Sources and Data for US Economic History under the Gold Standard

Hanes (2013) provides a highly useful survey of the data and sources for US economic history, especially the 19th century and gold standard era until 1914, which I review below.

First, some miscellaneous facts. The US became part of the international gold standard in 1879, though it had no central bank until 1913. The US went off the gold exchange standard in 1933, and from the late 1930s/1940s shifted to a fundamentally different monetary and fiscal system.

One of these changes was that the government started to collect detailed economic data, whereas we lack such high quality data for the period before the 1940s.

Estimates for many pre-1914 economic variables are hardly definitive.

Hanes notes that we should sometimes be careful about making strict comparisons between estimates of some economic variables before the 1930s with the post-1945 data, because the two sets of data are often uneven and difficult to compare properly.

Take inflation rates. Historical price indices before the 1930s include a higher degree of “less-processed goods” or flexprice goods rather than manufactured goods (which tend to be fixprice), so that the volatility of pre-1945 inflation rates is higher than post-1945 rates, and that pre-war volatility may be a result more of the data used (Hanes 1999).

In general, pre-1914 business cycles appear to share the following traits with post-1945 cycles:

(1) Consumption and investment were procyclical

(2) net exports were not procyclical, and

(3) agricultural real output is volatile and acyclical (Hanes 2013: 118).

Pre-1914 recessions, however, were often marked by financial crises, bank runs or mass withdrawals of deposits and contraction of credit supply, whereas these problems have been rarer after 1945 (Hanes 2013: 119).

An interesting fact about real GDP is that fluctuations of agricultural output often have no relation to movements in the business cycle, since the weather, plant diseases, insect pests and other exogenous factors mainly influence farming output (Hanes 2013: 117).

I. Unemployment Data
From 1890, some US states began recording unemployment data in manufacturing and the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) on railroad employment (Hanes 2013: 119), but many gaps remain.

For pre-1914 unemployment data, a number of estimates have been made, as follows:

(1) Lebergott, S. 1964. Manpower in Economic Growth: The American Record since 1800. McGraw-Hill, New York.

(2) Romer, C. D. 1986. “Spurious Volatility in Historical Unemployment Data,” Journal of Political Economy 94: 1–37.

(3) Weir, D. R. 1992. “A Century of U.S. Unemployment, 1890–1990: Revised Estimates and Evidence for Stabilization,” Research in Economic History 14: 301–346.

(4) Vernon, J. R. 1994. “Unemployment Rates in Post-Bellum America: 1869–1899,” Journal of Macroeconomics 16: 701–714.

It is generally thought that Lebergott’s estimates are too high, but there are counterarguments (James and Thomas 2007).

Weir (1992) provides a useful “private nonfarm unemployment rate” that can be used to show how unemployment was considerably more volatile before 1914 than after 1945.

II. Real GDP
For pre-1914 real GDP, the following estimates have been made:

(1) the Kuznets-Kendrick-Gallman series:

Kuznets, Simon S. 1946. National Product since 1869. National Bureau of Economic Research, New York.

Kendrick, John W. 1961. Productivity Trends in the United States. Princeton University Press, Princeton, N.J.

Gallman, R. E. 1966. “Gross National Product in the United States 1834–1909,” in D.S. Brady (ed.), Output, Employment, and Productivity in the United States after 1800. Columbia University Press, New York.

(2) Romer’s estimates:

Romer, C. D. 1989. “The Prewar Business Cycle Reconsidered: New Estimates of Gross National Product, 1869–1908,” Journal of Political Economy 97.1: 1–37.

(3) Balke and Gordon’s estimates:

Balke, N. S., and R. J. Gordon, 1989. “The Estimation of Prewar Gross National Product: Methodology and New Evidence,” Journal of Political Economy 97.1: 38–92.

But none of these estimates can be considered definitive, although Balke and Gordon’s (1989) figures seem to be widely used.

Hanes (2013: 121) argues that there is no general agreement about which of the series is the best one.

However, there are valuable alternative measures of business cycles: production indices.

