Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorFields, Gary S.
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.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.subjectLewis model
dc.subjectwage determination
dc.subjecteconomic growth
dc.titleLabour Market Dualism in the Lewis Model: Reply
dc.description.legacydownloadsFields136_Labor_market_dualism_reply_2.pdf: 1526 downloads, before Oct. 1, 2020.
local.authorAffiliationFields, Gary S.: Cornell University

Files in this item


This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record