Economies of Scale in Nineteenth Century American Manufacturing Revisited: A Resolution of the Entrepreneurial Labor Input Problem

R. Margo
{"title":"Economies of Scale in Nineteenth Century American Manufacturing Revisited: A Resolution of the Entrepreneurial Labor Input Problem","authors":"R. Margo","doi":"10.7208/chicago/9780226261768.003.0006","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In a famous paper, Kenneth Sokoloff argued that the labor input of entrepreneurs was generally not included in the count of workers in manufacturing establishments in the early censuses of manufacturing. According to Sokoloff, this biased downward econometric estimates of economies of scale if left uncorrected. As a fix Sokoloff proposed a particular \"rule of thumb\" imputation for the entrepreneurial labor input. Using establishment level manufacturing data from the 1850-80 censuses and textual evidence I argue that, contrary to Sokoloff's claim, the census did generally include the labor of entrepreneurs if it was economically relevant to do so, and therefore Sokoloff's imputation is not warranted for these census years. However, I also find that the census did understate the labor input in small relative to large establishments as Sokoloff asserted, but for a very different reason. The census purported to collect data on the average labor input but, in fact, the data most likely measure the typical number of workers present. For very small establishments the reported figures on the typical number of workers are biased downwards relative to a true average but this is not the case for large establishments. As a result, the early censuses of manufacturing did overstate labor productivity in small relative to large establishments but the size of the bias is smaller than alleged by Sokoloff.","PeriodicalId":143238,"journal":{"name":"ERPN: Employment & Wage Determination (Sub-Topic)","volume":"70 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2013-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"8","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ERPN: Employment & Wage Determination (Sub-Topic)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226261768.003.0006","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 8

Abstract

In a famous paper, Kenneth Sokoloff argued that the labor input of entrepreneurs was generally not included in the count of workers in manufacturing establishments in the early censuses of manufacturing. According to Sokoloff, this biased downward econometric estimates of economies of scale if left uncorrected. As a fix Sokoloff proposed a particular "rule of thumb" imputation for the entrepreneurial labor input. Using establishment level manufacturing data from the 1850-80 censuses and textual evidence I argue that, contrary to Sokoloff's claim, the census did generally include the labor of entrepreneurs if it was economically relevant to do so, and therefore Sokoloff's imputation is not warranted for these census years. However, I also find that the census did understate the labor input in small relative to large establishments as Sokoloff asserted, but for a very different reason. The census purported to collect data on the average labor input but, in fact, the data most likely measure the typical number of workers present. For very small establishments the reported figures on the typical number of workers are biased downwards relative to a true average but this is not the case for large establishments. As a result, the early censuses of manufacturing did overstate labor productivity in small relative to large establishments but the size of the bias is smaller than alleged by Sokoloff.
19世纪美国制造业的规模经济重访:企业劳动力投入问题的解决
Kenneth Sokoloff在一篇著名的论文中指出,在早期的制造业人口普查中,企业家的劳动投入通常不包括在制造业机构的工人统计中。根据索科洛夫的说法,如果不加以纠正,这就会对规模经济的计量经济学估计产生偏差。为了解决这个问题,索科洛夫提出了一个关于创业劳动力投入的“经验法则”。我使用1850-80年人口普查的企业制造业数据和文本证据认为,与索科洛夫的说法相反,如果在经济上相关,人口普查通常包括企业家的劳动,因此索科洛夫的推算在这些人口普查年份是不可靠的。然而,我也发现人口普查确实低估了相对于大企业的劳动力投入,正如Sokoloff所断言的那样,但出于一个非常不同的原因。人口普查的目的是收集平均劳动力投入的数据,但实际上,这些数据最有可能衡量的是现有工人的典型数量。对于非常小的机构,报告的典型工人人数的数字相对于真实的平均值是有偏差的,但对于大型机构来说,情况并非如此。因此,制造业的早期人口普查确实夸大了相对于大型企业的小型企业的劳动生产率,但偏差的大小比Sokoloff所声称的要小。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信