Skip to main content

Physical Capital in Dual Economies

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Economic Growth and Development

Part of the book series: Springer Texts in Business and Economics ((STBE))

  • 1034 Accesses

Abstract

In this chapter we shift attention to industrialization and economic growth in dual economies. We focus again on the consequence of missing land markets, a common characteristic of developing economies that was documented in the previous chapter. Here we examine the connections between land ownership, saving, and physical capital formation.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 69.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Explicitly introducing the preferences that underlie the desire to bequeath land to children who continue the “farming” tradition does not affect the analysis qualitatively. It is worth showing that it can be done to complete the analysis and ensure that it is logically consistent. After Sect. 8.1 we return to the simpler approach that does not explicitly model the desire to keep land within the family.

  2. 2.

    We assume that the land is passed at death, rather than inter vivos, because this binds the children expecting to receive land to work on the family farm in their first period of adulthood.

  3. 3.

    The physical demands of farming help explain why the onset of the cottage industries and early factories increased the employment of women and children in the early stages of the Industrial Revolution, especially in regions dominated by the more strenuous Northern farming—hay, wheat, and dairy farming. For evidence in England , see Cunningham (1990) and Horrell and Humphries (1995). For the U.S., see Goldin and Sokoloff (1984).

  4. 4.

    Note that because preferences are identical, households in the traditional sector would prefer to work as much as those in the modern sector.

  5. 5.

    It is trickier to keep track of households in this chapter than in Chap. 6. In Chap. 6 it did not actually matter where we thought of workers residing because all households could work in either sector. Here, landless households can work in either sector, but landed households must reside and work in the traditional sector.

  6. 6.

    Static versions of the Specific Factors model date back to Jones (1971) and Samuleson (1971). A dynamic version of the model was first presented by Eaton (1987).

  7. 7.

    For more details see Mourmouras and Rangazas (2014).

  8. 8.

    We could have chosen a greater rise in the relative price but did not for the following reasons. As stressed by Quataert (1993), the rural sector, as is typically the case in developing economies, actually engaged in some informal manufacturing production . This means that the relative price of rural production did not rise as much as the relative price of food and primary commodities. We found that, with greater increases in the relative price of rural production, it was difficult to match the 1920 urbanization target without also assuming greater growth than was consistent with Pamuk’s findings (growth in per capita of less than one percent). A better way of addressing these points would be to allow the farmers to produce all types of goods, but we leave this for future work.

  9. 9.

    Taxing the return to capital, in addition, to wages would not alter the results much. In an open economy , the after-tax return to capital must remain equal to the after-tax world interest rate. Thus, country specific taxes cannot alter the after-tax return. However, higher taxes on capital in a given country will reduce that country’s capital-labor ratio. Thus, taxing capital in an open economy will be entirely shifted to labor by lowering before-tax wages. The primary difference between an income tax and a wage tax is that the economy reduces its capital-labor ratio as well as its total capital stock. See Problem 12.

  10. 10.

    Galor et al. (2009) provide a theory and supporting evidence that larger landowners have acted to slow the accumulation of human capital for similar reasons.

  11. 11.

    Our analysis ignores the growth in the size of government due to the growth in social transfers. This reason for the growth in government tends to occur in later stages of development as countries become more democratic. See Lindert (2004) for a thorough discussion of the connection between democracy and government size.

References

  • Acemoglu D, Robinson J (2012) Why nations fail. The origins of power, prosperity, and poverty. Crown Publishers, New York.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Alston L, Hatton T (1991) The earnings gap between agricultural and manufacturing laborers, 1925–1941. Journal of economic history 51(1):83–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arbatli, C (2016) Trade and income growth in the Ottoman Empire: Assessing the role of volatility and trend growth in the terms of trade. Eurasian Economic Review, 6, 173–194.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Banerjee A, Duflo E (2011) Poor economics. Public Affairs, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burgess R, Stern N (1993) Taxation and development. Journal of economic literature 31(2):762–830.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blattman C, Hwang J, Williamson J (2007) The impact of terms of trade on economic development in the periphery, 1870–1939: Volatility and secular change. Journal of development economics 82(1):156–179.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carter S, Ransom R, Sutch R (2003) Family matters: The life-cycle transition and the unparalleled fertility decline in antebellum America. In: Guinnane, T Sundstrom W, Whately W (eds) History matters: Essays on economic growth, technology, and demographic change. Stanford University Press, Stanford, California.

