1 Consider, e. g., Federalist, No. 9.

2 E. g., Apter, David E., The Politics of Modernization (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1965), p. xiv.Google Scholar

3 E. g., Huntington, Samuel P. and Dominguez, Jorge I., “Political Development”, in Handbook of Political Science, ed. Greenstein, Fred and Polsby, Nelson, vol 3 (Reading, MA.: Addison-Wesley, 1975), p. 2.Google Scholar

4 Hoselitz, Bert F. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1952).Google Scholar

5 Lerner, Daniel (Glencoe: The Free Press, 1958).Google Scholar

6 Hirschman, Albert O. (New York: Twentieth Century Fund, 1963).Google Scholar

7 Ed. Deutsch, Karl and Foltz, William J.. (New York: Atherton Press, 1963).Google Scholar

8 Black, Cyril E. (New York: Harper Row, 1966).Google Scholar

9 Eisenstadt, S.N., “Breakdowns of Modernization”, Economic Development and Cultural Change 12 (1964):345–67;CrossRefGoogle Scholar, Kesselman, Mark, “Order or Movement? The Literature of Political Development as Ideology”, World Politics 26 (1973): 140ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Apter, David E., Rethinking Development: Modernization, Development, and Postmodern Politics. (Beverly Hills: Sage, 1987), pp. 12–14.Google Scholar

10 Goulet, Denis (New York: Athenaeum, 1971).Google Scholar

11 Apter, David E. (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1971).Google Scholar

12 Ed. Almond, Gabriel A., Flanagan, Scott C. and Murdt, Robert J.. (Boston: Little, Brown, 1973).Google Scholar

13 Berger, Peter L. (Garden City, N.Y.: Anchor Doubleday, 1976)Google Scholar. For a helpful overview, see Huntington, Samuel P., “The Goals of Development”, in Understanding Political Development, ed. Weiner, Myron and Huntington, Samuel P. (Boston: Little, Brown, 1987), pp. 6–17.Google Scholar

14 Higgott, Richard A., Political Development Theory: The Contemporary Debate. (New York: St. Martin's Press, 1983), pp. 1–2Google Scholar.

15 Freeman, John R., “Review of Rethinking Development: Modernization, Development, and Postmodern Politicsx201D;, American Political Science Review 83 (1989): 1046.CrossRefGoogle Scholar, Consider also, among the many studies that might be cited, Milne, R. S., “The Overdeveloped Study of Political Development”, Canadian Journal of Political Science 5 (1972):560–68;CrossRefGoogle Scholar, Seers, Dudle, “The Birth, life, and Death of Development Economics”, Development and Change 10 (1979)707–19;CrossRefGoogle Scholar, Apter, David E., “The Passing of Development Studies: Over the Shoulder with a Backward Glance”, Government and Opposition 15 (1980):263–75;CrossRefGoogle Scholar, Edwards, Michael, “New Directions in Social Development Research: The Search for Relevance”, in Rethinking Social Development: Theory, Research, and Practice, ed. Booth, David (New York: Longman, 1994);Google Scholar, and Packenham, Robert A., The Dependency Movement: Scholarship and Politics in Development Studies (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1992), p. 305 and context.Google Scholar

16 Almond, Gabriel and Powell, G. Bingham, Comparative Politics: A Developmental Approach (Boston: Little, Brown, 1966), pp. 13, 213–15.Google Scholar

17 E. g., Parsons, Talcott and Shils, Edward, Toward a General Theory of Action (Cambridge, MA.: Harvard University Press, 1951), pp. 52ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Almondand, Gabriel A. and Coleman, James S., The Politics of the Developing Areas (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1960), pp. 7, 22;Google Scholar, Almond, Gabriel A., Political Development: Essays in Heuristic Theory (Boston: Little, Brown, 1970), pp. 32ff.Google Scholar, The seminal statement is Weber, Max, “Politics as a Vocation”, in From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology, ed. and trans. Gerth, H.H. and Mills, C. (New York: Oxford University Press, 1958).Google Scholar

18 Apter, , Politics of Modernization.Google Scholar

19 Ibid., pp. vii, xiii–xiv.

20 Ibid., p. 12.

21 Ibid., p. 463; see also Apter's interesting autobiographical remarks in “Passing of Development Studies”, pp. 26–71.

22 Apter's position is complicated or confused by his conviction that all ultimate ends (“consummatory values”) are “non-rational in character”, i. e., nothing more than commitments.

