers remain in low social status comparing with him, then intra-
generational mobility occurs.

Causes of Social Mobility

Dissatisfaction from Previous Condition the people never stick to the same condition of life
forever. They want change in it. The old condition does not fulfill the purpose of new social
ways of living. They leave it and attend to the new conditions of life.

Adoption of new Conditions the people leaving the previous conditions adopt the new ones
which are functional according to the new ways of living, This adoption of new ways of living is
called social mobility.

Industrial and Technological Development the development of technology and industry brings
about a havoc in the socio-economic structure of society, the modes of living of the people are
changed which bring about changes in attitudes, ideas, habits, customs and sentiment of the
people. It means total socio-cultural life is changed here we get social mobility.

Education the progress of education is imperative in an industrially advanced society. The

development of technology, industry and education are simultaneous processes being correlated.
Advancement in education makes a society mobile.

Urbanization the development of urban population and modern attitude is called urbanization. It
is also attached with the development of education, technology and industry. These factors are
interrelated together. The population of Faisalabad showed the highest increment (92.7%) in
1961-72 censuses. This factor of urbanization is being guessed due to high rate of expansion in
technology, industry and education in this city.

Means of communication and transportation the means of communication and transportation

play great role in bringing about social change. The people get traditional attitudes changed and
accept modern ways of living by these sources of information.

Migration
The movement of people into and out of a specified territory, Movement into a territory – or
immigration is measured as an in-migration rate, calculated as the number of people entering an
area for every thousands people in the population. Movement out of a territory or emigration is
measured in terms of an out migration rate the number leaving for every thousands people both
types of migration usually occur at once; the difference is the net-migration rate.

All nations also experience internal migration, that is, movement within their borders from one
region to another. Migration is sometimes voluntary, as when people leave a dying town and
move to a larger city. In such cases, a “push-pull” person to move and more opportunity
elsewhere “pulls” them to a larger city. Migration can also be involuntary; Transferring someone
from one place to another by force.

Urbanization
Urbanization is an index of transformation from traditional rural economies to
modern industrial one. It is progressive concentration of population in urban unit. Quantification
of urbanization is very difficult. It is a long term process. Kingsley Davis has explained
urbanization as process of switch from spread out pattern of human settlements to one of
concentration in urban centers. It is a finite process--- a cycle through which a nation pass as they
evolve from agrarian to industrial society. He has mentioned three stages in the process of
urbanization.

Stage one is the initial stage characterized by rural traditional society with predominance in
agriculture and dispersed pattern of settlements.

Stage two refers to acceleration stage where basic restructuring of the economy and investments
in social overhead capitals including transportation, communication take place. Proportion of
urban population gradually increases from 25% to 40%, 50%, 60% and so on. Dependence on
primary sector gradually dwindles.

Third stage is known as terminal stage where urban population exceeds 70% or more. At this
stage level of urbanization remains more or less same or constant. Rate of growth of urban
population and total population becomes same at this terminal stage.

The onset of modern and universal process of urbanization is relatively a recent

phenomenon and is closely related with industrial revolution and associated economic
development. As industrial revolution started in Western Europe, United Kingdom was the
initiator of Industrial Revolution. Historical evidence suggests that urbanization process is
inevitable and universal. Currently developed countries are characterized by high level of
urbanization and some of them are in final stage of urbanization process and experiencing
slowing down of urbanization due to host of factors. A majority of the developing countries, on
the other hand started experiencing urbanization only since the middle of 20th century.

Definition

Urbanization or Urban Drift is the physical growth of urban areas as a result of

global change. Urbanization is also defined by the United Nations as movement of people from
rural to urban areas with population growth equating to urban migration.

Urbanization is closely linked to modernization, industrialization, and the

sociological process of rationalization.

Causes of Urbanization
 Urbanization occurs naturally from individual and corporate efforts to reduce time
and expense in commuting and transportation while improving opportunities for jobs, education,
housing, and transportation. Living in cities permits individuals and families to take advantage of
the opportunities of proximity, diversity, and marketplace competition.

People move into cities to seek economic opportunities. A major contributing factor
is known as "rural flight". In rural areas, often on small family farms, it is difficult to improve
one's standard of living beyond basic sustenance. Farm living is dependent on unpredictable
environmental conditions, and in times of drought, flood or pestilence, survival becomes
extremely problematic. In modern times, industrialization of agriculture has negatively affected
the economy of small and middle-sized farms and strongly reduced the size of the rural labor
market.

Cities, in contrast, are known to be places where money, services and wealth are
centralized. Cities are where fortunes are made and where social mobility is possible. Businesses,
which generate jobs and capital, are usually located in urban areas. Whether the source is trade or
tourism, it is also through the cities that foreign money flows into a country. It is easy to see why
someone living on a farm might wish to take their chance moving to the city and trying to make
enough money to send back home to their struggling family.

There are better basic services as well as other specialist services that aren't found in
rural areas. There are more job opportunities and a greater variety of jobs. Health is another
major factor. People, especially the elderly are often forced to move to cities where there are
doctors and hospitals that can cater for their health needs. Other factors include a greater variety
of entertainment (restaurants, movie theaters, theme parks, etc) and a better quality of education,
namely universities. Due to their high populations, urban areas can also have much more diverse
social communities allowing others to find people like them when they might not be able to in
rural areas.

These conditions are heightened during times of change from a pre-industrial society
to an industrial one. It is at this time that many new commercial enterprises are made possible,
thus creating new jobs in cities. It is also a result of industrialization that farms become more
mechanized, putting many laborers out of work.