III. Production Indices
A number of indices of industrial production are available for the pre-1914 era, as follows:

(1) Fabricant, Solomon. 1940. The Output of Manufacturing Industries, 1899–1937. National Bureau of Economic Research, New York
http://papers.nber.org/books/fabr40-1

(2) Frickey, Edwin. 1947. Production in the United States, 1860–1914 (Harvard economic studies v. 82). Harvard University Press, Cambridge.

(3) Miron, Jeffrey A. and Christina D. Romer. 1990. “A New Monthly Index of Industrial Production, 1884–1940,” The Journal of Economic History 50.2: 321–337.

(4) Davis, Joseph H. 2004. “An Annual Index of U. S. Industrial Production, 1790–1915,” The Quarterly Journal of Economics 119.4: 1177–1215.

Davis, Joseph H. 2006. “An Improved Annual Chronology of U.S. Business Cycles since the 1790s,” Journal of Economic History 66.1: 103–121.

Davis (2004) provides what is generally considered to be the best index, with many more products and services used to calculate it (Hanes 2013: 121).

Since business cycles are generally fluctuations in non-agricultural output, a manufacturing index like Davis (2004) provides a good method for comparing the volatility of pre-1914 recessions with post-1945 ones by simply comparing it with a post-1945 industrial index (Hanes 2013: 121). Such a comparison finds that percentage changes in annual fluctuations in pre-1914 industrial production were larger than after 1945 (Hanes 2013: 121).

IV. Prices and Wages
Warren and Pearson (1932) provide an index of wholesale prices from 1720 to 1932, but this index cannot provide a good comparison with post-1945 wholesale price changes because it is biased towards prices of raw materials and less-finished goods in a way that does not reflect the composition of wholesale output in this period (Hanes 2013: 122).

Hanes (1998) provides a better wholesale price index for all periods.

Hoover (1960) and Rees (1961) provide consumer price indices for most of the later 19th century even though many goods are not covered, and Long’s (1960) index for 1880–1890 relies on limited data.

Genuinely reliable GDP price indices and deflators are not available for the pre-1914 era (Hanes 2013: 122).

Extensive wage data for manufacturing, railroads and mining exist from the late 19th century. Douglas (1930), Long (1960), Hanes (1992) provide wage indices, mainly for these sectors.

While nominal wage cuts appear common in the pre-1914 era (Hanes and James 2003), real wage trends may well have been similar to the post-1945 era (Hanes 1996).

Post-1945 data shows strong downward nominal wage rigidity in many types of wages (Hanes 2013: 118), and absolute cuts in nominal wages rates are very rare, even during recessions (Lebow et al. 2003).

V. Financial Crises
Banking panics and financial crises are studied by Wilson et al. (1990), Calomiris and Gorton (1991), and Wicker (2000), and such crises occurred in 1884, 1890, 1893, and 1907, which amplified and worsened downturns in the business cycle already under way (Hanes 2013: 125).

VI. Causes of Recessions
Davis et al. (2009) argue that a number of recessions in the pre-1914 era (such as those in 1884, 1893, 1896 and 1910) were set off by changes in the US cotton harvest.

Cotton was a major US export. When bad harvests reduced output, the US exported less, reducing the flow of gold into the US and hence causing interest rates to rise, which impacted negatively on the economy.

Hanes and Rhode (2012) also argue that a decline in European demand for American assets (either by interest rate hikes in Europe or fire sales of American assets by Europeans) was probably also a factor causing business cycles in the pre-1914 era.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Backus, David K. and Patrick J. Kehoe. 1992. “International Evidence on the Historical Properties of Business Cycles.” The American Economic Review 82.4: 864–888.

Balke, N. S., and R. J. Gordon, 1989. “The Estimation of Prewar Gross National Product: Methodology and New Evidence,” Journal of Political Economy 97.1: 38–92.

Calomiris, C. W. and G. Gorton. 1991. “The Origins of Banking Panics: Models, Facts, and Bank Regulation,” in R. Glenn Hubbard (ed.), Financial Markets and Financial Crises. University of Chicago Press, Chicago. 107–173.

