The political economy of endogenous dual-sector model: Public goods, labor markets and tax rates

Wang, Yongqin; Gao, Xin Article The political economy of endogenous dual-sector model: Public goods, labor markets andtax rates China Political Economy (CPE) Provided in Cooperation with: School of Economics, Nanjing University Suggested Citation: Wang, Yongqin; Gao, Xin (2022) : The political economy of endogenous dualsector model: Public goods, labor markets andtax rates, China Political Economy (CPE), ISSN 2516-1652, Emerald, Leeds, Vol. 5, Iss. 2, pp. 165-183, https://doi.org/10.1108/CPE-11-2022-0019 This Version is available at: https://hdl.handle.net/10419/319456 Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen: Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your personal and scholarly purposes. You are not to copy documents for public or commercial purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public. If the documents have been made available under an Open Content Licence (especially Creative Commons Licences), you may exercise further usage rights as specified in the indicated licence. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ The political economy of endogenous dual-sector model: public goods, labor markets and tax rates Yongqin Wang China Center for Economic Studies, School of Economics, Fudan University, Shanghai, China, and Xin Gao Department of Economics, University of Mannheim, Mannheim, Germany Abstract Purpose –This paper studies the political economy of the endogenous urban–rural divide in two dimensions: labor market and provision of public goods. Design/methodology/approach –This paper gives a dual-sector model endogenously depending on the consumption of public goods (club goods), the number of rural–urban migrants and the tax rate (transfer payments). Findings –According to the research findings in this paper, the constraints on the participation of rural residents portray the rural residents’bargaining power, and in the game between the urban elites and the rural residents, tax rates depend on the preferences of the urban elites and the constraints urban elites and the rural residents jointly face. Therefore, the urban elites have to set tax rates deviating from the most preferred ones. The model in this paper can explain a series of empirical findings and yield new theoretical findings for empirical testing. Originality/value –Significantly, the paper finds that the increase in agricultural productivity will lead to industrialization, accompanied by the disintegration of the dual-sector model. However, though the increase in industrial productivity can accelerate industrialization, it will further expand the urban–rural divide. Keywords Congestion effect, Two-sector model, Urban bias, Political economy Paper type Research paper The most significant conflict in underdeveloped countries today is not between labor and capital. Nor is it between foreign and national interests. It is between the rural classes and the urban classes — Michael Lipton 1. Introduction Since Arthur Lewis (1954), the “dual-sector model”concept has had far-reaching effects on the researchers of development economics and policymakers and has remained the starting point The political economy 165 ©The Journal of World Economy. Published in China Political Economy. Published by Emerald Publishing Limited. This article is published under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) licence. Anyone may reproduce, distribute, translate and create derivative works of this article (for both commercial and non-commercial purposes), subject to full attribution to the original publication and authors. The full terms of this licence may be seen at http://creativecommons.org/licences/by/4.0/ legalcode. Originally published in Simplified Chinese in The Journal of World Economy. This research has been supported by the “Program for New Century Excellent Talents in University” of the Ministry of Education, “985 China Economic International Competitiveness Innovation Base Project”of Fudan University, “985 Project III Overall Promotion of Social Science Research Project”of Fudan University, the National Social Science Foundation Major Project (11 & ZD073), “Shanghai Key Discipline Construction Project”(B101), “Pujiang Talents”of Shanghai (2011) and Shanghai University Think Tank (China Center for Economic Studies, Fudan University). The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at: https://www.emerald.com/insight/2516-1652.htm Received 2 November 2022 Revised 3 November 2022 Accepted 3 November 2022 China Political Economy Vol. 5 No. 2, 2022 pp. 165-183 Emerald Publishing Limited 2516-1652 DOI 10.1108/CPE-11-2022-0019 for most economists in considering the economic issues of developing countries. According to Lewis’s opinions, a dual-sector model of economic development exists in many developing countries, where a modern sector and a traditional sector coexist. The modern sector is economically advanced, with modern urban lifestyles and industries as well as advanced technology, while the traditional sector is associated with rural life, agricultural production and backward system and technology. The labor force in the traditional sector is utilized inefficiently, and as per Lewis’s opinions, this labor force can be transferred to the modern sector without reducing the output of the traditional sector. The “problem of development”is how to move people and resources from the traditional sector (rural areas) to the modern sector (urban areas). Indeed, many developed countries have gone through urbanization and industrialization. The ongoing urbanization in China and other developing economies confirms Lewis’s idea. One policy implication of Lewis’s idea is that by liberalizing labor moves and transferring rural residents from the rural sector to the urban sector, the urban–rural dual-sector model will be eliminated, and the