{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.015133876600698487, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.2773722627737225, '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}}
Why Weakness is a Strength

National level studies of the policy process generally focus on the distributional question, Who gets what from government? Urban studies, however, tend to center on some combination of distribution and production—where resources come from as well as where they go. The recent urban literature has emphasized the dependence of cities on external forces. National studies often read as if political decisions are made autonomously. I argue here that the weakness of cities as political entities forces scholars to be more sensitive to fresh theoretical approaches. However, urban analysis also has been more fad driven and less secure in its methodological foundations. The critical issue is whether urban scholarship can transcend its insecure status, serving as a source for change in generally staid mainstream disciplinary work.