Fact-checked by Grok 2 weeks ago

Dual-sector model

The dual-sector model, also known as the Lewis model, formally introduced by economist W. Arthur Lewis in his 1954 paper "Economic Development with Unlimited Supplies of Labour," is a foundational framework in development economics that describes structural transformation in low-income economies characterized by abundant labor supplies.^[1] It posits a dual economy divided into a traditional subsistence sector—typically agriculture, where marginal labor productivity is low or zero due to surplus labor—and a modern capitalist sector, often industry, where productivity is higher and driven by capital accumulation and technological progress.^[1] The model explains economic growth as arising from the reallocation of underemployed workers from the traditional to the modern sector at a constant real wage tied to subsistence levels, allowing profits in the modern sector to be reinvested for expansion without immediate inflationary pressures on wages.^[2] Central to the model's assumptions is the existence of an "unlimited supply of labor" in developing economies, where population growth outpaces capital and natural resources, resulting in disguised unemployment in the traditional sector.^[1] Lewis argued that this surplus labor enables the modern sector to expand rapidly by absorbing workers without bidding up wages, fostering a virtuous cycle of industrialization and output growth until the labor surplus is depleted—a turning point after which wages begin to rise in tandem with productivity gains.^[2] The framework highlights two primary wage determination mechanisms: one where modern sector wages are institutionally linked to agricultural subsistence levels (mechanism I), and another where they are set independently but still draw from the labor pool (mechanism II), both sustaining the dualistic structure during early development stages.^[2] The dual-sector model has profoundly influenced development policy, for which Lewis received the Nobel Prize in Economic Sciences in 1979, emphasizing the role of industrial investment and agricultural productivity improvements to facilitate labor transitions and reduce dualism over time.^[3] Extensions and critiques, such as those by Fei and Ranis, refine its dynamics by incorporating agricultural surplus generation as a prerequisite for non-agricultural expansion and addressing limitations like food supply constraints or endogenous fertility effects that can perpetuate sectoral divides.^[2] Despite empirical challenges in fully observing zero marginal productivity or seamless labor mobility in real economies, the model remains a cornerstone for analyzing persistent inequalities between rural and urban sectors in developing nations.^[4]

Historical Development

Origins and Key Contributors

The dual-sector model originated with the seminal work of British economist W. Arthur Lewis, who formalized it in his 1954 paper "Economic Development with Unlimited Supplies of Labour," published in The Manchester School.^[5] In this foundational contribution, Lewis outlined a framework for understanding economic growth in labor-abundant developing economies, emphasizing the transfer of surplus labor from a traditional subsistence sector to a modern capitalist sector.^[3] Lewis, born in 1915 in Castries, Saint Lucia (then part of the British West Indies), drew from his experiences in colonial and post-colonial settings to address the challenges of underdevelopment.^[6] He focused on the persistence of labor surpluses in agrarian economies, arguing that such conditions allowed for industrialization without immediate wage pressures.^[7] For his pioneering research in development economics, including this model, Lewis shared the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences in 1979 with Theodore W. Schultz.^[8] The model emerged within the broader structuralist tradition of economics in the 1950s, which sought to explain persistent underdevelopment through rigid sectoral divides rather than market failures alone.^[9] It was influenced by observations of dualistic structures in colonial economies, where export-oriented modern sectors coexisted with low-productivity traditional agriculture.^[10] This intellectual framework gained traction amid the postwar decolonization wave, as newly independent nations grappled with economic transformation.^[3] Key refinements to Lewis's model were provided by economists John C. H. Fei and Gustav Ranis in the early 1960s, who built upon its core ideas in their 1961 paper "A Theory of Economic Development" published in the American Economic Review. Fei and Ranis introduced dynamic elements to the labor surplus phase, clarifying the conditions under which agricultural productivity and intersectoral terms of trade evolve, setting the stage for further extensions. Their collaborative work, including the 1964 book Development of the Labor Surplus Economy: Theory and Policy, established them as primary contributors to the model's early theoretical development.^[11]

