Introduction to the special issue: reform or revolution? What is at stake in democratic sustainability transformations

Figures & data

Table 1. Transformation: one of several paradigms of social change (adopted from Schelkle and Krauth 2000).

Paradigms of social change	Conceptualization of change	Approach	Blindspots
Modernization	Social change is treated as comprehensive societal change Emergence of modern society at the center of analysis Functional differentiation of the society and subsystems as units of change Often, nation and society used interchangeably Policy-oriented interest in change	Functional analysis of changes in one system induced by changes in another Use of comparative historical case studies of particular areas, rooted in social sciences and economic history Interest in discovering structure and complexity of societal change in what look like unrelated processes of fragmentation	Retrospective analysis begins after change has occurred (e.g., modernity has taken root) Principal distinction between “traditional” and “modern,” and related qualifiers (“stagnant” vs. “dynamic”)
Transformation	Focus on societal change within a particular national context Units of social change are concrete institutions and organizations within the economy Differentiates between nation and society Policy-oriented interest in change	Rooted in economics, sociology, and political sciences No clear analytical approaches; primary focus on how to intervene or accelerate the shift toward a different system (applicability) Society as result of rational plans and intentions of actors Emphasizes interdependencies of change	Concept is applied to processes of change with a clear-cut goal of modern institutions (e.g., liberty, growth, welfare) Principal distinction between “planned vs. market economy,” “political authoritarianism or democracy,” and so forth. Pronounced actor-oriented perspective ignores structural barriers
Development	Focus on sectoral change within nations Development process as a dynamic of several dualisms (e.g., shift from primary to secondary activities in the economy) Units of change are actors, defined by functions (e.g., household, firm) Provides some policy orientation	Focus on detailed analysis of driving forces, forms, and outcomes of development (e.g., Marxist development analysis) While some focus on policy orientation, a critical strand since the 1970s questions performance of long-term development planning Utilitarian basis, as well as affinity to behavioral sciences Interested in looking for contributory factors for social progress	Change as an orderly process or sequence of changes Inherent (teleological) logic of changes (e.g., steps, stages, levels) Principal distinction between “development and underdevelopment / no development,” “growth and stagnation” Ignores side-effects of development (e.g., ecological)
Social evolution	Focus on change in behavioral patterns/organizational and societal structures Units of change (e.g., alternations in beliefs) similar to biological evolution	Analytical outlook on change Change as a result of innovation is a function of environmental characteristics, frequency, and quantitative importance Affinity to quantitative social sciences Global outlook	Principal distinction between purposeful and accidental change, “coincidence and order” Impossible to detect directionality of change

Schelkle, W., and W.-H. Krauth. 2000. “Introduction: Paradigms Lost–and Found.” In Paradigms of Social Change: Modernization, Development, Transformation, Evolution, edited by W. Schelkle, and K. Elwert, 11–30. New York: St. Martin’s Press.

 Google Scholar