Impact of Technology on social structure

The discussion in this paper highlights the increasing inherent complexity of and in social
movements due to technologies. It is evident from the discussion made in this paper that the
dynamics of conflict, gender and development are now much more complex. It has also been
noted that a change in technology inevitably leads to a change in culture, a people’s way of life.
To some, such changes are threatening, for example, the industrial revolution and its
technological impetus (automation) affected the livelihood of many manual workers and
rendered them redundant. Consequently, while some welcome new technology, others resist it. It
has also been observed that the phenomenon of social change is inevitable for society owing to
such processes as culture contact and its resultant effects, cultural diffusion, cultural leveling,
globalization and the information superhighway views. For instance, except in rare instances,
humans have some contact with other groups, during which culture contact occurs. In this
process, cultural diffusion (the spread of invention or discovery from one area to another) occurs.
This leads to cultural leveling, a state of affairs whereby many groups adopt western culture in
place of their own customs. With today’s technology, for example, in travel and
communications, cultural diffusion is certainly occurring rapidly. Air travel has made it possible
for people to journey around the globe in a matter of hours. In the not-so-distant past, a trip from
the United States to Africa was so unusual that only a few hardy people made it, and newspapers
would herald their feat. Today, hundreds of thousands make the trip each year. The changes in
communication are no less vast. Communication used to be limited to face-to-face speech and
visual signals such as smoke, light reflected from mirrors, and written messages passed from
hand to hand. Today’s electronic communications transmit messages across the globe in a matter
of seconds, and we learn almost instantaneously what is happening on the other side of the
world. In fact, travel and communication unite to such an extent that there almost is no other side
of the world any more. The result is cultural leveling, a process in which cultures become almost
similar as the globalization of capitalism brings not only technology but also western culture to
the rest of the world. On another note, social movements have been found to be another source of
social change as the case with temperance movements, civil rights movements, women’s
movements; the animal rights crusades and environmental movements. At the heart of social
movements lie grievances and dissatisfactions as people find the current thesis of society
unbearable and work towards promoting social change. A relationship exists in the concepts
mass media, propaganda and social movements. The mass media are gatekeepers for social
movements. Their favorable or unfavorable coverage greatly affects social movements. Social
movements make use of propaganda to further their causes.
Role of Industrialization in social differentiation
Industrialization is perhaps the most pervasive and fundamental trend affecting national
societies in the current era. Across the globe countries are industrializing as fast as they
can muster the resources to do so. As this transformation takes place it necessarily entails
changes in other aspects of social structure, and one of the social institutions most likely
to be affected by industrialization is the system of social stratification. In this paper
we will examine the interrelations between societal variations in extent of
industrialization and societal variations in the nature of social stratification systems,
reviewing what is known to date and offering suggestions for future empirical
investigation. We will begin our review by considering variations in the structure and
process of stratification and then will take up the consequences of these variations both
for other social institutions and for the behavior of individuals. By the structure of a
stratification system we mean the composition of a population with respect to the
possession of socially valued and scarce re-sources, or, to put it slightly differently, the
shape of the distribution of these resources in a population. Three central components of
stratification systems are education, occupation, and income, and we shall devote more of
our attention to these dimensions.^ It is evident that societies vary with respect to the
distribution of their populations over categories of educational attainment, occupational
status, and income, and we will be concerned with the relation of industrialization to
such variations. By the process of stratification, or the process of status attainment, we
refer to the principles or rules by which individuals are distributed over locations in the
stratification structure. This leads directly to a concern with the interrelations among the
various dimensions which comprise the structure. For example, the statement that
occupational status is largely dependent upon educational attainment and only slightly
dependent upon father’s occupational status is a rule describing the process of
stratification or the process of status attainment. And the assertion that the rate of
occupational inheritance decreases as societies industrialize is a statement about a
change in the process of stratification. It is evident that both aspects of stratification
systems are intimately interrelated: changes in structure necessarily imply changes in
process, and vice versa. Nonetheless, for convenience of exposition we will attempt to
separate this section of our review into the following topics: (A) the effect of
industrialization upon the structure of stratification; (B) the effect of structure upon
process; and (C) the effect of process upon structure. Then in the second section, we
will consider how the relations between stratification and other aspects of social life are
affected by variations in the level of industrialization of societies. Our procedure will be
to review the principal issues associated with various substantive topics in order to
formulate a series of propositions which either have substantial empirical support or
which are suggested on theoretical grounds as warranting empirical investigation.

Industrialization and Structural Variation

Occupational structure
Perhaps the most obvious consequence of industrialization is a shift in the distribution
of the labor force. Typically, as countries industrialize the efficiency of agricultural
production increases and the proportion of the labor force engaged in agriculture
decreases. Kuznets (1957:28-31)presents data for twenty-eight countries showing a
decline in the pro-portion of the labor force in agriculture over approximately the past
100years, which he attributes to the increasing industrialization of these coun-tries. And
among contemporary societies there is a very high negative correlation between the
level of industrialization (as measured by per capita energy consumption) and the
proportion of the labor force en-gaged in agriculture (rho = —.76 for 93 countries,
computed from Gins-burg, 1961:Tables 10 and 34).In addition to the shift out of
agriculture, there is usually a shift in the occupational distribution of the nonagricultural
labor force as well. This comes about in several ways. First, the increased productivity of
labor resulting from mechanization allows a shift over time from tt>e production of
goods to the production of services (Jaffe and Stewart, 1951:254; Kuznets,1957:28-31),
which has the effect of increasing the ratio of non manual to manual workers. Second,
technological changes tend to radically transform the nature of specific jobs and to give
rise to entirely new occupations as well. The rationalization of production which
accompanies mechanization ordinarily involves a shift from a craft system, in which all
the tasks involved in the production of a given article are carried out by the same
individual, to an assembly line system in which the manufacturing processes divided into
a set of discrete operations, each of which can be carried out in a routine manner by a
semiskilled workman or machine attendant. And, of course, mechanization implies the
development of new occupations concerned with the design and maintenance of complex
machinery (Jaffe and Stewart, 1951:256). What results is an enormous proliferation of
occupational specialties such as has accompanied the process of industrialization in the
United States (U.S. Department of Labor, 1965:xiii-xiv). Third, there is an increase in
the scale of economic activity. Rising capital requirements and economies of scale result
in an increase in the size of individual enterprises (Hoselitz, 1961), and improvements in
transportation increase the size of the potential market for goods. The development of a
complex production and marketing system requires an increase in clerical and
administrative personnel, and this, together with increased productivity, results in an
increase in the ratio of non manual to manual workers. Actually, the form this takes is
the more rapid growth of the non manual than the manual sector, both of which grow at
the expense of the agricultural sector (for cross-sectional evidence based on data from
twelve Western Hemisphere nations see Soars, 1966:198; and for longitudinal data for
four Anglo countries see Farrag, 1964).

Educational structure
A second concomitant of industrialization is an increase in the level of education in
the population (Bowman and Anderson, 1963). Not only does the shifting labor
market create increased demand for trained personnel, but educational opportunities
tend to be more available in more industrialized countries. Such nations tend to have
more extensive educational systems, and are more likely to make education
available free of charge to the student. The popular desire for education tends to increase
as well, as more and more jobs come to require explicit educational qualifications. And
urbanization, which generally accompanies industrialization itself results in increased
desire for education. Since an urban labor force has less need of child labor than does
an agricultural labor force, urban parents are more likely to encourage their children to
take advantage of educational opportunities—or, to put it in the opposite way, are less
likely to prevent them from doing so. Also, with a shift from craft to factory modes of
production, parents are no longer able to train their children directly for occupational
roles and are less able to teach them the particular skills demanded by a fluid industrial
labor market, notably literacy (Golden,1957); hence, they are more likely to send them to
school.

Income structure Finally, industrialization results in increased per capita wealth. This is well
known and in itself not very interesting. Of greater interest is the tendency for income
inequality to be reduced as a consequence of industrialization. Kuznets (1963) presents
both longitudinal and cross-sectional data showing a reduction in the inequality of
family income as countries develop economically. This trend is probably due primarily
to the shift of the labor force out of agricultiu-e—traditional agriculture typically returns
very low income, which reflects its extremely low productivity—and rising productivity
of the remaining agricultural labor force. A second factor is the increase in education
which accompanies industrialization. Rising educational levels tend to increase the supply
of labor aspiring to non manual jobs and to reduce the supply of labor willing to accept
manual jobs. To the extent that this shift is not matched by corresponding shifts in the
demand for labor, differences in the wage scales of non manual and manual workers
will be reduced (Reynolds, 1964:473-474). We shall have more to say about this point
below. We can summarize our conclusions about the relations between industrialization and
the structure of stratification by stating them in propositional form. The following
propositions are fairly well supported by both cross-sectional and longitudinal evidence,
although more complete data will be required for them to be accepted unequivocally
Variations in the Process of Status Attainment