Davis, Joseph H. 2004. “An Annual Index of U. S. Industrial Production, 1790–1915,” The Quarterly Journal of Economics 119.4: 1177–1215.

Davis, Joseph H. 2006. “An Improved Annual Chronology of U.S. Business Cycles since the 1790s,” Journal of Economic History 66.1: 103–121.

Davis, Joseph H., Hanes, Christopher and Paul W. Rhode. 2009. “Harvests and Business Cycles in Nineteenth-Century America,” The Quarterly Journal of Economics 124.4: 1675–1727.

Douglas, Paul Howard. 1930. Real Wages in the United States, 1890–1926. Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston and New York.

Fabricant, Solomon. 1940. The Output of Manufacturing Industries, 1899–1937. National Bureau of Economic Research, New York
http://papers.nber.org/books/fabr40-1

Frickey, Edwin. 1947. Production in the United States, 1860–1914 (Harvard economic studies v. 82). Harvard University Press, Cambridge.

Gallman, R. E. 1966. “Gross National Product in the United States 1834–1909,” in D.S. Brady (ed.), Output, Employment, and Productivity in the United States after 1800. Columbia University Press, New York.

Hanes, Christopher. 1992. “Comparable Indices of Wholesale Prices and Manufacturing Wage Rates in the United States, 1865–1914,” in Roger L. Ransom, Richard Sutch, and Susan B. Carter (eds.), Research in Economic History 14: 269–292.

Hanes, Christopher. 1996. “Changes in the Cyclical Behavior of Real Wage Rates, 1870–1990,” The Journal of Economic History 56.4: 837–861.

Hanes, C. 1998. “Consistent Wholesale Price Series for the United States, 1860–1990,” in Trevor J. O. Dick (ed.), Business Cycles since 1820: New International Perspectives from Historical Evidence. E. Elgar, Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA.

Hanes, Christopher. 1999. “Degrees of Processing and Changes in the Cyclical Behavior of Prices in the United States, 1869–1990,” Journal of Money, Credit and Banking 31.1: 35–53.

Hanes, Christopher. 2013. “Business Cycles,” in Robert Whaples and Randall E. Parker (eds.), Routledge Handbook of Modern Economic History. Routledge, Abingdon, Oxon and New York. 116–135.

Hanes, Christopher and John A. James. 2003. “Wage Adjustment under Low Inflation: Evidence from U.S. History,” The American Economic Review 93.4: 1414–1424.

Hanes, Christopher and Paul W. Rhode. 2012. “Harvests and Financial Crises in Gold-Standard America,” NBER Working Paper No. 18616, December
http://www.nber.org/papers/w18616

Hoover, Ethel D. 1960. “Retail Prices after 1850,” in Trends in the American Economy in the Nineteenth Century (Studies in Income and Wealth, vol. 24), Princeton University Press, Princeton, N.J.

James, J. A. and M. Thomas, 2007. “Romer Revisited: Long-Term Changes in the Cyclical Sensitivity of Unemployment,” Cliometrica 1.1: 19–44.

Kendrick, John W. 1961. Productivity Trends in the United States. Princeton University Press, Princeton, N.J.

Kuznets, Simon S. 1946. National Product since 1869. National Bureau of Economic Research, New York.

Lebergott, S. 1964. Manpower in Economic Growth: The American Record since 1800. McGraw-Hill, New York.

Lebow, David E., Saks, Raven E. and Beth A. Wilson. 2003. “Downward Nominal Wage Rigidity: Evidence from the Employment Cost Index,” Advances in Macroeconomics 3.1: 1–28.

Long, Clarence D. 1960. Wages and Earnings in the United States, 1860–1890. Princeton University Press, Princeton.

Miron, Jeffrey A. and Christina D. Romer. 1990. “A New Monthly Index of Industrial Production, 1884–1940,” The Journal of Economic History 50.2: 321–337.