    Google Scholar 

  • Caselli, F, Coleman W (2001) The US structural transformation and regional convergence: A reinterpretation. Journal of political economy 109(3):584–616.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cavalcanti T, Mohaddes K, Raissi M (2012) Commodity price volatility and the sources of growth. IMF working paper 12/12. International Monetary Fund, Washington DC.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark G (2007) A farewell to alms. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Collier P, Radwan S, Wangwe S (1986) Labour and poverty in rural Tanzania: Ujameen and rural development in the United Republic of Tanzania. Oxford University Press, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cunningham H (1990) The employment and unemployment of children in England c. 1680–1851. Past and present 126:115–150.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • David P (1967) The growth of real product in the United States before 1840: New evidence, controlled conjectures. Journal of economic history 27(2):151–197.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deninger K, Squire L (1997) Explaining agricultural and agrarian policies in developing countries. Journal of economic literature 35(4):1958–2005.

    Google Scholar 

  • de Vries J, van de Woude A (1999) The first modern economy. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eaton J (1987) A dynamic specific factors model of international trade. Review of Economic Studies 54:325–338.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Erickson, L, Vollrath D (2004) Dimensions of land inequality and economic development. IMF Working Paper 158. International Monetary Fund, Washington DC.

    Google Scholar 

  • Galor O, Mountford A (2006) Trade and the great divergence: The family connection. American economic review 96(2):299–303.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Galor O, Mountford A (2008) Trading population for productivity: Theory and evidence. Review of economic studies 75(4):1143–1179.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Galor O, Moav O, Vollrath D (2009) Inequality in landownership, the emergence of human capital promoting institutions, and the great divergence. Review of economic studies 76(1):143–179.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goldin C, Sokoloff K (1984) The relative productivity hypothesis of industrialization: The American case 1820–1850. Quarterly journal of economics 99(3):461–490.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gollin D (2002) Getting income shares right. Journal of political economy 110(2):458–474.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gollin D (2014) The Lewis model: A sixty year retrospective. Journal of economic perspectives 28(3):71–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gollin D, Lagakos D, Waugh M (2014) The agricultural productivity gap. Quarterly journal of economics 129(2):939–993.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gordon R, Li W (2005) Tax structure in developing countries: Many puzzles and a possible explanation. NBER working paper 11267. National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haddard M, Lim J, Pancaro C, Saborowski C (2012) Trade openness and growth volatility. ECB working paper 1491. European Central Bank, Frankfurt.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hatton T, Williamson J (1992) What explains wages between the farm and city? Exploring the Todaro model with American evidence, 1890–1941. Economic development and cultural change 40:267–294

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Henderson V (2003) The urbanization process and economic growth: The so-what question. Journal of economic growth 8(1):47–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Horrell S, Humphries J (1995) The exploitation of little children: Child labor and the family in the industrial revolution. Explorations in economic history 32(4):485-516.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Issawi C (1980) The economic history of Turkey 1800–1914. Chicago University Press, Chicago.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jha R (2007) Fiscal policy in developing countries: A synoptic view. Australia South Asia Research Centre working paper 2007/01.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones R (1971) A three factor model in theory, trade and history. In Bhagwati J et al. (eds) Trade, balance of payments, and growth. North Holland, Amsterdam.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kendrick J (1961) Productivity trends in the United States. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey.

