But is that a measure of the theory's innate explanatory power, or of the political/economic forces that have made it the dominant mode of popular (and elite) consciousness?

great question.

i think it's a case of overshoot, too much of a good thing, what starts off healthy move then morphs into a sick one.

for example,  'economic development' is a no-brainer Good Thing for the very poor, and at the other end of the scale, behold the corruption and headgames of the US financial usury machine/Ponzi scams industry.

(of course madison avenue and sheer novelty are the hook, the barb comes later, when the food aid displaces local businesses, the GM seeds supplant the traditional, IMF loans cripple the economy with debt etc etc...)

 

'The history of public debt is full of irony. It rarely follows our ideas of order and justice.' Thomas Piketty

Nothing wrong with trying to reduce complex phenomena to more simply defined ones - or at least to try to explain complex phenomena with respect to a few variables and see how well those variables can explain observed data.  But you then have to understand that you are working with your model of reality, and not with reality itself.  And the model you use may well help to determine the results you achieve.  The observer (and his/her mindset/model) is part of the processes he observes.

There is no doubt that the "modernisation" model appeals to (even if it is not confined to) the "advanced" societal mindset which implicitly sees a progressive evolution from feudal/agricultural to urban/industrial and post industrial "advanced" "knowledge" based societies.

It's about understanding (and helping) underdeveloped societies to develop and become more like us.