Postwar Economic Context

The postwar period following World War II witnessed widespread decolonization across Asia and Africa, with numerous new states achieving independence between 1945 and 1952, often through nationalist movements that challenged European colonial rule.^[12] These newly independent nations inherited economies heavily reliant on agriculture, characterized by abundant labor supplies in low-productivity subsistence sectors, where colonial exploitation had prioritized raw material exports over domestic industrialization or infrastructure development.^[13] This structural legacy created urgent needs for economic transformation, as surplus rural labor and agrarian stagnation hindered broader growth in these labor-abundant economies.^[14] The wave of decolonization coincided with the emergence of development economics as a distinct field in the late 1940s and 1950s, driven by the recognition of global economic disparities and the imperative to foster growth in impoverished post-colonial states.^[15] Key international institutions played pivotal roles: the World Bank, established in 1944 at the Bretton Woods Conference, shifted focus toward lending for development projects in poor nations, emphasizing infrastructure and industrialization to alleviate poverty affecting hundreds of millions.^[14] Similarly, the United Nations, founded in 1945, promoted economic development through agencies like the Economic Commission for Asia and the Far East (ECAFE), which highlighted the need for tailored strategies to support growth in newly sovereign countries facing weak institutions and limited capital.^[15] Intellectual foundations for addressing surplus labor in these contexts drew from classical economists, whose ideas on income distribution and productivity were adapted to postwar development challenges. David Ricardo's surplus theory, which posited that economic rents arose from labor's marginal productivity in agriculture, influenced analyses of underemployed rural workforces in developing economies.^[16] Karl Marx's concept of surplus value, rooted in the extraction of labor beyond subsistence needs under capitalism, provided a framework for understanding exploitative structures in traditional sectors, though reframed empirically for modern agrarian settings without revolutionary overtones.^[16] These classical insights, spanning from Adam Smith to Marx, underscored the potential for reallocating surplus labor to drive capital accumulation in industrializing economies.^[16] In the 1950s, the global push for economic self-sufficiency manifested in import-substitution industrialization (ISI) policies, particularly in Latin America and Asia, where countries like Argentina, Brazil, India, and Pakistan imposed tariffs and subsidies to nurture domestic manufacturing amid foreign exchange shortages and unfavorable terms of trade for primary exports.^[17] Advocated by economists at the United Nations Economic Commission for Latin America (ECLA), such as Raúl Prebisch, ISI served as a backdrop for development strategies that sought to integrate traditional agrarian bases with emerging modern sectors, highlighting the era's emphasis on state-led industrialization to overcome colonial-era dependencies.^[17] In this milieu, W. Arthur Lewis contributed his 1954 framework to address labor transfers in dualistic economies.^[18]

Theoretical Foundations

Core Assumptions

The dual-sector model, as originally formulated by W. Arthur Lewis, rests on several foundational assumptions that delineate the structure and behavior of a developing economy divided between a traditional subsistence sector—typically agriculture—and a modern capitalist sector, usually industry.^[19] Central to the model is the premise of an unlimited supply of labor in the traditional sector, arising from overpopulation relative to available capital and natural resources, which allows this labor to be available at a constant subsistence wage level without depleting the sector's workforce.^[19] This surplus labor condition implies a negligible or zero marginal product of labor in agriculture, meaning additional workers contribute little to no extra output, with any productivity gains from technological improvements or land reallocation accruing primarily to the remaining laborers rather than being shared broadly.^[19] In the modern sector, wages are assumed to be fixed at a constant markup over the subsistence level—often estimated at around 30% higher to account for urban living costs and social incentives—ensuring that labor costs remain stable as the sector expands by absorbing workers from the traditional sector.^[19] Labor mobility is perfect between the two sectors, enabling unrestricted movement of workers to the modern sector whenever employment opportunities arise at or above the subsistence wage, though this mobility applies only to labor and not to capital, which is confined to the capitalist sector for reinvestment purposes.^[19] The model operates within a closed economy framework, emphasizing internal capital accumulation driven by profits in the modern sector, without reliance on external trade or foreign investment to fuel growth.^[19] These assumptions collectively enable the model to analyze how surplus labor facilitates capital-intensive development in the modern sector while maintaining low wage pressures until the traditional sector's labor reserves are exhausted.^[20]

Model Dynamics

The dual-sector model elucidates economic growth via the continuous transfer of surplus labor from the traditional agricultural sector to the modern industrial sector, enabling expansion without an initial rise in agricultural wages, as the marginal productivity of labor in the traditional sector remains at or near zero. This labor mobility stems from the unlimited supply of workers willing to move at a constant subsistence wage level, facilitating the modern sector's absorption of additional workforce to support production scaling.^[1] Capital accumulation in the modern sector is propelled by profits generated from industrial output, which exceed the subsistence wage payments to workers and are subsequently reinvested to augment capital stock and further labor employment. Industrial output is modeled as a function of capital and labor inputs, commonly represented as:

Y_m = f(K_m, L_m)

where Y_m denotes modern sector output, K_m is capital, and L_m is labor. Profits are then defined as the residual after wage costs:

\text{Profits} = Y_m - w L_m

with w as the fixed subsistence wage. These profits are saved and invested at the capitalists' savings rate s, yielding the capital accumulation dynamic:

\frac{dK_m}{dt} = s (Y_m - w L_m)