    Google Scholar 

  • La Porta R, Shleifer A (2014) Informality and development. Journal of Economic Perspectives 28(3):109–126.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lewis A (1954) Development with unlimited supplies of labor. The Manchester School 22:92–139.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Libecap G (2007) Property rights and federal land policy. In: Fishback P (ed) Government and the American economy. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lindert P (2004) Growing public. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Margo R (2000) Wages and labor markets in the United States 1820–1860. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mourmouras A, Rangazas P (2009a) Reconciling Kuznets and Habbakuk in a unified growth model. Journal of economic growth 14(2):149–181.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mourmouras A, Rangazas P (2009b) Fiscal policy and economic development. Macroeconomic dynamics 13(4):450–476.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mourmouras A, Rangazas P (2014) Deindustrialization and growth in the Ottoman empire. Working paper, IUPUI, Indianapolis.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pamuk S (2006) Estimating economic growth in the Middle East since 1820. Journal of economic history 66(1):809–828.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pamuk S, Williamson J (2011) Ottoman de-industrialization, 1800–1913: Assessing the magnitude, impact, and response. Economic history review 64:159–184.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peltzman S (1980) The growth of government. Journal of law and economics 23(2):209–287.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Samuelson P (1971) Ohlin was right. Swedish Journal of Economics 73:365–384.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stotsky J, WoldeMarian A (1997) Tax effects in sub-Saharan Africa. IMF working paper 97/107. International Monetary Fund, Washington DC.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tanzi V (1991) Structural factors and tax revenue in developing countries: A decade of evidence. International Monetary Fund, Washington DC.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tanzi V, Schuknecht L (2000) Public spending in the 20th century. Cambridge University Press, New York.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Quataert D (1993) Ottoman manufacturing in the age of the industrial revolution. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vollrath D (2014) The efficiency of human capital allocations in developing countries. University of Houston Working Paper 201307956.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williamson J (2011) Trade and poverty: When the third world fell behind. MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

    Book  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Appendix

Appendix

Here are a few notes about solving for the dynamic path of the model from Sect. 8.2. The transition equation given by (8.23) can be written out in terms of wages and capital intensity,

$$ {\displaystyle \begin{array}{ll}& {\widehat{k}}_{t+1}\\ {}& =\frac{\beta {w}_t}{\left(1+\beta \right)\left(1+d\right)n}\left[\frac{\frac{{\overline{N}}_t+{\tilde{N}}_t}{N_t^{\ast }}+\frac{1-\overline{\alpha}-\alpha }{\overline{\alpha}}{\left(\frac{\overline{\alpha}{\widehat{k}}_t^{\alpha }}{w_t}\right)}^{\frac{1}{1-\overline{\alpha}}}}{1+\frac{1}{1+\beta}\frac{\overline{\alpha}}{1-\alpha}\frac{{\left(\frac{\left(1-\alpha \right){p}_{t+1}}{w_{t+1}}\right)}^{1/\alpha}\left(\mathrm{L}/{D}_{t+1}\right)}{{\overline{N}}_{t+1}+{\tilde{N}}_{t+1}\kern0.5em -\kern0.5em {\left(\frac{\left(1-\alpha \right){p}_{t+1}}{w_{t+1}}\right)}^{1/\alpha}\left(\mathrm{L}/{D}_{t+1}\right)}}\right].\end{array}} $$
(8.23)

Given an initial value for \( {\widehat{k}}_t \), one can use (8.21) to solve for wt. Next, given the values for \( {\widehat{k}}_t \) and wt, use (8.21), updated one period, and (8.23) to solve simultaneously for \( {\widehat{k}}_{t+1} \) and wt+1.

It is important to note from (8.21) and (8.23), that the split of the population across migrant workers and farmers does not affect the equilibrium determination of the capital stock or wages (\( {\overline{N}}_t \) and \( {\tilde{N}}_t \) only appear together as a sum). In the numerator of (8.23), the farmers and migrants can be aggregated because they receive the same wage. In the denominator, the supply of farmers and migrants minus the farm demand for labor determines the equilibrium employment of unskilled labor in the urban sector (see 8.21). More unskilled labor in the urban sector lowers the capital to unskilled labor ratio and the wage-interest rate ratio (see 8.17a, 8.17b, 8.17c). A lower wage-interest rate ratio lowers the present value of land rents relative to wages, thereby increasing the saving of farmers and capital formation (see Problem 7 for more details).

The fact that \( {\overline{N}}_t \) and \( {\tilde{N}}_t \) only appear together as a sum is important because ownership claims on land in the early stages of development are unclear and it is difficult to determine what fraction of the population were migrant workers and what fraction earned some land rent. In addition, note that the capital stock and factor prices can be determined independently of the composition of output between manufacturing and agricultural goods (i.e. 8.21, 8.22, and 8.23) are independent of χ).

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Das, S., Mourmouras, A., Rangazas, P. (2018). Physical Capital in Dual Economies. In: Economic Growth and Development. Springer Texts in Business and Economics. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-89755-4_8

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics