Perceptions of Societal Developmental Hierarchies in Europe and Beyond: A Bulgarian Perspective

Abstract

We examine how ordinary citizens in Bulgaria view the developmental levels of European countries and certain states outside of Europe. Our research is motivated by the understanding that scholars and policy makers have for centuries used developmental hierarchies to characterize countries and that this perception of differential development has shaped interactions among different groups, countries and regions. We expect that views of such developmental hierarchies and models have great potential for influencing demographic and family behavior and political and cultural identities of ordinary people. Using data from a 2009 survey in Bulgaria we document that developmental hierarchies are widely perceived in Bulgaria, but are distributed differentially by age, education, and degree of urbanization. We also consider internal mechanisms underlying this hierarchical understanding of development and how hierarchical understandings may be related to national identities.

Perceptions of developmental hierarchies in Taiwan: Conceptual, substantive, and methodological insights

“…Thornton and his colleagues (2012a) used data from fifteen surveys in thirteen diverse countries to show that ordinary people in each setting understand developmental hierarchies and can use this understanding to rate a series of countries on development. In addition, large percentages of people in these thirteen countries rate countries on development similarly to the development ratings of the UN HDI, suggesting that development is not only widely understood, but understood in ways that are similar to the perspectives of international elites (Binstock and Thornton 2007, Melegh, et al 2012, Thornton, et al 2012, Xie, et al 2012 This body of research has also shown that while views of development and developmental hierarchies are widespread among individuals in many countries, there is also considerable variability in the ways people perceive development (Thornton, et al 2012). This is demonstrated in the fact that significant proportions of people either do not subscribe to developmental hierarchies or define them differently than does the United Nations and other international elites.…”

“…A recent but growing body of survey research has documented that the ideas of development and developmental hierarchies are widespread in many parts of the world (Binstock and Thornton 2007, Melegh, et al 2012, Thornton, et al 2012, Xie, et al 2012). …”

“…One component of this Taiwanese panel study was designed to investigate the extent to which students understand and use the concept of development. Using the methodology created in earlier studies, we asked students to rate the development of several countries on an eleven point scale (Binstock and Thornton 2007, Melegh, et al 2012, Thornton, et al 2012, Xie, et al 2012. The same questions were asked at each wave, permitting us to investigate important issues of reliability, stability, and individual response styles.…”

The making of family values: Developmental idealism in Gansu, China

“…Throughout the world, the developmental doctrine has won extensive promotion by state governments and elite organizations (Boli and Thomas 1997; Chabbott 1999; Latham 2000; Meyer et al 1997; Nisbet 1969). At the individual level, recent surveys in thirteen diverse populations show that developmental hierarchies are widely perceived by the ordinary respondents, and that the perceived hierarchies well conform to the version constructed by the United Nations (Thornton et al 2012a; also see Binstock and Thornton 2007; Melegh et al 2012). …”

“…One key element of this world culture is the idea of progress or development (Meyer et al 1997). Thornton (2001, 2005; also see, Melegh et al 2012; van de Kaa 2010) has argued that at least since the Enlightenment a developmental paradigm has characterized the worldviews of many scholars, policy makers, and other elites in the West. The paradigm specifies an essentialized uni-linear trajectory of history, along which all countries progress at different rates (also see Harris 1968; Mandelbaum 1971; Nisbet 1969/1975; Sanderson 1990).…”