Two development theories:Ibn-i-Khaldoun and Wallerstein

Atousa AmirabediniGlobal Studies, Karl-Franzens University of Graz, Graz, Austria and

Tabriz State University of Iran, Tabriz, Iran

Abstract

Purpose – Each day, many different people in different societies are striving within their daily workto advance society. Every society needs to create ideas for further development and in order to becomerecognised as developed. The purpose of this paper is to show how different cultures at different timescreated similar ideas and theories to develop their society.Design/methodology/approach – A comparison between the development theories of Ibn-i-Khaldunand Wallerstein’s famous “world system theory” is undertaken to show that similar ideas of developmentwere in existence even centuries before. Technically, seminar papers were posted and reviewed on ane-learning platform in order to reach such peer-reviewed assessment in a “Global Studies” curriculum.Findings – The paper shows that the similarity between all developed countries is a strong stateand extensive economic activity in different areas among cooperative people. All of these threecharacteristics are measurable and visible in today’s western societies, and also centuries before inother countries (the Golden Age of the Muslim World).Research limitations/implications – Limits to comparing the two development theories ofIbn-i-Khaldun with Wallerstein’s world system theory arise because of the large gap in time and the bigcultural differences between the authors of the two theories. There is, on one side, Ibn-i-Khaldun in thethirteenth century whose religion (Islam) played an important role in his development theory and onthe other side there is a western author, Immanuel Wallerstein in the twentieth century. In Wallerstein’sdevelopment theory, religion has almost no role. Another point is that Wallerstein’s theory providesa guideline to almost all countries for reaching development but Ibn-i-Khaldun’s target countries are theMuslim countries which were experiencing decline at his time.Originality/value – Unlike traditional approaches, the present analysis includes early scientifictheories from non-European authors. Thus, one of the main objectives of “Global Studies” is fulfilled;namely a trans-disciplinary, globalised perspective.

Keywords Development theories, European-Muslim countries, Ibn-i-Khaldoun, Muqaddimah,Wallerstein, World system theory

Paper type Research paper

IntroductionThe purpose of this paper is to compare two development theories from two differentplaces in different times and cultures. The aim is to conclude that any country in anykind of circumstance needs to follow certain procedures and paths in order to beconsidered developed.

Development theories are seeking to explain how society progresses, whichvariables affect the development process and how societies react upon it (CorporationConjecture, 2013).

Development and modernisation theories originated in Europe during theseventeenth century (Corporation Conjecture, 2013). If we consider Islamic economicand social studies, we find development theories which were existing in Eastern

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available atwww.emeraldinsight.com/1065-0741.htm

Campus-Wide Information SystemsVol. 31 No. 1, 2014

pp. 63-74r Emerald Group Publishing Limited

1065-0741DOI 10.1108/CWIS-08-2013-0035The author is grateful to Dr Gilbert Ahamer who encouraged me to finish my work.

63

Twodevelopment

theories

countries even centuries earlier (Chapra 2008, p. 3). One example of this can be themulti-disciplinary development theory of Ibn-i-Khaldun.

E-learning facilitates comparison of development theoriesThe purpose of comparing the manifold and intercultural (Hobson, 2004) approachesto development theories during a lecture on “Global Studies” (GS) at Graz University,based on international project experience (Ahamer et al., 2010b, 2011; Ahamer and Strobl,2010a), was enhanced by regular student-student exchange on a learning platform amongthe two hundred students annually originating from diverse cultures (Figure 1). Typically,students pass some 20 hours on this platform to read and review colleagues’ viewsdevelopment theories (Ahamer, 2005, 2008, 2012a, b) including negotiation games(Ahamer, 2006, 2013).

Development theory of Ibn-i-KhaldunBecause of the time gap between Ibn-i-Khaldun’s and Wallerstein’s developmenttheories, some background information will be provided.

