IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ehl/lserod/126297.html

The sources of scale: large employers in Britain in 1881

Author

Listed:
  • Bennett, Robert J.
  • Hannah, Leslie

Abstract

The article assesses the relative weight of different sources of workforce size, using both relative marginal effects and proportion of variance explained for the 545 largest British firms in 1881. Despite data uncertainties, integration is shown as the largest contributor to scale. Integration with mining had even larger effects, raising employment by 35%. Internal capital intensity reduced labour for the majority of firms by about 4 workers per £10,000 capital, but much more for tramways. Place-based externalities had greatest marginal effects for agglomerations (measured by population size). Generally, sectoral localisation was insignificant, but for small localities with more than one firm in a single sector, firm size increased 26–30% compared to diversified localities. Local monopsony (measured by workforce proportion of local population) explained a large proportion of variance because it occurred in a large number of small places. Of other variables explored, only legal form is of major importance.

Suggested Citation

  • Bennett, Robert J. & Hannah, Leslie, 2024. "The sources of scale: large employers in Britain in 1881," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 126297, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    • Handle: RePEc:ehl:lserod:126297
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://researchonline.lse.ac.uk/id/eprint/126297/
    File Function: Open access version.
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Tom Nicholas, 2000. "Wealth Making in the Nineteenth and Early Twentieth Century: The Rubinstein Hypothesis Revisited," Business History, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 42(2), pages 155-168.
    2. Paul A. David, 1969. "Transport Innovation and Economic Growth: Professor Fogel on and off the Rails," Economic History Review, Economic History Society, vol. 22(3), pages 506-525, December.
    3. Nicholas Crafts, 2021. "Understanding productivity growth in the industrial revolution," Economic History Review, Economic History Society, vol. 74(2), pages 309-338, May.
    4. Les Hannah, 2014. "Corporations in the US and Europe 1790-1860," Business History, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 56(6), pages 865-899, September.
    5. Bresnahan, Timothy F & Reiss, Peter C, 1991. "Entry and Competition in Concentrated Markets," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 99(5), pages 977-1009, October.
    6. Graeme G. Acheson & Gareth Campbell & John D. Turner & Nadia Vanteeva, 2015. "Corporate ownership and control in Victorian Britain," Economic History Review, Economic History Society, vol. 68(3), pages 911-936, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Leslie Hannah & Robert Bennett, 2022. "Large‐scale Victorian manufacturers: Reconstructing the lost 1881 UK employer census," Economic History Review, Economic History Society, vol. 75(3), pages 830-856, August.
    2. Tin Cheuk Leung & Kwok Ping Ping & Kevin K. Tsui, 2019. "What can deregulators deregulate? The case of electricity," Journal of Regulatory Economics, Springer, vol. 56(1), pages 1-32, August.
    3. Arora, Ashish & Fosfuri, Andrea, 1999. "Exploring the internalization rationale for international investment: wholly owned subsidiary versus technology licensing in the worldwide chemical industry," DEE - Working Papers. Business Economics. WB 6430, Universidad Carlos III de Madrid. Departamento de Economía de la Empresa.
    4. Paul Ellickson & Sanjog Misra, 2012. "Enriching interactions: Incorporating outcome data into static discrete games," Quantitative Marketing and Economics (QME), Springer, vol. 10(1), pages 1-26, March.
    5. Toivanen, Otto & Waterson, Michael, 2000. "Empirical research on discrete choice game theory models of entry: An illustration," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 44(4-6), pages 985-992, May.
    6. Christos Genakos & Mario Pagliero, 2022. "Competition and Pass-Through: Evidence from Isolated Markets," American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, American Economic Association, vol. 14(4), pages 35-57, October.
    7. Shon M. Ferguson, 2015. "Endogenous Product Differentiation, Market Size and Prices," Review of International Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 23(1), pages 45-61, February.
    8. Turner, John D., 2017. "The development of English company law before 1900," QUCEH Working Paper Series 2017-01, Queen's University Belfast, Queen's University Centre for Economic History.
    9. à ngela Muñoz-Acevedo & Lukasz Grzybowski & Marc Bourreau, "undated". "The Efficiency of State Aid for the Deployment of High-Speed Broadband: Evidence from the French Market," ERSA Working Paper Series 892, Economic Research Southern Africa.
    10. Martin Gaechter & Peter Schwazer & Engelbert Theurl, 2013. "Entry into the Physicians’ Market: Empirical Evidence from the Outpatient Sector in Austria," DANUBE: Law and Economics Review, European Association Comenius - EACO, issue 4, pages 245-260, December.
    11. Kim Huynh & Gradon Nicholls & Oleksandr Shcherbakov, 2019. "Explaining the Interplay Between Merchant Acceptance and Consumer Adoption in Two-Sided Markets for Payment Methods," Staff Working Papers 19-32, Bank of Canada.
    12. Sherrill Shaffer, 2002. "Conduct in a Banking Monopoly," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 20(3), pages 221-238, May.
    13. Robert J. Bennett & Harry Smith & Piero Montebruno & Carry van Lieshout, 2022. "Changes in Victorian entrepreneurship in England and Wales 1851-1911: Methodology and business population estimates," Business History, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 64(7), pages 1211-1243, September.
    14. Varela, Mauricio J., 2018. "The costs of growth: Accelerated growth and crowd-out in the Mexican supermarket industry," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 1-52.
    15. Giovanni Compiani & Philip Haile & Marcelo Sant’Anna, 2020. "Common Values, Unobserved Heterogeneity, and Endogenous Entry in US Offshore Oil Lease Auctions," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 128(10), pages 3872-3912.
    16. Stewart, Hayden & Dong, Diansheng, 2011. "Variation in retail costs for fresh vegetables and salty snacks across communities in the United States," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(2), pages 128-135, April.
    17. Georg Götz, 2002. "Spatial Competition, Sequential Entry, and Technology choice," Vienna Economics Papers 0215, University of Vienna, Department of Economics.
    18. Stewart, Hayden & Davis, David E., 2005. "Price Dispersion and Accessibility: A Case study of Fast Food," MPRA Paper 7617, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    19. Chad Syverson, 2007. "Prices, Spatial Competition And Heterogeneous Producers: An Empirical Test," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 55(2), pages 197-222, June.
    20. Neumann, Manfred & Weigand, Jurgen & Gross, Alexandra & Munter, Markus Thomas, 2001. "Market size, fixed costs and horizontal concentration," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 19(5), pages 823-840, April.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    JEL classification:

    • J21 - Labor and Demographic Economics - - Demand and Supply of Labor - - - Labor Force and Employment, Size, and Structure

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ehl:lserod:126297. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: LSERO Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/lsepsuk.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.