No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 24 July 2012
Like the financial mart from which it derives its name, OVER THE COUNTER is designed for the types of exchanges not handled elsewhere. This feature has its origin in a demand among readers of business history for a place to compare ideas, voice comments on published articles and reviews, and publish research essays. Contributions are invited. The Editor and Advisory Board reserve the right to decide whether, on the basis of general interest, pertinence, and merit, such contributions will be published. OVER THE COUNTER will appear as often as the volume of contributions may dictate.
page 106 note 1 Severson does attempt to correct for cycles, but the result is unsatisfactory. Actually, the correction amounts to an adjustment for comparative price changes in the output of manufacturing and agricultural activity. It does not include any adjustment of the different rates of operating capacity of plant or the degree of unemployment.
page 107 note 2 Another alternative measure, but one more difficult to disaggregate, is the ratio of manufacturing employment to the total nonagricultural labor force. This ratio has tended, on balance, to decline slightly since 1910 and in 1956 was estimated at 51 per cent. This. would seem to indicate an over-all reduction in the importance of manufacturing in non-agricultural employment. See Ross, Arthur, “A New Industrial Feudalism” American Economic Review, vol. XLVII (Dec., 1958), p. 906Google Scholar.
page 107 note 3 Murphy, George G. S. and Zellner, Arnold, “Sequential Growth, the Labor-Safety-Valve Doctrine and the Development of American Unionism,” Journal of Economic History, vol. XIX (Sept., 1959), p. 406Google Scholar.
page 108 note 4 U.S. Dept. of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Historical Statistics of the U.S.: From Colonial Times to 1957 (Washington, 1960), p. 140Google Scholar.
page 108 note 5 It would be interesting to test the main Severson hypothesis from 1940 to the present. It might be found, for example, that aside from certain basic industries, the locus and concentration of manufacturing activity have been reversed, as many of the older regions have experienced a rebirth of newer lines of manufacturing. The electronics industry in New England is a notable illustration. On the other hand, an equally plausible finding might be that since 1940 the concentration of manufacturing activity does not assume any definite pattern.
page 112 note 1 Here again Mr. Andreano's criticism is based on an assumption of statistical correction. My remarks on cycles do not indicate an attempt to correct a sample — they are my explanation of why manufacturing activity declined in some areas at some times.
page 112 note 2 See the last paragraph of Mr. Andreano's comment.