Ibn-i-Khaldun was born in 1332 AD in Tunis, where he received an education fromreputed scholars. Political responsibilities made him to move from place to place until1382, when he finally settled down in Egypt after not being able to join the Hajjcaravan in Alexandria (Bliss, 2000; Hozien, (2001), see Figure 2).

He was using his theory to explain the causes of Muslim decline. Historical eventsweakened most of the central Muslim lands during his time. Under these circumstances,he was searching for an effective strategy to bring about change (Elbahnasawy, 2010).There is little agreement on the precise causes of the Muslim decline, but in addition to theinvasion by the Mongols and crusaders, including the destruction of libraries andmadrasahs, it has also been suggested that political mismanagement and the stiflingof Ijtihad (Abbas, 2011; Haddad Macron, 1979) was one of the reasons. Ijtihad means toderive and deduce religious opinion about some matter that is not mentioned in thesources of Islam by independent reasoning. The twelveth century had favouredinstitutionalised taqlid thinking (i.e. blindly following a scholar), which also played part inthis process (Sonn, 2010). From another perspective, Ahmad Y. Hassan analysesthe decline in terms of economic and political factors which had been underway duringIbn-i-Khaldun’s lifetime (Beg, 2006; al-Hassan et al., 2001).

Ibn-i-Khaldun’s development theory argues that the improvement or declineof a society does not depend on one single factor, but rather on the interaction ofmoral, socio-economic, political and historical factors over a long period of time(Sonn, 2010).

Ibn-i-Khaldun tried to address the mentioned reasons in the “Instruction”(Muqaddimah) of his book of lessons, a record of beginnings and events in the historyof the Arabs and Berbers and their powerful contemporaries (al-Kit%abu l-‘ibar).

The main ideas of his development theory are:

(1) the strength of the sovereign (al Mulk) does not materialise except through theimplementation of Sharia[1], i.e. Islamic law on the acts of worship and onpeople (Standke, 2008; Johnson and Vriens, 2013; BBC, 2009);

(2) Sharia cannot be implemented except by the sovereign (al Mulk);

(3) the sovereign cannot gain strength except through the people (al Rijal);

(4) the people cannot be sustained except by wealth (al Mal);

64

CWIS31,1

Sour

ce: B

ader

et a

l. (2

013a

, b)

Figure 1.Partial screenshots ofthe discussion forum

that allows theexchange of detailed

descriptions of theorieson global development

in the basic lecture “GlobalStudies” (GS) at Graz

University during wintersemester 2010/11 (at left),

winter semester 2011/12(centre) and postings on

the critical comparison ofdevelopmental curricula

that resulted in acooperative article by GS

students

65

Twodevelopment

theories

(5) wealth cannot be acquired except through development (Al Imarah);

(6) development cannot be attained except through justice (al Adl);

(7) justice is a criterion (al Mizan) by which God will evaluate mankind; and

(8) the sovereign is charged with the responsibility of actualising justice(Chapra, 2008, p. 4).

Ibn-i-Khaldun’s analysis links important socio-economic and political variables such aspolitical authority, beliefs, rules of Sharia, individuals (who have certain obligations to Godas a part of society), wealth, development and justice together. The interaction of thesefactors over the time leads to the development and decline (Chapra, 2008, p. 5).

Notes: (a) map of the Mediterranean basin in the fourteenth century;(b) map of Ibn-i-Khaldun’s travels from Spain to the Islamic EastSource: James and Hassan (2010)

(a)

(b)

Figure 2.The travels of Ibn-i-Khaldun and theirgeopolitical background

66

CWIS31,1

Development theory of WallersteinAfter the explanation of Ibn-i-Khaldun’s development theory from the fourteenth centuryAD, Immanuel Wallerstein (*September 1938-today) and his theory “The Modern WorldSystem” will be explained. With his theory, Wallerstein (1976) wanted to developthe theoretical framework to understand the historical changes involved in the rise of themodern western world.

