Abstract
AbstractThe paper considers a two‐region model of trade based on the authors’earlier (HS) model, in which two nontraded goods, one urban and one rural, were introduced into the Harris‐Todaro model. The HS framework captures the duality of the labour market, and it is argued that the HS model is suited to the purpose of regional analysis where the urban and rural agents may be in conflict as their welfare (income) may not respond in an identical manner to exogenous shocks and policy changes. The paper examines the implications of a change in capital and the terms of trade on outputs and regional incomes. It is established that in response to a terms‐of‐trade shock the prices of urban and rural nontraded goods could move in opposite directions, so structural change could also be in opposite directions. The same could also be true of welfare in the two regions.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
