In this chapter, we consider a combination of a traditional dualistic economy model with a differentiated mixed oligopoly model. As shown in Chap. 3, Harris and Todaro , who produced a pioneer study in the analysis of dualistic economy, describe a dualistic economy by assuming downward rigidity of wages in an urban area and explain the occurrence of unemployment endogenously. Although the Harris and Todaro model is important for the study of dualistic economy analysis, it is difficult to say that the setting necessarily accords with reality. As we have already referred in Chap. 3, the Harris and Todaro model has been extended from various viewpoints. Corden and Findlay  extend the Harris and Todaro model by taking account of mobile capital between regions. Calvo  introduces the behavior of labor unions into the Harris and Todaro model and determines the higher fixed wage in an urban area endogenously. Fukuyama and Naito  also introduce polluting goods into the Harris and Todaro model and analyze the effect of environmental policy on urban unemployment. Naito  combines a mixed duopoly with Fukuyama and Naito . Although he analyzes the effect of public firm privatization on urban unemployment , Naito  deals not with differentiated goods but with homogeneous goods. In the real world, it is not natural to assume homogeneous goods produced in an urban area. Although Beladi and Chao  consider the mixed ownership of single national firm and show that the privatization can improve social welfare in the long run, they do not deal with a mixed oligopoly market.
Social Welfare Private Firm Public Firm Good Sector Agricultural Good
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.
Beladi, H., & Chao, C. (2006). Mixed ownership, unemployment, and welfare for a developing economy. Review of Development Economics, 10(4), 604–611.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Calvo, G. A. (1978). Urban unemployment and wage determination in LDC’s: Trade unions in the Harris–Todaro model. International Economic Review, 19(1), 65–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corden, W. M., & Findlay, R. (1975). Urban unemployment, intersectoral capital mobility and development policy. Economica, 42(165), 59–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Fraja, G., & Delbono, F. (1990). Game theoretic models of mixed oligopoly. Journal of Economic Surveys, 4(1), 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fujiwara, K. (2007). Partial privatization in a differentiated mixed oligopoly. Journal of Economics, 92(1), 51–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fukuyama, H., & Naito, T. (2007). Unemployment, trans-boundary pollution, and environmental policy in a dualistic economy. Review of Urban and Regional Development Studies, 19(2), 154–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harris, J. R., & Todaro, M. P. (1970). Migration, unemployment and development: A two-sector analysis. American Economic Review, 60(1), 126–142.Google Scholar
Matsumura, T. (1998). Partial privatization in mixed duopoly. Journal of Public Economics, 70(3), 473–483.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matsumura, T., & Kanda, O. (2005). Mixed oligopoly at free entry markets. Journal of Economics, 84(1), 27–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Naito, T. (2012). Urban–rural migration, unemployment, and privatization: A synthesis of Harris–Todaro model and a mixed duopoly. Letters in Spatial and Resource Sciences, 5(2), 85–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ottaviano, G., Tabuchi, T., & Thisse, J. F. (2002). Agglomeration and trade revisited. International Economic Review, 43(2), 409–436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar