The size distribution of trade unions in the United States and changes in this distribution are documented. Because the most profound changes are taking place among very large unions, these are subject to special analysis by invoking Pareto's distribution—a new application of this distribution. Extensions to trade union wealth and to Britain are broached. The role of the public sector in these changes receives particular attention. A simple model helps account both for the logarithmic distribution of union membership and for the contrasting experiences of public- and private-sector unions since the 1970s.
AitchisonJohnBrownJ. A. C., 1954. On criteria for descriptions of income distribution. Metroeconomica6(3): 88–107.
3.
AshackElizabeth A.2008. Major union mergers, alliances, and disaffiliations, 1995–2007. Compensation and Working Conditions. Accessed at http://stats.bls.gov/opub.cwc/cb20090919ar01p1.htm (September 2008). Washington, DC: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.
4.
AtkinsonAnthony B.PikettyThomasSaezEmmanuel. 2011. Top incomes in the long run of history. Journal of Economic Literature49(1 [March]): 3–71.
5.
AxtellRobert L.2001. Zipf distribution of U.S. firm sizes. Science293(September): 1818–20.
6.
BerndtErnst R.ChristensenLaurits R., 1974. Testing for the existence of a consistent aggregate index of labor inputs. American Economic Review64(3 [June]): 391–404.
7.
BrownCharlesHamiltonJamesMedoffJames. 1990. Employers Large and Small. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
8.
ChaisonGary N.1980. A note on union merger trends, 1900–1978. Industrial and Labor Relations Review34(1 [October]): 114–20.
9.
ChipmanJohn S.1974. The welfare ranking of Pareto distributions. Journal of Economic Theory9(November): 275–82.
10.
ChitayatGideon. 1979. Trade Union Mergers and Labor Conglomerates. New York: Praeger. Clauset, Aaron, Cosma Rohilla Shalizi, and M. E. J. Newman. 2009. Power-law distributions in empirical data. SIAM Review51: 661–703.
11.
CochraneD.OrcuttG. H., 1949. Application of least squares regression to relationships containing auto-correlated error terms. Journal of the American Statistical Association44(245 [March]): 32–61.
12.
DiceyA. V.1914. Lectures on the Relationship between Law and Public Opinion in England during the Nineteenth Century. London. Macmillan. Reprint 2008. Indiana: Liberty Fund.
13.
EsteyMarten S.1966. Trends in concentration of union membership, 1897–1962. Quarterly Journal of Economics80(3 [August]): 343–60.
14.
FarberHenry S.2001. Union success in representation elections: Why does unit size matter?Industrial and Labor Relations Review54(2 [January]): 329–48.
15.
FujiwaraYoshiDi GuilmiCorradoAoyamaHideakiGallegatiMauroSoumaWataru. 2004. Do Pareto-Zipf and Gibrat laws hold true? An analysis with European firms. PhysicaA: Statistical Mechanics and Its Applications335(1–2 [April]): 197–216.
16.
GabaixXavier. 2009. Power laws in economics and finance. Annual Review in Economics and Finance1(June): 255–93.
17.
GabaixXavierIbragimovRustam. 2009. Rank – 1/2: A simple way to improve the OLS estimation of tail exponents. Unpublished manuscript. May.
18.
HartP. E.BrownE. H. Phelps. 1957. The sizes of trade unions: A study in the laws of aggregation. Economic Journal67(265 [March]): 1–15.
19.
HartP. E.PraisS. J., 1956. The analysis of business concentration: A statistical approach. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A (General)119(2): 150–91.
20.
IjiriYujiSimonHerbert A., 1974. Interpretations of departures from the Pareto curve firm-size distributions. Journal of Political Economy82(2 [March-April]), Part I: 315–31.
21.
NishiyamaYoshihikoOsadaSusumu. 2004. Statistical theory of rank size rule regression under Pareto distribution. Interfaces for Advanced Economic Analysis, Kyoto University, Discussion Paper No. 009. January.
22.
[OECD] Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. 1996. Size distribution of output and employment: A data set for manufacturing industries in five OECD countries, 1960–1990. OECD Working Paper, IV (74). Paris.
23.
ParetoVilfredo. 1965. Écrits sur la Courbe de la Répatition de la Richesse. Genève.
24.
QuandtRichard E.1966a. Old and new methods of estimation and the Pareto distribution. Metrika10(1): 55–82.
25.
QuandtRichard E.1966b. On the size distribution of firms. American Economic Review56(3): 416–32.
26.
RederMelvin W.1988. The rise and fall of unions: The public sector and the private. Journal of Economic Perspectives2(2 [Spring]): 89–110.
27.
ReesAlbert. 1989. The Economics of Trade Unions. 3rd edition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
28.
RosenKenneth T.ResnickMitchel. 1980. The size distribution of cities: An examination of the Pareto Law and primacy. Journal of Urban Economics8: 165–86.
29.
SimonHerbert A.BoniniCharles P., 1958. The size distribution of business firms. American Economic Review48(4 [September]): 607–17.
30.
SimpsonD. H.1972. An analysis of the size of trade unions. British Journal of Industrial Relations1(3 [November]): 382–91.
31.
SooKwok Tong. 2005. Zipf's Law for cities: A cross-country investigation. Regional Science and Urban Economics35(3 [May]): 239–63.
32.
TroyLeoSheflinNeil. 1985. U.S. Union Sourcebook: Membership, Finances, Structure, Directory. 1st edition. West Orange: NJ: Industrial Relations Data and Information Services.
33.
UndyRoger. 2008. Trade Union Merger Strategies: Purpose, Process, and Performance. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
WillmanPaulMorrisTimothy. 1988. The Finances of British Trade Unions, 1975–1985. U.K.: Department of Employment Research Paper No. 62.
36.
WindmullerJohn P.1981. Concentration trends in union structure: An international comparison. Industrial and Labor Relations Review35(1 [October]): 43–57.
