LATEST PRINTED ISSUE

LATEST FREELY ACCESSIBLE MATERIALS

MODERNIZATION MAN: THE SIGNIFICANCE OF RONALD INGLEHART'S THEORY FOR THE SOCIAL SCIENCES

stmm. 2021 (3): 206

DOI https://doi.org/10.15407/sociology2021.03.206

YURIY SAVELYEV, Candidate of Sciences in Philosophy, Doctor of Sciences in Sociology, Professor at the Department of Methodology and Methods of Sociological Research, Faculty of Sociology, Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv (Volodymyrska St., 60, Kyiv, 01033)

yursave@knu.ua

https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2023-4472

OLEKSII SHESTAKOVSKYI, Candidate of Sciences in Sociology, independent scholar (2H, Marshala Tymoshenka st., apt. 99, Kyiv 04212)

o.shest@gmail.com

https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7823-9976

Ronald Inglehart, an outstanding political scientist, passed on May 8, 2021. This article attempts to pay tribute to him as a scholar and a person by narration of his theory and its significance. The authors emphasize that the idea of sociocultural modernization was central for him. His theory’s humanism is that a human and their motivational changes become a core of global modernization transformation. A concise account of Inglehart modernization theory is given from changes of social economic conditions and security to basic values shift to increase in freedom of choice and its institutional consolidation. Noted that despite of Inglehart being liberal and progressist, his theory is just scientific, but not a normative knowledge or an ideological conception. Its propositions have been tested multiple times with the data from the largest survey project ever, World Values Survey together with European Values Study. We recognize organizational merits of Inglehart who established and coordinated this survey project and a big community around it for a long time. We consider the place of his theory to be among other academic theories of global development like those in historical macrosociology and institutional economy. An attempt is made to learn lessons for Ukraine from Inglehart theory. Ukraine has not demonstrated a considerable shift to self-expression values, and objective conditions for it are unfavorable at the moment. In fact, an “economic miracle” and a long peace are needed for this. Conceptually, a coherent integration of the modernization theory and economic institutionalism is needed. Translation and popularization of Inglehart’s work, as well as wider usage of data from values surveys remain topical for Ukraine. After all, Ronald Inglehart himself deserves to be a scientist role model for us.

