{"id":{"repo_id":"wvu","oai_identifier":"oai:researchrepository.wvu.edu:etd-1501"},"canonical_url":"https://search.dev.ndltd.org/etd/wvu/oai:researchrepository.wvu.edu:etd-1501","repository":{"repo_id":"wvu","name":"West Virginia University","base_url":"https://researchrepository.wvu.edu/do/oai/"},"display":{"title":"Poverty on the Periphery: U.S. Implementation of Modernization Theory in the Alliance for Progress and the War on Poverty","abstract":"The principle objective of this paper is to compare how modernization theory was implemented during the Alliance for Progress and the War on Poverty and to explore how this impacted power structures at the national level in the Alliance and the local level in the War on Poverty There have been some earlier works which have addressed modernization theory during the Alliance for Progress, including Michael Latham's, Modernization as Ideology, however most information about modernization theory itself comes from W.W. Rostow's work, The Stages of Economic Growth, and Rostow and Millikan's, A Proposal. During the War on Poverty, President Johnson also utilized modernization theory; though current scholarship focuses primarily on specific War on Poverty programs, such as Frank Stricker's, Why America Lost the War on Poverty---And How to Win It, or on the War on Poverty in specific areas of the country, such as David Whisnant's, Modernizing the Mountaineer .;While much work has been done about why the Alliance and the War on Poverty failed, there has been little looking at the connection between the two or how modernization theory impacted the making of policy. I seek to explore the relationship between these two programs and how modernization theory was put into practice in each. In this paper, I argue that due to the way in which modernization theory was used to enact both the Alliance for Progress and the War on Poverty, traditional power structures were strengthened ensuring that, in the Alliance, the goal of creating democratic governments was never reached and in the War on Poverty, the attempt to include the poor more fully in the decision making process was never attained. Additionally, I argue that the very policies which were intended to bolster the democratic process instead led to a resurfacing of dictatorships throughout Latin America and a doubling down by political machines within the local governments affected by the War on Poverty, in order to more firmly hold onto power.","abstract_html":"The principle objective of this paper is to compare how modernization theory was implemented during the Alliance for Progress and the War on Poverty and to explore how this impacted power structures at the national level in the Alliance and the local level in the War on Poverty There have been some earlier works which have addressed modernization theory during the Alliance for Progress, including Michael Latham's, Modernization as Ideology, however most information about modernization theory itself comes from W.W. Rostow's work, The Stages of Economic Growth, and Rostow and Millikan's, A Proposal. During the War on Poverty, President Johnson also utilized modernization theory; though current scholarship focuses primarily on specific War on Poverty programs, such as Frank Stricker's, Why America Lost the War on Poverty---And How to Win It, or on the War on Poverty in specific areas of the country, such as David Whisnant's, Modernizing the Mountaineer .;While much work has been done about why the Alliance and the War on Poverty failed, there has been little looking at the connection between the two or how modernization theory impacted the making of policy. I seek to explore the relationship between these two programs and how modernization theory was put into practice in each. In this paper, I argue that due to the way in which modernization theory was used to enact both the Alliance for Progress and the War on Poverty, traditional power structures were strengthened ensuring that, in the Alliance, the goal of creating democratic governments was never reached and in the War on Poverty, the attempt to include the poor more fully in the decision making process was never attained. Additionally, I argue that the very policies which were intended to bolster the democratic process instead led to a resurfacing of dictatorships throughout Latin America and a doubling down by political machines within the local governments affected by the War on Poverty, in order to more firmly hold onto power.","abstract_has_math":false,"creators":["Mayhew, Michelle C."],"institution":null,"degree_name":"MA","degree_level":"Thesis","degree_discipline":"History","degree_department":null,"school":null,"contributors":["James Siekmeier","Kenneth Fones-Wolf","Mark Tauger"],"advisors":[],"committee_chairs":[],"committee_members":[],"year":2013,"date_issued":"2013-08-01T07:00:00Z","date_published":"2013-08-01T07:00:00Z","updated_at":"2026-07-24T06:14:31Z","subjects":["American history","Latin American history","International relations"],"languages":[],"rights":[],"rights_urls":[],"identifier_entries":[{"key":"dc:identifier","label":"Identifier","values":["https://researchrepository.wvu.edu/etd/498"],"render_values":[{"text":"https://researchrepository.wvu.edu/etd/498","href":"https://researchrepository.wvu.edu/etd/498","code":true}]}]},"links":{"outbound_url":"https://doi.org/10.33915/etd.498","outbound_label":"DOI","outbound_source":"dc:identifier"},"metadata_groups":[{"id":"people","label":"People","entries":[{"key":"dc:contributor","label":"Contributor","values":["James Siekmeier","Kenneth Fones-Wolf","Mark Tauger"]},{"key":"dc:creator","label":"Author","values":["Mayhew, Michelle C."]