Sorry, I read your exaplantion, thanks for assisting, but I still can't wrap my head around this idea, I think I'm starting to get it…
> the elasticity of substitution between labor and land in the informal sector is smaller than the elasticity of substitution between labor and capital in the formal sector.
by saying the elasticity of substitution between labor and land is relatively low, does this mean that because land is relatively fixed, we cannot simply import many workers to match the productivity, because at a certain point, we need the land to work on?
And then on the other hand, in the formal sector, the elasticity of substitution between labour and capital is relatively higher, because you can substitute labour (i.e. people) for capital (and vice versa, i'm not sure if this is implied to go both ways or not??), and still maintain productivity? So are we saying that the formal sector is more equipped to deal with influxes of workers (or in Marxist terms, variable capital)?