Having considered the ways in which the distribution of status variables vary with
industrialization, we now turn to the question of the relation between industrialization
and intercountry variations in the process of status attainment. It will be evident as we
proceed through this section that most of the shifts in the process of status attainment we
postulate are iti fact consequences of shifts in the distributions of the three status
attributes we have just considered. It is convenient to think of the model presented in
Figure 1 (ignoring the coefficients) as a generic representation of the basic process of
status attainment, even though we recognize that for particular societies the process might
well vary somewhat. By restricting our attention to a single generic model, we can suggest
some propositions about the ways in which various aspects of the process represented in
the model can be expected to vary for societies at different levels of industrialization.1.
The direct (or net) influence of father's on son's occupational status should be weaker the
more industrialized a society. The changes in labor force structure we have discussed
above make direct occupational inheritance less likely in more industrialized countries. In
particular, the greater bureaucratization of work (Moore, 1966) makes it more difficult
for fathers to pass their own positions directly on to their sons or even to arrange for
their sons to work at the same jobs they do. Also, in more industrialized economies the
sheer number of jobs is greater, as we have indicated, and the labor market more
complex, making it less likely on the basis of chance alone that a given individual will
work at a job similar to that of his father.2. The direct influence of education on
occupational attainment should be stronger in more industrialized societies (cf. Anderson,
1958; and Hurdand Johnson, 1967:60). With the increased specialization of labor which
characterizes industrialization, and the concomitant increase in the proportion of
professional, technical, administrative, and clerical jobs, formal education probably
becomes more important as a mechanism for the learning of occupationally relevant skills,
and an increasingly important resource in job competition. This is particularly true of
positions in public bureaucracies (Hurd and Johnson, 1967:60-61). Moreover, the demand
of highly industrialized societies for a mobile and adaptable labor force likely results in a
shift from inscriptive to universalistic achievement criteria as a basis for occupational role
allocation.3. In more industrialized societies parental status should play a less important
role in educational attainment than in less industrialized places. Industrialized countries are
more likely to have free mass educational systems; and where education is free the
opportunity to continue with schooling tends to depend mainly upon academic success at
the previous level of schooling, rather than upon financial capability. In addition, the
greater degree of urbanization of industrialized countries should reduce the dependence of
educational attainment upon social origins, since educational opportunities are more readily
available to urban children and since there is less pressure upon the children of urban
industrial workers to leave school at an early age to go to work.

Theoretical Framework of Social Change

Sociologists, historians and social anthropologists have proposed a number of general theories of
social change. These theories may conveniently be grouped into different categories:

Emile Durkheim

Emile Durkheim Identified the cause of societal evolution as a society’s increasing “moral
Density”. “Durkheim viewed societies as changing in the direction of greater differentiation,
interdependence and formal control under the pressure of increasing moral density”. He
advocated that societies have evolved from a relatively in differentiated social structure with
minimum of division of labor and with a kind of solidarity called mechanical solidarity to a more
differentiated social structure with maximum division of labor giving rise to a kind of solidarity
called Organic Solidarity.

Toynbee: Challenge and Response

Arnold Toynbee, a British historian with enough sociological insight has offered a somewhat
more promising a theory of social change. His famous book “A Study of History” 1964, a
multivolume work, draws on materials from 24 civilizations. The key concepts in Toynbee’s
theory are those of Challenge and Response. Every society faces challenges at first, challenges
posed by the environment; later challenges from internal and external enemies. The nature of the
responses determines the society’s fate. The achievements of a civilization consist of its
successful responses to challenges; if it cannot mount an effective response, it dies.
Toynbee’s views are more optimistic than those of Spengler’s for he does not believe that all
civilizations will inevitably decay. He has pointed out that history is a series of cycles of decay
and growth. But each new civilization is able to learn from the mistakes and to borrow from
cultures of others. It is, therefore, possible for each new cycle to offer higher levels of
achievement. Still he has not explained why some societies are able to offer effective responses
to their challenges while others do not, or why a society should overcome one challenge but
become a victim of another.

Sorokin: Sensate and Ideational Culture

The Russian American sociologist, pitirim A Sorokin, in his book “Social and Culture
Dynamics”-1938, has offered another explanation of social change. His work has had a more
lasting impact on sociological thinking instead of viewing civilizations into terms of
development and decline he proposed that they alternate or fluctuate between two culture
extremes: The “sensate” and The “ideational”. The sensate culture stresses those things which
can be perceived directly by the senses. It is practical, hedonistic, sensual, and materialistic.
Ideational Culture emphasizes those things which can be perceived only by the mind. It is
abstract, religious, concerned with faith and ultimate truth. It is the opposite of the sensate
culture. Both represent ‘pure’ types of culture. Hence no society ever fully conforms to either
type. Without mentioning the causes, he said that as the culture of a society develops towards
one pure type, it is countered by the opposing cultural force. Cultural development is then
reversed moving towards the opposite type of culture. In brief, too much emphasis on one type of
culture leads to a reaction towards the other. “Societies contain both these impulse in varying
degrees and the tension between them creates long-term instability”. Between these types, of
course, there lies a third type ideastic culture. This is a happy and a desirable blend of the other
two, but no society ever seems to have achieved it as a stable condition.

Sorokin’s theory has not been accepted by the sociologists for it portrays his prejudices and
probably his disgust with the modern society. His concepts of sensate and ideational are purely
subjective. His theory is in a way speculative and descriptive. It does not provide an explanation
as to why social change should take this form. Thus, the cyclical theories, in general are not
satisfactory.
Karl Marx (1818-1883) Change through Class Conflict

He was born in Germany. He was exiled and spent much of his time in England. He is of the
view that economic factors and conditions alone are responsible for social change. He says that
constant and regular struggle is going on in the society in which economically weaker sections
are being exploited by economically strong ones. The weaker are trying to exist5 and survive.

According to him when capitalism replaced feudalism social change was witnessed. He said that
now social change is likely to come because capitalism is bound to die and socialism is sure to
come: in socialism everyone will get according to his needs and requirements. According to Karl
Marx economic factors are responsible for e bringing about social change. According to him the
process will be like.

Patrcian Lord and Bourgeoisiesand

and Feudalism Serfs Capitalis proletariat Communisim
Piebians m

In this process there will be existing idea or anything else i.e. thesis/ will be opposed and
challenged in the form of antithesis. These two will be merged into synthesis a new idea from
both thesis and antithesis. This synthesis will again become thesis and the process will be going
on. This process will be continues for continuity of social change.

Ibn-e-Khaldun (1332-1406)

His full name is Abdul Rehman Abu Zayd ibn-e- Muhammad Ibn-e-Khaldun. He was born in
Tunis. He is also called the father of sociology he has given his views on social change he is a
cyclical theorist and studied social change in that perspective he says that this is a cyclic process
His views are.

In his opinion, Nations or dynasties have a natural life span like individuals and no matter what
the circumstances are, no dynasty lasts more than three generations. He resembled this cyclical
process in human society, that changes follow the clockwise pattern. He said that one generation
is equal to average duration of an individual’s life, which is about forty years. So three
generations will complete the circle in 120 years and this process is repeatedly occurring in the
same society. Each succeeding generation loses some of the vitality of the previous one and the
third one lost politically and morally and finally disintegrates. These three stages will be growth
development and decay. When the last stage i.e. decay comes it soon dies its natural death and
disappears in the darkness of history, hence the rise and fall of the nations occur. Because when a
nation rose to the top, it will have to fall. He has named it as the rise and fall of the nations.

