Search arXivSearch

arXiv · 1604.04223

On the survival of poor peasants

Abstract

Previously, in underdeveloped countries, people tried to keep the prices of food products artificially low, in order to help the poor to buy their food. But it became soon clear that such system, although helpful for the city poor, was disastrous for the peasants (who usually are even poorer), so that hunger increased, instead of decreasing. More recently, thus, higher prices have been imposed. But a high-price system does not solve the problems. It helps, indeed, a peasant to buy in the city non-edible products, but not to buy (more expensive) food products from other peasants. The question is discussed here in more detail starting from the simplest conceivable case of two peasants producing each a different food product (bread and cheese, say), then generalizing to several food items and to any number of peasants producing a given food item j. Like in every economic system which wants to be sustainable, or able to reproduce itself in a stationary state at least, prices are determined by the necessity of exchanging "means of production" among "industries", except that here industriesare replaced by working peasants and means of production are replaced by food. It is found that prices must obey certain inequalities related to the minimal amount of each food item necessary for survival. Inequalities may be rewritten as equations and, in an important special case, such equations give rise to a simple version of the matrix equation used by famous authors to describe the economy.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Andrea C. Levi, Ubaldo Garibaldi. 2016-04-14. On the survival of poor peasants. https://arxiv.org/abs/1604.04223

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

Access to Live AI Advice and Behavior Under Risk: An Incentivized Experiment

Generative AI has become an everyday advisor, and the systems people consult are live and interactive, not pre-scripted. We ask whether access to such a system changes behavior under risk. In an incentivized experiment (N = 158), participants made lottery choices with an optional decision aid presented as a conventional pre-written tool, a live one-shot AI, or a live interactive AI they could query, with information format held equivalent across conditions. Risk preferences are elicited via DOSE. We find no evidence that access to a live AI advisor changes risk aversion.

econ.GN

Bricks or Cash? Externalities of Housing Upgrading in High-density Cities

We estimate housing externalities in a high-density city, exploiting the staggered rollout of Singapore's nationwide Main Upgrading Programme for public housing. Controlling for nonrandom neighborhood exposure, we find that upgrading raises treated buildings' prices by 11.5% upon completion and neighboring buildings' resale prices by about 2% within 500 meters, decaying to zero beyond. A model with distance-decaying externalities shows that in dense settings spillovers justify the distortions of in-kind provision; this advantage diminishes and reverses at lower densities. Administrative data on over 2 million residents show that upgrading disproportionately retains older incumbents, suggesting age-specific amenities as an underexplored externality channel.

econ.GN

The Joneses Visit an Economics Lab

Existing literature offers persuasive evidence that individuals care about how their consumption compares to that of peers, and proposes a large variety of explanatory models. The present paper proposes a common framework for many of those models, and compares their ability to predict behavior in a laboratory experiment. We find evidence of Keeping up with the Joneses motivations but also find that conspicuous consumption is enhanced by Veblen motivations arising from peers' ability to observe one's own choice. Among the seven quasi-linear preference models we compare, our data are best explained by a model that contrasts envy and pride (upward vs downward comparisons) using a value function borrowed from Prospect Theory.

econ.GN