Empirical Tests and Practical Application of The Lewis Model
- Empirical evidence does not always provide much support for the Lewis model. Theodore Schultz in an empirical study of a village in India during the influenza epidemic of 1918–19 showed that agricultural output declined, although his study does not prove whether output would have declined had a comparable proportion of the agricultural population left for other occupations in response to economic incentive. Again disguised unemployment may be present in one sector of the economy but not in others. Further, empirically it is important to know not only whether the marginal productivity is equal to zero, but also the amount of surplus labor and the effect of its withdrawal on output.
- The Lewis model was applied to the Egyptian economy by Mabro in 1967 and despite the proximity of Lewis's assumptions to the realities if the Egyptian situation during the period of study, the model failed firstly because Lewis seriously underestimated the rate of population growth and secondly because the choice of capital intensiveness in Egyptian industries did not show much labor using bias and as such, the level of unemployment did not show any tendency to register significant decline.
- The validity of the Lewis model was again called into question when it was applied to Taiwan. It was observed that, despite the impressive rate of growth of the economy of Taiwan, unemployment did not fall appreciably and this is explained again in reference to the choice of capital intensity in industries in Taiwan. This raised the important issue whether surplus labor is a necessary condition for growth.
This model has been employed quite successfully in Singapore. Ironically however it has not been employed in Sir Arthur Lewis' home country of St. Lucia.
Read more about this topic: Dual-sector Model
Famous quotes containing the words empirical, tests, practical, application, lewis and/or model:
“To develop an empiricist account of science is to depict it as involving a search for truth only about the empirical world, about what is actual and observable.... It must involve throughout a resolute rejection of the demand for an explanation of the regularities in the observable course of nature, by means of truths concerning a reality beyond what is actual and observable, as a demand which plays no role in the scientific enterprise.”
—Bas Van Fraassen (b. 1941)
“Letters have to pass two tests before they can be classed as good: they must express the personality both of the writer and of the recipient.”
—E.M. (Edward Morgan)
“While there are practical and sometimes moral reasons for the decomposition of the family, it coincides neither with what most people in society say they desire nor, especially in the case of children, with their best interests.”
—Robert Neelly Bellah (20th century)
“Science is intimately integrated with the whole social structure and cultural tradition. They mutually support one other—only in certain types of society can science flourish, and conversely without a continuous and healthy development and application of science such a society cannot function properly.”
—Talcott Parsons (1902–1979)
“We all ask ourselves the question why is it that some of us are killed while others remain. The only answer is our faith in the wisdom of a supreme being. If he has chosen us to live there must be a reason. I have tried to reckon out why. Perhaps he has saved us because we are needed as witnesses to remind each other, and our folks, and folks everywhere that war is too full of horrors for human beings.”
—Michael Blankfort. Lewis Milestone. Dickerman (Jack Webb)
“...that absolutely everything beloved and cherished of the bourgeoisie, the conservative, the cowardly, and the impotent—the State, family life, secular art and science—was consciously or unconsciously hostile to the religious idea, to the Church, whose innate tendency and permanent aim was the dissolution of all existing worldly orders, and the reconstitution of society after the model of the ideal, the communistic City of God.”
—Thomas Mann (1875–1955)