Corporate ownership and control in Victorian Britain

Using ownership and control data for 890 firm‐years, this article examines the concentration of capital and voting rights in British companies in the second half of the nineteenth century. We find that both capital and voting rights were diffuse by modern‐day standards. However, this does not necessarily mean that there was a modern‐style separation of ownership from control in Victorian Britain. One major implication of our findings is that diffuse ownership was present in the UK much earlier than previously thought, and given that it occurred in an era with weak shareholder protection law, it somewhat undermines the influential law and finance hypothesis. We also find that diffuse ownership is correlated with large boards, a London head office, non‐linear voting rights, and shares traded on multiple markets.

Top incomes under finance-driven capitalism, 1990-2010: power resources and regulatory orders

This article examines the impact of financialisation on the income shares of the top 1% from 1990-2010, through a panel analysis of 14 OECD countries. Drawing together literatures stressing the dependence of income inequality on the structural bargaining power of capital relative to labour, and of the dependence of accumulation on underlying institutionalised modes of state regulation, it shows that financialisation has significantly enhanced top income shares net of underlying controls. Whilst the income shares of the top 1% appear responsive to variables typical of wider studies of personal income inequality, we emphasise distinctive mechanisms of top income growth linked to the rising dominance of financial instruments and actors, facilitated by a historically specific regulatory order. These conditions were key to the emergence of a state of ‘asymmetric bargaining’ which disproportionately enhanced the fortunes of the wealthy. Results thus emphasise the importance of class-biased power resources and underlying regulatory structures, as determinants both of income concentration and of the distribution of economic rewards beyond growth capacity alone.

Parallel Time Series Analysis and Income Inequality: A New Approach to Comparative Case Studies

This case study deals with the role of time series analysis in sociology, and its relationship with the wider literature and methodology of comparative case study research. Time series analysis is now well-represented in top-ranked sociology journals, often in the form of ‘pooled time series’ research designs. These studies typically pool multiple countries together into a pooled time series cross-section panel, in order to provide a larger sample for more robust and comprehensive analysis. This approach is well suited to exploring trans-national phenomena, and for elaborating useful macro-level theories specific to social structures, national policies, and long-term historical processes. It is less suited however, to understanding how these global social processes work in different countries. As such, the complexities of individual countries - which often display very different or contradictory dynamics than those suggested in pooled studies – are subsumed. Meanwhile, a robust literature on comparative case-based methods exists in the social sciences, where researchers focus on differences between cases, and the complex ways in which they co-evolve or diverge over time. A good example of this is the inequality literature, where although panel studies suggest a general trend of rising inequality driven by the weakening power of labour, marketisation of welfare, and the rising power of capital, some countries have still managed to remain resilient. This case study takes a closer look at what can be learned by applying the insights of case-based comparative research to the method of time series analysis. Taking international income inequality as its point of departure, it argues that we have much to learn about the viability of different combinations of policy options by examining how they work in different countries over time. By taking representative cases from different welfare systems (liberal, social democratic, corporatist, or antipodean), we can better sharpen our theories of how policies can be more specifically engineered to offset rising inequality. This involves a fundamental realignment of the strategy of time series analysis, grounding it instead in a qualitative appreciation of the historical context of cases, as a basis for comparing effects between different countries.