International Studies Quarterly (2012) 56, 827–842 Dynamics of Cultural Change: The Human Development Perspective Mark A. Abdollahian Claremont Graduate University Travis G. Coan Harvard University Hana Oh Deloitte Analytics and Birol A. Yesilada Portland State University The relationship between economic development, cultural change, and political liberalization is often explored through the lens of classic modernization theory. Recent scholarship attempts to extend classic theory to be more closely aligned with empirical reality. Under the human development perspective, economic prosperity acts as a catalyst for cultural development, leading to social values that favor liberalization, and thus promotes effective democracy. Using a systems dynamic approach, we formalize the dynamic causal structure specified in the human development perspective, develop a novel econometric procedure (Genetic Algorithm Nonlinear Least Squares) to estimate the parameters of highly nonlinear, continuous time models, and verify our formal model using five waves of data from the World Values Survey. Our results indicate that development is strongly nonlinear and path dependent: Economic progress is a necessary condition for successful secularization and expressive political behav- ior, which are antecedents for lasting democratic institutions. Thus, policies and institutional arrangements must be tailored to, not outpace, a nation’s level of economic progress to create demand for a secular and expressive political marketplace where democratic institutions can sustain and thrive. Since the turn of the twentieth century, social scien- How do cultures evolve over time? What are the tists have identified dynamic linkages between eco- implications of cultural development for political devel- nomic modernization, cultural change, and political opment? How are these processes linked to economic development. Subsequently, a long line of literature progress? These questions have been central to a wide has explored the implications of modernization for range of social science disciplines, from economics, developed and developing economies, which also politics, and sociology to cultural anthropology. In a includes popularized arguments for and against global- series of recent studies, Ronald Inglehart and Christian ization (Chua 2003; Sachs 2005). However, recent Welzel posit a theory that unifies modernization, cul- international events, such as Arab Spring, give a new tural change, and political development around one sense of urgency to understanding the dynamic inter- basic theme: human development. Human develop- action between social forces. Several recent studies ment (HD) theory is grounded in a set of needs funda- have linked motivations for international terrorism to mental to human existence and views modernization as economic modernization (Barnett 2004), instability a constant struggle to break the chains of human con- driven by friction associated with globalization (Rodrik straint. More specifically, Inglehart and Welzel (2005) 1998), while the ‘‘clash of civilizations’’ thesis places describe a phased theoretical sequence in which rising cultural differences at the forefront in explaining levels of existential security lead to generalizable international instabilities (Huntington 1996). Against changes in cultural predispositions and political institu- this backdrop, we offer a formal representation of the tions. In their test of modernization theory, Inglehart dynamic linkages between economic progress, cultural and Baker (2000:49) found partial support for the development, and political change, as posited in the proposition that ‘‘the rise of industrial society is linked literature to explore the non-obvious policy conse- with coherent cultural shifts away from traditional quences for human development. value systems and the rise of postindustrial society is Abdollahian, Mark A. et al. (2012) Dynamics of Cultural Change: The Human Development Perspective. International Studies Quarterly, doi: 10.1111 ⁄ j.1468-2478.2012.00736.x Ó 2012 International Studies Association 828 Dynamics of Cultural Change linked with a shift away from absolute norms and val- tions of the modernization process. While the analyti- ues toward a syndrome of increasingly rational, toler- cal foundations of modernization theory is traced back ant, trusting, postindustrial values.’’ However, they also to the late eighteenth century (Condorcet [1795] found strong evidence that values seem to be path 1979), the study of modernization flourished during dependent, where cultural traditions—whether Protes- the 1960s and continues to capture the attention of tant, Orthodox, Islamic, or Confucian—give rise to cul- scholars today (see Huntington 1971; So 1990; and In- tural zones with distinctive value systems that persist glehart 1997 for informative overviews). According to empirically even after controlling for the impact of eco- So (1990), these classic studies generally view moderni- nomic development. They show how economic devel- zation as a phased process that is progressive, lengthy, opment tends to push societies in a common direction, and in many ways irreversible. Moreover, moderniza- but on parallel development paths, rather than toward tion tends to have homogenizing effects (Levy 1967) convergence. and represents the ‘‘westernization’’ of developing Indeed, socioeconomic development gives way to nations. As such, modernization is viewed as a roughly profound changes in basic human values that shape linear process that transforms nations from underde- politics. Thus Inglehart, Baker, and Welzel hypothesize veloped to advanced and industrial. that through socioeconomic development and the Extensive criticisms of this framework exist within gradual secularization of society, the advanced demo- both mainstream political science (Huntington 1967) cratic states of the EU and other developed democra- and neo-Marxist scholars (Frank 1969). Political sci- cies should display similar values. Likewise, newly ence questioned, among other things, whether the democratized members of Central and Eastern Europe process was irreversible and unidirectional, while neo- should have values that are different, but over time, as Marxists suggested that the normative bias in early they reach higher levels of socioeconomic develop- work amounted to the ‘‘North American emperor’s ment, their values should become more in line with social scientific clothes’’ (Frank 1969:xi). Others, those found in advanced developed democracies. This including Samuel Huntington, argued that cultural val- phased sequence is neither linear nor predetermined; ues are autonomous and have permanent influence thus, HD theory retains some of the fundamental char- on societies that lead to a clash of civilizations (Hun- acteristics of classic modernization theory, while also tington 1993, 1996). Recent advances in HD theory providing a novel perspective grounded in empirics. are generally centered on the first set of criticisms. The main goal of our work is to provide a formal, That is, the human development perspective provides dynamic representation of HD theory. The question a theoretical account of the modernization process remains: Why formalize? One of the key benefits of for- that is neither inevitable nor unidirectional—moderni- mal modeling is to derive precise and robust empirical zation process differs based on major changes in tests of theory.1 Other benefits of formal modeling sug- existential conditions. Following Maslow’s (1954) hier- gested in Fiorina (1975) include conceptual precision, archy of needs, HD theory provides a framework in clarity of assumptions, ease of assessing internal validity, which economic modernization interacts with basic the power of deduction, and unambiguous communica- human needs and facilitates generalizable shifts in cul- tion with other researchers. Perhaps, the most impor- tural predispositions (Inglehart 1997; Inglehart and tant advantage of formal modeling in the context of Baker 2000; Welzel, Inglehart, and Klingemann 2003; HD theory is the ‘‘precision and clarity of thought’’ nec- Inglehart and Welzel 2005). In large part, individual essary to identify the specific functional relationships value orientations drive an individual’s level of existen- between the core variables of interest (Taber and Tim- tial security and change in predictable ways given shifts pone 1996). Given all these, we employ a nonlinear in existential security. dynamic model to shed light on the temporal change Extensive empirical assessments of survey data world- inherent in HD theory. More specifically, we posit a sys- wide suggest that individual value orientations are rep- tem of asymmetric, coupled nonlinear differential equa- resented by two primary dimensions: rational-secular tions that capture the core logic of HD theory. We then and self-expression value orientations (Inglehart 1997; empirically test the model using five waves of data from Inglehart and Baker 2000; Welzel et al. 2003; Norris the World Values Survey (WVS), developing an econo- and Inglehart 2004; Inglehart and Welzel 2005). Consis- metric estimation procedure that we refer to as Genetic tent with modernization perspectives, HD theory sug- Algorithm Nonlinear Least Squares (GANLS). Finally, gests that both value dimensions are shaped by we explore the model’s behavioral dynamics via simula- economic progress and are more prevalent at different tion methods to identify successful paths toward devel- states in a nation’s development