Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-lj6df Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T17:23:11.316Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Patronage and Public-Sector Wages in 1896

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 March 2009

Werner Troesken
Werner Troesken
Affiliation:
Associate Professor of History and Economics, Department of History, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA 15260-7403, E-mail [email protected].
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Few systematic studies of the effects of patronage on public-sector employees' wages and working conditions exist. Exploiting a sample of nearly 90,000 workers, this article provides systematic evidence: Where patronage was widespread, state and local employees earned 40 percent more per hour; worked 16 to 17 percent fewer hours; and earned 22 percent more per week than comparable private-sector workers. Public-sector wage premia varied; low-skilled workers, and workers in Baltimore and New York, enjoyed relatively large wage premia. Wages were less dispersed in the public sector than in the private, suggesting that pay scales reflected politics, not marginal products.

Type
Articles
Information
The Journal of Economic History , Volume 59 , Issue 2 , June 1999 , pp. 424 - 446
Copyright
Copyright © The Economic History Association 1999

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Adrian, Charles R., and S. Griffith, Ernest. A History of American City Government: The Formation of Traditions, 1775–1870. New York: Praeger Publishers, 1976.Google Scholar
Allswang, John M.Bosses, Machines, and Urban Voters. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1986.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davis, Lance E., Easterlin, Richard A., Parker, William N., et al. American Economic Growth: An Economist's History of the United States. New York: Harper and Row, 1972.Google Scholar
Freeman, Richard B. “How Do Public-Sector Wages and Employment Respond to Economic Conditions?” In Public Sector Payrolls, edited by Wise, David A., 183–214. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1987.Google Scholar
Friedman, Lawrence M.Crime and Punishment in American History. New York: Basic Books, 1993.Google Scholar
Griffith, Ernest S.A History of American City Government: The Conspicuous Failure, 1870–1900. New York: Praeger Publishers, 1974.Google Scholar
Griffith, Ernest S.A History of American City Government: The Progressive Years and Their Aftermath, 1900–1920. New York: Praeger Publishers, 1974.Google Scholar
Hanes, Christopher. “The Development of Nominal Wage Rigidity in the Late Nineteenth Century.” American Economic Review 83, no. 3 (1993): 732–56.Google Scholar
Ippolito, Richard A. “Why Federal Workers Don't Quit.” Journal of Human Resources 22, no. 2 (1987): 281–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, Ronald N., and Libecap, Gary D.. “Bureaucratic Rules, Supervisor Behavior, and the Effect on Salaries in the Federal Government.” Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization 6, no. 1 (1989): 53–82.Google Scholar
Johnson, Ronald N., and Libecap, Gary D.. The Federal Civil Service System and the Problem of Bureaucracy: The Economics and Politics of Institutional Change. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1994.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, Ronald N., and Libecap, Gary D.. “Patronage to Merit and Control of the Federal Government Labor Force.” Explorations in Economic History 31, no. 1 (1994): 91–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Katz, Lawrence F., and Krueger, Alan B.. “Changes in the Structure of Wages in the Public and Private Sectors.” Research in Labor Economics 12, no. 1 (1991): 137–72.Google Scholar
Krueger, Alan B. “Are Public Sector Workers Paid More than Their Alternative Wage? Evidence from Longitudinal Data and Job Queues.” In When Public Sector Workers Unionize, edited by Freeman, R. and Ichniowski, B., 217–44. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1988.Google Scholar
Lewis, H. G., Unionism and Relative Wages in the United States. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1963.Google Scholar
Terrence J., McDonald, Ed. Plunkitt of Tammany Hall. Boston: Bedford Books of St. Martin's Press, 1994.Google Scholar
Moore, William J., and Newman, Robert J.. “Government Wage Differentials in a Municipal Labor Market: The Case of Houston Metropolitan Transit Workers.” Industrial and Labor Relations Review 45, no. 1 (1991): 145–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moulton, Brent R. “A Reexamination of the Federal-Private Wage Differential in the United States.” Journal of Labor Economics 8, no. 2 (1990): 270–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
National Civic Federation. Municipal and Private Operation of Public Utilities. Part 1. Vol. 1. General Conclusions and Reports. New York: National Civic Federation, 1907.Google Scholar
Niskanen, William A.Bureaucracy and Representative Government. Chicago: AldineAtherton, 1971.Google Scholar
Phillips, Jewell Case. Municipal Government and Administration in America. New York: MacMillan Company, 1960.Google Scholar
Quinn, Joseph. “Wage Differentials Among Older Workers in the Public and Private Sectors.” Journal of Human Resources 14, no. 1 (1979): 42–62.Google Scholar
Reder, Melvin W. “The Theory of Employment and Wages in the Public Sector.” In Labor in the Public and Nonprofit Sectors, edited by Hammermesh, D. S., 1–48. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1975.Google Scholar
Reid, Joseph D., and M. Kurth, Michael. “Public Employees in Political Firms: Part A, The Patronage Era.” Public Choice 59, no. 3 (1988): 253–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schiesl, Martin J.The Politics of Efficiency: Municipal Administration and Reform in America, 1800–1920. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1977.Google Scholar
Smith, Sharon P.Equal Pay in the Public Sector: Fact or Fantasy? Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1977.Google ScholarPubMed
Sundstrom, William A. “Was There a Golden Age of Flexible Wages? Evidence from Ohio Manufacturing, 1892–1910.” this JOURNAL 50, no. 2 (1990): 309–20.Google Scholar
Sundstrom, William A. “Rigid Wages or Small Equilibrium Adjustments? Evidence from the Contraction of 1893,” Explorations in Economic History 29, no. 4 (1992): 430–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Teaford, Jon C.The Unheralded Triumph: City Government in America, 1870–1900. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1984.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tullock, Gordon. The Politics of Bureaucracy. Washington, DC: Public Affairs Press, 1965.Google Scholar
U.S. Bureau of the Census. Historical Statistics of the United States, Colonial Times to 1970, Parts 1 and 2. Washington, DC: GPO, 1975.Google Scholar
U.S. Department of Labor. Bulletin of the Department of Labor No. 7—November 1896. Washington, DC: GPO, 1896.Google Scholar
U.S. Department of the Interior. Census Office. Compendium of the Eleventh Census: 1890. Part 3. Washington, DC: GPO, 1897.Google Scholar
U.S. Department of the Interior. Census Office. Abstract of the Twelfth Census of the United States: 1900. Washington, DC: GPO, 1902.Google Scholar
United States. House of Representatives. Subcommittee on Manpower and Civil Service of the Committee on Post Office Civil Service. History of Civil Service Merit Systems of the United States and Selected Foreign Countries. 94th Congress, 2nd Session. Washington, DC: GPO, 1976.Google Scholar
Venti, Steven F. “Wages in the Federal and Private Sectors.” In Public Sector Payrolls. edited by David, A. Wise, 147–82. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1987.Google Scholar
Wilson, James Q. “The Economy of Patronage.” Journal of Political Economy 69, no. 4 (1961): 369–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wolfinger, Raymond. “Why Political Machines Have Not Withered Away and Other Revisionist Thoughts,” Journal of Politics 34, no. 3 (1972): 365–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zink, Harold. City Bosses in the United States: A Study of Twenty Municipal Bosses. Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1930.Google Scholar