This mechanism ensures that reinvested surplus expands industrial capacity, perpetuating labor absorption and output growth in the modern sector.^[21]^[1] Over time, the traditional sector experiences a progressive decline in its labor share as workers migrate to industry, yet agricultural output is maintained through the reduced but adequate input from remaining laborers, whose productivity suffices to meet subsistence needs without wage pressure. The process hinges on persistent productivity differentials, wherein the marginal product of labor in the modern sector substantially exceeds that in the traditional sector, thereby incentivizing transfer and underpinning the model's envisioned structural transformation toward industrialization.^[1]^[20]

Turning Point

In the dual-sector model, the turning point represents the critical juncture at which the surplus labor in the traditional agricultural sector is fully depleted, causing the marginal product of labor (MPL) in that sector to rise above zero and ending the unlimited supply of labor at subsistence wages.^[5] This occurs as capital accumulation in the modern industrial sector absorbs workers faster than population growth replenishes the labor pool, shifting the economy from a phase of disguised unemployment to one of labor scarcity.^[2] Lewis described this as the moment when "capital accumulation has caught up with population, so that there is no longer surplus labour."^[5] As a consequence, wages in both the agricultural and industrial sectors begin to rise proportionally with labor productivity, marking the end of constant subsistence-level remuneration and leading to increased labor costs that slow the pace of capital accumulation in the modern sector.^[5] The surplus previously available for reinvestment diminishes, as higher wages reduce the profit share captured by capitalists, potentially constraining further industrial expansion unless offset by technological advancements or external factors like capital exports.^[5] This phase carries significant implications for income distribution, as workers' share of national income increases with rising real wages, reducing the disproportionate profits accrued to capitalists during the surplus labor era.^[5] In the traditional sector, the scarcity of labor may incentivize productivity-enhancing investments, fostering the emergence of commercial farming practices and a more market-oriented agricultural economy.^[5] Lewis originally depicted the turning point as a pivotal transition from "classical" labor market conditions—characterized by unlimited supply at fixed wages—to "neoclassical" dynamics, where labor scarcity drives wage adjustments and alters the trajectory of economic development.^[5]

Ranis-Fei Extension

The Ranis-Fei extension, introduced by Gustav Ranis and John C. H. Fei in 1961, refines the dual-sector model by integrating agricultural productivity improvements, which allows for a more nuanced analysis of labor reallocation and output dynamics beyond the original framework's assumption of static agricultural conditions.^[22] This approach emphasizes the role of technological progress or land augmentation in the traditional sector, enabling sustained food supply to support industrial expansion without immediate stagnation.^[22] Central to the model are three phases of economic development. Phase I features surplus labor in agriculture, where the marginal product of labor is zero, permitting unlimited transfer to the modern sector at a constant institutional wage without reducing agricultural output.^[22] Phase II marks the decline of surplus labor, driven by productivity gains that raise the agricultural marginal product above zero but below the institutional wage level, leading to disguised unemployment and gradual labor shifts.^[22] Phase III occurs post-turning point, with full labor exhaustion in agriculture and balanced growth across sectors as wages become market-determined.^[22] The agricultural sector's output is modeled as a function Y_a = g(L_a, T), where L_a denotes agricultural labor input and T captures technology or land factors, ensuring that marginal productivity can increase prior to complete labor exhaustion and supporting output stability during reallocation.^[22] Wage adjustments reflect these dynamics: the institutional wage holds constant in Phases I and II, tied to average subsistence levels, with agricultural productivity improvements supporting output stability and food supply during reallocation.^[23] In Phase II, the rate of labor reallocation to the modern sector is governed by the condition that balances industrial capital accumulation with agricultural output requirements to sustain food consumption in the expanding economy.^[22] By explicitly modeling these elements, the Ranis-Fei extension addresses a key oversight in the original model—the potential for agricultural stagnation and resulting food supply constraints—through productivity-driven adjustments that promote more realistic, phased development in labor-surplus economies.^[22]

Other Variations

One notable neoclassical adaptation of the dual-sector framework was proposed by Dale W. Jorgenson in 1961, which assumes perfect competition in both agricultural and industrial sectors from the outset and allows wages to vary flexibly based on marginal productivity, thereby relaxing the institutional rigidities central to the original Lewis model.^[24] This variant emphasizes efficient resource allocation across sectors under constant returns to scale, contrasting with the surplus labor assumptions of the baseline dual economy dynamics.^[25] In 1970, John R. Harris and Michael P. Todaro extended the dual-sector model to incorporate expected urban wages as the driver of rural-urban migration, accounting for the observed persistence of urban unemployment in developing economies.^[26] Their framework posits that migrants move based on the probability-weighted urban wage minus the rural wage, leading to equilibrium where expected incomes equalize despite open unemployment in the modern sector. This adaptation highlights how dualism influences labor mobility and urban job queues, providing a more realistic depiction of migration pressures.^[27] During the 1980s, several open-economy extensions integrated international trade into the dual-sector structure, particularly focusing on how exports from the modern industrial sector could attract foreign capital inflows and accelerate structural transformation.^[28] For instance, models like Adlith Brown's analysis of employment policy in open dual economies illustrate how trade openness affects sectoral wage differentials and capital accumulation, with export-led growth in the modern sector drawing resources from traditional agriculture.^[28] These versions underscore the role of global markets in amplifying or mitigating dualistic imbalances.^[29] Dipak Mazumdar's work in the 1980s further refined the model by incorporating an informal urban sector as a third segment, capturing underemployment among urban migrants excluded from formal modern jobs.^[30] This integration treats the informal sector as a residual absorber of surplus labor, with wages determined by competitive forces below formal levels, thus extending dualism to explain heterogeneous urban labor markets and disguised unemployment.^[31] These variations, emerging primarily between the 1960s and 1980s, adapted the core dual-sector approach to grapple with accelerating globalization, trade liberalization, and urbanization trends in developing economies.^[32]

