{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.025925925925925925, 'fraction_numerical': 0.018518518518518517, 'mean_word_length': 5.434523809523809, '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}}
Land Tenure and Agricultural Productivity on Indian Reservations

A GRICULTURAL success stories are the exception on Indian reservations, where potentially productive land often sits idle, growing weeds and eroding. Despite abundant natural resources, including land, timber, wildlife, and energy, reservation Indians remain among the most impoverished of Americans. The 1980 census showed that 14 percent of Indian households on reservations had incomes of less than $2,500 per year, compared with 5 percent for the overall U.S. population. At the other end of the income distribution, only 6 percent of reservation households had incomes greater than $30,000, compared with 20 percent for the nation as a whole.1 Explanations of low agricultural productivity on reservations have focused on insufficient physical and human capital, poor land quality, and lack of motivation, but little attention has been given to institutions. Dismissing a lack of human capital as the reason for Indian cattle-ranching inefficiency, Ronald Trosper concluded that "land tenure or other institu-