Ricardian model theory under different transfer forms and input factors

Figures & data

Figure 1. Influencing factors. Author’s illustration.

Table 1. Periodic analysis of GDP for Italy.^a

Year	GDP: Northern and Central Italy (million €)	Share: Northern Italy to Central Italy (in %)	GDP: Southern Italy (million €)	Share: Southern Italy (in %)
2013	1,251,635.00	77.77	242,519.00	15.07
2014	1,241,906.00	76.96	249,955.00	15.49
2015	1,268,533.00	77.09	255,557.00	15.53
2016	1,296,641.00	77.16	262,189.00	15.60

^a Author’s illustration – Eurostat 2015, p. 7; Eurostat, 2016, p. 6; Eurostat, 2017, p. 6; Eurostat, 2018, p. 6).

Table 2. Overview of variables.^a

λ	= 0.97000	risk aversion
β	= 0.30000	discount factor
Â(aj,MOD)	= 1.15000	new technology generation in the North
p	= 0.50000	probability of technology adoption in the North
Â(ay,MOD*)	= 0.70000	new technology generation in the South
μ	= 0.60000	elasticity of the Cobb-Douglas-function
AM	= 1.00000	current technology generation in the North
AM*	= 0.65000	current technology generation in the South
LF*	= 1.00000	labour in the agricultural sector
LM	= 1.00000	labour in the industrial sector
ηL/ηL*	= 0.00000	wage subsidization
ϕ/ϕ*	= 0.00000	unemployment benefit
κ/κ*	= 0.00000	public employment management
Λ/Λ*	= 0.00000	consideration of the demographic
Θ/Θ*	= 0.50000	income from unemployment support
Ω/Ω*	= 0.50000	income for retirees

^a Author’s illustration.

Table 3. Rational underdevelopment under different influencing factors (first part).^a

Rational underdevelopment under different influencing factors
(9) LF* = 1.00000			(10) LM = 1.00000			(11) η/η* = 0.00000			(12) ϕ/ϕ* = 0.00000			(13) κ/κ* = 0.00000			(14) Λ/Λ* = 0.00000
(15) Θ/Θ* = 0.50000			(16) Ω/Ω* = 0.50000
(1) λ	(2) β	(3) Â(aj)		(4) p	(5) Â(ay*)		(6) μ	(7) AM		(8) AM*	Trans-ition point		Complete inequality	Rational underdevelopment			Level
														Lower border		Upper border
Base case
0.97000	0.30000	1.15000		0.50000	0.70000		0.60000	1.00000		0.65000	1.38095		1.50000	1.29419		1.30089	0.51747
Risk aversion
0.97100	0.30000	1.15000		0.50000	0.70000		0.60000	1.00000		0.65000	1.38095		1.50000	1.29208		1.30257	0.81188
0.96900	0.30000	1.15000		0.50000	0.70000		0.60000	1.00000		0.65000	1.38095		1.50000	1.29631		1.29921	0.22309
Discount factor
0.97000	0.31000	1.15000		0.50000	0.70000		0.60000	1.00000		0.65000	1.38095		1.50000	1.29046		1.30014	0.74953
0.97000	0.29000	1.15000		0.50000	0.70000		0.60000	1.00000		0.65000	1.38095		1.50000	1.29799		1.30165	0.28213
New technological generation in the North
0.97000	0.30000	1.16000		0.50000	0.70000		0.60000	1.00000		0.65000	1.38095		1.50000	1.29428		1.30091	0.51171
0.97000	0.30000	1.14000		0.50000	0.70000		0.60000	1.00000		0.65000	1.38095		1.50000	1.29410		1.30087	0.52325
Probability of technology adoption in the North
0.97000	0.30000	1.15000		0.51000	0.70000		0.60000	1.00000		0.65000	1.38095		1.50000	1.29719		1.30149	0.33180
0.97000	0.30000	1.15000		0.49000	0.70000		0.60000	1.00000		0.65000	1.38095		1.50000	1.29120		1.30028	0.70348

^a Author’s illustration.

Table 4. Rational underdevelopment under different influencing factors (second part).^a

Rational underdevelopment under different influencing factors
(9) LF* = 1.00000			(10) LM = 1.00000			(11) η/η* = 0.00000			(12) ϕ/ϕ* = 0.00000			(13) κ/κ* = 0.00000			(14) Λ/Λ* = 0.00000
(15) Θ/Θ* = 0.50000			(16) Ω/Ω* = 0.50000
(1) λ	(2) β	(3) Â(aj)		(4) p	(5) Â(ay*)		(6) μ	(7) AM		(8) AM*	Trans-ition point		Complete inequality	Rational underdevelopment			Level
														Lower border		Upper border
New technology generation in the South
0.97000	0.30000	1.15000		0.50000	0.71000		0.60000	1.00000		0.65000	1.34742		1.50000	1.27085		1.27293	0.16403
0.97000	0.30000	1.15000		0.50000	0.69000		0.60000	1.00000		0.65000	1.41546		1.50000	1.31804		1.32961	0.87777
Elasticity of the Cobb-Douglas-function
0.97000	0.30000	1.15000		0.50000	0.70000		0.60100	1.00000		0.65000	1.37699		1.50627	1.29116		1.29798	0.52821
0.97000	0.30000	1.15000		0.50000	0.70000		0.59900	1.00000		0.65000	1.38493		1.49377	1.29723		1.30380	0.50673
Current technology generation in the North
0.97000	0.30000	1.15000		0.50000	0.70000		0.60000	1.01000		0.65000	1.40476		1.50000	1.31056		1.32069	0.77321
0.97000	0.30000	1.15000		0.50000	0.70000		0.60000	0.99000		0.65000	1.35714		1.50000	1.27774		1.28106	0.26038
Current technology generation in the South
0.97000	0.30000	1.15000		0.50000	0.70000		0.60000	1.00000		0.65100	1.38095		1.50000	1.29419		1.30089	0.51747
0.97000	0.30000	1.15000		0.50000	0.70000		0.60000	1.00000		0.64900	1.38095		1.50000	1.29419		1.30089	0.51747

^a Author’s illustration.

