In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

88BOOK REVIEWS at any historical epoch, is inevitably affected by the dominant values, culture, and social institutions. Similarly, what is going to be defined as "the maximization of the potential of a society" is invariably determined by those who control dominant institutions, which is not only true in Korea but also true in Western developed societies. I simply cannot see any reason for making these unnecessary conceptual distinctions. More problematic is Jacobs's empirical conclusions. There is no question that a patrimonial element has left a lasting imprint on the processes of Korean modernization and development, and also that contemporary Korean society still reveals much of this old traditional feature. But it is one thing to say this, and another to argue that the enormous industrial change that has occurred in recent decades has made no serious impact on the patrimonial institutional structure. I tend to believe that Jacobs overstates the persistence of a patrimonial element, while underestimating the significance of many qualitative changes that have been occurring in the Korean economy and society. I wonder how he can argue, for example, that "In spite of the many formal changes in the Korean commercial economy, the contemporary market is as institutionally patrimonial in character, and as ill adapted to serve the needs of a developing commercial and industrial economy, as ever. " (p. 135) Or how can he suggest that the contemporary Korean stratification system is a "two-class system"—classes meaning status groups here—consisting of "yangban officeholders and their descendants on the one hand, and all others in the society" on the other? (p. 199) I think that these observations are plainly faulty. Jacobs is good at delineating some generic characteristics of Korean institutions but seems not so well tuned to observing important changes in recent periods. Although he suggests that his study covers up to the late 1970s, I suspect that his empirical reference points are much earlier periods. Despite these problems, I believe that this is one of the most thoughtful and interesting books written on Korean modernization. Hagen Koo University of Hawaii Rural Development Studies: Korea and Developing Countries, by In Keun Wang. Seoul: Seoul National University Press, 1987, distributed by the University of Hawaii Press. 585 pp. No index. $35. Seoul National University has performed a valuable service to students of Korea by publishing in English a series ofvolumes ofcollected papers by various scholars attached to that institution. These books, some of which contain material not otherwise readily accessible, provide a wealth of disparate data, bound by authorship rather than themes. This volume falls within this category. Wang In Keun, professor of rural sociology and development at Seoul National University, has had a distinguished career, one that has allowed him to explore rural development issues both in Korea and in a variety of other BOOK REVIEWS89 societies. Therefore these fifteen papers, spanning over a generation from 1960 to 1985, taken as a whole have a comparative perspective so often lacking in works less catholic in their approaches. Dr. Wang, reflecting his role as an advisor to international organizations, has been conscious of combining theoretical approaches to rural development issues with very practical policy recommendations for rural improvement. A number of the papers included here are founded on empirical Korean survey research, and thus have special relevance to scholars concerned with exploring issues in rural development and in extrapolating from the Korean situation lessons for other nations. Of the fifteen papers, the first seven focus on Korea, and will be of the most interest to readers of Korean Studies. Detailed studies of aspects of rural development in Korea are welcome, because academic attention has concentrated on industrial development and export-led growth. Within the rural sector, the Saemaül Undong [New Community Movement] is the principal concern. These seven papers concern the adoption of modern recommendations in three farm communities (1965); participation in rural action organizations (1967); a family-planning opinion survey in villages (1975); diffusion and acceptance of improved food production techniques (1971); the agricultural technology transfer system (1984); trends in rural, especially integrated, development (1984); and agricultural extension work (1960). The eight remaining papers discuss from a comparative perspective cooperative farming, agricultural cooperatives, agricultural...

pdf

Share