Decay

Development

Growth

Ogburn’s Theory of Technology and Social Change

Ogburn (1964) identified technology as the fundamental driver of social change, which he argues
comes through three pronged processes, invention, discovery and diffusion. Ogburn defined
invention as a combination of existing elements and materials to form new ones (Vago 1992;
Henslin, 1998). Whereas we think of inventions as being only material, such as computers, there
are also social inventions, such as bureaucracy and capitalism. Social inventions can have far
reaching consequences for society. Ogburn`s second process of social change is discovery, a new
way of seeing reality (Vago, 1992). The reality is already present, but people now see it for the
first time. An example is Christopher Columbus’s “discovery” of North America, which had
consequences so huge, that it altered the course of history. This example also illustrates another
principle. A discovery brings extensive change only when it comes at the right time. Other
groups such as the Vikings had already discovered America in the sense of learning that a new
land existed (the land of course was no discovery to the Native Americans already living in it).
Viking settlements disappeared into history, however, and Norse culture was untouched by the
discovery. Ogburn’s third process of social change is diffusion, the spread of invention or
discovery from one area to another (Henslin, 1998). Contact between cultures is the source of
diffusion. Ogburn viewed diffusion as the major process of social change and argues that it can
have far reaching effects on human relationships. For example, when missionaries introduced
steel axes to the aborigines of Australia, it upset their whole society. Before this, the men
controlled the production of axes, using a special stone available only in a remote region and
passing axe-making skills from one man to another. Women had to request permission to use the
stone axe. When steel axes became common, women also possessed them, and the men lost both
status and power (Sharp, 1995). Diffusion also includes the spread of ideas. The idea of
citizenship, for example, changed the political structure for no longer was the monarch an
unquestioned source of authority. Today, the concept of gender equality is circling the globe,
with the basic idea that it is wrong to withhold rights on the basis of someone‘s sex. This idea,
though now taken for granted in a few parts of the world, is revolutionary. Like citizenship, it is
destined to transform basic human relationships and entire societies (Ogburn, 1988). Further to
the three processes of social change, Ogburn also coined the term cultural lag to refer to how
some elements of culture adapt to an invention or discovery more rapidly than others.
Technology, he suggested, usually changes first, followed by culture. In other words, we play
catch-up with changing technology, adapting our customs and ways of life to meet its needs. The
computer provides a good example. The subsequent discussion considers how it (the computer)
is changing our way of life.

Development Model of Modernization

Immunel Wallerstein (1930-2019)
Immanuel Maurice Wallerstein was an American sociologist and economic historian. He is
perhaps best known for his development of the general approach in sociology which led to the
emergence of his world-systems approach.

What is a world-system?
For Wallerstein, "a world-system is a social system, one that has boundaries, structures,
member groups, rules of legitimation, and coherence. Its life is made up of the conflicting forces
which hold it together by tension and tear it apart as each group seeks eternally to remold it to
its advantate. It has the characteristics of an organism, in that is has a life-span over
which its characteristics change in some respects and remain stable in others...Life within it is
largely self-contained, and the dynamics of its development are largely internal"
(Wallerstein, p. 347). A world-system is what Wallerstein terms a "world-economy",
integrated through the market rather than a political center, in which two or more regions
are interdependent with respect to necessities like food, fuel, and protection, and two or more
polities compete for domination without the emergence of one single center forever
(Goldfrank, 2000).

In his own first definition, Wallerstein (1974) said that a world-system is a "multicultural
territorial division of labor in which the production and exchange o basic goods and raw
materials is necessary for the everyday life of its inhabitants." This division of labor
refers to the forces and relations of production of the world economy as a whole and it
leads to the existence of two interdependent regions: core and periphery. These are
geographically and culturally different, one focusing on labor-intensive, and the other on capital-
intensive production. (Goldfrank, 2000). The core-periphery relationship is structural.
Semi-peripheral states acts as a buffer zone between core and periphery, and has a mix of
the kinds of activities and institutions that exist on them (Skocpol, 1977).Among the most
important structures of the current world-system is a power hierarchy between core and
periphery, in which powerful and wealthy "core" societies dominate and exploit weak and
poor peripheral societies. Technology is a central factor in the positioning of a region in
the core or the periphery. Advanced or developed countries are the core, and the less developed
are in the periphery. Peripheral countries are structurally constrained to experience a kind of
development that reproduces their subordinate status(Chase-Dunn and Grimes, (1995). The
differential strength of the multiple states within the system is crucial to maintain the system
as a whole, because strong states reinforce and increase the differential flow of surplus to
the core zone (Skocpol, 1977). This is what Wallerstein called unequal exchange, the
systematic transfer of surplus from semi-proletarian sectors in the periphery to the high-
technology, industrialized core(Goldfrank, 2000). This leads to a process of capital
accumulation at a global scale, and necessarily involves the appropriation and transformation of
peripheral surplus. On the political side of the world-system a few concepts deem
highlighting. For Wallerstein, nation-states are variables, elements within the system.
States are used by class forces to pursue their interest, in the case of core countries. Imperialism
refers to the domination of weak peripheral regions by strong core states. Hegemony refers
to the existence of one core state temporarily outstripping the rest. Hegemonic powers
maintain a stable balance of power and enforce free trade as long as it is to their
advantage. However, hegemony is temporary due to class struggles and the diffusion of
technical advantages. Finally, there is a global class struggle. The current world-economy is
characterized by regular cyclical rhythms, which provide the basis of Wallerstein's
periodization of modern history (Goldfrank, 2000). After our current stage, Wallerstein
envisions the emergence of a socialist world-government, which is the only-alternative
world-system that could maintain a high level of productivity and change the
distribution, by integrating the levels of political and economic decision-making.