Wallerstein’s theory makes it possible to understand the external and internalmanifestations of the modernisation and developing processes.

From the ninth until the seventeenth century AD, feudalism dominated westernEuropean society. Between 1150 and 1300 AD, both population as well as commerceexpanded within the limitations of the feudal system. From 1300-1450 this expansionceased, creating a severe economic crisis.

According to Wallerstein, the feudal crisis was probably precipitated by theinteraction of the following factors (Wallerstein, 1976):

(1) agricultural production fell or remained stagnant (growing population);

(2) the economic cycle of the feudal economy had reached its optimum level; and

(3) a shift of climatological conditions decreased agricultural productivity.

Wallerstein argues that Europe moved towards the establishment of a capitalist worldeconomy in order to ensure continuous economic growth.

In the new capitalist world, the system was based on an international division oflabour that determined relationships between different regions as well as the typesof labour conditions within each region.

In this model, the type of political system was also directly related to each regionwithin the world economy.

As a basis of comparison, Wallerstein proposes four different categories of regions(Wallerstein, 1976), compare Figure 3.

(1) The core: benefits the most from the capitalist world economy. It developedstrong central governments, extensive bureaucracies and large mercenary

armies.

CoreSemi-Periphery

PeripheryOther*

World Trade

Source: Chase-Dunn et al. (2000)

Figure 3.The four different

categories of regionsaccording to Wallerstein

67

Twodevelopment

theories

(2) The semi-periphery: between the core and peripheries. They represent eithercore regions in decline or peripheries attempting to improve their relativeposition in the world economy. These regions exhibit tensions between thecentral government and local landed class. These regions retain limited butdeclining access to international banking and the production of the highcost and high-quality manufactured goods. They fail to predominate ininternational trade.

(3) The periphery: these areas lack strong central governments or are controlledby other states. They export raw materials to the core region and rely oncoercive labour practices.

(4) The external: these areas maintain their own economic systems and, for themost part, manage to remain outside the modern world economy.

The development of the modern world economy encompassed centuries. During thistime different regions changed their relative position within this dynamic system(Wallerstein, 1976).

Wallerstein divides the history of the capitalist world system into four stages, whichcan be also divided into two basic phases (Wallerstein, 1976):

(1) Stages one and two:

. bureaucratisation;

. homogenisation;

. expansion of militia to support the centralised monarchy;

. absolutism; and

. diversification of economic activities.

(2) Stages three and four:

. european states participated in active exploration for the exploitationof new markets;

. expanding the European world system;

. combination of agricultural and industrial interests changed to purelyindustrial concerns; and

. core areas encouraged the rise of industries in semi-peripheral andperipheral regions.

Comparison and discussionAfter a brief explanation of Wallerstein’s development theory, similarities anddifferences between the development theories of Ibn-i-Khaldun and Wallerstein willbe discussed.

Differences between Wallerstein’s and Ibn-i-Khaldun’s theoriesAs a first difference, the basis of Ibn-i-Khaldun’s development theory is the Sharia.It is the body of the Islamic law and deals with all aspects of life, including crime, politicsand economics, as well as personal matters such as hygiene, diet and fasting. It is evidentthat Islam plays an important role in Ibn-i-Khaldun’s theory of development. He believes

68

CWIS31,1

religion (Islam) to be the basis of real development because it is the basis of state-buildingand empire, as it unites groups and makes them invincible. It brings forth and guaranteescollective morality, virtue, and civic obedience while doing away with savagery,individual ambition, and civic strife. Without religion, a group is merely endowed withnatural cohesiveness through group feeling which causes the individual members to acttogether to achieve superiority (Stowasser, 1983).

On the other hand, the world system theory of Wallerstein is a Marxist-inspiredtheory and it treats religion as secondary and derivative (Swatos, 2011). His theorypays little attention specifically to the role of religious beliefs or religiousinstitutions within society.

