{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.029053420805998126, 'fraction_numerical': 0.016869728209934397, 'mean_word_length': 5.068181818181818, '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}}
Summary of General Discussion on “Pro-rural Policies, Income, and Inequality: Evaluating a Cash-for-Work Program in Rural China”

Asian Economic Papers 13:3 © 2014 The Earth Institute, Columbia University and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology doi:10.1162/ASEP_a_00298 Jane Golley expanded upon the long-term implications of the study raised by the discussants, reoecting on the wide range of issues required for a full cost–beneat analysis, including whether or not there were serious environmental beneats to protecting the forest (or whether the village might be better off to chop the trees all down and earn the income from that), whether it might be better to simply provide handouts for educating the children, whether the money earned from forest ranging (i.e., wandering in the forest) could feasibly be used to promote migration or any other kind of gainful employment in the future, given the low average levels of education, and whether there might be any other kind of program that could build skills and/or provide income stability at lower cost.