Theory of Modernization
According to Alvin So, there are three main and historical elements which were favorable to the
inception of the modernization theory of development after the Second World War. First, there
was the rise of the United States as a superpower. While other Western nations, such as
Great Britain, France, and Germany, were weakened by World War II, the United States
emerged from the war strengthened, and became a world leader with the implementation
of the Marshall Plan to reconstruct war-torn Western Europe. Second, there was the spread of
a united world communist movement. The Former Soviet Union extended its influence not
only to Eastern Europe, but also to China and Korea. Third, there was the disintegration of
European colonial empires in Asia, Africa and Latin America, giving birth to many new
nation-states in the Third World. These nascent nation-states were in search of a model of
development to promote their economy and to enhance their political independence.
According to the modernization theory, modern societies are more productive, children are
better educated, and the needy receive more welfare. According to Smelser’s analysis, modern
societies have the particular feature of social structural differentiation, that is to say a clear
definition of functions and political roles from national institutions. Smelser argues that
although structural differentiation has increased the functional capacity of modern
organizations, it has also created the problem of integration, and of coordinating the activities of
the various new institutions. n a political sense, Coleman stresses three main features of modern
societies: a) Differentiation of political structure; b) Secularization of political culture -with the
ethos of equality-, which c) Enhances the capacity of a society’s political system. The
major assumptions of the modernization theory of development basically are:
Modernization is a phased process; for example Rostow has 5 phases according to his
theory of economic development for a particular society, and I will mention them later.
Modernization is a homogenizing process, in this sense, we can say that
modernization produces tendencies toward convergence among societies, for example,
Levy (1967, p. 207) maintains that : “as time goes on, they and we will increasingly resemble
one another because the patterns of modernization are such that the more highly
modernized societies become, the more they resemble one another”. Modernization is a
Europeanization or Americanization process; in the modernization literature, there is an
attitude of complacency toward Western Europe and the United States. These nations are
viewed as having unmatched economic prosperity and democratic stability (Tipps: 1976,
14). In addition, modernization is an irreversible process, once started modernization cannot
be stopped. In other words, once third world countries come into contact with the West, they
will not be able to resist the impetus toward modernization. Modernization is a progressive
process which in the long run is not only inevitable but desirable. According to Coleman,
modernized political systems have a higher capacity to deal with the function of national
identity, legitimacy, penetration, participation, and distribution than traditional political
systems. Finally, modernization is a lengthy process. It is an evolutionary change, not a
revolutionary one. It will take generations or even centuries to complete, and its profound
impact will be felt only through time. All these assumptions are derived from European and
American evolutionary theory. There is also another set of classical assumptions based
more strictly on the functionalism-structuralism theory which emphasizes the
interdependence of social institutions, the importance of structural variables at the cultural level,
and the built in process of change through homeostasis equilibrium. These are ideas derived
especially from Parsons’ sociological theories. These assumptions are as follows: a)
Modernization is a systematic process. The attribute of modernity forms a consistent whole, thus
appearing in a cluster rather than in isolation; b)Modernization is a transformative process;
in order for a society to move into modernity its traditional structures and values must be
totally replaced by a set of modern values; and c)Modernization is an imminent process due to
its systematic and transformative nature, which builds change into the social system. One of
the principal applications of the modernization theory has been the economic field related
to public policy decisions. From this perspective, it is very well known that the economic
theory of modernization is based on the five stages of development from Rostow’s model. In
summary, these five stages are: traditional society, precondition for takeoff, the takeoff
process, the drive to maturity, and high mass consumption society. According to this
exposition, Rostow has found a possible solution for the promotion of Third World
modernization. If the problem facing Third World countries resides in their lack of productive
investments, then the solution lies in the provision of aid to these countries in the form of capital,
technology, and expertise. The Marshall Plan and the Alliance for Progress in Latin America are
examples of programs which were influenced by Rostow’s political theories. The strengths of
modernization theory can be defined in several aspects. First, we can identify the basis of the
research focus. Despite the fact that the main studies of modernization were carried out
by a psychologist, a social psychologist, a sociologist of religion and a political
sociologist, other authors have extended modernization theory into other spheres. For
example, Bella examines the role of the Tokuga was religion on Japanese economic
development in South-East Asia with effects on villages of Cambodia, Laos and Burma;
Lip set addresses the possible role of economic development in the democratization
of Third World countries, and Inkless discusses the consequences of the
modernization process for individual attitudes and behavior. A second feature of the
modernization perspective is the analytical framework. Authors assume that Third World
countries are traditional and that Western countries are modern. In order to develop, those
poor nations need to adopt Western values. In third place, the methodology is based on
general studies; for example the expositions regarding the value factors in the Third World, and
the differentiation between unstable democracies, dictatorships and stable dictatorships.
Modernization theory, on the other hand, was popular in the 1950s, but was under heavy
attack at the end of the 60s.Criticisms of the theory include the following: First,
development is not necessarily unidirectional. This is an example of the ethnocentricity
of Rostow’s perspective. Second, the modernization perspective only shows one possible
model of development. The favored example is the development pattern in the United
States. Nevertheless, in contrast with this circumstance, we can see that there have been
development advances in other nations, such as Taiwan and South Korea; and we must
admit that their current development levels have been achieved by strong authoritarian
regimes. A second set of critiques of the modernization theory regards the need to
eliminate traditional values. Third World countries do not have a homogeneous
set of traditional values; their value systems are highly heterogeneous. For example
Redfield 1965, distinguishes between the great traditional values (values of the elites), and
the little tradition (values of the masses). A second aspect for criticism here is the fact that
traditional and modern values are not necessarily always mutually exclusive: China, for
example, despite advances in economic development continues to operate on traditional
values and this appears to be the same situation in Japan. Moreover, it is not
possible to say that traditional values are always dichotomous from modern status, for
example, loyalty to the Emperor can be transformed to loyalty to the firm. The similarities
between classical modernization studies and new modernization studies can be observed in the
constancy of the research focus on Third World development; the analysis at a national level; the
use of three main variables: internal factors, cultural values and social institutions; the key
concepts of tradition and modernity; and the policy implications of modernization in the
sense that it is considered to be generally beneficial to society as a whole. However, there are
also important distinctions between the classical studies and the new studies of the
modernization school. For example, in the classical approach, tradition is an obstacle to
development; in the new approach, tradition is an additive factor of development. With regard
to methodology, the classical approach applies a theoretical construction with a high-
level of abstraction; the new approach applies concrete case studies given in an historical
context. Regarding the direction of development, the classical perspective uses an
unidirectional path which tends toward the United States and European model, the new
perspective prefers a multidirectional path of development. And finally, concerning
external factors and conflict, the classical demonstrate a relative neglect of external
factors and conflict, in contrast to the greater attention to external factors and conflicts
practiced by the new approach.

Convergence theory

Convergence theory has its roots in the functionalist perspective of economics which assumes
that societies have certain requirements that must be met if they are to survive and operate
effectively.

History

Convergence theory became popular in the 1960s when it was formulated by the University of
California, Berkeley Professor of Economics Clark Kerr.

Some theorists have since expounded upon Kerr's original premise. They say industrialized
nations may become more alike in some ways than in others.

Convergence theory is not an across-the-board transformation. Although technologies may be

shared, it's not as likely that more fundamental aspects of life such as religion and politics would
necessarily converge—though they may.

Convergence vs. Divergence

Convergence theory is also sometimes referred to as the "catch-up effect."

When technology is introduced to nations still in the early stages of industrialization, money
from other nations may pour in to develop and take advantage of this opportunity. These nations
may become more accessible and susceptible to international markets. This allows them to
"catch up" with more advanced nations.

If capital is not invested in these countries, however, and if international markets do not take
notice or find that opportunity is viable there, no catch-up can occur. The country is then said to
have diverged rather than converged.
Unstable nations are more likely to diverge because they are unable to converge due to political
or social-structural factors, such as lack of educational or job-training resources. Convergence
theory, therefore, would not apply to them.

Convergence theory also allows that the economies of developing nations will grow more rapidly
than those of industrialized countries under these circumstances. Therefore, all should reach an
equal footing eventually.

Examples

Some examples of convergence theory include Russia and Vietnam, formerly purely communist
countries that have eased away from strict communist doctrines as the economies in other
countries, such as the United States, have burgeoned.

State-controlled socialism is less the norm in these countries now than is market socialism,
which allows for economic fluctuations and, in some cases, private businesses as well. Russia
and Vietnam have both experienced economic growth as their socialistic rules and politics have
changed and relaxed to some degree.

Former World War II Axis nations including Italy, Germany, and Japan rebuilt their economic
bases into economies not dissimilar to those that existed among the Allied Powers of the United
States, the Soviet Union, and Great Britain.

More recently, in the mid-20th century, some East Asian countries converged with other more
developed nations. Singapore, South Korea, and Taiwan are now all considered to be developed,
industrialized nations.

Sociological Critiques

Convergence theory is an economic theory that presupposes that the concept of development is

1. a universally good thing

2. Defined by economic growth.
It frames convergence with supposedly "developed" nations as a goal of so-called "undeveloped"
or "developing" nations, and in doing so, fails to account for the numerous negative
outcomes that often follow this economically-focused model of development.

