As I understand your comment, you think the structure of the report is something like:
Here’s our main model
Here are it’s implications
By the way, here’s something else to note that isn’t included in the formal analysis
That’s not how I interpret the report’s framing. I read it more as:
Here’s our main model focused on direct benefits
There are other direct benefits, such as Charter Cities as Laboratories of Governance
Those indirect benefits might out-weight the direct ones, and might make Charter Cities attractive from a hits-based perspective
One concern with the conception of Charter Cities as Laboratories of Governance is that it adds to the neocolonialist critique.
“the laboratories of governance model may add to the neocolonialist critique of charter cities. Charter cities are not only risky, they are also controversial… Whether or not this criticism is justified, it would probably resonate with many socially-minded individuals, thereby reducing the appeal of charter cities.”
So that’s a bit different. It’s not “here’s a random side note”. It’s “Although we focus on modeling X, Charter Cities advocates might say the real value comes from Y, but we’re not focusing on Y, in part, because of this neocolonialist critique.”
As I understand your comment, you think the structure of the report is something like:
Here’s our main model
Here are it’s implications
By the way, here’s something else to note that isn’t included in the formal analysis
That’s not how I interpret the report’s framing. I read it more as:
Here’s our main model focused on direct benefits
There are other direct benefits, such as Charter Cities as Laboratories of Governance
Those indirect benefits might out-weight the direct ones, and might make Charter Cities attractive from a hits-based perspective
One concern with the conception of Charter Cities as Laboratories of Governance is that it adds to the neocolonialist critique.
“the laboratories of governance model may add to the neocolonialist critique of charter cities. Charter cities are not only risky, they are also controversial… Whether or not this criticism is justified, it would probably resonate with many socially-minded individuals, thereby reducing the appeal of charter cities.”
So that’s a bit different. It’s not “here’s a random side note”. It’s “Although we focus on modeling X, Charter Cities advocates might say the real value comes from Y, but we’re not focusing on Y, in part, because of this neocolonialist critique.”