{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.01634241245136187, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 4.206477732793522, '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}}
The New Bretton Woods

In thinking about the institutional needs of the decade or so that lies ahead, I start from the position that the demands for a New International Economic Order gave a useful jolt to our thinking when they were first put forward but that the debate is tending to become a sterile one, conducted, in its turn, in terms that have become too time-bound, too prone to look at the system as it was a decade or so ago, not as it is today, or as it may be tomorrow if it evolves along the lines that are now visible. Much has changed since the planning was done for the United Nations and for the Bretton Woods organizations at the end of the Second World War; those institutions have evolved in many ways and many new institutions have been created in the last thirty-five years to meet new needs as they have developed. But today's system is not only very different from what it was thirty-five years ago, it is also different from what it was ten years ago or even five years ago. The interesting questions are whether the changes that have been made and those that are in train are likely to be adequate to meet the needs that can now be foreseen, or whether, as I believe, the process of evolution needs a little nudging, and what kinds of nudging might be useful.