Rees, Albert. 1961. Real Wages in Manufacturing, 1890–1914. Princeton University Press, Princeton.

Romer, C. D. 1986. “Spurious Volatility in Historical Unemployment Data,” Journal of Political Economy 94: 1–37.

Romer, C. D. 1989. “The Prewar Business Cycle Reconsidered: New Estimates of Gross National Product, 1869–1908,” Journal of Political Economy 97.1: 1–37.

Vernon, J. R. 1994. “Unemployment Rates in Post-Bellum America: 1869–1899,” Journal of Macroeconomics 16: 701–714.

Warren, G. F. and F. A. Pearson. 1932. Wholesale Prices for 213 years, 1720 to 1932. Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y.

Weir, D. R. 1992. “A Century of U.S. Unemployment, 1890–1990: Revised Estimates and Evidence for Stabilization,” Research in Economic History 14: 301–346.

Wicker, Elmus. 2000. Banking Panics of the Gilded Age. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Wilson, Jack W., Sylla, Richard E. and Charles P. Jones. 1990. “Financial Market Panics and Volatility in the Long Run, 1830–1988,” in Eugene N. White (ed.), Crises and Panics: The Lessons of History. Dow Jones/Irwin, Homewood.

Mark-up Pricing in 11 Nations and the Eurozone: the Empirical Evidence

There is a mountain of empirical evidence available for many years now that shows that administered prices are the majority of prices in most modern market economies. These prices are also sometimes called “mark-up prices,” “average cost prices,” “full cost prices,” “normal cost prices,” or “cost-plus prices.”

This post lays out what administered prices/mark-up prices/full cost prices are, and the empirical evidence for them from 11 nations and the Eurozone.

Mark-up prices are set by businesses through their cost accounting conventions in an ex ante manner before transactions take place, on the basis of (1) total average unit costs plus (2) a profit mark-up, at a given, estimated, projected or target quantity of output or level of sales (from which of course the ex post or actual quantity of output produced or sold in a given time period might differ).

Empirical evidence shows us that mark-up prices are generally inflexible with respect to demand, but tend to change – though it is by no means a necessary or universal process – when total average unit costs change or when the business wants to change its profit mark-up.

The early empirical work and theory development on administered prices/mark-up prices was done by Gardiner C. Means (1935, 1936, 1939–1940, 1962, 1992 [1933], and 1972, which are discussed here and here), Hall and Hitch (1939) (discussed here and here), P. W. S. Andrews (1949, 1949a, 1964), Kalecki (1954, 1971), A. D. H. Kaplan (Kaplan et el. 1958), and others.

But much more empirical evidence has been done over the past 50 years too (much of it listed here or in Appendix 1 below, including literature from the related “marginalist” controversy), and especially by central bank surveys on price setting over the past 10 years that were inspired by Blinder’s influential direct surveys on US business price setting (Blinder 1998).

The standard Post Keynesian works on mark-up pricing are Lee (1998) and Downward (1999).

The most recent empirical evidence on mark-up pricing in many nations can be seen below, with longer analysis given in separate posts I link to at the end of each “literature” section:

(1) The United States

Literature:
Kaplan, A. D. H., Dirlam, J. B. and Lanzillotti, R. F. 1958. Pricing in Big Business: A Case Approach. The Brookings Institution, Washington DC.

Lanzillotti, R. F. 1964. Pricing Production and the Marketing Policies of Small Manufacturers. Washington State University Press, Pullman, Washington.

Gordon, L. A., Cooper, R., Falk, H., and D. Miller. 1981. The Pricing Decision. National Association of Accountants, New York.

Govindarajan, V. and R. Anthony. 1986. “How Firms use Cost Data in Price Decisions,” Management Accounting 65: 30–34.

Shim, Eunsup, and Ephraim Sudit. 1995. “How Manufacturers Price Products,” Management Accounting 76.8: 37–39.

Blinder, A. S. et al. (eds.). 1998. Asking about Prices: A New Approach to Understanding Price Stickiness. Russell Sage Foundation, New York.