Criticisms and Limitations

Theoretical Critiques

The dual-sector model, as originally formulated by Lewis, posits a constant subsistence wage in the traditional sector to sustain surplus labor transfer, yet this assumption overlooks significant social, cultural, and nutritional variations that influence wage levels across different regions and communities. For instance, subsistence requirements are not biologically fixed but shaped by local customs, family structures, and access to resources, leading to heterogeneous wage norms that the model fails to incorporate.^[33] This rigidity renders the wage mechanism theoretically incomplete, as it assumes uniformity where empirical and logical diversity prevails.^[34] Furthermore, the model's heavy reliance on capital accumulation in the modern sector as the primary driver of growth neglects the roles of human capital development and technological spillovers between sectors. While the core assumptions emphasize reinvestment of capitalist profits to absorb labor, they undervalue how investments in education, skills training, or knowledge diffusion from the modern to traditional sector could accelerate productivity gains across the economy.^[33] Critics argue this omission creates an overly narrow view of development dynamics, ignoring intersectoral linkages that could mitigate growth bottlenecks beyond mere physical capital expansion.^[35] The dual-sector framework also provides an inadequate treatment of income distribution, predicting that profits in the capitalist sector will fund reinvestment and eventual wage rises, while underplaying how the labor transfer process exacerbates inequality. Although the model acknowledges initial disparities between sectors, it does not sufficiently explore how surplus extraction from low-wage traditional workers concentrates wealth among modern sector owners, potentially hindering broad-based growth through reduced aggregate demand or social tensions. This theoretical shortfall assumes a frictionless progression where inequality is transient, yet the internal logic overlooks persistent distributional conflicts inherent in the surplus appropriation mechanism.^[34] In addition, the model's static depiction of distinct traditional and modern sectors fails to account for the blurring boundaries observed in real economies, such as hybrid agro-industrial activities that integrate elements of both. By treating sectors as rigidly separate with fixed characteristics, the framework disregards dynamic interactions like rural non-farm enterprises or mixed production processes that evolve over time, leading to an oversimplified representation of structural transformation.^[34] This limitation confines the model's applicability to idealized binaries, neglecting the fluidity that complicates labor and resource flows.^[33] A particularly pointed theoretical critique targets Lewis's assumption of an unlimited labor supply from the traditional sector, which is unrealistic in finite populations without perpetual demographic expansion, resulting in oversimplified growth paths. In a closed system, the pool of surplus labor is inherently bounded, and the model's reliance on endless availability at subsistence levels ignores constraints like skill heterogeneity or migration frictions, distorting predictions about the duration and nature of the development phase.^[33] This foundational flaw propagates through the model's dynamics, assuming a linear transfer process that finite resources inevitably disrupt.^[34]

