Dual Sector Models

dual differing impact on 𝑌^∗. 𝑌^∗ tends to rise as demand increases due to fall in input cost and thus price of rural industrial goods (𝑝). On the other hand, 𝑌^∗ tends to fall due to decline in consumption demand of rural industrial workers’ with decrease in the number of workers per unit of output. Hence, change in 𝑌^∗ with change in 𝑎 is analysed to understand, which of the aforementioned effects prevail. In the medium-run growth framework, with a decline in 𝑎 wage bill falls and profits rise. This is likely to improve investment and lead to the growth of the rural industrial segment.

The existing dual sector models (Lewis, 1954; Fei and Ranis, 1961; Harris and Todaro, 1970; Bose, 1989; Dasgupta and Sinha, 1989; Hymer and Resnick, 1969; Rakshit,1982;

Ranis and Stewart; 1993) explore the linkages between the agricultural sector and the industrial sector and explain the process underlying phenomenon observed in one or both the sectors. Strictly speaking our model only explores the rural industrial sector.

However, it captures the agricultural sector implicitly through the agricultural sector’s nuanced influence on some of the key variables of the rural industrial sector. This is the rationale for studying the aforementioned dual sector models in the next section.

solely with agricultural activities; they have constructed dual sector models of the rural economy comprising of an agricultural sector and a non-agricultural sector.

Lewis’s (ibid) model is essentially a study on how a poor economy is getting industrialised in the long-run through the process of labour reallocation from the agricultural sector to the industrial sector. This continues until the turning point is reached by when surplus labour has been totally transferred out of the agricultural sector at no additional cost. Then the marginal product of labour starts exceeding the prevailing agricultural wage rate. This leads to a rise in agricultural wages. The lasting legacy of Lewis’s model is thinking of development as a process of structural transformation (Ranis, 2004; Basu, 1998; Kirkpatrick and Barrientos, 2004).

Ranis and Fei (ibid) extended and formalized the Lewis model, thereby adding rigour to the analysis of the transition of an underdeveloped economy. In the Lewis-Ranis-Fei model there is neither any constraint on capitalists’ surplus nor of surplus labour in the agricultural sector, so the cycle of reinvestment, the creation of new capital, further expansion of the industrial sector and absorption of surplus labour from the subsistence sector proceeds smoothly over a protracted period of time. This smooth progression is not evidenced in the real world as pointed out by Dasgupta and Sinha (ibid). There are fluctuations in the rate of growth of industrial output in most developing economies.

Harris and Todaro’s (ibid) model is also in the genre of a labour reallocation model in a developing economy. Workers decide to be in the rural or in the urban on the basis of their expectations to maximize their earnings.

Bose’s (ibid) dual sector model addresses issues pertaining to an economy like India. He examines short-run determinants of demand of mass consumption good. He formalizes

good production sector. He shows how the price of food plays a significant role in determining the demand for, the output of and employment of the mass consumption good sector. His analysis also includes the impact of the change in agricultural output on food equilibrium and clothing equilibrium.

Dasgupta and Sinha (1989) argue that the effect of deteriorating terms of trade against industry with the transfer of surplus labour is significant even in the short run and results in fluctuation of output growth rate.

Rakshit’s (ibid) model has a rural non-agricultural sector and an agricultural sector and none of the sectors follow the capitalist mode of production. The rural non-agricultural sector produces traditional goods for local consumption. Agriculture is the dominant sector of the rural economy in terms of employment and output. His model identifies factors determining the growth of output of the agricultural sector. It argues that growth in agricultural output favourably impacts employment in both the sectors of the rural economy.

The next two models analyse production possibilities in a rural open economy and the effect of colonial rule on it. Hymer and Resnick’s (ibid) dual sector model looks at the impact of colonial rule on rural non-agricultural activities. The rural non-agricultural sector (termed 𝑧 sector) produces traditional goods for local consumption (termed 𝑧 goods). The model goes on to explain how linking of the rural market with the world market in the colonial period led to rise in demand for cash crops and consumption of imported manufactured goods. This led to the agricultural sector producing crops for the world and a resultant fall in rural non-agricultural activity. This is in line with the neoclassical model of trade (Heckscher Ohlin model) where poor labour surplus countries specialise in agricultural goods, which are labour intensive.