economy will grow [1]. However, according to the history of global economic development, most developing countries have been mired in the dual-sector model of economic development for a long time. Thus, unlike Lewis’s assumption that the dualsector model is exogenously given, it endogenously depends on the political process in many countries. Lipton (1977) noticed the urban-biased policies prevalent in developing countries very early: the urban elites pressure governments into making rules and policies biased towards them, such as accessing better public goods (e.g. healthcare and education) and more rights in the labor market. Also, Bates (1981) discovered that urban elites capture rents by distorting the prices in product and factor markets (e.g. by depressing the purchase price of agricultural products) [2]. This artificial dual-sector model of economic development affects efficiency, hinders economic development and creates extreme inequality. This indicates that the dualsector model is an endogenous (equilibrium) phenomenon, and economists should understand the political economy that causes such kind of phenomena. Although China has enjoyed remarkable economic growth since its opening up and reform, the Chinese society is now still a typical dual-sector society. China’s urbanization rate has only reached 51%, and the dual-sector pattern has not fundamentally changed. The divide between urban and rural areas in China lies not only in space but also in access to social benefits. The urban residents (and their children) are entitled to social benefits to which rural residents (and their children) are not entitled regarding education, healthcare, social security and job opportunities. In the labor market, rural residents fail to integrate into the cities permanently but end up returning to their hometowns in the countryside as a floating population. China’s urban bias in the provision of public goods is noticeable. According to statistics about the divide between urban and rural residents in access to education and healthcare, in 1997, the enrollment of urban ordinary secondary and primary schools was 48.82 and 30.32% of the national total, respectively, while the educational expenditure of urban ordinary secondary and primary schools within the fiscal budget were 61.25 and 36.39% of the national total, respectively. Regarding educational expenditure per student in primary and secondary schools, the figure for urban areas was 1.79 times that for rural areas. In 2002, 40.63% of China’s national educational funds allocated to primary and secondary schools went to rural areas. In 2000, 69% of China’s urban population had access to sanitation facilities, while only 27% of the total rural population accessed sanitation facilities (Hou and Zhang, 2006). According to the data released by the World Health Organization in 2002, China ranked 188th (the fourth lowest) in the world regarding equity in the distribution of health resources. The urban residents, representing 30% of China’s total population, had access to 80% of the nationwide health resources, while the rural residents, occupying 70% of China’s total population, accessed only 20% of China’s health resources. CPE 5,2 166 This is accompanied by the gradual widening development gap in the urban and rural areas. In terms of labor productivity, if “comparative labor productivity”is used to evaluate the urban and rural labor productivity, the comparative labor productivity of the primary industry was always lower than that of the secondary and tertiary industries from 1978 to 2009. In the sense of comparative labor productivity, the labor productivity gap between urban and rural workers is significant (Gao, 2012). Regarding resident income, China’s income gap is caused mainly by the urban–rural income gap. If the urban–rural income gap is significantly reduced, China’s income gap problem will greatly improve (Wan, 2006). The urban-biased household registration, education, healthcare and social security systems have severely restricted the transformation of China’s dual-sector economic development model, fettered its economic growth potential and exacerbated the inequality and imbalance of China’s development. According to Chen et al. (2010), one of the crucial causes of the urban–rural income gap is the urban–rural education gap. The difference in education level contributes 34.69% to the urban–rural income gap in China, and the urban– rural education gap tends to widen further. Though policymakers and many researchers argue that urbanization is a critical engine for China’s economic development, it is undeniable that there are still many obstacles to China’s urbanization, including huge pressure from the urban sector regarding the reform of the household registration system. Especially since the reform and opening up in 1978, the cyclical changes in the urban–rural gap have mainly originated from the pressure of the urban interest groups and the institutional factors inherited from the traditional system; in other words, there is a gap between the influence of different groups on policies (Cai and Yang, 2000). Some studies have been conducted to explain the persistence of urban-biased policies and the dual-sector model from the political economy perspective. According to the theory of Majumdar et al. (2004), urban and rural residents differ in their access to information, and information enables residents to judge the government’s ability to provide public goods by the quality and amount of the public goods observed. The superiority of urban residents in terms of access to information will likely lead to an urban bias in the allocation of public resources when the government’s goal is to gain reelection. However, in their argument, this information advantage of urban residents stems from the factors such as higher levels of per capita wealth and education, as well as the concentrated coverage of various types of media in urban areas. However, we believe that these factors are the results and manifestations of urban bias and that treating them as the cause of urban bias misses the point. Chen and Lu (2008), on the other hand, explain the formation of the urban–rural dual-sector model from the perspective of capital accumulation. Fergusson (2013) formulates a model of the conflict within the rural sector, indicating that the large landowners in the elites support the policies that weaken the peasants’property rights because the landowners rely on the peasants for labor. Fergusson explains the emergence of incomplete property rights regimes and provides an endogenous mechanism for the persistence of inefficient rural property rights regimes in the development process. However, the phenomenon researched in his study is not representative because, in most countries, dual-sector is manifested as a conflict between urban and rural areas; just as Lipton (1977) observed long ago, the most critical conflict in underdeveloped countries is not between labor and capital but between urban and rural areas. Therefore, Fergusson’s research misses the point in regard to the persistence of the dual-sector model. Pedersen (1997) also argues that the urban bias is caused mainly by government policies and furthermore, due to the uneven distribution of political influence. Other explanations focus on exploring the theory of political organization (Olson, 1971), arguing that peasants are generally the most decentralized political group, especially in most regions of Africa and Latin America, and that it is usually costly and thus much less efficient for peasants to form a pressure group (Bates, 1981;Binswanger and Deininger, 1997). The political economy 167 However, the above literature fails to note that in Asian developing countries, where the density of rural populations is very high, peasants can form an effective rural pressure group (In fact, peasants engaged in rice cultivation are the group with the most voters in many Asian countries). Moreover, in many East Asian countries or regions (Korea, Taiwan, Malaysia and Indonesia), the threat of peasant-induced insurgency has forced the authorities to especially consider the needs and interests of these peasants (Eastwood and Lipton, 2004; World Bank, 1993). Other studies have highlighted that since the founding of New China, the urban–rural dual-sector model was born out of a strategy of prioritizing the development of heavy industry. For example, Lin and Liu (2003) argue that the allocation structure of production factor stocks formed under the catch-up strategy of prioritizing the development of heavy industry pursued since the founding of New China is not in line with the comparative advantage and is the main cause of regional income disparities. In addition, Chen and Lin (2010) theoretically demonstrate that, both from a static perspective and in a dynamic framework, a heavy industry-first development strategy will lead to a lower level of urbanization and a larger urban–rural wage gap; moreover, the greater the degree of catchup, the lower the level of urbanization, the slower the urbanization process, the larger the urban–rural wage gap and the slower its reduction. Although the impact of this strategy has now weakened significantly and some of the corresponding institutional arrangements (e.g. the household registration system) are loosened, the urban–rural dual-sector model in China has not been fundamentally changed as mentioned above, and deeper causes need to be sought in theory. We argue that the existing literature on political economy explaining the dual-sector model neglected two crucial dimensions. One is the general equilibrium effect of the labor market, i.e. how the move of rural labor influences the wage level in the urban sector and further influences the endogenous policies; the other dimension is the bargaining and compromise of the urban elites and the rural residents. However, these are not considered in the existing literature, and the fact is that the urban elites are not unconstrained in formulating the urban-biased policies –they must respect the potential revolutionary constraint (participation constraint) of the rural residents, namely, the retained utility of the rural residents cannot fall below a certain threshold, or else a potential revolution or social conflict will occur. The participation constraint determines the relative bargaining powers of the urban and rural sectors, the size of the cake they gain and the endogenous policies. Our model will explicitly consider these two points. Our approach is closer to the political economy literature on social conflicts, such as Roemer (1998),Grossman (1991,1994), Wintrobe (1998),Bueno de Mesquita et al. (2003) and Acemoglu and Robinson (2006). These works explicitly examine the games between the government and the masses. More specifically, since the political elites are under the pressure of social conflicts, they must make some compromises to the masses during policymaking, such as tax reduction and transfer payments. In our model, all these policy measures can be portrayed as tax rates. Here we construct a game model between the urban elites with a small proportion of the total population and the rural residents with a large proportion in a nondemocratic society and embed the general equilibrium effects of the labor market in this game. In this model, the urban elites determine the tax rates and policies on population move and try to maximize their utility by formulating the best policy mix under the government’s budget constraint and the rural residents’revolutionary or social conflict constraint (participation constraint). In terms of urbanization, the urban elites face competition from the rural residents in two aspects. The first one is the public goods with congestion effect: more rural residents migrating to urban areas