Keywords: Ronald Inglehart, values, modernization, social theory, Ukraine

References

  1. Acemoglu, D., Johnson, S., Robinson, J., Yared, P. (2009). Reevaluating the modernization hypothesis. Journal of Monetary Economics, 56, 8, 1043–1058.
  2. Eisenstadt, S. N. (2000). Multiple Modernities. Daedalus, 129, 1, 1–29.
  3. Inglehart, R., Welzel, С. (2009). How Development Leads to Democracy: What We Know about Modernization Today. Foreign Affairs, 8, 2, 33–41.
  4. Inglehart, R. (1977). The Silent Revolution: Changing Values and Political Styles Among Western Publics. Princeton University Press.
  5. Inglehart, R. (2018) Cultural Evolution: People’s Motivations Are Changing, and Reshaping the World. Cambridge University Press.
  6. Inglehart, R. (2021). Religion's Sudden Decline: What's Causing it, and What Comes Next? Oxford University Press.
  7. Inglehart, R., Ponarin, E., R. C. Inglehart (2017). Cultural Change, Slow and Fast: The Distinctive Trajectory of Norms Governing Gender Equality and Sexual Orientation. Social Forces, 95(4): 1313–1340.
  8. Inglehart, R., Welzel, C. (2005). Modernization, Cultural Change and Democracy: The Human Development Sequence. Cambridge University Press.
  9. Inkeles, А. (1969). Making Men Modern: On the Causes and Consequences of Individual Change in Six Developing Countries. American Journal of Sociology, 75, 2, 208–225.
  10. International Monetary Fund (2021). World Economic Outlook Database, April 2021. Retrieved from: https://www. imf. org/-/media/Files/Publications/WEO/WEO-Database/2021/WEOApr2021all.ashx
  11. Kim, H., Grofman, B. (2019). The Political Science 400: With Citation Counts by Cohort, Gender, and Subfield. PS: Political Science, Politics, 52(2), 296–311. doi: 10.1017/S1049096518001786
  12. Lipset, S. M. (1959). Social mobility in industrial society. Berkeley: University of California Press.
  13. Lyotard, J-F. (1984). The postmodern condition: A report on knowledge. University of Minnesota Press, 1984.
  14. Norris, P., Inglehart, R. (2019) Cultural Backlash: Trump, Brexit, and Authoritarian Populism. Cambridge University Press.
  15. Moore B. J. (1966). Social origins of Dictatorship and Democracy. Boston: Beacon Press, 1966.
  16. Savelyev Yu. (2016). Decomposition of Value Change in European Societies in 1995–2008: Test of Modernization Model and Socialization Hypothesis. Sociológia, 48, 3, 267–289.
  17. World Values Survey (2021). Remembering Ronald Inglehart, the Founding President of the World Values Survey Association. — Retrieved at: https://www.worldvaluessurvey.org/WVSNewsShow.jsp?ID=441
  18. Acemoglu, D., Robinson, J. (2016). Why Nations Fail: The Origins of Power, Prosperity, and Poverty. [In Ukrainian]. Nash Format. [=Аджемоглу Робінсон 2016]
  19. Beugelsdijk, S., Maseland, R. (2016). Culture in Economics: History, Methodological Reflections and Contemporary Applications. [In Russian]. Moscow: Gaidar Institute Publishing House. [=Бёгельсдейк Маселанд 2016]
  20. North, D., Wallis, J., Weingast B. (2017). Violence and Social Orders: A conceptual Framework for Interpreting Recorded Human History. [in Ukrianinan]. Nash Format. [=Норт Волліс Вайнґест 2017]
  21. Nestorian Group (2015). Vision of Ukraine–2025: A Treaty of Dignity for a Sustainable Development. [In Ukrainian]. Retrieved from: https://zbruc.eu/node/33017 [=Несторівська група 2015]
  22. Savelyev Yu. (2019). Inclusive Modernization and Contradictions of Value Changes in Eastern European Countries in 1990–2000-th. [In Ukrainian] Sotsiologia: Teoria, Metody, Marketing, 2, 70–97. https://doi.org/10.15407/sociology2019.02.070 [=Cавельєв 2019].

Received 09. 07. 2021

MODERNIZATION MAN: THE SIGNIFICANCE OF RONALD INGLEHART'S THEORY FOR THE SOCIAL SCIENCES

stmm. 2021 (3): 206

DOI https://doi.org/10.15407/sociology2021.03.206

YURIY SAVELYEV, Candidate of Sciences in Philosophy, Doctor of Sciences in Sociology, Professor at the Department of Methodology and Methods of Sociological Research, Faculty of Sociology, Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv (Volodymyrska St., 60, Kyiv, 01033)

yursave@knu.ua

https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2023-4472

OLEKSII SHESTAKOVSKYI, Candidate of Sciences in Sociology, independent scholar (2H, Marshala Tymoshenka st., apt. 99, Kyiv 04212)

o.shest@gmail.com

https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7823-9976

Ronald Inglehart, an outstanding political scientist, passed on May 8, 2021. This article attempts to pay tribute to him as a scholar and a person by narration of his theory and its significance. The authors emphasize that the idea of sociocultural modernization was central for him. His theory’s humanism is that a human and their motivational changes become a core of global modernization transformation. A concise account of Inglehart modernization theory is given from changes of social economic conditions and security to basic values shift to increase in freedom of choice and its institutional consolidation. Noted that despite of Inglehart being liberal and progressist, his theory is just scientific, but not a normative knowledge or an ideological conception. Its propositions have been tested multiple times with the data from the largest survey project ever, World Values Survey together with European Values Study. We recognize organizational merits of Inglehart who established and coordinated this survey project and a big community around it for a long time. We consider the place of his theory to be among other academic theories of global development like those in historical macrosociology and institutional economy. An attempt is made to learn lessons for Ukraine from Inglehart theory. Ukraine has not demonstrated a considerable shift to self-expression values, and objective conditions for it are unfavorable at the moment. In fact, an “economic miracle” and a long peace are needed for this. Conceptually, a coherent integration of the modernization theory and economic institutionalism is needed. Translation and popularization of Inglehart’s work, as well as wider usage of data from values surveys remain topical for Ukraine. After all, Ronald Inglehart himself deserves to be a scientist role model for us.