It has thus been necessary for other theorists to suggest ways in which the worldsystem perspective might be useful for understanding changes in these beliefs andinstitutions.

The second difference is about bureaucratisation (historically, bureaucracy refers togovernment administration managed by departments staffed with non-elected officials;Johnson and Libecap, 1994; Encyclopedia Britannica, 2013). According to Karatas(2006, p. 4), “Ibn-i-Khaldun got five centuries before Keynes the attention of the wholeworld by stressing the importance of increasing the demand to increase output and furtherto create public works and confidence in order to increase employment”. Ibn-i-Khaldunmentioned that overtaxation occurs, when the bureaucracy keeps expanding.

On the other hand, Wallerstein believed that wide bureaucratisation aided thelimited but growing power of the king by increasing the state’s power to collect taxes.The kings eventually increased state powers to borrow money, and thereby furtherexpand the state bureaucracy (Wallerstein, 1976).

The third point to compare is the effect of the military according to the twodevelopment theories.

Ibn-i-Khaldun was arguing that a large army, bureaucracy and overtaxationdiscourages people from getting economically active (Hassan, 2006). This leads toa decrease in the total income of the state.

From Wallerstein’s point of view, one of the reasons for development was militaryforce to support the centralised monarchy and to protect the new state from invasions(Wallerstein, 1976).

SimilaritiesAfter comparing the three main differences, the similarities between the two theorieswill be discussed.

The word homogenisation[2], which refers to the reduction in cultural diversity(Barker, 2008, p. 159), cannot be found in the texts relating to Ibn-i-Khaldun’s theory.He was a Muslim, and naturally he recognised Sharia as a most important basis ofdevelopment (He accepted Sharia as the most important basis for development in allaspects of life in society for everybody.) Ordering Sharia could be understood as a kindof homogenisation of the people, which might cause a reduction of social and culturaldiversity with the aim of better human cooperation. In his development theory,the individual plays an important role (Mohammad, 1998); according to him, theessential power of human beings is their reflective and deliberative capacities.In addition to their capacity for making things by the agency of their discerningreason, humans have the capacity to organise their relations with their fellow humansfor the realisation of individual needs through the collective good. Ibn-i-Khaldun saysthat “if the power of the individual human being is not sufficient for him to obtain,

69

Twodevelopment

theories

e.g. the food he needs, and does not provide him with as much food as he requires tolive [y] but through cooperation, the needs of a number of persons, many timesgreater than their own can be satisfied”. This can also be referred to or interpreted asa division of labour (Hassan, 2006).

In relation to human cooperation, Wallerstein is talking about culturalhomogenisation of the population. In his theory, this is particularly the case in theadvantaged areas of the world economy called core states. In such states, the creation ofstrong state machinery is coupled with national culture, a phenomenon often referred to asintegration. It serves both as a mechanism to protect disparities that have arisen withinthe world system and as an ideological mask and justification for maintenance of thesedisparities (Wallerstein, 1976).

The second common point of these two theories is about a strong state. Accordingto Querine Hanlon, strong states (as opposed to weak or failed states) can bedefined: by their ability to control their own territory; by their capacity to performcore functions; and by their vulnerability to challenges to their legitimacy (Hanlon,2011, p. 2).

Ibn-i-Khaldun believes that Sharia cannot ever play a meaningful role unless it isimplemented fairly and impartially. Sharia only gives rules of behaviour, it cannotitself enforce them. It is the responsibility of the political authority to ensurecompliance through incentives (Adem, 2004). For him, “it is not possible to conceiveof political authority without civilisation and of civilisation without politicalauthority” (Chapra, 2008, p. 9).

He also emphasises that “if the ruler is tyrannical and harsh in punishment [y] thepeople become fearful and seek to protect themselves by means of lies” (Chapra, 2008, p. 9).