will lead to a decrease in the quality of the public goods (e.g. education, healthcare, etc.) enjoyed by the urban elites. The public goods here are a kind CPE 5,2 168 of club goods with only a part of competition and exclusivity (Cornes and Sandler, 1996), i.e. not pure public goods but quasipublic goods with a certain congestion effect [3]. One of the characteristics of club products is the presence of congestion effect, which means that the quality of the public goods consumed by individuals decreases as the number of consumers increases. Club products produce congestion effects in a variety of ways, such as longer waiting time, slower service, longer travel time on highways and greater noise in public places. In this paper, we focus on the club products that can improve human capital, such as education and healthcare. The second is the labor market: the migrants from the rural sector and the existing residents of the urban sector will also compete in the labor market, which will reduce the balanced wage level. If the industrial characteristics of different industries and the economic behavior of urban and rural residents are regarded as the “endogenous”factors leading to the dual-sector model of economic development and the government policies are the “exogenous”factors leading to the dual-sector model, a more convincing analytical framework will be able to endogenize both. We believe that it is an effective way to explore the causes and trends of the dual-sector economic model from the political economy perspective. The rest of the paper is organized as follows: section 2 gives the basic setup of the model; section 3 portrays the economic equilibrium under a given policy combination; section 4 gives some results of comparative static analysis; section 5 portrays the political equilibrium and section 6 concludes the whole paper. 2. The model We consider a two-sector economy with the total population normalized to 1. The rich (urban elites) in the urban sector (denoted by u)is α ∈ð0;1Þ, and the remaining population, denoted as 1 − α , indicates the poor (rural residents) in the rural sector (denoted by r). These two sectors are described below with some basic notations. (1) The rural sector: The technology of the rural sector is portrayed in the following function [4]:Yr¼ArFðt;LÞ,whereAris the total factor productivity, tthe total amount of land and Lthe effective labor input into the rural sector. In particular, L¼ μ rL,where μ r, the selection variable of the rural residents (while μ udenotes the selection variable of the urban residents accordingly), is the quality of the public goods consumed by the rural residents (such as education and healthcare, which can improve the level of human capital and production efficiency). Furthermore, L¼1− α −mis the total rural–urban labor input into the rural sector, and mrepresents the number of rural migrants flowing to urban areas. We assume that the rural sector’s production function Fhas constant returns to scale for the labor and land input and enjoys the basic properties of a typical concave function: Ft>0;Fu<0;FL>0;FLL <0;FtL >0 We assume that the rural residents have no land ownership, and then each rural resident in 1− α −mhas to rent land for farming. In the equilibrium, all land is rented out and fully utilized. Suppose each rural resident is of the same quality and the land will be evenly distributed among all rural residents, then the amount of land allocated to each rural resident is t 1− α −m. The net income of a representative rural resident is as follows: yr¼pArFt 1 α m; μ r ρ t 1 α m The political economy 169 where ρ is the rental price of land and is given, deemed by rural residents; pis the price of agricultural products in relation to industrial products. In the equilibrium, the rural residents maximize their net income by equaling the value of marginal products of the land to ρ , i.e. the rental price of the land. Therefore, the equilibrium rental price of the land is as follows: ρ ¼pArFtt 1 α m; μ r(1) Since the rural sector’s production function has constant returns to scale, the net income of a representative rural resident is as follows: yr¼pArFt 1 α m; μ r ρ t 1 α m¼ μ rpArFLt 1 α m; μ r(2) The above equation indicates that the net income of a representative rural resident equals the product of the value of the marginal products of his/her effective labor input and the quality of the public goods consumed by him/her. (2) The urban sector: The wages earned by a worker in the urban sector are wu.We assume that the wages of urban workers decrease with an increasing number of rural migrants flowing to urban areas. In addition, as the urban sector is perfectly competitive, the reward available to an urban laborer equals his marginal product. Based on the existing literature, we assume, without loss of generality, that the marginal product of the effective labor input of a representative rural resident is lower than that of an urban worker, i.e. pArFLt 1− α −m; μ r<wu. Another assumption is that the rural residents migrating to the urban sector cannot work in the rural sector meanwhile. In other words, the labor of each rural resident cannot be split. With the migration of rural residents to the urban area, the rural sector will lose one unit of labor. To simplify the analysis, we omit the specific form of the production function of the urban sector (industry or manufacturing sector), which does not affect the main results. We give the following functional form of wages: wu¼Au ω ðmÞ(3) where Auis the total factor productivity of the urban sector. We assume that the function ω ð$Þ has the following properties: ω 0<0 and ω 00 >0. As mentioned, these properties mean that the urban wages decrease with an increase in the number of migrants m. Like the rural residents in the rural sector, the net income of an urban worker equals the product of the marginal product of his effective labor