Journals / Eskişehir Osmangazi Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi / 2008 / Cilt: 9 - Sayı: 2

The Relationship between Development and Sector Dualism in Developing Countries during Transition to Open Economy

Gelişmekte Olan Ülkelerde Dışa Açılma Sürecinde Kalkınma ve Sektörel Düalizm İlişkisi

Pages
47–70
Publication Date
2022-10-18
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Yet, ascertaining the tendencies of agricultural and non-agricultural sector labor productivities is expected to assist in the formation of foreign trade policies of developing countries.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:In this paper, the impact of economic development on sector dualism in developing countries during their transition to open economy is examined based on labor productivity differences between agricultural and nonagricultural sectors.
📊
Key Findings & Data:To this end, the data of 43 developing countries which belong to 2000s are analyzed via cross-section analysis.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Yet, ascertaining the tendencies of agricultural and non-agricultural sector labor productivities is expected to assist in the formation of foreign trade policies of developing countries.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

In this paper, the impact of economic development on sector dualism in developing countries during their transition to open economy is examined based on labor productivity differences between agricultural and nonagricultural sectors. To this end, the data of 43 developing countries which belong to 2000s are analyzed via cross-section analysis. Based on the evidence, the structural change which they experience in their outward-oriented developing processes leads to a convergence between the labor productivities of agricultural and non-agricultural sectors. The convergence tendency in the labor productivities of agricultural and nonagricultural sectors demonstrates the growing importance of the agricultural sector for the developing countries together with the transition to open economy. The findings of the paper are also important as regards the development policy priorities of developing countries. Determination of the tendency of sector dualism will lead developing countries in designating their policies for the allocation priorities of the scarce factors between sectors. Yet, ascertaining the tendencies of agricultural and non-agricultural sector labor productivities is expected to assist in the formation of foreign trade policies of developing countries.

Özet

Bu çalışmada, gelişmekte olan ülkelerde dışa açılma sürecinde, tarım ve tarım dışı sektör arasındaki işgücü verimlilik farkından hareketle, ekonomik kalkınmanın sektörel düalizm üzerindeki etkisi araştırılmıştır. Bu amaçla, gelişmekte olan 43 ülkenin 2000’li yıllara ait verileri yatay kesit analizi yöntemi kullanılarak analiz edilmiştir. Elde edilen bulgulara göre, bu ülkelerin dışa açık kalkınma sürecinde yaşamakta oldukları yapısal değişim, tarım ve tarım dışı sektördeki işgücü verimlilikleri arasında yakınsamaya neden olmaktadır. Tarım ve tarım dışı sektör arasında işgücü verimliliği açısından saptanan yakınsama eğilimi, gelişmekte olan ülkelerde dışa açılma ile birlikte tarım sektörünün öneminin arttığını göstermiştir. Çalışmanın bulguları, gelişmekte olan ülkelerin kalkınma politikası öncelikleri açısından da önem taşımaktadır. Sektörel düalizmin gelişme eğiliminin saptanması, gelişmekte olan ülkelerin kıt kaynakların sektörler arasındaki tahsis önceliklerini belirleyen politikaları için yol gösterici olacaktır. Tarım ve tarım dışı sektör işgücü verimliliklerine ait eğilimlerin saptanmasının gelişmekte olan ülkelerin dış ticaret politikası tercihlerinin oluşturulmasına da yardımcı olması beklenmektedir.

🔖

Cite This Article

DAĞDEMİR, Ö. (2022). The Relationship between Development and Sector Dualism in Developing Countries during Transition to Open Economy. Eskişehir Osmangazi Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, Cilt: 9 - Sayı: 2, 47–70. https://ajindex.com/articles/506122

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (17)

  1. Abizadeh, S., & Tosun, M.S. (2007). “Open Trade and Skilled and Unskilled Labor Productivity in Developing Countries: A Panel Data Analysis”, Journal of International Trade & Economic Development, 16(3), 383-399.
  2. Ades, A., & Glaeser, E.L. (1999). “Evidence on Growth, Increasing Returns, and the Extent of the Market”, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 114, 1025-1045.
  3. Aitken, B., & Harrison, A., & Lipsey, R. (1996). “Wages and Foreign Ownership: A Comparative Study of Mexico, Venezuela, and The United States”, Journal of International Economics, 42, 345-371.
  4. Alcala, F., & Ciccone, A. (2001).
  5. Trade and Productivity, CEPR Discussion Paper, No:3095, London. Alderson, A.S., & Nielsen F. (1999). “Income Inequality, Development, and Dependence: A Reconsideration”, American Sociological Review, 64(4), 606-631.
  6. Badinger, H., & Breuss F. (2008). “Trade and Productivity: An Industry Perspective”, Emprica, 35, 213-231.
  7. Baldwin, R., & Magee, C.S. (2000). “Is Trade Policy for Sale? Congressional Voting on Recent Bill”, Public Choice, 105, 690-713.
  8. Barro, R.J. (2000). “Inequality and Growth in a Panel of Countries”, Journal of Economic Growth, 5, 5-32.
  9. Beaulieu, E. (2002). “Factor or Industry Cleavages in Trade Policy? An Emprical Test of The Stolper-Samuelson Theorem”, Economics and Politics, 14, 99-131.
  10. Bernard, A., & Jones, C.I. (1996). “Productivity Across and Countries: Time Series Theory and Evidence”, Review of Economics and Statistics, 78 (1): 135-146.
  11. Cecchini, L., & Lai-Tong, C. (2008). “The Links Between Openness and Productivity in Mediterranean Countries”, Applied Economics, 40, 685-697.
  12. Chenery, H.B., & Syrquin, M. (1975). Patterns of Development: 1950- 1970, London: Oxford University Press.
  13. Coe, D.T., & Helpman, E. (1995). “International R&D, Spillovers”, European Economic Review, 39, 859-887.
  14. Derviş, K., & Robinson, S. (1980). “The Structure of Income Inequality in Turkey: 1950-1973”, The Political Economy of Income Distribution in Turkey, Holmas and Meier Publishers Inc., New York. Firebaugh, G. (1992). “Growth Effects of Foreign and Domestic Investment”, American Journal of Sociology, 98, 563-575.
  15. Firebaugh, G. (1996). “Does Foreign Capital Harm for the Poor Nations? New Estimates Based on Dixon and Boswell’s Measure of Capital Penetration”, American Journal of Sociology, 102(2), 563-575.
  16. Feenstra, R.C., & Hanson, G.H. (1995).
  17. Foreign Investment, Outsourcing and Relative Wages, NBER Working Paper Series, No: 5121, Cambridge. Feenstra, R.C., & Hanson, G.H.