{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.03922872340425532, 'fraction_numerical': 0.003989361702127659, 'mean_word_length': 5.142857142857143, '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}}
Book Review: Labor Economics: Wage Dispersion: Why are Similar Workers Paid Differently?

Veblenian Economics. One argument for "Veblenian" is that itwould recognize the founding father of the tradition in the same way that "Keynesian" and "Marxian" do. The term would also have the advantage of suggesting an overall rubric for the field, resting on three emphases: evolution, culture, and instrumental value theory. And such a name might dispel the air of mustiness that has sometimes clung to discussions of "old" institutional economics. Kaufman, whose contribution is one of the best in the book, does address the question of definition. When we "step back and examine the corpus of institutional economics writ large," he writes, we must ask, "What defines the common denominator that unites [these works] as institutional?" (pp. 14, 24). But his answer and conclusion are wanting, I believe: "institutional economists in recent years have succeeded in formalizing and developing a core theoretical model, built around the concept of transaction cost... an agenda of heterodox-theory development built around the transaction concept" (p. 35). While this quasi-definition can certainly be defended-it is close to John Commons's conceptualization of the field-I believe it lacks the holistic scope and interdisciplinary connections afforded by the concept of culture that is a core concept of Veblenian Economics. Overall, this book is a welcome, necessary addition to labor economics literature. The