Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
4 Criticisms
One of the most common criticisms of the model is that
Mahalanobis pays hardly any attention to the savings constraint, which he assumes comes from the industrial sector. Developing countries however do not have this tendency, as the rst stages of saving usually come from the
agricultural sector. He also does not mention taxation,
1
8 FURTHER READING
an important potential source of capital. A more serious criticism is the limitation of the assumptions under
which this model holds, an example being the limitation
of foreign trade. This cannot be justiable to developing
countries today. Also another criticism is that a country to use this model would have to be large enough to
contain all the raw resources needed to be sustainable, so
therefore this would not apply to smaller countries.
Empirical case
8 Further reading
Bagchi, Amiya Kumar (1995). Closed-economy
Structuralist Models for a Less Developed Economy. In Patnaik, Prabhat. Macroeconomics. Delhi:
Oxford University Press. pp. 85113. ISBN 0-19563534-5.
Bhagwati, J.; Chakravarty, S. (1969). Contributions to Indian Economic Analysis: A Survey.
American Economic Review 59 (4): 173. JSTOR
1812104.
Brenner, Y. S. (1966). The Soviet Theories. Theories of Economic Development and Growth. New
York: Praeger. pp. 223247.
See also
HarrodDomar model
Economic growth
Development economics
Mahalanobis
Indian Economy
Five-year plans of India
References
Dasgupta, A. K. (1993). A History of Indian Economic Thought. London: Routledge. ISBN 0-41506195-4.
Komiya, Ryutaro (1959). A Note on Professor
Mahalanobis Model of Indian Economic Planning.
Review of Economics and Statistics 41 (1): 2935.
JSTOR 1925455.
9.1
Text
9.2
Images
9.3
Content license