In relation to this point, Wallerstein is explaining absolutism. He believes that theconcept of absolutism relates to the relative independence of the monarch frompreviously established laws. In fact, this distinction freed the king from prior feudallaws (Wallerstein, 1976).

It is important to mention that Ibn-i-Khaldun says that the state must do things thathelp people carry on their lawful businesses more effectively and prevent them fromcommitting excesses and injustices against each other. He was against a state whichgets directly involved in economic activity.

The next similarity is about specialisation and diversification relating to economicactivities.

According to Karatas (2006), Ibn-i-Khaldun indicated the fact that specialisationin economic activities is the major source of economic surplus when there is anenvironment conducive to specialisation (Karatas, 2006, p. 4). The entrepreneur isencouraged to commit himself to further trade and production. Indeed, specialisationwould occur in a place where a person is able to get the benefit of his efforts. The givenlaw and order for Ibn-i-Khaldun’s specialisation is a function of population, trade,production and minimum taxation (Karatas, 2006, p. 4).

Relating to specialisation, Ibn-i-Khaldun says:

Each particular kind of craft needs persons to be in charge of it and skilled in it. The morenumerous the various sub-divisions of the craft are, the larger the number of the people who(have to) practice that craft. The particular group (practicing that craft) is coloured by it.As the days follow one upon the other and one professional colouring comes after the other,the crafts colouring men become experienced in their various crafts and skilled in theknowledge of them. Long periods of time and the repetition of similar (experiences) add toestablishing the crafts and to causing them to be firmly rooted (Karatas, 2006, p. 4).

70

CWIS31,1

Wallerstein also speaks about the diversification of economic activities in order tomaximise profits and strengthen the position of the local bourgeoisie (Wallerstein, 1976).

Another important common point is foreign trade in both development theories:

Ibn-i-Khaldun’s ideas contributed at that time to the field of economics. According to him,through foreign trade people’s satisfaction, merchants’ profits and countries’ wealth canall increase.

Ibn-i-Khaldun mentioned that “the merchant who knows his business will travel onlywith such goods as are generally needed by rich and poor, rulers and commoners alike.General need makes for a large demand for his goods [y] it is more advantageous andmore profitable for the merchants’ enterprise [y]. A merchant will be able to takeadvantage of market fluctuations, if he brings goods from a country which is far away[y] merchandise becomes more valuable when merchants transport it from onecountry to another” (Oweiss, 1988; Khaldun et al., 1978, pp. 2:89-90).

According to Wallerstein, European states participated in active exploration for theexploitation of new markets.

In the sixteenth century, metropolises like Paris, London, Venice and Geneva werevery famous trading cities. Wallerstein explains how trade was having a greatinfluence in the development of these cities.

Both Ibn-i-Khaldun’s development theory and Wallerstein’s world system theoryhave further aspects. One example can be the industrialisation in Wallerstein’stheory, which plays an important role in his work. This is not comparable with anystages of Ibn-i-Khaldun’s theory, because industrialisation was happening in Europecenturies after Ibn-i-Khaldun.

ConclusionAfter a short comparison of these two theories we got to know the main differences andsimilarities between them.

The important points are three similar characteristics in both theories that allcountries at any time with any kind of exogenous and endogenous circumstances needto experience. One of them is a strong government (Hanlon, 2011) the second is to haveextensive economical activities in different areas and the third is to have peoplecooperating in the country to reach development (Adem, 2004).

On-going dialogues between student colleagues can enhance discussions ontheories of world development and globalisation. The present paper presented only oneout of hundreds of analogous discussion papers generated during the first three yearsof the “Global Studies” curriculum at the University of Graz, Austria with the supportof e-learning.

Notes

1. or a brief understanding, “Sharia” deals with many topics including crime, politics,economics, as well as personal matters such as sexual intercourse, hygiene, diet, prayerand fasting. Though interpretations of Sharia vary between cultures, in its strictestdefinition it is considered the infallible law of God as opposed to the human interpretationof the law. Sharia in Islam means the pathway to follow. The etymology of Sharia asa “path” or “way” comes from the Qur’anic verse “(in Islam Qur’an is accepted as the wordof God). Then we put thee on the (right) way of religion so follow on that (way), and follownot the desires of those who know not”. There is not a strictly codified uniform set of lawsthat can be called Sharia.

71

Twodevelopment

theories

2. The author thinks that the aim of homogenisation in societies (i.e. reducing culturaldiversity) was to make people to cooperate and work with each other and to make sure thatthey work with each other for the development of the society (Barker, 2008, p. 159).

References

Abbas, T. (2011), Islamic Radicalism and Multicultural Politics: The British Experience First, Routledge,New York, NY, available at: http://books.google.at/books?id¼JdC90uc8PfQC&pg¼PA9(accessed 8 August 2013).

Adem, S. (2004), “Decolonizing Modernity Inb-Khaldun and Modern Histography”, in Long, A.S.,Awang, J. and Kamaruddin, S. (Eds), Islam: Past, Present and Future, InternationalSeminar on Islamic Thoughts, pp. 570-587, available at: http://alambuku.tripod.com/pdf/ISoITCD XP.pdf#page¼590 (accessed 8 August 2013).

Ahamer, G. (2005), “Surfing global change’: how didactic visions can be implemented”, Campus-WideInformation Systems, Vol. 22 No. 5, pp. 298-319.

Ahamer, G. (2006), “Surfing global change: negotiating sustainable solutions”, Simulation &Gaming – an International Journal, Vol. 37 No. 3, pp. 380-397.

Ahamer, G. (2008), “Im Spiegelkabinett unterschiedlicher Entwicklungsvorstellungen”,Journal fur Entwicklungspolitik (JEP), Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 56-76, available at:www.mattersburgerkreis.at/jep/20083.php#ahamer

Ahamer, G. (2012a), “Training to bridge multicultural geographies of perspectives”, Campus-WideInformation Systems (CWIS), Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 21-44.

Ahamer, G. (2012b), “The jet principle: technologies provide border conditions for globallearning”, Multicultural Education & Technology Journal (METJ), Vol. 6 No. 3, pp. 177-210.

Ahamer, G. (2013), “Game, not fight: change climate change!”, Simulation and Gaming – AnInternational Journal, Vol. 44 No. 2, pp. 272-301.

Ahamer, G. and Strobl, J. (2010a), “Information technologies socialise geographies”, Journal ofCases on Information Technology ( JCIT), Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 1-27.

Ahamer, G., Jekel, T. and Vogler, R. (2010b), “Participate when mapping realities”, Journal ofCases on Information Technology ( JCIT), Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 100-125.

al-Hassan, A.Y., Ahmad, M. and Iskandar, A.Z. (2001), “History of science and technology inIslam”, UNESCO, available at: www.history-science-technology.com/Articles/articles8.htm (accessed 7 August 2013).

Ahamer, G., Kumpfmuller, K.A. and Hohenwarter, M. (2011), “Web-based exchange of viewsenhances ‘Global Studies’”, Campus-Wide Information Systems, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 16-40.

Bader, L., Bereuther, T., Deutsch, E., Edlinger, J., Fureder, S., Kaspar, E., Kottstorfer, M., Mautner, C.,Rossegger, C., Samonig, A., Samonig, S., Schuster, C., Witz, G., Zotter, V. and Ahamer, G.(2013a), “Quality improvements in curricula for Global Studies”, Multicultural Education &Technology Journal, Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 113-126, available at: www.emeraldinsight.com/10.1108/17504971311328035 (accessed 7 August 2013).

Bader, L., Bereuther, T., Deutsch, E., Edlinger, J., Fink, T., Fischer, B., Friedrichkeit, A., Fureder, S.,Holblinger, E., Jorg, K., Kaspar, E., Kottstorfer, M., Leitmeier, L., Mautner, C., Muhoberac, M.,Niederbichler, K., Reisenhofer, L., Rossegger, C., Samonig, A., Samonig, S., Schinnerl, C.,Schuster, C., Steindl, L., Taurer, A., Witz, G., Zotter, V., Kapper, C., Lehner, D. andAhamer, G. (2013b), “University of Graz and other eighteen universities’ curricula for globalstudies: comparisons and improvements”, in Grinin, L., Ilyin, I. and Korotayev, A. (Eds),Globalistics and Globalization Studies – Theories, Research & Teaching, UchitelPublishing House, Volgograd, pp. 348-384, available at: www.socionauki.ru/book/globalistics_and_globalization_studies_2_en/or; http://books.google.at/books?id¼1UwmQ9srjxgC (accessed 8 August 2013).

72

CWIS31,1

Barker, C. (2008), Cutural Studies: Theory and Practice, 3rd ed., Sage publications India Pvt Ltd,London, Thousand Oaks, CA, and Singapore, available at: http://books.google.at/books?id¼9Vcs0QIfM-4C&pg¼PA159

BBC (2009), “Sharia”, available at: www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/islam/beliefs/sharia_1.shtml(accessed 7 August 2013).

Beg, M.A. (2006), “Decline of Islamic civilizations – causes – time for a new paradigm”, availableat: www.countercurrents.org/beg-250706.htm (accessed 8 July 2013).

Bliss, F. (2000), “EþZ – Entwicklung und Zusammenarbeit”, available at: http://www3.giz.de/EþZ/zeitschr/ez100-5.htm (accessed 7 August 2013).

Chapra, M. (2008), “Ibn Khaldun’s theory of development: does it help explain the lowperformance of the present-day muslim world?”, Journal of Socio-Economics, Vol. 37, No. 2,pp. 836-863, available at: www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1053535707000960(accessed 14 May 2013).

Chase-Dunn, C., Kawano, Y. and Brewer, B. (2000), “Trade globalization since 1795: waves ofintegration in the world-system”, American Sociological Review, Vol. 65 No. 1, pp. 77-95,available at: www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/2657290 (accessed 7 August 2013).

Corporation Conjecture (2013), “What is modernization theory”, available at: www.wisegeek.org/what-is-modernization-theory.htm (accessed 8 July 2013).

Elbahnasawy, R. (2010), “Islamic golden age”, available at: www.elbahnasawy.com/author/index.php?option¼com_content&view¼article&id¼48:islamic (accessed7 August 2013).

Encyclopedia Britannica (2013), “Bureaucracy”, available at: www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/84999/bureaucracy (accessed 7 August 2013).

Haddad Macron, M. (1979), Arab-Americans & Their Communities of Cleveland, Cleveland StateUniversity, Ohio,OH, available at: www.clevelandmemory.org/ebooks/arabs/

Hanlon, Q. (2011), “State actors in the 21st century security environment.In Washington, USA: National Strategy Information Center”, available at: www.strategycenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/State-Actors-21st-Century.pdf (accessed8 August 2013).

Hassan, F.H. (2006), Ibn Khaldun and Jane Addams: The Real Father of Sociology andThe Mother of Social Works, Universidad Nacional de Education a Distancia,Madrid, pp. 1-23, available at: www.uned.es/congreso-ibn-khaldun/pdf/04 FaridahHj Hassan.pdf

Hobson, J.M. (2004), The Eastern Origins of Western Civilisation, Cambridge University Press,Cambridge, available at: http://books.google.at/books?id¼KQN85hrJyT4C

Hozien, M. (2001), “Ibn Khaldun”, available at: www.muslimphilosophy.com/ik/klf.htm#INTnM(accessed 7 August 2013).

James, R.B. and Hassan, M.K. (2010), “Ibn Khaldun and Adam Smith: contributionsto theory of division of labor and modern economic thought”, available at: http://muslimheritage.com/topics/default.cfm?ArticleID¼1206 (accessed 7 August 2013).

Johnson, R. and Libecap, G. (1994), “The problem of bureaucracy”, in National Bureau ofEconomic (Ed.), The Federal Civil Service System and the Problem of Bureaucracy,University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL, pp. 1-11.

Johnson, T. and Vriens, L. (2013), “Islam: governing under Sharia”, Council on Foreign Relation,available at: www.cfr.org/religion-and-politics/islam-governing-under-sharia/p8034(accessed 7 August 2013).

Karatas, D. (2006), “The economic theory of Ibn Khaldun and the rise and fall of nations”,p. 3, available at: www.muslimheritage.com/uploads/The Economic Theory of IbnKhaldun.pdf (accessed 8 July 2013).

73

Twodevelopment

theories

Khaldun, I., Rosenthal, F. and Dawood, N. (1978), “The Muqaddimah”, available at:http://journals.cambridge.org/production/action/cjoGetFulltext?fulltextid¼7580964(accessed 8 August 2013).

Mohammad, F. (1998), “Ibn Khaldun’s theory of social change: a comparison withHegel, Marx and Durkheim”, The American Journal of Islamic Social Sciences,Vol. 2 No. 15, pp. 25-45, available at: http://i-epistemology.net/attachments/626_V15N2 Summer 98 - Mohammad - Ibn Khalduns Theory of Social Change.pdf(accessed 8 August 2013).

Oweiss, I. (1988), “Ibn Khaldun, the father of economics”, Arab Civilization: Challenges andResponses, pp. 112-127, available at: http://www9.georgetown.edu/faculty/imo3/ibn.htm;http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl¼en&btnG¼Search&q¼intitle:IbnþKhaldun,þ theþFatherþ ofþEconomics (accessed 8 July 2013).

Sonn, T. (2010), Islam: A Brief History, 2nd ed., Wiley-Blackwell, Singapore, available at: http://books.google.com/books?hl¼en&lr¼&id¼O36yXxCMiQIC&oi¼fnd&pg¼PR9&dq¼Islam:þAþBriefþHistory&ots¼5IsAK9PckT&sig¼eXTXbAe6cNE3wfL3ltt1WWQYXSo(accessed 8 July 2013).

Standke, C. (2008), “Sharia – the islamic law”, available at: http://books.google.at/books?id¼w7t2eN0gXVQC&printsec¼frontcover&dq¼articlesþ aboutþ sharia&hl¼de&sa¼X&ei¼g9cAUqmVJ8-v4QT88YDgDQ&redir_esc¼y#v¼onepage&q¼articlesaboutsharia&f¼false(accessed 8 August 2013).

Stowasser, B.F. (1983), Religion and Political Development: Comparative Ideas on Ibn Khaldunand Machiavelli C for C. A. Studies, Georgetown University, Georgetown, available at:http://ccas.georgetown.edu/document/1242771053507/IBN_Text_MK.pdf

Swatos, W.H. (2011), “Content pages of the encyclopedia of religion and social science”, availableat: hirr.hartsem.edu (accessed 8 August 2013).

Wallerstein, I. (1976), The Modern World-System: Capitalist Agriculture and the Originsof the European World-Economy in the Sixteenth Century, Academic Press,New York, NY.

About the author

After finishing high school in Tabriz, Iran, Atousa Amirabedini continued her education at theTabriz State University in Law. After finishing her bachelor thesis in Law (about “Comparison oflaw in different countries about child abuse”), she started her master’s in Private Law at theTabriz State University, International Campus. After her first year of the master’s programme inTabriz, the author moved to Austria, to continue her master’s degree in the programme of GlobalStudies at the Karl-Franzens University of Graz. Atousa Amirabedini can be contacted at:atousa.amirabedini@edu.uni-graz.at

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.comOr visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

74

CWIS31,1