@article{oai:shotoku.repo.nii.ac.jp:00001491,
 author = {宮川, 典之 and Miyagawa, Noriyuki},
 journal = {聖徳学園岐阜教育大学紀要, Bulletin of Gifu College of Education},
 month = {Sep},
 note = {In discussing developing countries (LDC's), we can usually classify the approaches which analyze them in the following manner. On the one hand we have Marxian approach which focuses on the difficult aspects involved in LDC's developing processes, on the other hand neo-classical school concentrates its attention upon the positive features in their industrialization. In this paper, we consider their development problems from the view point of the latter and examine "dualistic theory" which constitutes the core concept in analyzing them through this approach. In Section I, the stream of development economics from World War II onward is largely dealt with. First the debate carried out by R.Nurkse and H.O.Hirschman on the style of growth (a balanced vs. unbalanced controversy in the 1950s) is introduced. Alternatively W.A.Lewis proposed a development model, with unlimited supplies of labour which was doomed to have great influence on development of dualistic theory from the '50s onward. On the basis of this model G.Ranis and J.C.Fei constructed their own model with industrial sector and agricultural one, and then other scholars followed them. Besides the main stream, another one does exist. It should be noted that structurists who emphasize international relations around LDC's, in other words an international dualism, play a very important role in synthesizing theories of development. If we examine the process of dualistic development, the origin of this discipline traces back to, An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations, written by A.Smith in the 18th century. He described the economic linkage between urban sector and rural one in terms of dualism in it. The key concepts that link two sectors are surplus products, and surplus labour, or disguised unemployment which is defined that there are those laborers who do not produce marginally at all in rural sector. Although Smith did not have LDC's on his mind, neo-classical school followed his thought in a developmental context in the 20th century. To take the typical members, W.A.Lewis, G.Ranis, J.C.Fei, D.W.Jorgenson, etc. are included in it. In Section II, the prototype of dualism is traced in a theoretical context. Section III deals with M.P.Todaro's model which was built by modifying Lewis model in light of the situation of LDC's and with his migration model which has influenced the tendency of dualism since the 1970s. Particularly the latter is important in the sense that it clarified imperfection of labor market involved in the process of industrialization. According to this model, the more powerfully they promote it, the larger becomes a pool of the unemployed. Todaro emphasized this paradoxical state. The idea he hit upon was expected wage through which they migrate from rural sector to urban one. R.Harris and Todaro explained this aspect by means of geometry. It is true that their effort made dualistic theory more elaborate, but it is impossible to show various problems involved in urbanization adequately and then offer specific proposals to solve them only by doing so. Final two sections, therefore, offer some issues hidden in this main stream. One of them is existence of the informal sector which occurred in the course of urbanization and is getting more and more significant in this field. More positive evaluation of this sector is expected. The other is the absence of description or explanation of dualism in an international framework which includes not only LDC's but developed ones. In this context, as previously stated, the structural school throws an opportunity for explaining the complexity of dualistic expansion. Finally it should be noted that recently G.Ranis is attempting to build a model in a neo-classical setting.},
 pages = {107--125},
 title = {「二重経済論」の再検討 : LDC分析の新古典派的アプローチを巡って},
 volume = {20},
 year = {1990},
 yomi = {ミヤガワ, ノリユキ}
}