Stephenson, J (2015) The organisation of work and wages in the London building trades in the long eighteenth century. PhD thesis, London School of Economics and Political Science, UK.
Abstract
The wage data that economic historians rely on for calculating key economic indicators and living standards across Europe are all derived from records of building craftsmen and labourers' pay. Existing series suggest wages in London were substantially higher than in other European centres from 1650 to 1800, and current accepted theories ascribe Britain’s early industrialisation to the products and incentives of this wage structure. But the period after the Restoration was one of prodigious building in London, and of organisational change in the construction trades. This thesis examines the contractual and organisational context in which building craftsmen and labourers operated and shows that the nature of the ‘day rates' used to construct wage series in London and England has been misunderstood. As a result, wages and real wages have been overstated for England throughout the long eighteenth century.
| Item Type: | Thesis (Doctoral) |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | craft; economic indicator; England; Europe; industrialisation; land; London; organisational change; wages |
| Index terms: | organizational change, industrialization, England, land, economic indicator, building trade, London, craft worker, restoration, Europe, wages |
| Subjects: | business economics, physical geography and landforms, renovation and retrofit, Geography, economic development, practitioner, real estate economics, business, data analysis and analytics |
| Topics: | Urban Studies, Sustainability, Human Resources, Geographical Context, Engineering Principles, Roles and Professions, Organizational Design, Research Practice |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCA |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here