{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.020994475138121547, 'fraction_numerical': 0.004419889502762431, 'mean_word_length': 4.6625, '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}}
Law and Economics in the Personal Sphere

Law and economics has encountered considerable hostility, but none more vehement than when it ventures into the personal sphere. Some of the criticism has been on moral or instrumental grounds. People oughtn’t to speak of the personal sphere as being a market. Or if people do speak of the personal sphere in market terms, before we know it, the personal sphere will turn into a market (or more of a market than it already is?). Included in this category is what I would characterize as “shoot the messenger” type criticism: The argument being made is somehow too monstrous to contemplate. An example of work that has elicited such criticism is the article by John Donohue and Steve Levitt (2001) on the relationship between abortion rates and crime rates; Donohue and Levitt argued that the drop in crime rates might reflect that many would-be criminals had been