{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02248062015503876, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0015503875968992248, 'mean_word_length': 5.654639175257732, '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}}
Insecurity, Inequality, and Obesity in Affluent Societies

motives of individual migrants as ‘‘insignificant’’ (p. 40). This exploration of emigration and political development at multiple scales reflects the author’s thoroughness, but it calls into question the conclusions Moses himself advances about the appropriate level at which to consider migration’s effects. It also creates confusion about the author’s central project. In the midst of these somewhat obfuscating deliberations about scale and the definition of political development, the relationships of causality that the author seems fundamentally concerned with are lost. These relationships are most helpfully and insightfully examined in the more qualitative and historical portions of this book. While these sections can provide no cross-cutting and definitive answers about the causal relationship between emigration and political development, they raise important questions that can usefully be applied at multiple scales and in different contexts. These questions offer unique windows onto the ways that migration may nudge, or perhaps even shove, political processes in any given direction. These windows are helpful, however, only if we acknowledge their limitations; they allow us to see and contemplate only so much.