input (i.e. the wage rate per unit of labor input denoted by wu) and the quality of the public goods consumed by him, μ u. This can be summarized in the following equation: yu¼ μ uwu(4) (3) Maximization of individual utility: Individual utility originates from the consumption of industrial products c, leisure and health. It is worth noting that we think the agricultural output is used to meet survival needs only. Therefore, we set the function of individual utility as follows: Ui¼ciþQð1 μ iÞi¼r;u where the function Qhas the properties of a concave function, i.e. Q0>0 and Q00 <0. This quasilinear form of the utility function is an excellent way to depict the “hierarchy of needs”, CPE 5,2 170 showing that the consumption of public goods takes precedence over industrial product consumption. In regard to public goods like education and healthcare, this form of utility function suggests that people will participate in certain training programs or health insurance before engaging in market-based production activities. In particular, a higher quality of education for personal consumption implies more input of effort and time is required, resulting in less leisure time and lower utility gained. Similarly, a higher quality of healthcare for personal consumption implies more treatment and care required, resulting in less time of staying healthy and lower utility gained. Without loss of generality, we normalize the upper bound (endowment) of the time for personal leisure or health to 1, and the utility function is set to the above form. In terms of consumption, every person must first meet his basic survival needs, and it is assumed that every person consumes Sunit(s) of agricultural output. When this need is met, the individual consumption is as follows: ci¼yi−pS − τμ i;i¼r;uwhere τ is the tax rate determined at the first stage of the game, which will be discussed later, and is deemed given here. Hamilton (1975) argues that the property tax serves as “the price for public services.”In other words, the property tax can be regarded as the “congestion fee”for the public goods because the property tax paid by residents equals the marginal effect of a new resident’s cost for the public goods provided by the government at the existing level (Wilson, 1997). With the quality of the public goods consumed denoted by μ ras a selection variable, the utility maximization of a representative rural resident means that the following first-order condition can be obtained: pArðFLþ μ rFLLÞ τ ¼Q0ð1 μ rÞ(5) Likewise, the first-order condition of an urban worker is as follows: wu τ ¼Q0ð1 μ rÞ(6) Then we analyze the migration decisions of rural residents. We denote the maximum utility gained by rural residents staying in the rural sector or migrating to the urban sector as Vrand Vu, respectively. If the initial condition is Vu>Vr, then migration will last until Vu¼Vr.Itis possible that Vu<Vrwhen the number of migrants m¼0. In such a case, the rural residents have no motives for migration. To sum up, we adopt the form of complementary slackness to unify all the above conditions of the migration decisions of rural residents: mðVuVrÞ¼0;mP0;VuVr#0 (7) We did not give a specific functional form regarding the quality of the public goods consumed by the people initially, and now we take the sector size into account. For a given sector (club), we use μ ¼fðq;NÞto denote the impact of the sector size on the quality of the public goods consumed by people, where qis a “composite public good”representing the total amount of public goods services provided by a sector (club) and Nis the number of persons consuming public goods at the same time. According to the assumption adopted by Borcherding and Deacon (1972) and Bergstrom and Goodman (1973) that μ is proportionate to q[5], we rewrite the above function as follows: μ u¼gðmÞqu(8) where g00ð$Þ<0. It is worth noting that our main consideration is the number of rural migrants flowing to urban areas rather than the total number of persons consuming the public goods at the same time. Also, we define the elasticity of the quality of the public goods consumed towards the number of migrants (“elasticity of sector size”) as follows: The political economy 171 ε u m¼v μ u vm $ m μ u (9) ε u mis adopted to measure the change in the quality of the public goods consumed by the urban population when the total amount of the public goods (i.e. the public services provided) remains unchanged and rural migrants flow into the urban area. This elasticity can easily portray three conditions, i.e. the network effect ( ε u m>0), congestion effect ( ε u m<0) and zero effect of migrant influx ( ε u m¼0). (4) The game problem: We will complete the description of the entire economic problem after discussing the government acts. Now we consider the following games: The urban elites decide the tax rates and transfer payments under the government’s budget constraint and the rural residents’revolution constraint. Then the rural residents decide whether to start a revolution or not. If a revolution occurs, the game ends; if a revolution does not occur, the game continues. The urban elites decide whether to allow the migration of rural residents to cities or not. If the migration is not allowed, the game ends; if the migration is allowed, the game continues. The rural residents decide whether to migrate to cities or not by comparing the maximum utility available to them under the conditions of entering the urban areas and staying in the countryside, i.e. Vuand Vr. The rural residents who have not migrated choose μ rto maximize the utility Ur, while the migrated rural residents and urban elites choose μ uto maximize the utility Uu. The urban labor market is perfectly competitive. For a given policy mix, the second and third stages of the game determine the model’s economic equilibrium, which will be discussed in the following section. In the first stage of the game, the model’s political equilibrium depends on the urban elites’policy selection. How political equilibrium impacts economic equilibrium will be discussed in the fourth section. 