Liberalisation and Structural Change with Rural–Urban Dichotomies: A General Equilibrium Outlook

Author(s):  
Soumyatanu Mukherjee ◽  
Shreya Banerjee
2019 ◽  
Vol 36 (2) ◽  
pp. 32-71 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kym Anderson ◽  
Sundar Ponnusamy

Understanding how and why economies structurally transform as they grow is crucial for making sound national policy decisions. Typically, analysts who study this issue focus on sectoral shares of gross domestic product and employment. This paper extends those studies to include exports, including exports of services. It also considers mining, in addition to agriculture and manufacturing, and recognizes that some of the products of these four sectors are nontradable. The section on theory presents a general equilibrium model that provides hypotheses about structural change in different types of economies as they grow. These are then tested econometrically with annual data for the period 1991–2014 for a sample of 117 countries. The results point to the futility of adopting protective policies aimed at slowing deagriculturalization and subsequent deindustrialization in terms of sectoral shares, since those trends inevitably will accompany economic growth. Fortuitously, governments now have more efficient and equitable ways of supporting adjustments needed by people who choose or are forced to leave declining industries.


2019 ◽  
Vol 11 (3) ◽  
pp. 507-535 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yong Wang

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to explore how the processes of (de)industrialization and rural income distribution interact with each other and their implications for economic growth and welfare. Design/methodology/approach This paper takes a dynamic general-equilibrium and theoretical approach. Findings The author develops a dynamic general-equilibrium model to analytically characterize how (de) industrialization interacts with rural income distribution, and also explores the implications for aggregate GDP growth, the evolution of rural income distribution as well as welfare. Redistributive policies are shown to sometimes enhance GDP and welfare by boosting the production of the goods with high desirability (or productivity) but constrained by depressed demand due to income inequality, and internalizing the dynamic impact of private production and consumption decisions on future public productivities. Practical implications The research suggests that rural income distribution and (de)industrialization are intrinsically related, so policies or institutional distortions on one process would, in general, affect the other. Redistributive policies are shown to sometimes enhance GDP and welfare by enhancing industrialization. Originality/value The paper contributes to the literature of industrialization and structural change at large in several aspects. First, a key novel feature of our model is that the Engle’s law is captured by a quasi-linear utility function, which differs from the standard non-homothetic functions in this literature. Second, our paper contributes to the literature of structural change by showing how (de)industrialization works when sectorial productivity changes are endogenous. The paper also sheds light on the determination of rural income distribution and its evolution in the process of structural change and rural-urban migration.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document