Downward, Paul and Frederic Lee. 2001. “Post Keynesian Pricing Theory ‘Reconfirmed’? A Critical Review of Asking about Prices,” Journal of Post Keynesian Economics 23.3: 465–483.

“Two Marketing Studies on US Administered Prices,” November 16, 2013.

Govindarajan and Anthony (1986) and Shim and Sudit (1995) are two marketing surveys that found that from the 1980s to the 1990s mark-up pricing accounted for roughly 70% to 85% of US industrial prices.

In a much broader and more representative survey for the US economy as a whole, Blinder et al. (1998: 200–201) found that 56.8% of the firms they surveyed said that the idea that prices and price changes depend mainly on costs of production ranked as “very important” (38.8%) or moderately important (18%).

(2) Canada

Literature:
Amirault, D., Kwan, C. and G. Wilkinson. 2004. “A Survey of the Price-Setting Behaviour of Canadian Companies,” Bank of Canada Review 2004/2005: 29–40.
http://www.bankofcanada.ca/2006/09/publications/research/working-paper-2006-35/

“Mark-up Pricing in Canada,” January 7, 2014.

Amirault, Kwan, and Wilkinson (2004) examine price setting in Canada, and report the results of a survey of 170 private, unregulated, non-primary sector firms in the sectors of construction (10%), manufacturing (26%), trade (14%), and services (49%), in a sample which should give representative results for about 70% of Canada’s output in 2002 (Amirault, Kwan, and Wilkinson 2004: 3–4).

An impressive 67.1% of firms surveyed attributed price inflexibility to “cost-based pricing” – that is, to mark-up pricing (Amirault, Kwan, and Wilkinson 2004: 21).

(3) Eurozone

Literature:
Fabiani, S., M. Druant, I. Hernando, C. Kwapil, B. Landau, C. Loupias, F. Martins, T. Mathä, R. Sabbatini, H. Stahl and A. Stokman. 2006. “What Firms’ Surveys tell us about Price-Setting Behavior in the Euro Area,” International Journal of Central Banking 2.3: 3–47.

Fabiani, Silvia, Suzanne Loupias, Claire, Monteiro Martins, Fernando Manuel and Roberto Sabbatini. 2007. Pricing Decisions in the Euro Area: How Firms set Prices and Why. Oxford University Press, New York.

“Administered Prices in the Eurozone: Some Empirical Data,” October 16, 2013.

The wide-ranging survey of Fabiani et al. (2006) and (2007) on prices in the Eurozone from many central bank studies finds that the average for mark-up pricing throughout the Eurozone is 54%, a majority of firm prices.

In goods markets in Germany, the largest economy in Europe, a strikingly high 73% of firms have administered prices (Fabiani et al. 2006: 18, Table 4).

(4) the UK

Literature:
Greenslade, Jennifer V. and Miles Parker. 2012. “New Insights into Price-Setting Behaviour in the UK: Introduction and Survey Results,” Economic Journal 122.558: F1–F15.

Hall, S., Walsh, M. and A. Yates. 2000. “Are UK Companies’ Prices Sticky?,” Oxford Economic Papers 52.3: 425–446.

“Mark-up Pricing in the UK,” February 15, 2014.

“Downward’s Pricing Theory in Post-Keynesian Economics: Chapter 8,” January 23, 2014.

Hall, Walsh, and Yates (2000) report the results of a survey of 654 UK companies in 1995 carried out by the Bank of England, and mostly of large companies in manufacturing (68% of the survey), as well as some in services (13%), retailing (13%), and construction (6%) (Hall, Walsh, and Yates 2000: 426–428).

The survey also asked firms if they recognised a specific “pricing theory as being important” for explaining their pricing behaviour. It was found that 47.1% of firms chose cost-based pricing as the second most important theory (the theory of constant marginal costs came first at 53.8%).

Greenslade and Parker (2012) report the results of a new survey of 693 UK firms (conducted in December 2007 and February 2008) chosen to be representative of the private sector economy of the UK as a whole, including manufacturing, electricity and gas supply, construction, services, and retail trade, but excluding public sector firms or those under regulatory price control (Greenslade and Parker 2012: F13–F14).

