{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.03165182987141444, 'fraction_numerical': 0.005934718100890208, 'mean_word_length': 5.746666666666667, '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}}
From ‘Winners and Losers’ to New Authority Structures in Ecological Policy

This comment on a series of conference papers describes the extreme difficulty of accurately measuring costs and benefits of ecological policies and connecting them to specific social groups. It also explores the implications of three key characteristics of modern ecological scholarship: (1) it treats ecological authority as considerably more concentrated than it in fact is; (2) it labors under a very limited ability to analyze the cumulative effects of systems of rules, and (3) it manifests a near-crippling lack of attention to the policy roles of non-governmental, non-market international organizations. Accordingly, this comment stresses three pressing tasks for research and analysis: (1) developing a stronger capacity to analyze the cumulative effects of rules; (2) integrating, streamlining, or harmonizing federal environmental laws; and (3) systematic research on transnational non-governmental policy-making processes.