Empirical Challenges

One major empirical challenge to the dual-sector model lies in measuring surplus labor in the traditional sector, where the assumption of an unlimited supply at subsistence wages has proven difficult to verify. Cross-sectional micro-econometric studies from the 1970s and 1980s in Asian countries, such as India and Indonesia, revealed steeply rising labor supply curves within agriculture, indicating partial rather than unlimited surplus labor availability due to inelastic responses to wage incentives.^[32] These findings, based on household-level data, highlight measurement issues arising from static analyses that overlook dynamic inter-sectoral reallocations central to the model.^[36] The model's prediction of a timely Lewis turning point—where surplus labor is exhausted and wages begin rising—has often been delayed in practice, particularly in large economies like China and India. In China, surplus rural labor persisted into the early 2000s, with real agricultural wages remaining stagnant from 1993 to 2003 despite industrial growth, only surging post-2003 as evidenced by provincial surveys showing a shift to labor scarcity.^[37] Similarly, in India, the turning point has not materialized even into the 2020s as of 2025, with surplus labor continuing due to structural barriers like land fragmentation and insufficient job creation, which limits farm consolidation and labor release, as observed in agricultural transformation analyses across developing Asia.^[38]^[39] Empirical assessments of sectoral productivity gaps further challenge the model's unidirectional labor flow from low- to high-productivity sectors. World Bank analyses from the 1980s to 2010s document bidirectional spillovers, including technology transfers and reverse migration, which narrow gaps more dynamically than the one-way assumption predicts; for instance, agricultural productivity improvements in emerging markets influenced urban sectors through input linkages and labor remittances.^[40] These interactions, evident in panel data across developing economies, contradict the model's rigid separation by revealing mutual productivity influences that accelerate structural change beyond isolated labor transfers.^[41] A specific illustration of these issues appears in South Korea, where the Lewis turning point was estimated around the mid-1970s based on rising agricultural wages and urban labor absorption. However, empirical studies underestimated the role of urban informal employment, which absorbed a significant portion of migrants in small-scale traditional activities, with informal nonmanufacturing employment comprising around 70% of the sector in the 1970s—diverting labor from the modern industrial sector and prolonging disguised unemployment.^[42]^[43] The dual-sector model also overlooks gender and regional disparities in labor dynamics, which empirical evidence shows significantly alter surplus labor patterns. In rural areas of developing economies, women and minorities often face restricted mobility and lower participation rates due to cultural norms and access barriers, leading to underutilized female labor in agriculture and limited migration, as documented in gender-disaggregated employment data from Asia and Africa.^[44] World Bank research on structural transformation highlights how these disparities result in uneven labor reallocation, with rural women and ethnic minorities contributing disproportionately to subsistence activities without the model's anticipated shift to urban productivity gains.^[45]

Applications and Evidence

Case Studies in Developing Economies

South Korea's economic transformation in the 1960s and 1970s exemplifies the dual-sector model's dynamics, with rapid industrial growth absorbing surplus rural labor into urban manufacturing. During this period, employment in labor-intensive industries such as textiles and light manufacturing expanded significantly, drawing workers from agriculture and reducing rural underemployment. Real earnings in manufacturing rose by approximately 60% throughout the 1960s and more than doubled in the 1970s, reflecting the model's prediction of low modern-sector wages sustained by unlimited labor supply.^[46] The turning point occurred around the mid-1970s, marking the exhaustion of surplus labor and the onset of wage pressures, with unemployment falling from 8% to 4% and wage growth outpacing output in 1976-1978, indicating convergence between agricultural and industrial wages as the labor surplus diminished.^[47] Taiwan's land reforms in the 1950s provide a clear illustration of the Ranis-Fei extension to the dual-sector model, enhancing agricultural productivity to support industrial transition. Implemented in three phases—rent reduction in 1949, public land sales in 1951, and the land-to-the-tiller program by 1953—the reforms redistributed over 143,000 hectares to tenants, reducing tenancy from 38% to 15% between 1950 and 1960. This boosted rice yields and productivity, with Phase II reforms increasing yields by 0.76% per 1% of land transferred, aligning with the model's Phase I emphasis on agricultural modernization to generate surplus for reinvestment.^[48] Phase III further facilitated labor reallocation by creating smaller farms, decreasing the primary sector's labor share and pushing workers—particularly women—into manufacturing, consistent with the Ranis-Fei phases of surplus labor release. Empirical metrics show the agricultural labor force share declining from about 64% in 1950 to 31% by 1974, continuing to around 40% rural employment involvement by 2000 amid ongoing structural shifts.^[49] In China since the 1980s, state-led industrialization has drawn hundreds of millions of rural workers into non-agricultural sectors, embodying the dual-sector model's labor transfer mechanism, though persistent rural underemployment highlights implementation challenges. Post-1978 reforms accelerated this process, with non-agricultural employment growing at 4.86% annually and labor reallocation contributing 1.23% to GDP growth from 1965 to 2002, peaking during 1978-1984. However, by the 2010s, marginal labor productivity in agriculture had surpassed average levels in many regions, indicating that China passed the Lewis turning point around 2010-2020, transitioning out of Phase II. Wage acceleration since 2003 (12-15% annually initially) has continued, reflecting labor scarcity as of the 2020s, though rural-urban divides persist with reduced surplus labor estimated below 50 million by 2020. As of 2025, China's passage of the turning point has led to challenges like labor shortages in manufacturing and services, prompting policies to boost productivity and immigration, while rural underemployment has shifted toward skill mismatches and aging workforce issues.^[50]^[51]^[52] The partial application of the dual-sector model in Sub-Saharan Africa, particularly Nigeria during the 1970s oil boom, reveals enclave effects in the modern sector with limited spillover to the traditional economy. Oil revenues surged post-1973, elevating the sector's GDP share and creating a capital-intensive enclave that employed few locals and generated minimal linkages to agriculture or manufacturing. This resulted in resource movement away from other sectors, with agriculture's GDP contribution falling from 60% in 1960 to under 25% by the late 1970s, but without broad labor absorption or productivity gains in the rural economy due to weak spillovers.^[53]^[54] India's Green Revolution in the 1960s increased agricultural productivity through high-yielding varieties and inputs, delaying the dual-sector model's turning point by retaining surplus labor in the countryside longer than anticipated. Initiated amid food crises in 1965-1966, the reforms boosted cereal yields and output, particularly in wheat and rice, enabling self-sufficiency but slowing structural transformation as higher rural incomes reduced migration incentives. This extended the surplus labor phase, with agricultural employment share remaining over 50% into the 1980s, per model extensions accounting for productivity shocks that postpone wage convergence and industrial absorption.^[55]^[56]

