ansformation…” (Wilson 187). Gorbachev of Russia embraced both democratization and economic change. Wilson identifies “Post-communist Russia has been plagued with economic decline, hyperinflation, rising foreign debt, and currency crises” (Wilson 188). Through this observation, can it be said that economic development has to forfeit democracy, in less-developed societies?I find that there are greater aspects as risk here as well. I think that a country’s culture and behavior make them more or less adaptable to developmental changes. If the culture of a society is more conformist or group-oriented, then policies that make their daily practices official, then development is more likely. A society like America, where the only time we feel united is after we get attacked, the group-oriented production policies are inevitably going to fail. Contrary to my argument, Wilson feels “those interested in understanding political stability are better off avoiding explanations of stability based on political culture” (Wilson 27). So in what way does Wilson make an agreement? Wilson establishes a foundation for leaders and legitimacy that play a big part in less-developed societies.Leaders also play a big part in development. Leaders need to exercise authority and not coercive power. Wilson agrees with German sociologist, Max Weber in terms of a political legitimate leader. Tradition, charisma, and rationality/legality are the three agreeable aspects of effective leadership. An effective leader or regime must implement new economic policies in effective ways. All of the stated arguments develop an explanation for the fundamental contradictions between economic development, freedom, and liberty in less-developed societies. Tocqueville however nails the main points and aspects that define the developmental nature of China and every other young country in the world. ...