23 E. g.,Apter, , Politics of Modernization, pp. ix, 20.Google Scholar

24 Ibid., pp. 13–14; see also p. 14 n. 6.

25 Bendix, Reinhard, “Tradition and Modernity Reconsidered”, Comparative Studies in Society and History 9 (1967):292–346;CrossRefGoogle Scholar, Gusfield, Joseph R., “Tradition and Modernity: Misplaced Polarities in the Study of Social Change”, American Journal of Sociology 72 (1967): 351–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Kothari, Rajni, ”Tradition and Modernity Revisited”, Government and Opposition 3 (1968): 273”93CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

26 Cf. Grew, Raymond, “More on Modernization”, Journal of Social History 14 (1980): 180ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

27 Almond, and Coleman, , Politics of the Developing Areas.Google Scholar

28 Ibid., pp. 3–4.

29 Huntington, Samuel P., “The Change to Change: Modernization, Development, and Politics”, Comparative Politics 3 (1971):299 (emphasis added)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

30 Almond, and Coleman, , Politics of the Developing Areas, p. 11.Google Scholar

31 Huntington, Samuel P., “Political Development and Political Decay”, World Politics 17 (1965): 386–430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

32 Ibid., p. 386.

33 Huntington, , “The Change to Change”, p. 301.Google Scholar

34 Almond, and Powell, , Comparative Politics, p. 215Google Scholar., It is true that the authors go on to recognize “ethical judgments” as “a second and very important question”, but they suggest that a separate book would be needed to treat it. This procedure depends on the undefended presupposition that one can come to know what a given political community is without first taking seriously its moral character or that the essence of a community is its quantifiable structure rather than the avowed end or aim of those structures.

35 Ibid.

36 Pye, Lucien, Aspects of Political Development (Boston: Little, Brown, 1966), pp. 31–48.Google Scholar

37 Binder, Leonard et al. , Crises and Sequences in Political Development (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1971).Google Scholar

38 Cf. Holt, R. T. and Turner, J. E., “Crises and Sequences in Collective Development Theory”, American Political Science Review 64 (1975): 979–94;CrossRefGoogle Scholar, Sandbrook, R., “The ‘Crisis’ in Political Development Theory”, Journal of Development Studies 12 (1976): 165–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

39 Huntington, , “The Change to Change”, p. 303.Google Scholar

40 Ibid., p. 304.

41 Ibid., p. 314.

42 Ibid., p. 305.

43 Ibid., p. 322.

44 Consider, e.g., Smith, Tony, “Requiem or New Agenda for Third World Studies”, World Politics 37 (1985): 532CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Packenham, , Dependency Movement, pp. 240ff.Google Scholar

45 E.g., Frank, Andre Gunder, Capitalism and Underdevelopment in latin America: Historical Studies of Chile and Brazil, rev. and enlarged, ed. (New York: Review Press, 1967);Google Scholar, Sunkel, Osvaldo, “National Development Policy and External Dependency in Latin America”, journal of Development Studies 6 (1969):23–48;CrossRefGoogle Scholar, Bodenheimer, Susanne J., “The Ideology of Developmentalism”, Berkeley journal of Sociology 15 (1970):95–137,Google Scholar, and The Ideology of Developmentalism: The American Paradigm-Surrogate for Latin American Studies (Beverly Hills: Sage, 1971);Google Scholar, Santos, Theotonio Dos, “The Structure of Dependence”, American Economic Review 60 (1970):231–36;Google Scholar, Foster-Carter, Aidan, “Neo-Marxist Approaches to Development and Underdevelopment,”, in Sociology and Development, ed. de Kadt, Emanuel and Williams, Gavin (London: Tavistock, 1974);Google Scholar, Duvall, Raymond D., “Dependence and Dependencia Theory: Notes Towards Precision of Concept and Argument”, International Organization 32 (1978):51–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Cardoso, Fernando and Faletto, Enzo, Dependency and Development in Latin America (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1979);Google Scholar and Evans, Peter B., Dependent Development: The Alliance of Multinational, State and Local Capital in Brazil (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1979).Google Scholar For helpful overviews, see Higgott, , Political Development Theory, pp. 5–10, 45–73Google Scholar; Smith, , “Requiem or New Agenda for Third World Studies”, p. 544ff.Google Scholar; and Packenham, , Dependency Movement, esp. pp. 238ff.Google Scholar

