{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.03746654772524532, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0053523639607493305, 'mean_word_length': 5.485549132947977, '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': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Recalculating the Scientific Tariff

In part 2 of his classic 1960 paper, "The Cost of Protection and the Scientific Tariff," Harry G. Johnson analyzed the second-best' problem of using tariffs to promote "noneconomic" objectives commonly suggested as arguments for protection. Very simply, Johnson showed how to compute the balance between marginal benefits and marginal costs using Harberger-type welfare triangles. He illustrated the methodology for five selected noneconomic objectives: (a) a tariff to promote self-sufficiency and independence; (b) a tariff to promote diversification, industrialization, or agriculturalization; (c) a tariff to promote a "way of life"; (d) a tariff to increase military preparedness; and (e) a bargaining tariff. Johnson assumed that world prices of importables are given, that domestic production of importables is positive before and after imposition of the tariff, and that cross-elasticity effects can be neglected.2 Using linear demand and supply curves and free-trade values for market parameters, Johnson computed the marginal cost of an ad valorem tariff (t) to be precisely