Monopsony and Industrialization

Delabastita, Vincent; Rubens, Michaël

doi:10.2139/ssrn.4208173

SSRN Journal

2022

DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.4208173

|View full text |Cite

Monopsony and Industrialization

Vincent Delabastita¹,

Michaël Rubens

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...

Citation Types

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Year Published

2023

2024

Publication Types

Select...

Article3

Relationship

Self Cite0

Independent3

Authors

Journals

Cited by 3 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In an updated version of this chapter, we present a counterfactual estimate of employment and wages under different levels of collusion(Delabastita and Rubens 2023).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Summaries of Doctoral Dissertations

2024

J. Econ. Hist.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…In an updated version of this chapter, we present a counterfactual estimate of employment and wages under different levels of collusion(Delabastita and Rubens 2023).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Summaries of Doctoral Dissertations

2024

J. Econ. Hist.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Year in Review: Economics at the Antitrust Division, 2022–2023

Athey,

Chicu,

Krishna

et al. 2023

Rev Ind Organ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Nominal wage patterns, monopsony, and labour market power in early modern England

Paker,

Stephenson,

Wallis

2024

The Economic History Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.

Contact Info

hi@scite.ai

10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614

Henderson, NV 89052, USA

Blog Terms and Conditions API Terms Privacy Policy Contact Cookie Preferences Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information

Made with 💙 for researchers

Part of the Research Solutions Family.

Monopsony and Industrialization

Cited by 3 publications

References 0 publications

Summaries of Doctoral Dissertations

Summaries of Doctoral Dissertations

The Year in Review: Economics at the Antitrust Division, 2022–2023

Nominal wage patterns, monopsony, and labour market power in early modern England

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About