Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
The purpose of this paper is to explore how the processes of (de)industrialization and rural income distribution interact with each other and their implications for economic growth and welfare.Design/methodology/approachThis paper takes a dynamic general-equilibrium and theoretical approach.FindingsThe author develops a dynamic general-equilibrium model to analytically characterize how (de) industrialization interacts with rural income distribution, and also explores the implications for aggregate GDP growth, the evolution of rural income distribution as well as welfare. Redistributive policies are shown to sometimes enhance GDP and welfare by boosting the production of the goods with high desirability (or productivity) but constrained by depressed demand due to income inequality, and internalizing the dynamic impact of private production and consumption decisions on future public productivities.Practical implicationsThe research suggests that rural income distribution and (de)industrialization are intrinsically related, so policies or institutional distortions on one process would, in general, affect the other. Redistributive policies are shown to sometimes enhance GDP and welfare by enhancing industrialization.Originality/valueThe paper contributes to the literature of industrialization and structural change at large in several aspects. First, a key novel feature of our model is that the Engle’s law is captured by a quasi-linear utility function, which differs from the standard non-homothetic functions in this literature. Second, our paper contributes to the literature of structural change by showing how (de)industrialization works when sectorial productivity changes are endogenous. The paper also sheds light on the determination of rural income distribution and its evolution in the process of structural change and rural-urban migration.
China Agricultural Economic Review – Emerald Publishing
Published: Sep 18, 2019
Keywords: Economic growth; Human capital; Structural change; Income distribution; Non-homothetic preference; E21; E60; O00; O41
Read and print from thousands of top scholarly journals.
Already have an account? Log in
Bookmark this article. You can see your Bookmarks on your DeepDyve Library.
To save an article, log in first, or sign up for a DeepDyve account if you don’t already have one.
Copy and paste the desired citation format or use the link below to download a file formatted for EndNote
Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
All DeepDyve websites use cookies to improve your online experience. They were placed on your computer when you launched this website. You can change your cookie settings through your browser.