Many sociologists, postcolonial scholars, and environmental scientists have observed that this
type of development often only further enriches the already wealthy, and/or creates or expands a
middle class while exacerbating the poverty and poor quality of life experienced by the majority
of the nation in question.

Additionally, it is a form of development that typically relies on the over-use of natural

resources, displaces subsistence and small-scale agriculture, and causes widespread pollution and
damage to the natural habitat.

Andre Gunder Frank (1929-2005)

Andre Gunder Frank was a German-American sociologist and economic historian who promoted
dependency theory after 1970 and world-systems theory after 1984. He employed some Marxian
concepts on political economy, but rejected Marx's stages of history, and economic history
generally.

Dependency theory is the notion that resources flow from a "periphery" of poor
and underdeveloped states to a "core" of wealthy states, enriching the latter at the expense of the
former. It is a central contention of dependency theory that poor states are impoverished and rich
ones enriched by the way poor states are integrated into the "world system".

The theory arose as a reaction to modernization theory, an earlier theory of development which
held that all societies progress through similar stages of development, that today's
underdeveloped areas are thus in a similar situation to that of today's developed areas at some
time in the past, and that, therefore, the task of helping the underdeveloped areas out
of poverty is to accelerate them along this supposed common path of development, by various
means such as investment, technology transfers, and closer integration into the world market.
Dependency theories rejected this view, arguing that underdeveloped countries are not merely
primitive versions of developed countries, but has unique features and structures of their own;
and, importantly, are in the situation of being the weaker members in a world market economy.
Dependency theory no longer has many proponents as an overall theory though some writers
have argued for its continuing relevance as a conceptual orientation to the global division of
wealth.

Criticism

Economic policies based on dependency theory have been criticized by free-market economists
such as Peter Bauer and Martin Wolf and others:

 Lack of competition: by subsidizing in-country industries and preventing outside imports,

these companies may have less incentive to improve their products, to try to become more
efficient in their processes, to please customers, or to research new innovations.
 Sustainability: industries reliant on government support may not be sustainable for very
long, particularly in poorer countries and countries which largely depend on foreign aid from
more developed countries.
 Domestic opportunity costs: subsidies on domestic industries come out of state coffers and
therefore represent money not spent in other ways, like development of domestic
infrastructure, seed capital or need-based social welfare programs. At the same time, the
higher prices caused by tariffs and restrictions on imports require the people either to forgo
these goods altogether or buy them at higher prices, forgoing other goods.

Market economists cite a number of examples in their arguments against dependency theory. The
improvement of India's economy after it moved from state-controlled business to open trade is
one of the most often cited (see also economy of India, The Commanding Heights). India's
example seems to contradict dependency theorists' claims concerning comparative advantage and
mobility, as much as its economic growth originated from movements such as outsourcing – one
of the most mobile forms of capital transfer. South Korea and North Korea provide another
example of trade-based development vs. autocratic self-sufficiency. Following the Korean War,
North Korea pursued a policy of import substitution industrialization as suggested by
dependency theory, while South Korea pursued a policy of export-oriented industrialization as
suggested by comparative advantage theory. In 2013, South Korea's per capita GDP was 18
times that of North Korea. In Africa, states which have emphasized import-substitution
development, such as Zimbabwe, have typically been among the worst performers, while the
continent's most successful non-oil based economies, such as Egypt, South Africa, and Tunisia,
have pursued trade-based development.

According to economic historian Robert C. Allen, dependency theory's claims are "debatable"
and that the protectionism that was implemented in Latin America as a solution ended up
failing. The countries incurred too much debt and Latin America went into a recession. One of
the problems was that the Latin American countries simply had too small national markets to be
able to efficiently produce complex industrialized goods, such as automobiles.

Mass society and culture

Mass society is any society of the modern era that possesses a mass culture and large-scale,
impersonal, social institutions. A mass society is a "society in which prosperity
and bureaucracy have weakened traditional social ties". Descriptions of society as a "mass" took
form in the 19th century, referring to the leveling tendencies in the period of the Industrial
Revolution that undermined traditional and aristocratic values.

In the work of early 19th century political theorists such as Alexis de Tocqueville, the term was
used in discussions of elite concerns about a shift in the body politic of the Western world
pronounced since the French Revolution. Such elite concerns centered in large part on the
"tyranny of the majority", or mob rule.

In the late 19th century, in the work of Émile Durkheim, the term was associated with society as
a mass of undifferentiated, atomistic individuals. In 20th century neo-Marxist accounts, such as
those of the Frankfurt School, mass society was linked to a society of alienated individuals held
together by a culture industry that served the interests of capitalism.

Conservative accounts in the 20th century critiqued mass society from a different
perspective. José Ortega y Gasset, for instance, lamented the decline of high culture in mass
society

Concept

Mass society as an ideology can be seen as dominated by a small number of interconnected elites
who control the conditions of life of the many, often by means of persuasion and
manipulation. This indicates the politics of mass society theorists- they are advocates of various
kinds of cultural elite who should be privileged and promoted over the masses, claiming for
themselves both exemption from and leadership of the misguided masses.

"As technological innovation allowed government to expand, the centralized state grew in size
and importance." "Since then, government has assumed responsibility for more and more areas
of social life: schooling, regulating wages and working conditions, establishing standards for
products of all sorts, and providing financial assistance to the elderly, the ill, and the
unemployed." "In a mass society, power resides in large bureaucracies, leaving people in local
communities with little control over their lives. For example, state officials mandate that local
schools must meet educational standards, local products must be government-certified, and every
citizen must maintain extensive tax records. Although such regulations may protect and enhance
social equality, they also force us to deal more and more with nameless officials in distant and
often unresponsive bureaucracies, and they undermine the autonomy of families and local
communities."

Mass society theory has been active in a wide range of media studies, where it tends to produce
ideal visions of what the mass media such as television and cinema are doing to the masses.
Therefore, the mass media are necessary instruments for achieving and maintaining mass
societies. "The mass media give rise to national culture that washes over the traditional
differences that used to set off one region from another." "Mass-society theorists fear that the
transformation of people of various backgrounds into a generic mass may end up dehumanizing
everyone."

Sociologist C. Wright Mills made a distinction between a society of "masses" and "public".

As he tells: "In a public, as we may understand the term,

1. virtually as many people express opinions as receive them,

2. Public communications are so organized that there is a chance immediately and
effectively to answer back any opinion expressed in public.
3. Opinion formed by such discussion readily finds an outlet in effective action, even
against – if necessary – the prevailing system of authority.
4. And authoritative institutions do not penetrate the public, which is thus more or less
autonomous in its operations.
In a mass,

1. far fewer people express opinions than receive them; for the community of public
becomes an abstract collection of individuals who receive impressions from the mass
media.
2. The communications that prevail are so organized that it is difficult or impossible for the
individual to answer back immediately or with any effect.
3. The realization of opinion in action is controlled by authorities who organize and control
the channels of such action.
4. The mass has no autonomy from institutions; on the contrary, agents of authorized
institutions penetrate this mass, reducing any autonomy it may have in the formation of
opinion by discussion".

TRENDS IN ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE

Organizations have entered a new era characterized by rapid, dramatic and turbulent changes.
The accelerated pace of change has transformed how work is performed by employees in diverse
organizations. Change has truly become an inherent and integral part of organizational life.

