Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorFields, Gary S.
dc.date.accessioned2020-11-17T17:25:28Z
dc.date.available2020-11-17T17:25:28Z
dc.date.issued2006-06-01
dc.identifier.other1183540
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/1813/75797
dc.description.abstractExcerpt] Richard Brown (2006) has written that the interpretation of the 1954 Lewis model that I presented in Fields (2004) is ‘flawed for a number of reasons’ and ‘Fields’s appreciation of the contribution of the Lewis model to understanding the process of wage determination in developing economies is therefore misplaced’. In this reply, I explain why I think the flaws are not mine but Brown’s. Before proceeding, I wish to point out that the conference at which my paper was presented and the issue of The Manchester School in which my paper was published were entitled ‘The Lewis Model after Fifty Years’. Accordingly, my paper and this reply focus on Lewis’s original 1954 paper.
dc.language.isoen_US
dc.rightsRequired Publisher Statement: Reprinted with permission of Wiley-Blackwell Publishing. Final version published as Fields, G. S. (2006). Labour market dualism in the Lewis model: Reply. The Manchester School, 74(3), 355-359.
dc.subjectlabor market
dc.subjectemployment
dc.subjectLewis model
dc.subjectwage determination
dc.subjectdevelopment
dc.subjecteconomic growth
dc.titleLabour Market Dualism in the Lewis Model: Reply
dc.typearticle
dc.relation.doihttps://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9957.2006.00498.x
dc.description.legacydownloadsFields136_Labor_market_dualism_reply_2.pdf: 1526 downloads, before Oct. 1, 2020.
local.authorAffiliationFields, Gary S.: gsf2@cornell.edu Cornell University


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

Statistics