3. Economic equilibrium When the migration of rural residents to urban areas is allowed, migration will persist until the utility obtained in the urban sector is equal to the utility obtained in the rural sector. As mentioned above, we assume that an individual cannot work in both sectors simultaneously, and then we can define the economic equilibrium as follows. Definition 1. (economic equilibrium): Given certain economic state variables ðAr;Au;t; α ; τ Þ, economic equilibrium is the combination of a series of prices and resource allocations fp*; ρ *;w* u;m*; μ * r; μ * u;q* ug, which meets the following conditions: (1) Given p; ρ ;Wuand m, the nonmigrated rural residents choose μ rto maximize the utility Urand the rural migrants and urban elites choose μ uto maximize the utility Uu, satisfying the first-order conditions, i.e. Equations (5) and (6). (2) It is worth noting that the agricultural output must be able to meet the survival needs of all people, for all people need to consume Sunits of agricultural output. Therefore, the following equation can be obtained: S¼ArFðt;LÞ¼ArFt; μ * rð1 α m*Þ(10) And ðp*; ρ *;w* u;m*;q* uÞsatisfies this equation and Equations (1), (3), (7) and (8). CPE 5,2 172 rates while the rural residents prefer higher tax rates, and τ *is the minimum tax rate that prevents any revolution. Before giving the main results, we introduce some notations. Su¼f τ gdenotes the action taken by the urban elites, which consists of a series of tax rates τ ∈½0;1. Similarly, Sr¼f α ð$Þgdenotes the action taken by the rural residents, i.e. the decision whether to start a revolution α ð τ Þ( α ¼1 means starting a revolution). According to the sequence of events in the game set up by us, this decision of the rural residents depends on the behavior of the urban elites acting first. Thus, α is a function, α :½0;1→f0;1g. Now, we can summarize the above analysis and obtain the following proposition. Proposition 4. The game has a unique subgame perfect Nash equilibrium fS* u;S* rg, which we also define as a political equilibrium of the game, satisfying the following conditions: if Equation (13) does not hold, then fS* u;S* rg¼ f τ u; α ð τ Þ¼0 holds for all τ g;ifEquation (13) holds but Equation (14) does not, then fS* u;S* rg¼f τ u; α ð τ Þ¼1 holds for all τ gand if both Equation (13) and Equation (14) hold, then fS* u;S* rg¼f τ *; α ð τ Þ¼ 0 holds for τ ≥ τ *and α ð τ Þ¼1 holds for τ < τ *gunder the condition of equalized transfer payment, where τ *is given by Equation (15). This proposition gives an idea of how the constraints faced by and preferences of the urban elites in nondemocratic politics determine policymaking in equilibrium. When these constraints are not binding, the preferences of the urban elites become the main influencing factor. When these constraints are binding, the margin for the urban elite’s choices is limited. Interestingly, although the urban elites in nondemocratic societies hold full political power, they may also have to deviate from their most preferred tax rate τ uand instead set a tax rate that redistributes resources in favor of the rural residents. This is because the rural residents outside the political power system pose an effective external threat to the urban elites, which forces the elites to make some concessions. 6. Conclusions Economic development is a process of transcending the dual-sector model, where only a few countries have succeeded, while most countries or regions have been caught in the trap of the dual-sector model for a long time and cannot extricate themselves from it. The paper provides a political economy theory to understand how the dual-sector model is endogenously determined in the political process. We construct a model of a game between the urban elites and the rural residents and embed the general equilibrium effects of the labor market in this game. The urban elites try to maximize their utility through formulating the optimal policy mix under the government’s budget constraint and the rural residents’participation constraint (revolutionary or social conflict constraint). The urban elites face competition from the rural residents in two aspects. One is public goods where congestion effects exist –more rural residents migrating to cities will lead to a decrease in the quality of the public goods (e.g. education, healthcare, etc.) enjoyed by the urban elites, and the other is labor market –more rural residents moving to cities will lower the wages of the urban residents. The urban-biased policies and the dual-sector model are endogenously determined in the equilibrium after the above circumstances are considered. By portraying the interplay between the endogenous economic model and the endogenous policies, our model not only provides a formal model analysis for the stylized facts in the previous descriptive studies on urban bias (Lipton, 1977;Bates, 1981) but also explains why the urban-biased policies and the dual-sector economic model persist over time and predicts under what conditions they will disappear. The paper’s results of comparative static analysis (theoretical prediction) can be tested with cross-country data. The political economy 179 China is at the crossroad between urbanization and economic structural transformation, and the theory presented in the paper is instructive for China’s current urbanization and urban–rural integration. Particularly, the model in this paper suggests that the technological improvement in agriculture leads to the disintegration of the dual-sector model while accompanying industrialization; in contrast, although the technological improvement in the industry leads to industrialization, it widens the gap between the industrial and agricultural sectors. This indicates that economic