Table 5. Rational underdevelopment under different influencing factors (third part).^a

Rational underdevelopment under different influencing factors
(1) λ = 0.97000			(2) β = 0.30000			(3) Â(aj) = 1.15000			(4) p = 0.50000			(5) Â(ay*) = 0.70000			(6) μ = 0.60000
(7) AM = 1.00000			(8) AM* = 0.50000
(9) LF*	(10) LM	(11) η/η*		(12) ϕ/ϕ*	(13) κ/κ*		(14) Λ/Λ*	(15) Θ/Θ*		(16) Ω/Ω*	Trans-ition point		Complete inequality	Rational underdevelopment			Level
														Lower border		Upper border
Labor in the agricultural sector
1.10000	1.00000	0.00000		0.00000	0.00000		0.00000	0.50000		0.50000	1.38095		1.65000	1.29419		1.30089	0.51747
0.90000	1.00000	0.00000		0.00000	0.00000		0.00000	0.50000		0.50000	1.38095		1.35000	1.29419		1.30089	0.51747
Labor in the industrial sector
1.00000	1.10000	0.00000		0.00000	0.00000		0.00000	0.50000		0.50000	1.38095		1.36364	1.29419		1.30089	0.51747
1.00000	0.90000	0.00000		0.00000	0.00000		0.00000	0.50000		0.50000	1.38095		1.66667	1.29419		1.30089	0.51747
Wage subsidization
1.00000	1.00000	0.01000		0.00000	0.00000		0.00000	0.50000		0.50000	1.40525		1.53030	1.31229		1.31932	0.53563
Unemployment benefit
1.00000	1.00000	0.00000		0.01000	0.00000		0.00000	0.50000		0.50000	1.38095		1.50000	1.28256		1.31637	2.63578

^a Author’s illustration.

Table 6. Rational underdevelopment under different influencing factors (fourth part).^a

Rational underdevelopment under different influencing factors
(1) λ = 0.97000			(2) β = 0.30000			(3) Â(aj) = 1.15000			(4) p = 0.50000			(5) Â(ay*) = 0.70000			(6) μ = 0.60000
(7) AM = 1.00000			(8) AM* = 0.50000
(9) LF*	(10) LM	(11) η/η*		(12) ϕ/ϕ*	(13) κ/κ*		(14) Λ/Λ*	(15) Θ/Θ*		(16) Ω/Ω*	Trans-ition point		Complete inequality	Rational underdevelopment			Level
														Lower border		Upper border
Public employment management
1.00000	1.00000	0.00000		0.00000	0.01000		0.00000	0.50000		0.50000	1.38095		1.50000	1.29419		1.30089	0.51747
Consideration of the demographic factor
1.00000	1.00000	0.00000		0.00000	0.00000		0.01000	0.50000		0.50000	1.38095		1.65000	1.29419		1.30089	0.51747
Income from unemployment support
1.00000	1.00000	0.00000		0.00000	0.01000		0.00000	0.60000		0.50000	1.38095		1.50000	1.28024		1.31951	3.06756
1.00000	1.00000	0.00000		0.00000	0.01000		0.00000	0.40000		0.50000	1.38095		1.50000	1.28489		1.31324	2.20673
Income for retirees
1.00000	1.00000	0.00000		0.00000	0.00000		0.01000	0.50000		0.60000	1.38095		1.50000	1.28024		1.31951	3.06756
1.00000	1.00000	0.00000		0.00000	0.00000		0.01000	0.50000		0.40000	1.38095		1.50000	1.28489		1.31324	2.20673

^a Author’s illustration.

Eurostat. (2015). Regionales BIP je Einwohner in der EU28: Sieben Hauptstadtregionen unter den zehn wohlhabendsten Regionen [Regional GDP per inhabitant in the EU28: Seven capital regions among the ten most prosperous regions], Press release, 90/2015.

 Google Scholar

Eurostat. (2016). Regionales BIP je Einwohner in der EU28: In 21 Regionen weniger als die Hälfte des EU-Durchschnitts und in fünf Regionen mehr als das Doppelte [Regional GDP per inhabitant in the EU28: Less than half the EU average in 21 regions and more than twice the EU average in five regions], Press release, 39/2016.

 Google Scholar

Eurostat. (2017). Regionales BIP je Einwohner in der EU28: In vier Regionen mehr als das Doppelte des EU-Durchschnitts und in 19 Regionen immer noch weniger als die Hälfte des Durchschnitts [Regional GDP per inhabitant in the EU28: more than twice the EU average in four regions and still less than half the average in 19 regions], Press release, 52/2017.

 Google Scholar

Eurostat. (2018). Regionales BIP je Einwohner in der EU28: Regionales BIP pro Kopf reichte von 29% bis 611% des EU-Durchschnitts im Jahr 2016 [Regional GDP per inhabitant in the EU28: Regional GDP per capita ranged from 29% to 611% of the EU average in 2016], Press release, 33/2018.

 Google Scholar