Rosenstein-Rodan’s framework
Another important question has been to understand how technological
diffusion takes place across countries and generates or sustains growth—
and why it does not take root in others. Various interesting possibilities
have recently been explored in an attempt to answer that critical question
(Jones 1998; Acemoglu, Johnson, and Robinson 2001; Glaeser and
Shleifer 2002). Both on the theoretical and empirical fronts, progress has
been made in our understanding of growth in recent decades. However,
growth research still faces signifi cant methodological diffi culties and challenges
in identifying actionable policy levers to sustain and accelerate
growth in specifi c countries. Intellectual progress has been even slower
in the particular domain of development theories. It took a paper by
Rosenstein-Rodan (1943) to bring development issues to the forefront of
the discipline. The paper suggested that the virtuous circle of development
depended essentially on the interaction between economies of scale at the
level of individual fi rms and the size of the market. Specifi cally, it assumed
that modern methods of production can be made more productive than
traditional ones only if the market is large enough for their productivity
edge to compensate for the necessity of paying higher wages. But the size of
the market itself depends on the extent to which these modern techniques
are adopted. Therefore, if the modernization process can be started on a
very large scale, then the process of economic development will be selfreinforcing
and self-sustaining. If not, countries will be indefi nitely trapped
in poverty.
Rosenstein-Rodan’s framework sparked a wave of similar ideas (Chang
1949; Lewis 1954; Myrdal 1957; Hirschman 1958) which came to be
known as the structuralist approach to economic development. These early
development theories held that the market encompassed insurmountable
defects and that the state was a powerful supplementary means to accelerate
the pace of economic development (Rosenstein-Rodan 1943; Nurkse 1953;
Hirschman 1958). The slump of international trade in the Great Depression
led to export pessimism in the post-War period. In Latin America, for
instance, political leaders and social elites were infl uenced strongly by the
deterioration in the terms of trade, the economic diffi culty encountered
during the Great Depression in the 1930s, and the thesis developed by
Prebisch (1950) and Singer (1950). They believed that the decline in the
terms of trade against the export of primary commodities was secular and
led to the transfer of income from resource-intensive developing countries
to capital-intensive developed countries. They argued that the way for a
developing country to avoid being exploited by developed countries was
to develop domestic manufacturing industries through a process known as
import substitution. Moreover, the emergence of previous colonies or semicolonies
as newly independent states in Asia and the Middle East, and later
in Africa, was accompanied by strong nationalist sentiments.
Economic development is a process of continuous technological innovation and structural transformation. Development thinking is inherently tied to the quest for sustainable growth strategies. This book provides a neoclassical approach for studying the determinants of economic structure and its transformation and draws new insights for development policy. The market is the basic mechanism for effective resource allocation at each level of development. However, economic development as a dynamic process entails structural changes, including industrial upgrading and diversification and corresponding improvements in hard and soft infrastructure. Such upgrading and improvements require coordination and go hand in hand with large externalities to firms transaction costs and returns to capital investment. Thus, in addition to an effective market mechanism, the government should play an active role in facilitating structural changes. The book provides empirical evidence in support of this framework as well as concrete advice to development practitioners.
diffusion takes place across countries and generates or sustains growth—
and why it does not take root in others. Various interesting possibilities
have recently been explored in an attempt to answer that critical question
(Jones 1998; Acemoglu, Johnson, and Robinson 2001; Glaeser and
Shleifer 2002). Both on the theoretical and empirical fronts, progress has
been made in our understanding of growth in recent decades. However,
growth research still faces signifi cant methodological diffi culties and challenges
in identifying actionable policy levers to sustain and accelerate
growth in specifi c countries. Intellectual progress has been even slower
in the particular domain of development theories. It took a paper by
Rosenstein-Rodan (1943) to bring development issues to the forefront of
the discipline. The paper suggested that the virtuous circle of development
depended essentially on the interaction between economies of scale at the
level of individual fi rms and the size of the market. Specifi cally, it assumed
that modern methods of production can be made more productive than
traditional ones only if the market is large enough for their productivity
edge to compensate for the necessity of paying higher wages. But the size of
the market itself depends on the extent to which these modern techniques
are adopted. Therefore, if the modernization process can be started on a
very large scale, then the process of economic development will be selfreinforcing
and self-sustaining. If not, countries will be indefi nitely trapped
in poverty.
Rosenstein-Rodan’s fr
1949; Lewis 1954; Myrdal 1957; Hirschman 1958) which came to be
known as the structuralist approach to economic development. These early
development theories held that the market encompassed insurmountable
defects and that the state was a powerful supplementary means to accelerate
the pace of economic development (Rosenstein-Rodan 1943; Nurkse 1953;
Hirschman 1958). The slump of international trade in the Great Depression
led to export pessimism in the post-War period. In Latin America, for
instance, political leaders and social elites were infl uenced strongly by the
deterioration in the terms of trade, the economic diffi culty encountered
during the Great Depression in the 1930s, and the thesis developed by
Prebisch (1950) and Singer (1950). They believed that the decline in the
terms of trade against the export of primary commodities was secular and
led to the transfer of income from resource-intensive developing countries
to capital-intensive developed countries. They argued that the way for a
developing country to avoid being exploited by developed countries was
to develop domestic manufacturing industries through a process known as
import substitution. Moreover, the emergence of previous colonies or semicolonies
as newly independent states in Asia and the Middle East, and later
in Africa, was accompanied by strong nationalist sentiments.
本文摘自《新結構經濟學》
Economic development is a process of continuous technological innovation and structural transformation. Development thinking is inherently tied to the quest for sustainable growth strategies. This book provides a neoclassical approach for studying the determinants of economic structure and its transformation and draws new insights for development policy. The market is the basic mechanism for effective resource allocation at each level of development. However, economic development as a dynamic process entails structural changes, including industrial upgrading and diversification and corresponding improvements in hard and soft infrastructure. Such upgrading and improvements require coordination and go hand in hand with large externalities to firms transaction costs and returns to capital investment. Thus, in addition to an effective market mechanism, the government should play an active role in facilitating structural changes. The book provides empirical evidence in support of this fr