development and technological improvement in the rural sector are significant, both in an economic and political sense. The development of the agricultural sector reduces the urban sector’s resistance to urban–rural integration and makes the urban-biased policies decrease, which greatly contributes to the integration of the urban–rural dual-sector model. Since the reform and opening-up, especially after the shift of the focus of China’s reform to the urban sector in the early 1980s, the development of China’s rural areas has actually lagged behind so far. Chinese leaders have recognized the importance of agricultural modernization and have proposed “supporting new urbanization with agricultural modernization”(Li, 2013), which is very insightful. The previous literature has placed too much emphasis on urban development and neglected the role of rural development in eliminating the dual-sector model. This study shows that the dual-sector model is an equilibrium phenomenon caused by the interplay of economic and political forces. To eliminate the urban–rural dual-sector model, policymakers need to consider the interplay of economic and political forces and the substitutability and complementarity between corresponding policies and institutions. Many specific policy design issues in this regard deserve further in-depth discussion. Lastly, it is essential to note that our model examines the relationship between the urban and rural sectors without considering the role of the central government. Under China’s centralized political and decentralized fiscal system, the central government would play a more active role in eliminating the dual-sector model (urban–rural divide) to reduce the resistance of local governments and the urban sector during the reform. For example, the central government can provide global public goods in facilitating cross-regional population moves and take on more responsibility for social security, such as providing some compensation to those damaged in the urban sector. There are also many institutional design issues in this regard that deserve further in-depth research. The central government may consider these general equilibrium effects and the interplay processes in this paper during its design of systems and specific policies. Notes 1. The “modern sector”and the “traditional sector”can also be called “urban sector”and “rural sector” or “manufacturing sector”and “agricultural sector”. We use these terms herein for convenience. 2. Pan (2008) discussed the inefficiencies caused by the distortion of factor market prices by the urban elites, but not in the context of a dual-sector model. 3. Nevertheless, for the sake of narrative convenience, we use the term “public goods”in the following. 4. Capital will not be considered in this paper without prejudice to the main mechanisms of action and conclusions. 5. Refer to Reiter and Weichenrieder (1999) for a discussion of this point. 6. The “Green Revolution”refers to the technological innovations in the 1960s that led to increased food production in parts of Asia, Africa and South America through the spread of high-yielding cereal varieties and technologies in some developed Western countries. CPE 5,2 180 References Acemoglu, D. and Robinson, J.A. (2006), Economic Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy, Cambridge University Press, New York. Bates, R.H. (1981), Markets and States in Tropical Africa: The Political Basis of Agricultural Policies, University of California Press, Berkeley. Bergstrom, T.C. and Goodman, R.P. (1973), “Private demands for public goods”,The American Economic Review, Vol. 63 No. 3, pp. 280-296. Binswanger, H.P. and Deininger, K. (1997), “Explaining agricultural and agrarian policies in developing countries”,Journal of Economic Literature, Vol. 35 No. 4, pp. 1958-2005. Borcherding, T.E. and Deacon, R.T. (1972), “The demand of services of non-federal governments”, American Economic Review, Vol. 62 No. 5, pp. 891-901. Bueno de Mesquita, B., Smith, A., Siverson, R.M. and Morrow, J.D. (2003), The Logic of Political Survival, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. Cai, F. and Yang, T. (2000), “Chengxiang shouru chaju de zhengzhi jingjixue [The Political Economy on the Urban-Rural Income Gap”,Zhongguo Shehui Kexue [Social Sciences in China], Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 11-22. Chen, B.K. and Lin, Y.F. (2010), “Zhonggongye youxian fazhan zhanlve, chengshihua he chengxiang gongzi chaju [Development Strategy, Urbanization and Urban-Rural Inequality]”,Nankai jingji yanjiu [Nankai Economic Studies], Vol. 26 No. 1, pp. 3-18. Chen, Z. and Lu, M. (2008), “Cong fenge dao ronghe: chengxiang jingji zengzhang yu shehui hexie de zhengzhi jingjixue [From Segmentation to Integration: the Political Economy of Urban-Rural Economic Growth and Social Harmony]”,Jingji yanjiu [Economic Research Journal], Vol. 43 No. 1, pp. 21-32. Chen, B.K., Zhang, P.F. and Yang, R.D. (2010), “Zhengfu jiaoyu touru, renli ziben touzi yu zhongguo chengxiang shouru chaju [Government Educational Expenditure, Human Capital Investment and Urban-Rural Inequality in China]”,Guanli shijie [Management World, Vol. 26 No. 1, pp. 36-43. Cheng, K.M. and Li, J.C. (2007), “Chengxiang pianxiang, chengshihua yu chengxiang shouru chaju de zuoyong jizhi ji dongtai fenxi [Analysis of Mechanism and Dynamic Econometric Relationships between Urban Bias, Urbanization and Urban-Rural Inequality]”,Shuliang jingji jishu jingji yanjiu [The Journal of Quantitative and Technical Economics], Vol. 24 No. 7, pp. 116-125. Cornes, R. and Sandler, T. (1996), The Theory of Externalities, Public Goods and Club Goods, Cambridge University Press, New York. Eastwood, R. and Lipton, M. (2004), “Rural-urban dimensions of inequality change”, in Cornia, G.A. (Ed.), Inequality Growth and Poverty in an Era of Liberalization and Globalization, Oxford University Press, Oxford. Fergusson, L. (2013), “The