Search results
Dec 29, 2016 · Huntington states that it is important to define political development as the institutionalization of political organizations and procedures. Such a characterization would separate development from modernization and can be applied to the analysis of political systems of any sort, not just modern ones.
In much of the world today, equality of political participation is growing much more rapidly than is the “art of associating together.” The rates of mobilization and participation are high; the rates of organization and institutionalization are low.
- Civil-Military Relations
- Political Development and Democratization
- American Politics
- The Clash of Civilizations
Huntington’s first major work, The Soldier and the State: The Theory and Politics of Civil-Military Relations(1957), develops a theory of civil-military relations and inaugurated the systematic academic study of the subject. The book is intended to correct “a confused and unsystematic set of assumptions and beliefs derived from the premises of Amer...
Political Order in Changing Societies (1968) remains Huntington’s most influential work among social scientists and policy strategists. It launched a wide-ranging challenge to the fundamental premises of “modernization theory,” then the dominant paradigm for understanding political development in the Third World. According to modernization theorist...
In the first of his two major works on American politics, Huntington addresses a central paradox at the heart of American political culture.American Politics: The Promise of Disharmony(1981) argues that the liberal moralism of the American creed stands in enduring tension with the requirements of American power: “The gap between promise and perform...
The article “The Clash of Civilizations” (1993) and subsequent book The Clash of Civilization and the Remaking of World Order(1996) increased Huntington’s renown. “Not intended to be a work of social science,” the work sets out to develop a new paradigm of international relations following the fall of the Soviet Union. “It is my hypothesis,” he wri...
Samuel P. Huntington characterises political development as ‘institutionalisation’ which can be applied both to past and present. For him, it is the development of institutions to meet people’s demands.
What Huntington’s book did was simply to point out from the vantage point of 1968 that political development was not occurring in much of the recently independent, former colonial world. At that point in history, that world was characterized by coups, civil wars, upheavals, political instability.
FROM one point of view, the study of political development is a major area of achievement in recent political inquiry; from an-other, which matters more, it is a conspicuous failure. What has been achieved is great and rapid growth. The study of political development, in contemporary form, started barely two
People also ask
How does Samuel Huntington define political development?
What did Huntington say about political development in 1968?
What problems does Samuel Huntington have with political development?
What is political development?
How does Huntington respond to a political gap?
What is the difference between political development and modernization?
Focus in this discussion is on the general theory of modernization (modernization in intellectual history, modernization revision), the concept of political development (definitions of the concept, approaches to political development), and theories of political change.
