Skip Navigation

Correction for Hughes and Kumar, Camb. J. Econ. 8 (3) 235-250.
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

Copyright © Cambridge Political Economy Society

correction

CORRECTION

Abstract

In an earlier paper in this journal (Hughes and Kumar, 1984A) we presented estimates for aggregate concentration for a wide variety of measures of company size. After the article went to the press it was discovered that the estimates for employment concentration in Table 3 contained an upward bias due to an error in data preparation. (The employment totals in Table 4, the last line of Table 5, and the appendix tables corresponding to Table 3 were also affected.) This led inter alia to the use of world rather than UK employment figures for a number of large companies. The year 1975 was particularly affected. (None of the other concentration measures based on market valuation, world and domestic sales, exports, capital employed, profits and wage bills was affected.) We have corrected our estimates accordingly and have also taken the opportunity to adjust the denominators to take account of major official revisions of these data since our estimates were prepared. The corrected employment concentration ratio estimates are shown in revised Table 3. (Revised tables corresponding to Table 4 and to the appendix tables are available from the authors.)

Revised Table 3. 100 company employment concentration ratios in the UK economy: revised estimatesThe effect of these revisions is in general to lower the estimated levels of employment concentration, and to reduce the substantial fall, between 1975 and 1980, in the employment of the 100 largest private non-financial UK employers reported in the article. 1Our conclusions about trends in concentration over the period as a whole are in general less affected.

1 For a discussion of the role of nationalisation, privatisation, merger and relative growth see Hughes and Kumar (1984B).


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?




Disclaimer:
Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.