Policy Implications

The dual-sector model underscores the importance of targeted industrial policies to accelerate capital accumulation and absorb surplus agricultural labor, thereby driving structural transformation in developing economies. Governments are advised to promote industrial investment through subsidies, tax incentives, and foreign direct investment (FDI) facilitation, as these measures expand the modern sector's capacity to employ underutilized rural workers at low wages, sustaining high savings rates for reinvestment.^[57]^[58] Such interventions align with the model's emphasis on the capitalist sector's role in generating growth without immediate wage pressures.^[59] In the agricultural sector, the model implies the need for reforms to boost productivity and prevent stagnation, including land redistribution to reduce disguised unemployment and technology adoption—such as improved seeds, irrigation, and extension services—to raise output without triggering sharp wage increases that could undermine industrial competitiveness.^[59]^[58] These steps ensure the traditional sector supports food security and releases labor efficiently, avoiding bottlenecks in the development process.^[57] To facilitate labor mobility, policies should focus on rural-urban infrastructure development, including transportation networks and urban planning, to lower migration barriers and mitigate risks of urban unemployment or informal sector proliferation.^[58] The model recommends prioritizing high savings rates among capitalists during the surplus labor phase to fuel industrial expansion, while post-turning point strategies shift toward education investments to build human capital for balanced, skill-intensive growth.^[57]^[59] In contemporary contexts, the dual-sector framework integrates with the United Nations' 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, informing inclusive transitions in least developed countries by linking labor reallocation to goals like SDG 8 (decent work and economic growth), SDG 9 (industry and infrastructure), and SDG 10 (reduced inequalities), while emphasizing environmental safeguards in structural change.^[60] However, critics note that such policies may overlook market imperfections, necessitating complementary measures to address dualism's persistence.^[58]