Several emerging trends are impacting organizational life. Of these emerging trends, five will be
examined: globalization, diversity, flexibility, flat, and networks. These five emerging trends
create tensions for organizational leaders and employees as they go through waves of changes in
their organizations. These tensions present opportunities as well as threats, and if these tensions
are not managed well, they will result in dysfunctional and dire organizational outcomes at the
end of any change process. These five trends and the specific tensions they produce are presented
in Table 1.

GLOBALIZATION

Organizations operate in a global economy that is characterized by greater and more intense
competition, and at the same time, greater economic interdependence and collaboration. More
products and services are being consumed outside of their country of origin than ever before as
globalization brings about greater convergence in terms of consumer tastes and preferences. Yet
at the same time, in the midst of greater convergence, there is the opposite force of divergence at
work where companies have to adapt corporate and business strategies, marketing plans, and
production efforts to local domestic markets.

To stay competitive, more organizations are embracing offshore outsourcing. Many functions are
being shifted to India, the Philippines, Malaysia, and other countries for their low labor costs,
high levels of workforce education, and technological advantages. According to the 2002-2003
Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM) Workplace Forecast, companies such as
Ford, General Motors, and Nestle employ more people outside of their headquarters countries
than within those countries.

Almost any company, whether in manufacturing or services, can find some part of its work that
can be done off site. Forrester Research projects that 3.3 million U.S. service- and knowledge-
based jobs will be shipped overseas by the year 2015, 70 percent of which will move to India.
Communication and information sharing are occurring across the globe in multiple languages
and multiple cultures. Global competition and global cooperation coexist in the new world
economy.

One major consequence of globalization is greater mobility in international capital and labor
markets. This creates a global marketplace where there is more opportunity, because there are
more potential customers. However, there is also more competition, as local companies have to
compete with foreign companies for customers.

According to Dani Rodrik, professor of international political economy at Harvard's Kennedy

School of Government, the processes associated with the global integration of markets for goods,
services, and capital have created two sources of tensions.

First, reduced barriers to trade and investment accentuate the asymmetries between groups that
can cross international borders, and those that cannot. In the first category are owners of capital,
highly skilled workers, and many professionals. Unskilled and semiskilled workers and most
middle managers belong in the second category.

Second, globalization engenders conflicts within and between nations over domestic norms and
the social institutions that embody them. As the technology for manufactured goods becomes
standardized and diffused internationally, nations with very different sets of values, norms,
institutions, and collective preferences begin to compete head on in markets for similar goods.
Trade becomes contentious when it unleashes forces that undermine the norms implicit in local
or domestic workplace practices.

Professor Rodrik concluded that "the most serious challenge for the world economy in the years
ahead lies in making globalization compatible with domestic social and political stability"
(Rodrik 1997, p. 2). This implies ensuring that international economic integration does not lead
to domestic social disintegration. Organizations that are confronted with this challenge will have
to manage the tension created by the global integration versus local disintegration dilemma.

The overall picture as a consequence of globalization is one of turbulence and uncertainty, in

which a variety of contradictory processes present a wide range of both opportunities and threats
that defy established ways of doing business and working in organizations. Integration and
exclusion coexist uneasily side-by-side in organizations.

For example, many apparent dichotomies or paradoxes—competition versus collaboration,

market forces versus state intervention, global actions versus local solutions—are losing their
sharp edges as contradictory forces appear to converge and reinforce each other in organizations
across the globe. Companies that compete fiercely in some markets form strategic alliances in
others; government guidance and regulation are required to make markets work effectively; and
"think globally, act locally" has been adopted as business strategy (or as a mantra) to deal with
the challenges of doing business in the globalized economy. As organizations transform
themselves to stay competitive, they will need to confront and resolve some, if not all, of these
dichotomies or paradoxes.

On another level, because of globalization, the fates of people living and working in different
parts of the world are becoming intertwined. Global events may have significant local impact.
September 11, 2001 has been called the "day that changed the world". Heightened security
concerns are changing expectations for people in organizations, and the role of organizations
themselves. The threat of terrorism continues to be an ongoing concern worldwide. It has created
a renewed focus on workplace security as employees experience a heightened sense of
vulnerability in the workplace. Employee monitoring and screening are occurring more
frequently. Concern over travel for business purposes is resulting in the increased use of alternate
forms of communication such as teleconferencing and videoconferencing.
DIVERSITY

Globalization is impacting how organizations compete with each other. In combination with
changing demographics, globalization is causing a rapid increase in diversity in organizations.
Never before have people been required to work together with colleagues and customers from so
many different cultures and countries.

Diversity is moving American society away from "mass society" to "mosaic society".
Organizations reflect this "mosaic society" in their more diverse workforce (in terms of not only
race, ethnic or culture but also in terms of age, sexual orientation, and other demographic
variables). More than ever, people have to interact and communicate with others who come from
diverse backgrounds. This in turn has meant that employees need new relational skills to
succeed. An emerging stream of research in international management has called these new
relational skills "cultural intelligence". Cultural intelligence is defined as the capability to adapt
effectively across different national, organizational and professional cultures (Earley, Ang and
Tan, 2005). More managers take up global work assignments in industries around the world.
They learn how to work with people who not only think and communicate differently but also do
things differently. Managers will need to develop their cultural intelligence to manage greater
diversity in organizations.

Diversity in organizations will continue to increase. As indicated by the U.S Census Bureau
National Population Projections, the Hispanic population will increase by 11.2 percent between
2000 and 2025 to become the largest minority group in the United States. All other minority
groups will increase by about 9 percent, while the number of Caucasians will decrease by
approximately 19 percent. The world population is growing at a high rate in developing
countries, while remaining stable or decreasing in the developed world. The result will be
income inequities and economic opportunity leading to increased immigration and migration
within and between nations. More temporary workers will be used for specific tasks, and there
will be a greater demand for highly skilled workers.

The aging American workforce population means more retirees and potential gaps in availability
of experienced workers. According to American Association of Retired Persons (AARP), by
2015 nearly one in five U.S. workers will be age 55 or older. Retirees often want to keep a foot
in the workplace. AARP's research shows that nearly 8 of 10 baby boomers envision working
part time after retirement; 5 percent anticipate working full time at a new job or career; only 16
percent foresee not working at all.

People of different ethnic and cultural backgrounds possess different attitudes, values, and
norms. Increasing cultural diversity in both public and private sector organizations focuses
attention on the distinctions between ethnic and cultural groups in their attitudes and
performance at work. This greater focus can result in the tension between finding similarities and
accentuating differences in the face of greater diversity in organizations.

There is an on-going debate between the heterogenists and the homogenists concerning the
impact of greater diversity in organizations. The heterogenists contend that diverse or
heterogeneous groups in organizations have performance advantages over homogeneous groups
while the homogenists take the opposing view—that homogeneous groups are more
advantageous than heterogeneous or diverse groups in organizations.

According to the heterogenists, organizations with greater diversity have an advantage in

attracting and retaining the best available human talent. The exceptional capabilities of women
and minorities offer a rich labor pool for organizations to tap. When organizations attract, retain,
and promote maximum utilization of people from diverse cultural backgrounds, they gain
competitive advantage and sustain the highest quality of human resources.

Organizations with greater diversity can understand and penetrate wider and enhanced markets.
Not only do these organizations embrace a diverse workforce internally, they are better suited to
serve a diverse external clientele. Organizations with greater diversity also display higher
creativity and innovation. Especially in research-oriented and high technology organizations, the
array of talents provided by a gender- and ethnic-diverse organization becomes invaluable.
Heterogeneous or diverse groups display better problem solving ability as they are more capable
of avoiding the consequences of groupthink, compared to highly cohesive and homogeneous
groups that are more susceptible to conformity.

