{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.016241299303944315, 'fraction_numerical': 0.01740139211136891, 'mean_word_length': 5.689922480620155, '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': 1, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Summary of General Discussion on “An Empirical Analysis of China's Dualistic Economic Development: 1965–2009”

Asian Economic Papers 10:3 © 2011 The Earth Institute at Columbia University and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology Fredrik Sjöholm asked for alternative methodological approaches. He noted that the production function assumes perfect competitive product and factor markets, which is a particularly troublesome assumption in studies on labor surplus. Agnes Benassy agreed and talked about how different market forms might affect the estimates. Bhanupong Nidiprabha discussed the econometric model and noted that it is based on an assumption of large sample properties. Nidiprabha suggested that alternative models might be appropriate to give an idea of the results robustness, as the study includes less than the needed number of observations.