References

[1]
Economic Development with Unlimited Supplies of Labour - LEWIS
Economic Development with Unlimited Supplies of Labour ... Information. PDF · PDF. Tools. Request permission · Export citation ...
[2]
[PDF] The micro-foundations of dual economy models - Index of /
Lewis (1954) proposed a dual economy model characterised by the separation of the traditional agricultural sector from the modern industrial sector. ...<|control11|><|separator|>
[3]
The dual economy in long-run development - PMC - PubMed Central
A salient feature of developing economies is the coexistence of a modern commercial sector alongside a traditional subsistence sector—the dual economy.
[4]
Economic Development with Unlimited Supplies of Labour - LEWIS
Economic Development with Unlimited Supplies of Labour. W. ARTHUR LEWIS ... First published: May 1954. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9957.1954.tb00021.x.
[5]
The Prize in Economics 1979 - Press release - NobelPrize.org
Arthur Lewis is a leading figure and pioneer in developing country research. His fundamental works from the middle of the fifties – Economic Development with ...
[6]
Sir Arthur Lewis – Facts - NobelPrize.org
Sir Arthur Lewis Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel 1979. Born: 23 January 1915, Castries, British West Indies (now ...
[7]
W. Arthur Lewis: Pioneer of Development Economics | United Nations
Mar 1, 2008 · * Lewis, W. A. Economic development with unlimited supplies of labour. Manchester School, 22, May: 139-191, 1954. * Lewis, W. A. The Theory ...<|control11|><|separator|>
[8]
The Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of ...
The Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel 1979 was awarded jointly to Theodore W. Schultz and Sir Arthur Lewis.
[9]
Structuralist Contributions to Development Thinking - Oxford Academic
In the dual economy model of Lewis (1954), rapid economic growth is determined by the rate of investment and capital accumulation in the modern sector.
[10]
W. Arthur Lewis - Econlib
According to Lewis a poor country's economy can be thought of as containing two sectors ... “Economic Development with Unlimited Supplies of Labour.” Manchester ...
[11]
[PDF] The Evolution of Development Thinking: Theory and Policy
Fei, John C. H., and Gustav Ranis. 1964. Development of the Labor Surplus Economy: Theory and Policy. Homewood, Illinois: Richard A. Irwin, Inc.
[12]
Decolonization of Asia and Africa, 1945–1960 - Office of the Historian
Between 1945 and 1960, three dozen new states in Asia and Africa achieved autonomy or outright independence from their European colonial rulers.Missing: abundant | Show results with:abundant
[13]
African Economic Development and Colonial Legacies
This article reviews how colonial rule and African actions during the colonial period affected the resources and institutional settings for subsequent economic ...
[14]
[PDF] Development Economics through the decades
This essay is on development economics, viewed through a lens created by the World Bank in 1978. That was the year when the first World Devel-.
[15]
[PDF] Post-war reconstruction and development in the Golden Age of ...
Jul 13, 2017 · Some fundamental and structural problems of the post-war period also surfaced: a growing gap between industrialized and developing countries,2 ...Missing: dual | Show results with:dual
[16]
[PDF] Arthur Lewis and the classical economists on development - EconStor
Apr 8, 2017 · Lewis argued that his 1954 model of economic development in a dual economy was based on the classical framework originally advanced by Smith,.Missing: origins | Show results with:origins
[17]
[PDF] The Rise and Fall of Import Substitution Douglas A. Irwin Working ...
Import substitution, restricting manufactured imports, was believed to promote industrialization in the 1950s, but was seen as flawed by the mid-1960s.
[18]
[PDF] The metamorphosis of Lewis's dual economy model
Abstract This paper argues that Arthur Lewis originally presented the problem of economic development in terms of an open system, in the sense that it ...Missing: origins | Show results with:origins
[19]
[PDF] Economic Development with Unlimited Supplies of Labour
Unlimited labor supply, where population is large relative to capital and resources, means some sectors have negligible or negative labor productivity. This is ...
[20]
The Lewis Model: A 60-Year Retrospective
Jul 28, 2014 · Instead, this paper focuses on some key aspects of Lewis's vision of the development process: the dual economy, subsistence wages, patterns of.Missing: core | Show results with:core
[21]
16 A Lewis Model of Economic Development
Lewis, W. A. 1954. “Economic Development with Unlimited Supplies of Labour.” The Manchester School 22 (2): 139–91. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9957.1954.
[22]
None
Nothing is retrieved...<|control11|><|separator|>
[23]
[PDF] an empirical analysis of the lewis-ranis-fei theory of dualistic ...
Abstract. We employ the Lewis-Ranis-Fei theory of dualistic economic development as a framework to investigate China's rapid growth over 1965-2002.
[24]
Development of a Dual Economy | The Economic Journal
Dale W. Jorgenson; The Development of a Dual Economy, The Economic Journal, Volume 71, Issue 282, 1 June 1961, Pages 309–334, https://doi.org/10.2307/22287.
[25]
[PDF] The Development of a Dual Economy Author(s): Dale W. Jorgenson ...
Neo-classical, Kaldor and dual economy models of growth all tend, in the limit, to the equilibrium growth path described by the Harrod-. Domar model. Page 26 ...
[26]
Migration, Unemployment and Development: A Two-Sector Analysis
As drawn in Figure 2, moving from. D to K represents a worsening of welfare, but this clearly is not a necessary conclusion. Page 10. HARRIS AND TODARO: ...
[27]
[PDF] The Harris-Todaro Model - Cornell eCommons
Thus, in the Harris-Todaro model, the solution to urban unemployment would be rural development. Soon after the model was published, the government of Kenya ...
[28]
EMPLOYMENT POLICY IN THE OPEN DUAL ECONOMY on JSTOR
Adlith Brown, EMPLOYMENT POLICY IN THE OPEN DUAL ECONOMY, Social and Economic Studies, Vol. 29, No. 4, SPECIAL ISSUE IN HONOUR OF SIR WILLIAM ARTHUR LEWIS ...
