Under the basic rubric of political development, scholars have often been at odds to explain the manner by which certain countries and their indigenous political systems developed a certain way, while others exhibited quite different tendencies. For some, economic motivations have been the prime factors in political development, while others look toward the role of the state, and increasing bureaucratization as the moving force behind certain types of political development. This paper will discuss the question of whether or not political development can be measured and whether comparative statements between different states, different systems, or different periods of time can help with the conception of the general nature of political development. The essay will be broken down into four major components: the conception of political development, the conception of economic development, the relationship between political and economic development, and finally an assessment of each as tools for understanding and quantifying aspects of political behavior.
Generally speaking, political development has come to mean a process by which a state or government transcends a more primitive stage of development in exchange for a more advanced political system. The idea of development is then based on the notion of progress toward a particular goal. This was especially evident in the theoretical basis of Marxism, particularly in aspects of historical materialism.1
Another way of looking at this interrelationship between politics and development places the emphasis on modernization theory, and holds that certain governments, particularly those in Third World Countries, must progress from primitive economic and political stages to more advanced, meaning capitalistic, form of politics. Thus, only when a country has outlived its primitive feudal stage can it progress to primitive capitalism, finally culminating in advanced urbanization and tech...