이촌향도형(離村向都型) 인구이동(人口移動) 농촌지역경제(農村地域經濟)에 미치는 영향(影響)에 관해 두가지 상반(相反)된 견해(見解)가 있다. 신고전학파적(新古典學派的) 낙관론(樂觀論) 따르면 이농현상(離農現象)은 농촌지역(農村地域)의 소득(所得)이나 후생수준(厚生水準)을 저해(沮害)하지 않는다고 보는 반면 Lipton (1980)은 그 반대의 견해(見解)를 취하고 있다. 본고(本稿)에서는 비교역재(非交易財)(nontraded goods)에 대한 국제무역이론(國濟貿易理論)과 화란병(和蘭病)(Dutch Disease)의 이론(理論)을 원용하여 농촌(農村)에서 도시(都市)로의 인구이동모형을 개발했다. 이 모형은 이농인구이동(離農人口移動)이 농촌지역(農村地域)의 소득(所得)과 후생수준(厚生水準)을 저해(沮害)한다는 점에서는 Lipton의 견해(見解)와 일치하나 소득(所得)을 감소(減少)시키는 요인들은 Lipton의 모형(模型)에서 지적(指摘)된 것들과는 다르다. 본고(本稿)는 이농현상(離農現象)이 농촌소득(農村所得)을 감소(減少)시키는 이유가 농업생산성(農業生産性)의 하락(下落) 때문이 아니라 농촌노동 및 소비인구의 격감으로 인한 농업부문(農業部門)의 이윤감소(利潤減少)와 농촌(農村) 서비스부문(部門)와 쇠퇴(衰退)때문이라고 주장한다. 1966, 1970, 1975, 1980 및 1985년의 한국인구(韓國人口)센서스 통계자료(統計資料)를 이용하여 주요가설(主要假說)들에 대해 실증분석(實證分析)을 한 결과 신고전학파(新古典學派)의 주장(主張)이나 Lipton의 견해(見解)보다 본(本) 연구모형(硏究模型)의 설명력(說明力)이 더 높은 것으로 밝혀졌다.
이촌향도형(離村向都型) 인구이동(人口移動) 농촌지역경제(農村地域經濟)에 미치는 영향(影響)에 관해 두가지 상반(相反)된 견해(見解)가 있다. 신고전학파적(新古典學派的) 낙관론(樂觀論) 따르면 이농현상(離農現象)은 농촌지역(農村地域)의 소득(所得)이나 후생수준(厚生水準)을 저해(沮害)하지 않는다고 보는 반면 Lipton (1980)은 그 반대의 견해(見解)를 취하고 있다. 본고(本稿)에서는 비교역재(非交易財)(nontraded goods)에 대한 국제무역이론(國濟貿易理論)과 화란병(和蘭病)(Dutch Disease)의 이론(理論)을 원용하여 농촌(農村)에서 도시(都市)로의 인구이동모형을 개발했다. 이 모형은 이농인구이동(離農人口移動)이 농촌지역(農村地域)의 소득(所得)과 후생수준(厚生水準)을 저해(沮害)한다는 점에서는 Lipton의 견해(見解)와 일치하나 소득(所得)을 감소(減少)시키는 요인들은 Lipton의 모형(模型)에서 지적(指摘)된 것들과는 다르다. 본고(本稿)는 이농현상(離農現象)이 농촌소득(農村所得)을 감소(減少)시키는 이유가 농업생산성(農業生産性)의 하락(下落) 때문이 아니라 농촌노동 및 소비인구의 격감으로 인한 농업부문(農業部門)의 이윤감소(利潤減少)와 농촌(農村) 서비스부문(部門)와 쇠퇴(衰退)때문이라고 주장한다. 1966, 1970, 1975, 1980 및 1985년의 한국인구(韓國人口)센서스 통계자료(統計資料)를 이용하여 주요가설(主要假說)들에 대해 실증분석(實證分析)을 한 결과 신고전학파(新古典學派)의 주장(主張)이나 Lipton의 견해(見解)보다 본(本) 연구모형(硏究模型)의 설명력(說明力)이 더 높은 것으로 밝혀졌다.
Two opposing views prevail regarding the economic impact of rural out-migration on the rural areas of origin. The optimistic neoclassical view argues that rapid rural out-migration is not detrimental to the income and welfare of the rural areas of origin, whereas Lipton (1980) argues the opposite. W...