[29]
[PDF] Two Models of an Open Economy
The model has been used in evaluating energy policy, fiscal programs, and local government control, as reported in earlier IUI publications. This project has ...
[30]
Labor Market Segmentation in a Two-Sector Model of an Open ...
Jan 1, 1990 · This paper addresses these questions in a simple general equilibrium, two-sector model of a small open economy with a segmented labor market.
[31]
Urban Informal Sector - jstor
Development and Employment Prospects",. ILO. Majumdar, A, (1980): "In-Migration and In- formal Sector", BISR, Delhi. Mazumdar, D, (1976): 'The Urban Informal.
[32]
[PDF] labour market modelling and the urban informal sector
i) A dualistic economy, consisting of a modern urban sector and a traditional agricultural sector, or a covered sector and a non-covered sector; ii) Wage ...
[33]
[PDF] Is Dualism Worth Revisiting? - Yale Department of Economics
And Fei, John C.H. and Gustav Ranis (1964), Development of the Labor Surplus Economy: Theory and Policy. See also the emphasis on product dualism in R.
[34]
Economic Development and Surplus Labour: A Critical Review of ...
The Lewis dual economy model is widely recognised in development economics for its profound explanatory power and applications in economic development.
[35]
https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/download/article-file/383394
[36]
[PDF] WEAKNESS and LIMITATIONS OF LEWIS MODEL - DergiPark
Lewis was criticized as it neglects international trade. His model was to a certain extent supply-oriented, which does not foresee any trade between capital ...
[37]
[PDF] Labor surplus revisited - EconStor
We contend that the finding of inelastic supply curves of labor is based on a cross-section static analysis of labor supply within agriculture while the labor ...<|separator|>
[38]
[PDF] China Has Reached the Lewis Turning Point - CORE
In addition, promoting land rental market development would help to consolidate fragmented land and make it more suitable for large-scale agricultural ...Missing: delays | Show results with:delays
[39]
[PDF] Agriculture and Structural Transformation in Developing Asia
the Lewis “turning point,” where the shift from surplus labor in agriculture to labor shortage is reflected in a rising agriculture wage, is yet to be ...
[40]
Publication: Sectoral Productivity Gaps and Aggregate Productivity
This paper examines the role of changes in sectoral productivity gaps over time in accounting for growth realized by countries over the past few decades.
[41]
[PDF] Global Productivity Trends Drivers and Policies
This timely and comprehensive book explores the experience of productivity growth across countries, across sectors, and across time. Key issues explored include ...
[42]
[PDF] The Turning Point in the Korean Economy
1 The urban traditional sector is referred to as the urban employment involving dominance of the subsistence principle. The size of establishments is very small ...
[43]
[PDF] Gender dimensions of agricultural and rural employment
Apr 2, 2009 · 30-40 percent of rural household income. This male-dominant migration model in China is determined by two major factors. First, the ...<|control11|><|separator|>
[44]
[PDF] Gender Barriers, Structural Transformation, and Economic ...
Our model framework allows us: (i) to measure gender barriers for each occupation-sector and country-year by matching model equations to observed gender ...
[45]
[PDF] Labor Market Behavior in the Republic of Korea
As employment in this sector expanded, real earnings increased by close to 60% throughout the 1960s and doubled in the 1970s. 1980 marked the first decline in ...
[46]
First turning point - K-Developedia
The first of these occurred in the mid-1970s when the world of unlimited labor supply as described by Lewis (1954) came to an end (Moo-Ki Bai, 1982).
[47]
[PDF] Land Reform in Taiwan, 1950-1961: Effects on Agriculture and ...
In this narrative, land reform helped boost agricultural incomes, growing overall economic output, and reducing rural poverty. Some scholars also credit land.Missing: Ranis- Fei
[48]
[PDF] the rural non-farm sector in taiwan - World Bank Documents & Reports
In both years, towns absorbed about the same share of non-agricultural employment: 10-11% in manufacturing, 11-1 2% in construction, 10% in commerce, 9% in ...
[49]
[PDF] Has China Reached the Lewis Turning Point?; by Mitali Das and ...
Productivity gains in the industrial sector, achieved through more investment, raise employment in the industrial sector and the overall economy. Productivity ...
[50]
[PDF] Nigeria During and After the Oil Boom - World Bank Document
2 We abstract from the "resource movement" effect because the oil sector can be considered to be a separate enclave with its own capital, labor, and technology ...
[51]
Oil a Blessing or Curse: A Comparative Assessment of Nigeria ...
Oil dependency has caused the Nigerian economy to become stagnant owing to its inability to diversify its economy.Missing: Dual | Show results with:Dual
[52]
[PDF] a new paradigm for - indian agriculture - NITI Aayog
that the 'Lewis turning point', where the shift from surplus labour to shortage in agriculture labour, reflected in rising agricultural wages is yet to be ...
[53]
[PDF] Retesting the Dual Sector Model in India and Brazil
Oct 1, 2018 · Arthur Lewis' structural-change theory focuses on the transition of economic structure with the character from depending heavily on agricultural ...Missing: Green Revolution delayed turning
[54]
[PDF] Arthur Lewis' Contribution to Development Thinking and Policy
Aug 1, 2004 · All this is quite in contrast to Lewis' model, which, of course, also depicts a two-sector world, also built on physiocratic as well as ...
[55]
None
### Summary of Policy Implications from the Lewis Model Retrospective
[56]
None
### Summary of Policy Insights from the Lewis Model (Joseph E. Stiglitz, 2016)
[57]
[PDF] From “Structural Change” to “Transformative Change”: Rationale ...
One implication of the Lewis model is the Turning Point concept, which ... the 2030 Agenda can be in conformity with the goal of sustainable development.