When asked how prices for their main product were determined, 68% of firms said that competitors’ prices were “very important” or “important” in determining price (Greenslade and Parker 2012: F9).

The second most important explanation was mark-up pricing, with variable mark-ups (58%) and constant mark-ups (44%) both being important (Greenslade and Parker 2012: F10).

Downward (1999, Chapter 8) presents a survey of 283 UK manufacturing enterprises (Downward 1999: 150–151). When asked whether the firm set its prices for its products by means of a mark-up on average costs, 63.7% of firms said either “very often” (29.9%) or “often” (33.8%). A further 17.3% said “sometimes.” Only 7% said “rarely,” and only 8.1% said “not at all” (Downward 1999: 160).

(5) Norway

Literature:
Langbraaten, Nina, Nordbø, Einar W. and Fredrik Wulfsberg. 2008. “Price-setting Behaviour of Norwegian Firms – Results of a Survey,” Norges Bank Economic Bulletin 79.2: 13–34.
http://www.norges-bank.no/en/about/published/publications/economic-bulletin/economic-bulletin-22008/price-setting-behaviour-of-norwegian-firms--results-of-a-survey/

“Mark-up Pricing in Norway,” November 23, 2013.

Langbraaten et al. (2008) cite a well-sampled survey of 725 firms throughout many sectors of the Norwegian economy that found that 69% of Norwegian businesses use mark-up pricing.

(6) Ireland

Literature:
Keeney, Mary, Lawless, Martina, and Alan Murphy. 2010. “How Do Firms Set Prices? Survey Evidence from Ireland,” Central Bank of Ireland, Research Technical Papers, no 7/RT/10.
http://ideas.repec.org/p/cbi/wpaper/7-rt-10.html

“Mark-up Pricing in Ireland,” November 22, 2013.

Keeney et al. (2010) report the results of a survey of 1000 Irish firms and finds that the largest type of pricing is mark-up pricing at 44% of firms. Other evidence from their paper, presented in my post here, suggests that the real percentage is higher than this, since when firms were asked how likely it was that they would adjust prices downwards in response to a negative demand shock, 66.5% of firms said that negative demand shocks were of little or no relevance to pricing decisions.

(7) Iceland

Literature:
Ólafsson, Thorvardur Tjörvi, Pétursdóttir, Ásgerdur, and Karen Á. Vignisdóttir. 2011. “Price Setting in Turbulent Times: Survey Evidence from Icelandic Firms,” Working Paper Central Bank of Iceland
www.sedlabanki.is/lisalib/getfile.aspx?itemid=8891‎

“Mark-up Prices in Iceland,” November 25, 2013.

Ólafsson et al. (2011) cite a survey of 580 Icelandic firms and finds that mark-up pricing is the largest type of pricing at 45%. Evidence suggests that more mark-up prices are concealed in the other categories in the survey, so that the real percentage is higher than this.

(8) Sweden

Literature:
Apel, Mikael, Friberg, Richard and Kerstin Hallsten. 2005. “Microfoundations of Macroeconomic Price Adjustment: Survey Evidence from Swedish Firms,” Journal of Money, Credit and Banking 37.2: 313–338.

“Mark-up Pricing in Sweden,” January 9, 2014.

Apel et al. (2005) provide data on price setting behaviour in Sweden, from a survey of about 600 private sector firms (Apel et al. 2005: 314) weighted to create a more representative sample of the Swedish economy (Apel et al. 2005: 316), but their study fails to directly ask firms how they set price.

Interestingly, when asked why they leave prices unchanged in response to small changes in demand, many firms said “it is better to leave the price unchanged as long as the costs do not change” (Apel et al. 2005: 323), which gives some support to the view that mark-up pricing is important.

(9) Japan

Literature:
Hsu, Robert. 1999. “Pricing Practices in Japan,” Global Business and Economics Review 1.2: 164–171.

