Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
This article reviews modernization theory’s influence on law and development and suggests that two modes have characterized its history of scholarship and policy. One mode is instrumental in nature, conceiving of development primarily in economic terms and treating law as market infrastructure. The other mode is progressive in nature, conceiving of law as an instrument of broader social and political transformation. The article situates this instrumental–progressive distinction within the two major movements of law and development, as well as within the practice of legal transplantation. It also considers the various critiques that modernization theory has attracted, as well as its period of decline and resurgence. It is proposed that the two-mode framework helps explain the uneven history of modernization theory by revealing deeper tensions within law and development.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Michael Ilg (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: