Do political and economic development go together? Do countries that develop economically also become more democratic? The question posed can best be explored through the lens of Modernization Theory, which in part originated with Lipset's 1959 formulation that the prospects for prosperity of democracy within a country are directly related to its level of economic development. Przeworski clarified Lipset's theories by hypothesizing that economic well-being dovetails with democracy because wealth reduces the intensity of group or individual conflicts over the distribution of resources. Democracy – which through representative government is perceived as the most egalitarian form of government – ​​is widely considered the fundamental criterion of what makes a country or nation-state “modern”. Lipset argues that economic development triggers a series of profound social changes, such as greater urbanization, education, and communication, which in turn lead to larger middle classes and greater social equality. All these elements combined, Lipset argues in his award-winning 1963 book, Political Man, provide the necessary framework for the emergence of democratic institutions. Today, China maintains all these socioeconomic elements. Therefore, we are faced with something of a conundrum. Either we must interpret that modernization theory is dead, or, according to its principles, that China's democratization is latent and will materialize at a later time. After throwing open its doors to capitalist investment and expanding at a miraculous pace over the past three decades, China has now overtaken Japan to become the world's second largest economy. Since the early 1980s, China's economy has transformed from a centrally planned system… middle of paper… if we are to ignore Luciani's deconstruction of the concept of modernity as explored above – which questions what it means to be modern – it is clear that even in Lipset's terms, modern China is a testimony to the failure of the teleology of modernization. So far, there are no signs of growing political freedom or free elections, despite the country's growing power and the real likelihood that it will soon challenge America's coveted “last remaining superpower” status. Despite MacDonald's superficial presence, it remains fundamentally unrecognizable to Western eyes, and there seems little chance of it transforming into a democracy, as long as the regime continues to exercise authoritarian rule while denying a culture of openness to one of the most important countries. "collective security".’.