}]},{"id":"academic_context","label":"Academic Context","entries":[{"key":"dc:date.available","label":"Dc Date Available","values":["2019-01-17T08:00:00Z"]},{"key":"thesis:degree_discipline","label":"Discipline","values":["History"]},{"key":"thesis:degree_level","label":"Degree Level","values":["Thesis"]},{"key":"thesis:degree_name","label":"Degree Name","values":["MA"]}]},{"id":"subjects_keywords","label":"Subjects and Keywords","entries":[{"key":"dc:subject","label":"Dc Subject","values":["American history","Latin American history","International relations"]}]},{"id":"identifiers","label":"Identifiers","entries":[{"key":"dc:identifier","label":"Identifier","values":["https://doi.org/10.33915/etd.498","https://researchrepository.wvu.edu/etd/498"]}]},{"id":"additional","label":"Additional Metadata","entries":[{"key":"dc:description.abstract","label":"Abstract","values":["The principle objective of this paper is to compare how modernization theory was implemented during the Alliance for Progress and the War on Poverty and to explore how this impacted power structures at the national level in the Alliance and the local level in the War on Poverty There have been some earlier works which have addressed modernization theory during the Alliance for Progress, including Michael Latham's, Modernization as Ideology, however most information about modernization theory itself comes from W.W. Rostow's work, The Stages of Economic Growth, and Rostow and Millikan's, A Proposal. During the War on Poverty, President Johnson also utilized modernization theory; though current scholarship focuses primarily on specific War on Poverty programs, such as Frank Stricker's, Why America Lost the War on Poverty---And How to Win It, or on the War on Poverty in specific areas of the country, such as David Whisnant's, Modernizing the Mountaineer .;While much work has been done about why the Alliance and the War on Poverty failed, there has been little looking at the connection between the two or how modernization theory impacted the making of policy. I seek to explore the relationship between these two programs and how modernization theory was put into practice in each. In this paper, I argue that due to the way in which modernization theory was used to enact both the Alliance for Progress and the War on Poverty, traditional power structures were strengthened ensuring that, in the Alliance, the goal of creating democratic governments was never reached and in the War on Poverty, the attempt to include the poor more fully in the decision making process was never attained. Additionally, I argue that the very policies which were intended to bolster the democratic process instead led to a resurfacing of dictatorships throughout Latin America and a doubling down by political machines within the local governments affected by the War on Poverty, in order to more firmly hold onto power."]},{"key":"dc:title","label":"Title","values":["Poverty on the Periphery: U.S. Implementation of Modernization Theory in the Alliance for Progress and the War on Poverty"]}]}],"canonical_facts":{"dc:contributor":["James Siekmeier","Kenneth Fones-Wolf","Mark Tauger"],"dc:creator":["Mayhew, Michelle C."],"dc:date.available":["2019-01-17T08:00:00Z"],"dc:description.abstract":["The principle objective of this paper is to compare how modernization theory was implemented during the Alliance for Progress and the War on Poverty and to explore how this impacted power structures at the national level in the Alliance and the local level in the War on Poverty There have been some earlier works which have addressed modernization theory during the Alliance for Progress, including Michael Latham's, Modernization as Ideology, however most information about modernization theory itself comes from W.W. Rostow's work, The Stages of Economic Growth, and Rostow and Millikan's, A Proposal. During the War on Poverty, President Johnson also utilized modernization theory; though current scholarship focuses primarily on specific War on Poverty programs, such as Frank Stricker's, Why America Lost the War on Poverty---And How to Win It, or on the War on Poverty in specific areas of the country, such as David Whisnant's, Modernizing the Mountaineer .;While much work has been done about why the Alliance and the War on Poverty failed, there has been little looking at the connection between the two or how modernization theory impacted the making of policy. I seek to explore the relationship between these two programs and how modernization theory was put into practice in each. In this paper, I argue that due to the way in which modernization theory was used to enact both the Alliance for Progress and the War on Poverty, traditional power structures were strengthened ensuring that, in the Alliance, the goal of creating democratic governments was never reached and in the War on Poverty, the attempt to include the poor more fully in the decision making process was never attained. Additionally, I argue that the very policies which were intended to bolster the democratic process instead led to a resurfacing of dictatorships throughout Latin America and a doubling down by political machines within the local governments affected by the War on Poverty, in order to more firmly hold onto power."],"dc:identifier":["https://doi.org/10.33915/etd.498","https://researchrepository.wvu.edu/etd/498"],"dc:subject":["American history","Latin American history","International relations"],"dc:title":["Poverty on the Periphery: U.S. Implementation of Modernization Theory in the Alliance for Progress and the War on Poverty"],"thesis:degree_discipline":["History"],"thesis:degree_level":["Thesis"],"thesis:degree_name":["MA"]},"updated_at":"2026-07-24T06:14:31Z"}