DEVELOPMENT POLICIES,URBAN UNEMPLOYMENT AND DEFORESTATION: THE ROLE OF INFRASTRUCTURE AND TAX POLICY IN A TWO-SECTOR MODEL*

ABSTRACT. We model an economy of a developing country that produces an exportable manufactured good in an urban sector and a nontradable rural good. Manufacturing faces a fixed wage, which encourages urban unemployment. Changes in cultivated area in the rural sector involve deforestation or reforestation at frontiers. Government taxes to pay for urban infrastructure that assists the manufacturing sector. Increases in urban infrastructure may relieve or exacerbate frontier deforestation but expands manufacturing employment and reduces urban unemployment. Rural transportation improvements exacerbate frontier deforestation but expand employment in the urban manufacturing sector. A larger population, ceteris paribus, widens the rural-urban wage gap and exacerbates deforestation, but may cause manufacturing employment to expand or contract.     

INDIAN RESOURCES AND THE NATIONAL ECONOMY: BUSINESS CYCLES AND POLICY CYCLES

相似文献   

APPALACHIAN POLICY, THE CORPORATE STATE, AND AMERICAN VALUES: A CRITICAL PERSPECTIVE

This paper explores the historical interplay of Appalachia and America over the past hundred years. The focus is on questions of culture and ideology, policy and values as these have been constituted in the development of our “corporate state” and its penetration and integration of the region. A careful examination of Henry Shapiro's Appalachia on our Mind brings to the surface many of the assumptions and values generally underlying the social and public policies binding the nation and the region. Ideological aspects in the genesis of the region as a social problem receive considerable attention. It becomes apparent that understanding Appalachia hinges on critical, historical perspectives on modern America: the liberal tradition, the technological world-view, and the politicized economy of the corporate state. The notion that “time stood still” in Appalachia (the static image) has developed in ways that deflect or obscure comprehension of the region's particular form of modernization.     

SOCIAL COST MINIMIZATION: A NATIONAL POLICY APPROACH TO THE PROBLEMS OF DISTRESSED ECONOMIC REGIONS*

This paper makes a distinction between output maximizing and cost minimizing approaches to national economic policy. The paper argues that because the benefits of economic activity and its cost are frequently conferred upon distinct groups in society, it is not automatically true that output maximization is the best strategy, as is presently assumed. This result is especially true when the problems of distressed economic regions are the focus of our concern. The national and multi-national firms which make decisions pertaining to the economic life of local communities make those decisions not on the basis of the costs and benefits to the community, but with regard to their private balance sheet. As a result, it frequently happens that communities of individuals must bear social costs far in excess of the private gains to the firms in question. From a policy standpoint, this is not an efficient use of our social and economic resources. In the absence of any type of comprehensive economic planning a rational market-oriented economic strategy would be one which seeks to minimize social costs.     

U.S. URBAN POLICY: THE POSTWAR STATE AND CAPITALIST REGULATION

This paper provides an historically grounded theory of U.S. urban policy which is informed by regulationist theory and recent contributions to the theory of the State. It is shown how the content and form of urban policy in the New Deal, was shaped by the rise of mass-production Fordism and informed by the particular struggles that emerged in the United States during the formative period of the 1930s and 1940s. These struggles produced a particular State policy response, setting in place a limited and constrained mode of State intervention in the economy. In the realm of urban policy, this narrow form of State intervention set limits on further rounds of State policy, leaving the U.S. State unable to respond in an effective way to the mounting economic crises of the 1970s and the 1980s, contributing to the so-called "failure" of urban policy.