46 For criticisms from different perspectives, see, e.g., Frank, Andre Gunder, “Dependence is Dead, Long Live Dependence and the Class Struggle: A Reply to My Critics”, Latin American Perspectives 1 (1974): 89ff.CrossRefGoogle ScholarLall, S., “Is ‘Dependence’ a Useful Concept in Analysing Underdevelopment?” World Development 3 (1975):799–810.CrossRefGoogle ScholarLeys, Colin, “Underdevelopment and Dependency: Critical Notes”, Journal of Contemporary Asia 7 (1977):92–107;CrossRefGoogle ScholarGodfrey, M., “Is Dependency Dead?” Bulletin of the Institute of Development Studies, Sussex 12 (1980).Google Scholar, Smith, Tony, –The Underdevelopment of Development Literature: The Case of Dependency Theory”, World Politics 31 (1979):247–88;CrossRefGoogle Scholar“The Logic of Dependency Theory Revisited”, International Organization 35 (1981)755–761CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and “Requiem or New Agenda for Third World Studies”; Levine, Daniel, “Paradigm Lost: Dependence to Democracy”, World Politics 40 (1988):377–394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

47 Huntington, , “Goals of Development”, in Understanding Political Development, pp. 27–28.Google Scholar

48 Ibid., p. 28.

49 Ibid., pp. 22–23.

50 The same difficulty arises if one substitutes, as Huntington seems to have done, “civilization” for “culture”: Huntington, Samuel P., “The Clash of Civilizations?” Foreign Affairs 72 (1993):22–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

51 Higgott, , Political Development Theory, p. 8.Google Scholar

52 Apter, , Rethinking Development, pp. 16, 89.Google Scholar

53 E. g.,Hobbes, Leviathan, ed. Macpherson, C. B. (Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1968), pp. 687, 697–700.Google Scholar

54 Aristotle, Politics 1252al-7. Translations from the Greek are my own.Google Scholar

55 Politics VII.1–3.

56 Politics 1280b39–1281a4.

57 See again Almond, and Powell, , Comparative Politics, pp. 13, 213–15.Google Scholar

58 Politics 1323b23 and 1325b28–32.

59 Politics 1326a32–33.

60 Politics 1328bll-13. More precisely, Aristotle says that the priests are “fifth and first”, an ambiguity that captures Aristotle's recognition of the necessity of the care of the divine to healthy politics, but at the same time his desire to limit the influence of the divine, i.e., the priests. This may be said to be the limit of Aristotle's attempt at political enlightenment. For similar indications of the importance of the belief in gods to a healthy politics, consider Plato Laws 716a-c, as well as the beginning of Book VIII and Book X as a whole.

61 Locke, John, John Locke On Toleration and the Unity of God [critical edition of Locke's Letter on Toleration], ed. Montuori, Mario (Amsterdam: J. C. Gieben, 1983), p. 59.Google Scholar

62 Ibid., p. 15 (emphasis in the original).

63 Ibid., p. 17 (emphasis added).

64 Ibid., p. 17; cf. e.g., Plato Laws 724b.

65 Locke, , John Locke On Toleration, p. 59.Google Scholar

66 Ibid., p. 15 (emphasis added).

67 Locke, , First Treatise § 58.Google Scholar

68 Consider Federalist, No. 1.

69 Consider the following statement of Karl Marx, made comparatively late in the development in question: “the criticism of religion is the premise of all criticism. […] The criticism of religion disillusions man so that he will think, act, and fashion his reality as a man who has lost his illusions and regained his reason; so that he will revolve around himself as his own true sun. Religion is only the illusory sun about which man revolves so long as he does not revolve about himself. […] The immediate task of philosophy… is to unmask human selfalienation in its secular form now that it has been unmasked in its sacred form. Thus the criticism of heaven is transformed into the criticism of the earth, the criticism of religion into the criticism of law” (in The Marx-Engels Reader, ed. Tucker, Robert C., 2nd ed. [New York: Norton, 1978], pp. 53–54Google Scholar [emphasis in the original]).