Two opposing views prevail regarding the economic impact of rural out-migration on the rural areas of origin. The optimistic neoclassical view argues that rapid rural out-migration is not detrimental to the income and welfare of the rural areas of origin, whereas Lipton (1980) argues the opposite. We developed our own alternative model for rural to urban migration, appropriate for rapidly developing economies such as Korea's. This model, which adopts international trade theories of nontraded goods and Dutch Disease to rural to urban migration issues, argues that rural to urban migration is caused mainly by two factors: first, the unprofitability of farming, and second, the decrease in demand for rural nontraded goods and the increase in demand for urban nontraded goods. The unprofitability of farming is caused by the increase in rural wages, which is induced by increasing urban wages in booming urban manufacturing sectors, and by the fact that the cost increases in farming cannot be shifted to consumers, because farm prices are fixed worldwide and because the income demand elasticity for farm products is very low. The demand for nontraded goods decreases in rural and increases in urban areas because population density and income in urban areas increase sharply, while those in rural areas decrease sharply, due to rapid rural to urban migration. Given that the market structure for nontraded goods-namely, service sectors including educational and health facilities-is mostly in monopolistically competitive, and that the demand for nontraded goods comes only from local sources, the urban service sector enjoys economies of scale, and can thus offer services at cheaper prices and in greater variety, whereas the rural service sector cannot enjoy the advantages offered by scale economies. Our view concerning the economic impact of rural to urban migration on rural areas of origin agrees with Lipton's pessimistic view that rural out-migration is detrimental to the income and welfare of rural areas. However, our reasons for the reduction of rural income are different from those in Lipton's model. Lipton argued that rural income and welfare deteriorate mainly because of a shortage of human capital, younger workers and talent resulting from selective rural out-migration. Instead, we believe that rural income declines, first, because a rapid rural-urban migration creates a further shortage of farm labor supplies and increases rural wages, and thus reduces further the profitability of farming and, second, because a rapid rural-urban migration causes a further decline of the rural service sectors. Empirical tests of our major hypotheses using Korean census data from 1966, 1970, 1975, 1980 and 1985 support our own model much more than the neoclassical or Lipton's models. A kun (county) with a large out-migration had a smaller proportion of younger working aged people in the population, and a smaller proportion of highly educated workers. But the productivity of farm workers, measured in terms of fall crops (rice) purchased by the government per farmer or per hectare of irrigated land, did not decline despite the loss of these youths and of human capital. The kun having had a large out-migration had a larger proportion of the population in the farm sector and a smaller proportion in the service sector. The kun having had a large out-migration also had a lower income measured in terms of the proportion of households receiving welfare payments or the amount of provincial taxes paid per household. The lower incomes of these kuns might explain why the kuns that experienced a large out-migration had difficulty in mechanizing farming. Our policy suggestions based on the tests of the currently prevailing hypotheses are as follows: 1) The main cause of farming difficulties is not a lack of human capital, but the increase in production costs due to rural wage increases combined with depressed farm output prices. Therefore, a more effective way of
Two opposing views prevail regarding the economic impact of rural out-migration on the rural areas of origin. The optimistic neoclassical view argues that rapid rural out-migration is not detrimental to the income and welfare of the rural areas of origin, whereas Lipton (1980) argues the opposite. We developed our own alternative model for rural to urban migration, appropriate for rapidly developing economies such as Korea's. This model, which adopts international trade theories of nontraded goods and Dutch Disease to rural to urban migration issues, argues that rural to urban migration is caused mainly by two factors: first, the unprofitability of farming, and second, the decrease in demand for rural nontraded goods and the increase in demand for urban nontraded goods. The unprofitability of farming is caused by the increase in rural wages, which is induced by increasing urban wages in booming urban manufacturing sectors, and by the fact that the cost increases in farming cannot be shifted to consumers, because farm prices are fixed worldwide and because the income demand elasticity for farm products is very low. The demand for nontraded goods decreases in rural and increases in urban areas because population density and income in urban areas increase sharply, while those in rural areas decrease sharply, due to rapid rural to urban migration. Given that the market structure for nontraded goods-namely, service sectors including educational and health facilities-is mostly in monopolistically competitive, and that the demand for nontraded goods comes only from local sources, the urban service sector enjoys economies of scale, and can thus offer services at cheaper prices and in greater variety, whereas the rural service sector cannot enjoy the advantages offered by scale economies. Our view concerning the economic impact of rural to urban migration on rural areas of origin agrees with Lipton's pessimistic view that rural out-migration is detrimental to the income and welfare of rural areas. However, our reasons for the reduction of rural income are different from those in Lipton's model. Lipton argued that rural income and welfare deteriorate mainly because of a shortage of human capital, younger workers and talent resulting from selective rural out-migration. Instead, we believe that rural income declines, first, because a rapid rural-urban migration creates a further shortage of farm labor supplies and increases rural wages, and thus reduces further the profitability of farming and, second, because a rapid rural-urban migration causes a further decline of the rural service sectors. Empirical tests of our major hypotheses using Korean census data from 1966, 1970, 1975, 1980 and 1985 support our own model much more than the neoclassical or Lipton's models. A kun (county) with a large out-migration had a smaller proportion of younger working aged people in the population, and a smaller proportion of highly educated workers. But the productivity of farm workers, measured in terms of fall crops (rice) purchased by the government per farmer or per hectare of irrigated land, did not decline despite the loss of these youths and of human capital. The kun having had a large out-migration had a larger proportion of the population in the farm sector and a smaller proportion in the service sector. The kun having had a large out-migration also had a lower income measured in terms of the proportion of households receiving welfare payments or the amount of provincial taxes paid per household. The lower incomes of these kuns might explain why the kuns that experienced a large out-migration had difficulty in mechanizing farming. Our policy suggestions based on the tests of the currently prevailing hypotheses are as follows: 1) The main cause of farming difficulties is not a lack of human capital, but the increase in production costs due to rural wage increases combined with depressed farm output prices. Therefore, a more effective way of
AI-Helper
※ AI-Helper는 부적절한 답변을 할 수 있습니다.