Rule Britannia!: British Stock Market Returns, 1825-1870

This article presents a new series of monthly equity returns for the British stock market for the period 1825-1870. In addition to calculating capital appreciation and dividend yields, the article also estimates the effect of survivorship bias on returns. Three notable findings emerge from this study. First, stock market returns in the 1825-1870 period are broadly similar for Britain and the United States, although the British market is less risky. Second, real returns in the 1825-1870 period are higher than in subsequent epochs of British history. Third, unlike the modern era, dividends are the most important component of returns.

The rate of return on equity across industrial sectors on the British stock market, 1825-70

This article assesses the contribution of the various industrial sectors to the growth of the British equity market in the 1825–70 period. It also provides estimates of the rates of return on these industrial sectors in this period. The article then proceeds to examine whether differences in rates of return across the various sectors can be explained by risk or other financial factors. One of the main findings is that the relatively high rates of return in the banking, insurance, and miscellaneous sectors appear to be in some measure explained by the presence of extended liability and uncalled capital.

Spatial Mobility Intentions, the Labour Market and Incapacity Benefit Claimants Evidence from Northern Ireland

The paper analyses the work-related spatial mobility intentions of incapacity benefit (IB) claimants in Northern Ireland using a new survey dataset. Greater understanding of the prospective mobility of benefit claimants contributes to debates about employability, inclusion in the labour market and arguments about spatial mismatch. The analysis finds that IB claimants are not markedly less mobile than other population groups; that mobility is shaped by age, level of qualification, illness type, ability to drive and motivation; and that geography is important in several ways. The paper concludes by arguing that limited spatial mobility is a good indicator of disadvantage and that spatial mobility should be placed nearer the centre of the design and delivery of labour market policy