70 Hobbes, , Leviathan, chap. 43.Google Scholar

71 Rousseau, , Du Contrat Social, IV. viii.Google Scholar

72 Montesquieu, , De L'espirt des Lois, XXV. 12; XXIV. 11.Google Scholar

73 Jefferson, Thomas, “Notes on the State of Virginia”, in Writings (Library of America, 1984), p. 285.Google Scholar For Montesquieu's influence on the American founding, see, e.g., Federalist, Nos. 9 and 78; and Pangle, Thomas L., Montesquieu's Philosophy of Liberalism (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1973), pp. 4–10;Google Scholar and The Spirit of Modern Republicanism (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1987), 67–68, 89–94.Google Scholar It is instructive to compare Jefferson's statement with the judgment of the great medieval jurist and scholar, Moses Maimonides, himself an Aristotelian in matters pertaining to the “sublunary” world. Maimonides likens “all human individuals with no doctrinal belief, neither one based on speculation nor one that accepts the authority of tradition” to “irrational animals”. He explains: “To my mind they do not have the rank of men, but have among the beings a rank lower than the rank of man but higher than the rank of the apes. For they have the external shape and lineaments of a man and a faculty of discernment that is superior to that of the apes” (Maimonides, Moses, The Guide of the Perplexed, trans. Pines, Shlomo [Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1963], pp. 618–19).Google Scholar

74 Smith, Donald E., Religion and Political Modernization (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1974), p. 3.Google Scholar

75 Haynes, JeffReligion in Third World Politics (Boulder: Lynne Rienner, 1994), p. 1.Google Scholar

76 Apter, , Politics of Modernization, p. 268.Google Scholar

77 Almond, and Powell, , Comparative Politics, p. 58.Google Scholar

78 Ibid., p. 62 and context.

79 Apter, , Politics of Modernization, pp. 267, 270.Google Scholar

80 See, e.g., Parsons, Talcott, The Social System (Glencoe, IL: The Free Press, 1951), pp. 370, 374, 378,402;Google ScholarSmith, , Religion and Political Modernization, p. 3Google Scholar; and Davis, Winston, “Religion and Development: Weber and the East Asian Experience”, in Understanding Political Development, ed. Weiner, Myron and Huntington, Samuel P., (Boston: Little, Brown, 1987), pp. 223ff.Google Scholar

81 Cf. Hirschman, Albert O., “The Search for Paradigms as a Hindrance to Understanding”, World Politics 22 (1970):329–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Smith, , “Requiem or New Agenda for Third World Studies”, p. 535ff.Google Scholar

82 Apter, , Politics of Modernization, p. 24.Google Scholar Another is suggested by Smith, Donald E. (Religion and Political Development [Boston: Little, Brown, 1970] and Religion and Political Modernization, pp. 3–28)Google Scholar according to which historical and ahistorical religions form one axis of the grid, organic versus church structures the other: Hinduism is an ahistorical organic religion; Buddhism an ahistorical, churchstructured religion; Islam an historical organic faith; and Catholicism a churchbased, historical religion.

83 Smith, , Religion and Political Modernization, pp 8–10.Google Scholar

84 Strauss, Leo, Natural Right and History (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1953), p. 78.Google Scholar

85 Binder, Leonard, Islamic Liberalism: A Critique of Development Ideologies (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1988).Google Scholar

86 Ibid., p. 6 (emphasis in the original).

87 Ibid., p. 2.

88 Ibid., p. 126.

89 Ibid., p. 5.

90 Ibid., p. 87; see also p. 370 n. 4.

91 Ibid., pp. 10 and 17 (emphasis added).

92 Ibid., p. 295.

93 Ibid., pp. 294–95.

94 Ibid., p. 293.

95 Ibid., p. 294.

96 For a comparable effort by another of the founders of political development studies, see Apter, , Rethinking Development, chaps. 1 and 10.Google ScholarCf. Smith, “Requiem or New Agenda for Third World Studies” p. 560.Google Scholar

97 Almond, and Powell, , Comparative Politics, p. 4.Google Scholar

98 See Montesquieu, , De L'esprit des Lois, XIV–XIXGoogle Scholar; Rousseau, , Du Contrat Social, III. viii, beg.Google Scholar

99 See, e. g., the discussion of Qutb, Sayyid and Al-Bishri, Tariq in Binder, , Islamic Liberalism, pp. 170–205,246–92.Google Scholar