Rural-urban migration, urban unemployment and underemployment, and job-search activity in LDCs
Fields, G.S.
Journal of Development Economics 2(2): 165-187
1975
ISSN/ISBN: 0304-3878 PMID: 12265914 DOI: 10.1016/0304-3878(75)90014-0Document Number: 384583
A quantity adjustment framework is used to analyze unemployment and underemployment in less developed countries (LDCs). The basic premise of the formal theoretical model presented is that the same kinds of forces that explain the choices of workers between the rural and urban sectors can also explain thier choices between 1 labor market and another within an urban area and are most likely made simultaneously. The decision makers, whether family units or individuals, are presumed to consider the various labor market opportunities available to them and to choose the one which maximizes their expected future income. In the model the primary equilibrating force is taken to be the movement of workers between labor markets, not changes in wages. The point of departure is the received theory of rural urban migration in LDS, which is the model of Harris and Todaro (1970). The 1st step is a summary of the basic features of the model. While accepting their basic approach emphasizing movement of workers rather than changes in wages, it is shown that the particular implication of the model with respect to the equilibrium urban unemployment rate substantially overstates the rates actually observed by Turnham (1971) and others. The analysis is then extended to consider several important factors which have previously been neglected--a more generalized approach to the job search process, the possibility of underemployment in the so-called urban "murky sector," preferential treatment by employers of the better educated, and consideration of labor turnover--and demonstrate that the resulting framework gives predictions closer to actual experience. Harris and Todaro in their original discussion concluded that a combination of a wage subsidy in the modern sector and physical restriction of migration would be required to realize a first best state lying on the economy's production possibility frontier. Subsequently Bhagwati and Srinivasan (1974) challenged them and demonstrated that a first best solution can be achieved by means of a variety of alternative tax or subsidy schemes, none of which require migration restriction. This analysis suggests 3 additional policy variables, beyond those considered by either pair, which might be expected to have an important effect on the volume of unemployment and underemployment in LDCs: a smoothly functioning labor exchange would reduce the incentive to remain unemployed while searching for a superior job; the size of the educational system would also influence the amount of unemployment; and it is job hiring in the modern sector, more than the number of jobs, which primarily influences workers' locational decisions.