Nakagawa, S., R. Hattori and I. Takagawa, 2000. “Price-Setting Behaviour of Japanese Companies,” Bank of Japan Research Paper
http://www.boj.or.jp/en/research/brp/ron_2000/ron0009b.htm/

“Mark-up Pricing in Japan,” November 29, 2013.

Nakagawa and Takagawa (2000) cite a survey of 630 Japanese companies. As interpreted by Fabiani et al. (2007: 190), the data suggest that least 54% of Japanese firms use mark-up pricing.

(10) New Zealand

Literature:
Parker, Miles. “Price-Setting Behaviour in New Zealand”
https://cama.crawford.anu.edu.au/amw2013/doc/Parker,Miles.pdf

“Mark-up Pricing in New Zealand,” November 30, 2013.

Parker cites a survey of around 5,300 New Zealand firms that finds that mark-up prices account for about 54% of business prices.

(11) Australia

Literature:
Park, Anna, Rayner, Vanessa and Patrick D’Arcy. 2010. “Price-Setting Behaviour – Insights from Australian Firms,” Reserve Bank of Australia Bulletin (June Quarter): 7–14.
http://www.rba.gov.au/publications/bulletin/2010/jun/bu-0610-2a.html

“Mark-up Pricing in Australia,” November 30, 2013.

Park, Rayner, and D’Arcy (2010) cite a survey of around 700 Australian firms that finds that mark-up prices account for at least 49% of firm prices. Once we add likely mark-up prices concealed in the other categories in the survey, the percentage will be higher than this.

(12) Pakistan

Literature:
Malik, W. S., ul HaqSatti, A. and G. Saghir. 2010. “Price Setting Behaviour of Pakistani Firms: Evidence from Four Industrial Cities of Punjab,” PIDE Working Papers
http://www.eaber.org/node/23069

Malik et al. (2010) provides some interesting evidence on mark-up pricing in Pakistan, and reports the results of a 2008 survey of 343 manufacturing firms in four industrial cities of the Punjab Province (Malik et al. 2010: 2–4).

About 75% of these firms reported that they had more than 20 competitor firms (Malik et al. 2010: 2).

Furthermore, of the 57% of the firms that reported that they set their own prices, 62% reported that they set prices as a mark-up over costs (Malik et al. 2010: 7–8). A further 30% reported that the price of their main competitor was used to set price, and, as in other surveys, it is likely that this category also conceals mark-up pricing.

So even in developing nations, mark-up pricing is significant.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Amirault, D., Kwan, C. and G. Wilkinson. 2004. “A Survey of the Price-Setting Behaviour of Canadian Companies,” Bank of Canada Review 2004/2005: 29–40.
http://www.bankofcanada.ca/2006/09/publications/research/working-paper-2006-35/

Andrews, P. W. S. 1949. “A Reconsideration of the Theory of the Individual Business,” Oxford Economic Papers n.s. 1.1: 54–89.

Andrews, P. W. S. 1949a. Manufacturing Business. Macmillan, London.

Andrews, P.W.S. 1964. On Competition in Economic Theory. Macmillan, London.

Apel, Mikael, Friberg, Richard and Kerstin Hallsten. 2005. “Microfoundations of Macroeconomic Price Adjustment: Survey Evidence from Swedish Firms,” Journal of Money, Credit and Banking 37.2: 313–338.

Berle, Adolf A. and Gardner C. Means. 1932. The Modern Corporation and Private Property. Macmillan, New York.

Blinder, A. S. et al. (eds.). 1998. Asking about Prices: A New Approach to Understanding Price Stickiness. Russell Sage Foundation, New York.

Davidson, P. 1992. “Would Keynes be a New Keynesian?,” Eastern Economic Journal 18.4: 449–463.

Downward, Paul. 1999. Pricing Theory in Post-Keynesian Economics: A Realist Approach. Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA.

Downward, Paul and Frederic Lee. 2001. “Post Keynesian Pricing Theory ‘Reconfirmed’? A Critical Review of Asking about Prices,” Journal of Post Keynesian Economics 23.3: 465–483.

