{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.03087248322147651, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0026845637583892616, 'mean_word_length': 6.168269230769231, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 2, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
The Korean Road to Modernization and Development (review)

The Kim Young Sam-Kim Dae Jung split; the social position of the eleventh class of the Korean Military Academy; the Bank of Korea's credit lifeline to the chaeböL·; the monopolistic-monopsonistic relationship between the National Agricultural Cooperatives Federation (nonghyöp) and the farmers—what do these defining characteristics of the Korean political economy have in common? According to Normanjacobs, each reflects patrimonial principles of social organization that undergird the Korean social structure. Jacobs's The Korean Road to Modernization and Development is about social domination, that is, the social relationships of domination and subordination that determine the distribution of authoritative (political) and allocative (economic) resources among social groups (see Giddens 1985). According to Jacobs, patrimonial ordering principles permeate all major Korean social institutions and, as a result, explain much about the postwar Korean (Republic of Korea) response to modernization/development imperatives. Jacobs resurrects classical sociological arguments (put forth by Marx and Weber, among others) specifying a distinctive "Asiatic" or "Oriental" mode of social domination. In premodern Asian agrarian societies, relations of domination/subordination in political and economic life were based ultimately on discretionary grants of authority and prerogatives from superiors to subordinates (e.g., tax farming