together with American preoccupations with problems of political order at
home and abroad, led to subtle changes of emphasis in political develop-
ment theory. Of particular significance here was American support for
authoritarianism when directed towards the containment of revolutionary
forces (O’Brien, 1972; Higgott, 1983). Although political developmental-
ists had to some extent always been concerned with stability and the
containment of mass participation (Cammack, 1997, pp. 60–1) it is possible
to discern three such changes.
First, the possibility of regression as well as progression was recognized.
For example, Almond and Powell warned against drawing any inference from
developmental concepts such as ‘structural differentiation’ and ‘cultural secu-
larization’ that trends in such directions are inevitable. Huntington similarly
cautioned that development theory’s commitment to progress excluded the
possibility that political systems might ‘decay’ (Huntington, 1965, pp. 392–3).
The second significant reorientation was towards an emphasis on politi-
cal stability and social order (O’Brien, 1972). The literature became
increasingly concerned with factors associated with the maintenance of
regimes and élites, with social and political order and with the restrictions
on the capability of systems of government to produce decisions, policies
and interventions that can be enforced successfully. This change of empha-
sis was particularly damaging for some of the evolutionary assumptions of
functionalist political theory.
The third area of emphasis is that of political integration which fre-
quently appears as another way of analysing political stability and social
order. Political development theory has recognized the problem of produc-
ing a political consensus in the face of cultural diversity. New states experi-
ence many obstacles to the creation of a sufficiently widespread sense of
loyalty and obligation to the nation and its government: parochial loyalties;
incomplete governmental control of its territory; conflicting values of élites
and masses; and a lack of organizational ability for collective purposes. In
addition to the problem of state-building, or providing governmental capac-
ity, there is the problem of nation-building, or creating loyalty and commit-
ment (Weiner, 1965; Almond and Powell, 1966, ch. 2; Wriggins, 1966).
Conclusion
Functionalist modernization theory raised the questions and identified the
issues which remain central to an understanding of Third World politics,
many of which remain unresolved: what effect does the lack of effective polit-
ical institutions have; which types of political change are consistent with
Modernization and Political Development 73