political economy of rural property rights and the persistence of the dual economy”,Journal of Development Economics, Vol. 103 C, pp. 167-181. Friedmann, J. (1966), Regional Development Policy: A Case Study of Venezuela, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. Gao, F. (2012), Zhongguo chengxiang eryuan jingji jiegou zhuanhua: lilun chanshi yu shizheng fenxi [Urban-R Ural Economic Structure Trans Formation in China: Theoretical Explanation and Empirical Analysis], SDX Joint Publishing Company, Beijing. Gollin, D., Parente, S. and Rogerson, R. (2002), “The role of agriculture in development”,The American Economic Review, Vol. 92 No. 2, pp. 160-164. Grossman, H.I. (1991), “A general equilibrium model of insurrections”,The American Economic Review, Vol. 81 No. 4, pp. 912-921. Grossman, H.I. (1994), “Production, appropriation, and land reform”,The American Economic Review, Vol. 84 No. 3, pp. 705-712. The political economy 181 Hamilton, B.W. (1975), “Zoning and property taxation in a system of local governments”,Urban Studies, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 205-211. Hansen, G.D. and Prescott, E.C. (2002), “Malthus to solow”,American Economic Review, Vol. 92 No. 4, pp. 1205-1217. Henderson, J.V. (2007), “Urbanization in China: policy issues and options”, available at: http://www. econ.brown.edu/Faculty/henderson/FinalFinalReport-2007050221.pdf Hou, F.Y. and Zhang, F.B. (2006), “Cong renli ziben kan zhongguo eryuan jingjizhong de chengxiang chaju wenti [The Disparity between Urban and Rural Development in China’s Dual Economy: the Perspective of Human Capital]”,Shandong daxue xuebao (zhexue shehui kexueban) [Journal of Shandong University (Philosophy and Social Sciences)], Vol. 32 No. 4, pp. 133-138. Laitner, J. (2000), “Structural change and economic growth”,Review of Economic Studies, Vol. 67 No. 3, pp. 545-561. Lewis, W.A. (1954), “Economic development with unlimited supplies of labor”,The Manchester School, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 139-191. Li, K.Q. (2013), “Likeqiang kaochashi qiangdiao: yi nongye xiandaihua zhicheng xinxing chengzhenhua [Li Keqiang stressed during his visit: supporting new urbanization with agricultural modernization]”, available at: http://www.gov.cn/guowuyuan/2013-03/30/content_2591329.htm Lin, Y.F. and Liu, P.L. (2003), “Zhongguo de jingji fazhan zhanlve yu diqu shouru chaju [On Chinese Development Strategy and Economic Convergence]”,Jingji yanjiu [Economic Research Journal], Vol. 38 No. 3, pp. 19-25. Lipton, M. (1977), Why Poor People Stay Poor: A Study of Urban Bias in World Development, Temple Smith, London. Majumdar, S., Mani, A. and Mukand, S.W. (2004), “Politics, information and the urban bias”,Journal of Development Economics, Vol. 75 No. 1, pp. 137-165. Matsuyama, K. (1992), “Agricultural productivity, comparative advantage and economic growth”, Journal of Economic Theory, Vol. 58 No. 2, pp. 317-334. Ngai, R.L. and Pissarides, C.A. (2004), “Structural change in a muti-sector model of growth”, available at: https://conference.iza.org/conference_files/lmi2005/ngai_r2115.pdf Olson, M. (1971), The Logic of Collective Action: Public Goods and the Theory of Groups, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA. Pan, S.Y. (2008), “Neisheng wuxiao zhidu [Endogenous inefficient institutions]”,Jingji yanjiu [Economic Research Journal], Vol. 43 No. 9, pp. 96-105. Pedersen, K.R. (1997), “The political economy of distribution in developing countries: a rent-seeking approach”,Public Choice, Vol. 91 Nos 3/4, pp. 351-373. Reiter, M. and Weichenrieder, A.J. (1999), “Public goods, club goods, and the measurement of crowding”,Journal of Urban Economics, Vol. 46 No. 1, pp. 69-79. Roemer, J.E. (1998), “Why the poor do not expropriate the rich: an old argument in new garb”,Journal of Public Economics, Vol. 70, pp. 399-424. Schultz, T.W. (1964), Transforming Traditional Agriculture, Yale University Press, New Haven. Timmer, C.P. (2005), ‘Agriculture and Pro-poor Growth: What the literature Says’, Prepared as Part of the Operationalizing Pro-poor Growth Research Program, World Bank, Washington, DC. Verner, D. (2005), “Poverty in rural and semi-urban Mexico during 1992-2002”, available at: https:// openknowledge.worldbank.org/bitstream/handle/10986/8985/wps3576.pdf?sequence51& isAllowed5y Wan, G.H. (2006), Jingji fazhan yu shouru Bujundeng: fangfa he zhengju [Economic Development and Income Inequality: Methods and Evidence], Truth & Wisdom Press, Shanghai. Wan, G.H. and Zhu, C.P. (2010), “Zhongguo chengshihua mianlin de wenti yu sikao: wenxian zongshu [The Problems and Thinking of China’s Urbanization: a Literature Review]”,Shijie Jingji wenhui [World Economic Papers], Vol. 30 No. 6, pp. 106-116. CPE 5,2 182 Wang, D.W. (2009), “Chengxiang chaju dui zhongguo jingji chixuxing zengzhang de yingxiang [The Impact of Urban-Rural Disparity on China’s Sustainable Economic Growth]”,inZhang,X.S., Li, X.Y., Ho, P. and Du, Z.X. (Eds), Zhuanxingzhong de nongcun fazhan: chengxiang xietiao fazhan de xinzhanlve [China’s Agricultural Transition: Balancing Rural-Urban Relations], Social Sciences Academic Press (China), Beijing. Wilson, J.D. (1997), “Property taxation, congestion, and local public goods”,Journal of Public Economics, Vol. 64 No. 2, pp. 207-217. Wintrobe, R. (1998), The Political Economy of Dictatorship, Cambridge University Press, New York. World Bank (1993), The East Asian Miracle: Economic Growth and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, New York. Yang, D.T. and Zhu, X.D. (2013), “Modernization of agriculture and long-term growth”,Journal of Monetary Economics, Vol. 60 No. 3, pp. 367-382. Corresponding author Yongqin Wang can be contacted at: [email protected] For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website: www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm Or contact us for further details: [email protected] The political economy 183