{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.023048716605552647, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0020953378732320588, 'mean_word_length': 5.51877133105802, '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': 1, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
National Political-Economic Dependency in the Global Economy and Educational Development

During the last half decade American scholars have begun quantitative examination of dependency theory, a body of thought which directly challenges the central claims of modernization theory. The traditional understanding of modernization holds that internal qualities of developing nations, their endogenetic properties, are the principal obstacles to progressive development, cultural and economic. Since the mid-1950s a contrary theory has arisen, first in Latin America, then in Africa. Its many versions all put the burden of underdevelopment on exogenetic factors, more or less perpetrated upon a defenseless periphery by core countries, whose own economic survival demands specific types of political-economic domination of their vulnerable neighbors. The responsible theorists (e.g., Andre Gunder Frank, Samir Amin, Giovanni Arrighi, Arghiri Emmanuel, Christian Palloix, Pierre Jalee, Fernando Cardoso, Enzo Faletto, and many others) argue that Third World countries (a term they repudiate) will never be allowed to develop in league with the First World because their roles as providers of natural resources and cheap labor, plus ready, manipulable markets, have stabilized in the world economy. It is argued that no matter what steps such nations or regions might take to gain prosperity and the positive features of modernity, their efforts will always be thwarted by comprador elites within their own borders who serve the core or by actual forces of the core itself, political, economic, or military. A more sophisticated argument charges that the world economy-in spite of immediate appearances-is now such a finely oiled machine that First World interests are naturally served by it, requiring very little overt abusive management of peripheral countries as was the case in earlier stages of imperalism.'