现代早期英格兰的名义工资模式、垄断和劳动力市场力量

Meredith M. Paker, Judy Z. Stephenson, Patrick Wallis
{"title":"现代早期英格兰的名义工资模式、垄断和劳动力市场力量","authors":"Meredith M. Paker, Judy Z. Stephenson, Patrick Wallis","doi":"10.1111/ehr.13346","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Records of long‐eighteenth‐century English wage rates exhibit almost absolute nominal rigidity over many decades, alongside significant dispersion between the wages paid by different organizations for the same type of work in the same location. These features of preindustrial wages have been obscured by data aggregation and the construction of real wage series, which introduce variation. In this paper, we argue that the standard explanations for wage rigidity in economic history are insufficient. We show econometric evidence for monopsony power in one major organization and argue that the main historical wage series are also affected by employer power. Eighteenth‐century England had an imperfectly competitive labour market with large frictions. This gave large organizations the power to set wage policies. We discuss the implications for the eighteenth‐century British economy and research into long‐run wages more generally.","PeriodicalId":505850,"journal":{"name":"The Economic History Review","volume":"60 4","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Nominal wage patterns, monopsony, and labour market power in early modern England\",\"authors\":\"Meredith M. Paker, Judy Z. Stephenson, Patrick Wallis\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/ehr.13346\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Records of long‐eighteenth‐century English wage rates exhibit almost absolute nominal rigidity over many decades, alongside significant dispersion between the wages paid by different organizations for the same type of work in the same location. These features of preindustrial wages have been obscured by data aggregation and the construction of real wage series, which introduce variation. In this paper, we argue that the standard explanations for wage rigidity in economic history are insufficient. We show econometric evidence for monopsony power in one major organization and argue that the main historical wage series are also affected by employer power. Eighteenth‐century England had an imperfectly competitive labour market with large frictions. This gave large organizations the power to set wage policies. We discuss the implications for the eighteenth‐century British economy and research into long‐run wages more generally.\",\"PeriodicalId\":505850,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"The Economic History Review\",\"volume\":\"60 4\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-04-14\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"The Economic History Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/ehr.13346\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Economic History Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/ehr.13346","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

18 世纪英国长期工资率的记录显示,几十年来,英国的工资率几乎是绝对的名义刚性,同时,在同一地点,不同组织为同类工作支付的工资之间也存在巨大差异。工业化前工资的这些特征被数据汇总和实际工资序列的构建所掩盖,从而引入了差异。在本文中,我们认为对经济史上工资刚性的标准解释是不充分的。我们展示了一个主要组织的垄断权力的计量经济学证据,并认为主要的历史工资序列也受到雇主权力的影响。18 世纪的英国劳动力市场竞争不完全,存在大量摩擦。这赋予了大型组织制定工资政策的权力。我们讨论了这对十八世纪英国经济和长期工资研究的影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Nominal wage patterns, monopsony, and labour market power in early modern England
Records of long‐eighteenth‐century English wage rates exhibit almost absolute nominal rigidity over many decades, alongside significant dispersion between the wages paid by different organizations for the same type of work in the same location. These features of preindustrial wages have been obscured by data aggregation and the construction of real wage series, which introduce variation. In this paper, we argue that the standard explanations for wage rigidity in economic history are insufficient. We show econometric evidence for monopsony power in one major organization and argue that the main historical wage series are also affected by employer power. Eighteenth‐century England had an imperfectly competitive labour market with large frictions. This gave large organizations the power to set wage policies. We discuss the implications for the eighteenth‐century British economy and research into long‐run wages more generally.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信