Keywords: Ronald Inglehart, values, modernization, social theory, Ukraine

References

  1. Acemoglu, D., Johnson, S., Robinson, J., Yared, P. (2009). Reevaluating the modernization hypothesis. Journal of Monetary Economics, 56, 8, 1043–1058.
  2. Eisenstadt, S. N. (2000). Multiple Modernities. Daedalus, 129, 1, 1–29.
  3. Inglehart, R., Welzel, С. (2009). How Development Leads to Democracy: What We Know about Modernization Today. Foreign Affairs, 8, 2, 33–41.
  4. Inglehart, R. (1977). The Silent Revolution: Changing Values and Political Styles Among Western Publics. Princeton University Press.
  5. Inglehart, R. (2018) Cultural Evolution: People’s Motivations Are Changing, and Reshaping the World. Cambridge University Press.
  6. Inglehart, R. (2021). Religion's Sudden Decline: What's Causing it, and What Comes Next? Oxford University Press.
  7. Inglehart, R., Ponarin, E., R. C. Inglehart (2017). Cultural Change, Slow and Fast: The Distinctive Trajectory of Norms Governing Gender Equality and Sexual Orientation. Social Forces, 95(4): 1313–1340.
  8. Inglehart, R., Welzel, C. (2005). Modernization, Cultural Change and Democracy: The Human Development Sequence. Cambridge University Press.
  9. Inkeles, А. (1969). Making Men Modern: On the Causes and Consequences of Individual Change in Six Developing Countries. American Journal of Sociology, 75, 2, 208–225.
  10. International Monetary Fund (2021). World Economic Outlook Database, April 2021. Retrieved from: https://www. imf. org/-/media/Files/Publications/WEO/WEO-Database/2021/WEOApr2021all.ashx
  11. Kim, H., Grofman, B. (2019). The Political Science 400: With Citation Counts by Cohort, Gender, and Subfield. PS: Political Science, Politics, 52(2), 296–311. doi: 10.1017/S1049096518001786
  12. Lipset, S. M. (1959). Social mobility in industrial society. Berkeley: University of California Press.
  13. Lyotard, J-F. (1984). The postmodern condition: A report on knowledge. University of Minnesota Press, 1984.
  14. Norris, P., Inglehart, R. (2019) Cultural Backlash: Trump, Brexit, and Authoritarian Populism. Cambridge University Press.
  15. Moore B. J. (1966). Social origins of Dictatorship and Democracy. Boston: Beacon Press, 1966.
  16. Savelyev Yu. (2016). Decomposition of Value Change in European Societies in 1995–2008: Test of Modernization Model and Socialization Hypothesis. Sociológia, 48, 3, 267–289.
  17. World Values Survey (2021). Remembering Ronald Inglehart, the Founding President of the World Values Survey Association. — Retrieved at: https://www.worldvaluessurvey.org/WVSNewsShow.jsp?ID=441
  18. Acemoglu, D., Robinson, J. (2016). Why Nations Fail: The Origins of Power, Prosperity, and Poverty. [In Ukrainian]. Nash Format. [=Аджемоглу Робінсон 2016]
  19. Beugelsdijk, S., Maseland, R. (2016). Culture in Economics: History, Methodological Reflections and Contemporary Applications. [In Russian]. Moscow: Gaidar Institute Publishing House. [=Бёгельсдейк Маселанд 2016]
  20. North, D., Wallis, J., Weingast B. (2017). Violence and Social Orders: A conceptual Framework for Interpreting Recorded Human History. [in Ukrianinan]. Nash Format. [=Норт Волліс Вайнґест 2017]
  21. Nestorian Group (2015). Vision of Ukraine–2025: A Treaty of Dignity for a Sustainable Development. [In Ukrainian]. Retrieved from: https://zbruc.eu/node/33017 [=Несторівська група 2015]
  22. Savelyev Yu. (2019). Inclusive Modernization and Contradictions of Value Changes in Eastern European Countries in 1990–2000-th. [In Ukrainian] Sotsiologia: Teoria, Metody, Marketing, 2, 70–97. https://doi.org/10.15407/sociology2019.02.070 [=Cавельєв 2019].

Received 09. 07. 2021

LATEST PRINTED ISSUE

LATEST FREELY ACCESSIBLE MATERIALS

} } } } }