On the other hand, greater organizational diversity has its drawbacks. With the benefits of
diversity come organizational costs. Too much diversity can lead to dysfunctional outcomes.
Diversity increases ambiguity, complexity, and confusion. Organizations with greater diversity
may have difficulty reaching consensus and implementing solutions. In many organizations,
diversity can produce negative dynamics such as ethnocentrism, stereotyping and cultural
clashes.

The homogenists argue that homogeneous groups often outperform culturally diverse groups,
especially where there is a serious communication problem. Cross-cultural training is necessary
to enable culturally diverse groups to live up to their potential and overcome communication
difficulties. The diversity movement, according to the homogenists, has the potential to polarize
different social groups and harm productivity while breeding cynicism and resentment,
heightening intergroup frictions and tensions, and lowering productivity, just the opposite of
what managing diversity is intended to accomplish.

The challenge therefore is for management to manage the tension produced by heterogeneity
versus homogeneity. If properly managed, organizations can reap the benefits of greater
diversity. Aside from proper management, organizations need to learn to appreciate and value
diversity before the benefits of diversity can be fully realized. To achieve this, diversity training
programs may help people in organizations understand and value diversity.

FLEXIBILITY

Globalization and diversity trends are forcing organizations to become more flexible and
adaptable. To be able to function globally and to embrace diversity, leaders and employees in
organizations have to become more flexible and develop a wider repertoire of skills and
strategies in working with diverse groups of people in the workplace as well as in the
marketplace.

The response to increased diversity has, in many cases, been increased organizational flexibility.
Some organizations allow workers to have very different work arrangements (e.g. flex-time) and
payment schedules. Some organizations (and workers) have found it convenient to treat some
workers as independent consultants rather than employees. In certain occupations, advances in
communication and information technologies have enabled telecommuting —working at home
via computer. One consequence of this is the blurring of boundaries between work and home,
and where and when work occurs. The benefits of greater flexibility may be countered by the
negative consequences of working 24/7 including higher stress and burnout.
The response to increased competition, however, has resulted in a tension generated by the
demands to be flexible and yet maintain some stability as changes are implemented in
organizations. To stay competitive, organizations are constantly changing and restructuring to
increase flexibility and decrease costs. Business process reengineering, business process out-
sourcing, job redesign, and other approaches to optimize business processes have been
implemented to increase operational and process efficiency while reducing the costs of doing
business.

Changes in business and operational processes need time to stabilize for employees to learn the
new processes, become familiar with them, and be able to operate effectively and efficiently.
Yet, competitive pressures can cause organizations to go through a series of changes without
giving employees adequate time for learning and training, and for the benefits of the change to
be fully realized in the organization. This tension is well-captured by Columbia Business School
professor Eric Abrahamson in his book, Change Without Pain (2004) in which he discussed how
organizations can go through change overload and how employees can experience change fatigue
and burnout. Professor Abrahamson proposes "creative recombination" as an alternative
approach to the highly destructive, destabilizing and painful changes caused by "creative
destruction".

FLAT

In a greater competitive marketplace, speed or response time is critical. How organizations

response to customers and other stakeholders or be the first to market may make a significant
difference as time is at a premium. Organizations that can develop new technologies faster or can
adapt to changes in the market faster are the ones that will survive the competition. To maximize
response time, organizations have been flattening their hierarchies and structures, in addition to
other initiatives such as downsizing and networking. Flat organizations make decisions more
quickly because each person is closer to the ultimate decision-makers. There are fewer levels of
management, and workers are empowered to make decisions. Decision-making becomes
decentralized.

However, flat organizations create a new tension between decentralization and centralization.
Among the drivers of decentralization are communications technologies that allow companies to
push decision-making away from the core. Proponents of decentralization emphasize the idea
that less hierarchical organizations mirror the efficiencies of the networks that enable them: they
are faster, more resilient, more responsive, more flexible and more innovative. Also, they argue,
people who work within decentralized organizations feel empowered and energized. They do not
need to focus on the chain of command and they do not feel constrained by it.

Organizations are caught between the opposing forces of centralization and decentralization.
They want to leverage the opportunities offered by decentralization and create more nimble and
forceful organizations, but they cannot always do so because the forces of centralization come
into play. There are obvious benefits to centralization as control is comparatively tighter and
accountability is clearer compared to a flatter, more decentralized organizational structure.

Take the example of IT operations. The key to a centralized organization's success is its
responsiveness. If the centralized operation can be responsive to the needs of the business, then
that approach can make sense. Several companies, such as DaimlerChrysler and PepsiCo, have
migrated back to centralizing IT operations after attempts at decentralization.

The debate over the centralization versus decentralization of operations in organizations is an

enduring one. It is an age-old battle of standardization versus autonomy, corporate efficiency
versus local effectiveness and pressure on costs and resources versus accommodation of specific
local needs.

Vacillation between centralization and decentralization is both non-productive and unnecessary.

Organizations, as they desire to become flatter, will need to be clear about how they need to
respond to the tension between centralization and decentralization.

NETWORKS

Organizations that flatten tend to encourage horizontal communication among workers. Rather
than working through the organizational hierarchy, it is often faster for workers who need to
coordinate with each other simply to communicate directly. Such organizations are highly
networked.

Another meaning of networked organizations refers to their relations to other organizations.

Organizations that have downsized to just their core competencies must then outsource all the
functions that used to be done inhouse. To avoid losing time and effort managing contracts with
suppliers, organizations have learned to develop close ties to their suppliers so that social
mechanisms of coordination replace legal mechanisms, which are slow and costly. In many
industries, such as the garment industry in Italy, strong relationships have developed between
manufacturers and suppliers (and other manufacturers), so that considerable work is done
without a contract and without even working out a firm price. For these networked organizations
to work, high trust and social capital between organizations are key elements.

Networked organizations are particularly important in industries with complex products where
technologies and customer needs change rapidly, such as in high technology industries. Close
ties among a set of companies enables them to work with each other in ways that are faster than
arms-length contracts would permit, and yet retains the flexibility of being able to drop the
relationship if needed (as opposed to performing the function in-house). The trend towards
networked organizations and structures create a new tension between interdependence and
independence. The forces of aggregation and disaggregation throw up new challenges for
organizations, for example, the use of independent contractors, joint ventures, strategic
partnerships and alliances even with competitors.

One advantage of networks is that organizations have greater flexibility and thus they can
become more competitive in the global marketplace. Another advantage is that organizations do
not require that many resources such as employee benefits, office space, and financing for new
business ventures.

On the other hand, networks have distinct disadvantages. Organizations may find it more
difficult to control quality of goods or services as they now have to depend on their partners in
the networks to deliver the quality that is desired. Legal and contracting expertise as well as
negotiation expertise will also be important for networks. Alternative forms of control may need
to be developed to control quality. Alternative mechanisms for coordination may also need to be
developed to manage the growing constellation and sometimes tenuous nature of other partner
organizations in the network.

All the five trends and the tensions they produce result in greater organizational or system
complexity for both leaders and employees in organizations. The tensions produced by these
trends cannot be solved. They have to be managed. Effective approaches in organizational
change will involve not one strategy but many alternatives and will require leaders and
employees to develop greater resilience in confronting these tensions.