Search

This paper argues that dual economy models deserve a central place in the analysis of growth in developing countries. The paper shows how these models can be used to analyse the output losses associated with factor misallocation, aggregate growth in the presence of factor market distortions, international differences in sectoral productivity and the potential role of increasing returns to scale. Above all, small-scale general equilibrium models can be used to investigate the interactions between growth and labour markets, to shed new light on the origins of pro-poor and labour-intensive growth, and to explore the role of the informal sector. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The papers contained in this Policy Arena are revised versions of papers originally presented at the University of Innsbruck in Austria on 10th October 1997 at the conference that was convened to celebrate the award to Professor Sir Hans Singer of an honorary doctoral degree of the University in recognition of his outstanding contributions to economic science in general and to the study of economic development in particular. As editors we are indebted to the conference participants (including Sir Hans) for their many helpful comments and suggestions. Particular thanks are due to Dr Richard Hule and Dr Herbert Stocker of the University of Innsbruck and Professor Kunibert Raffer of the University of Vienna for their detailed incisive written comments on the papers as presented at the conference. Although space constraints prevent us from including these documents in this collection, copies are available from the editors upon request. Copyright © 1999 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper explores a number of key issues in Development Economics which should be central concerns of contemporary development debates but which rarely attract the attention they deserve. It argues that there were fundamental insights in much of the early theoretical work of the ‘first generation’ of development economists, including the Latin American structuralists, that remain important. It then discusses the view that much of this earlier work is in danger of being ignored, forgotten or for various ideological reasons, airbrushed out of history. Recent examples include the omission of Latin American structuralism from recent editions of otherwise highly regarded texts, the omission of any reference to Harrod or to Domar in another recently published book which purports to discuss the evolution of growth theory, and a third book focussing on Economic Growth which excludes both Harrod and Domar and gives Arthur Lewis only one mention. The main conclusion is that Development Economics has moved too far away from its core competencies, and that a move ‘back to basics’ is long overdue. Copyright © 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Many economists have long held that market failures create a gap between social and private returns to research and development (R&D), thereby limiting private incentives to invest in R&D. However, this common belief that firms significantly underinvest in R&D is increasingly being challenged, leading the rationale behind public support for private R&D to be questioned. In this paper, we attempt to clarify the perspectives of two sources: the theoretical literature on endogenous growth, and its recent developments in integrating a geographical dimension, and the empirical literature that measures the social returns to R&D in relation to the private returns. Ultimately, we are able to clearly distinguish among different types of market failures and compare their relative impact on the gap between the private and social returns to R&D. Two main conclusions are reached. First, systematic firm underinvestment in R&D is not demonstrated. Second, even though instances of underinvestment do occur, they are mainly explained by surplus appropriability problems rather than by knowledge externalities. This suggests the need for a new policy mix that employs more demand-oriented instruments and is more concentrated on identifying efficient allocations among activities rather than merely increasing global private R&D investment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Several disciplines have contributed to the understanding of the relationship between science, technology, and economic change. Weber's perspective on this relationship, however, has not been properly explored. In the first part of this paper, we give an account of Weber's perspective. In the second part, we critically assess Weber's ideas, indicating those that are useful and those that deserve to be abandoned. We also confront a revised Weberian perspective with those of the main contemporary competitors, the key ideas of economists and economic historians on one side and social constructivists on the other. We conclude that a Weberian comparative-historical approach compares favourably with these competitors, and suggest where his approach still requires further work. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Economic development for remote Indigenous communities cannot be understood unless the relative importance of customary activity, potentially enhanced by native title legal rights in resources, is recognised. The present article uses a three-sector hybrid economy framework, rather than the usual two-sector private (or market) and public (or state) model to more accurately depict the Indigenous economy. Examples are provided of the actual and potential significance of the customary sector of the hybrid economy. Focusing on the concepts of property and institutions, it is demonstrated that significant local, regional, and national benefits are generated by the Indigenous hybrid economy. A role is foreshadowed for resource economists and the New Institutional Economics in quantifying these benefits, including positive externalities, so that they might be more actively supported by the state. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Canadian Journal of Economics is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

ABSTRACT. IS the well-known finding of experimental economics that talk is correlated with co-operation in prisoner-dilemma contexts related to Adam Smith's claim that trade requires language? Using Smith's postulate of the existence of a desire for approbation and the supposition that language carries approbation, we demonstrate how the ability to exchange approbation enhances the rationality of co-operation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]