Ranis and Stewart’s (ibid) model is a digression from Hymer and Resnick’s model. In their model the 𝑧-sector has two sub-sectors, one produces 𝑧 goods and the other produces non-traditional modern goods, termed 𝑧_𝑚 goods. Unlike Hymer and Resnick, they argue that 𝑧_𝑚 goods had a presence even in the colonial era. The agricultural sector has two sub-sectors, one produces crops (𝐴_𝑑 ) for domestic consumption and the other produces cash crops for export (𝐴_𝑒 ). Technological advancement in 𝐴_𝑑 sector releases resources to the 𝑧-goods sector and raises demand for the goods of the 𝑧-goods sector.

They show how a dynamic agricultural sector and modernization of the 𝑧-goods sector led to equitable development, both under colonial and post-colonial favourable archetype. They validate their claim empirically using data from the Philippines and Taiwan. They also bring forth the fact that historical reasons and government policy decide whether an economy qualifies as a favourable or an unfavourable post-colonial archetype.

Our model addresses issues pertaining to an economy like India. Most existing models that capture trends and relationships in such economies do not associate (Rakshit, 1982;

Bose, 1985; Dasgupta and Sinha, 1989) the capitalist mode of production with the rural sector. This is also true for models in the genre of labour reallocation (Lewis, 1954;

Harris and Todaro, 1970). This implies that the capitalists’ savings (that is, private capital) are available for investment only in the urban realm. The exception is Ranis and Stewart’s (1993) model, but its focus is on inter-sectoral dynamics between the agricultural sector and the 𝑧 − sector and its impact on production possibilities and consumption possibilities, during the process of development of a rural economy. It is true that the spatial coverage of our model is limited in comparison to Ranis and Stewart’s (ibid) model, which captures the agricultural sector, the rural traditional

Our model focuses on getting a detailed understanding of the workings of the rural industries segment with an objective to underscore its potential. It models a rural economy that has two sectors: agriculture and the rural industrial sector (which an be alternately termed as the rural modern sector). The framework examines the change in short-run equilibrium output (𝑌^∗) of the rural industrial sector with change in rural industrial wage rate (𝑤_𝑛) and labour per unit of output (𝑎). that is, reciprocal of labour productivity Ours is different from Bose’s (1985) model, which examined the short-run determinants of the urban modern mass consumption goods segment under constancy of nominal wages and varying food prices. Moreover, our model also determines the factors driving growth (𝑔) of output of the rural industrial sector in the medium-run.

The first result obtained from our model is that a rise in 𝑤_𝑛 leads to an increase in 𝑌^∗. The logic underlying our result is that an increase in rural industrial wage rate (𝑤_𝑛) increases demand (𝐷_𝑖𝑤) for rural industrial goods (demand-side effect) as well as price (𝑝) of rural industrial goods (the supply-side effect). The demand-side effect prevails over the supply-side effect, hence 𝑌^∗ rises with rise in 𝑤_𝑛. The second result obtained from our model is that in the short-run 𝑌^∗ increases with fall in labour productivity (¹

𝑎) and vice versa. This is so as the demand side effect (increase in demand for industrial goods (𝐷_𝑖𝑤 ) with rise in number of industrial workers per unit of output (𝑎)) prevails over the supply side effect (rise in price of industrial goods, 𝑝 with increase in input cost due to rise in 𝑎 ).The third result from our model is that in the medium-run growth rate (𝑔) of rural industrial output increases with i) increase in labour productivity (¹

𝑎), ii) decrease in 𝑤_𝑛 and iii) increase in capital productivity (¹

𝑣). This is so as profit share (𝜃) increases with increase in ¹

𝑎 and decline in 𝑤_𝑛. This, coupled with the increase

in capital productivity (¹

𝑣) increases profit rate (𝑅) of the rural industrial segment. An increased value of profit rate (𝑅) gives an increased value of 𝑔.