Abstract
This comment is concerned with two aspects of a recent paper by David Greasley (1986, Explorations in Economic History 23, 416–444) on measurement of British economic growth. First, it argues that his revision to the index of average wages originally compiled by Bowley and adopted by Feinstein is flawed because of an incorrect procedure for weighting the sectoral wage relatives, and that even if this is corrected the sample of relative included in his index is too small to provide a satisfactory basis for a new index. Second, it notes that he has discovered a serious error in Bowley's estimate of the number of wage earners, but that his alternative series itself suffers from minor defects which should be corrected.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