Fabiani, S., M. Druant, I. Hernando, C. Kwapil, B. Landau, C. Loupias, F. Martins, T. Mathä, R. Sabbatini, H. Stahl and A. Stokman. 2006. “What Firms’ Surveys tell us about Price-Setting Behavior in the Euro Area,” International Journal of Central Banking 2.3: 3–47.

Fabiani, Silvia, Suzanne Loupias, Claire, Monteiro Martins, Fernando Manuel and Roberto Sabbatini. 2007. Pricing Decisions in the Euro Area: How Firms set Prices and Why. Oxford University Press, New York.

Govindarajan, V. and R. Anthony. 1986. “How Firms use Cost Data in Price Decisions,” Management Accounting 65: 30–34.

Greenslade, Jennifer V. and Miles Parker. 2012. “New Insights into Price-Setting Behaviour in the UK: Introduction and Survey Results,” Economic Journal 122.558: F1–F15.

Hall, R. L. and C. J. Hitch. 1939. “Price Theory and Business Behaviour,” Oxford Economic Papers 2: 12–45.

Hall, S., Walsh, M. and A. Yates. 2000. “Are UK Companies’ Prices Sticky?,” Oxford Economic Papers 52.3: 425–446.

Hill, Greg. 1996. “Capitalism, Coordination, and Keynes: Rejoinder to Horwitz,” Critical Review 10: 373–387.

Kalecki, M. 1954. Theory of Economic Dynamics. Allen and Unwin, London.

Kalecki, M. 1971. Selected Essays on the Dynamics of the Capitalist Economy. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Kaplan, A. D. H., Dirlam, J. B. and Lanzillotti, R. F. 1958. Pricing in Big Business: A Case Approach. The Brookings Institution, Washington DC.

Keeney, Mary, Lawless, Martina, and Alan Murphy. 2010. “How Do Firms Set Prices? Survey Evidence from Ireland,” Central Bank of Ireland, Research Technical Papers, no 7/RT/10.
http://ideas.repec.org/p/cbi/wpaper/7-rt-10.html

Langbraaten, Nina, Nordbø, Einar W. and Fredrik Wulfsberg. 2008. “Price-setting Behaviour of Norwegian Firms – Results of a Survey,” Norges Bank Economic Bulletin 79.2: 13–34.
http://www.norges-bank.no/en/about/published/publications/economic-bulletin/economic-bulletin-22008/price-setting-behaviour-of-norwegian-firms--results-of-a-survey/

Lee, Frederic S. 1998. Post Keynesian Price Theory. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge and New York.

Malik, W. S., ul HaqSatti, A. and G. Saghir. 2010. “Price Setting Behaviour of Pakistani Firms: Evidence from Four Industrial Cities of Punjab,” PIDE Working Papers
http://www.eaber.org/node/23069

Means, G. C. 1992 [1933]. “The Corporate Revolution,” in Frederic S. Lee and Warren J. Samuels (eds.), The Heterodox Economics of Gardiner C. Means: A Collection. M.E. Sharpe, Armonk, N.Y.

Means, G. C. 1935. Industrial Prices and their Relative Inflexibility. US Senate Document no. 13, 74th Congress, 1st Session, Government Printing Office, Washington DC.

Means, G. C. 1936. “Notes on Inflexible Prices,” American Economic Review 26 (Supplement): 23–35.

Means, G. C. 1939–1940. “Big Business, Administered Prices, and the Problem of Full Employment,” Journal of Marketing 4: 370–381.

Means, G. C. 1962. Pricing Power and the Public Interest. Harper and Brothers. New York.

Nakagawa, S., R. Hattori and I. Takagawa, 2000. “Price-Setting Behaviour of Japanese Companies,” Bank of Japan Research Paper
http://www.boj.or.jp/en/research/brp/ron_2000/ron0009b.htm/

Ólafsson, Thorvardur Tjörvi, Pétursdóttir, Ásgerdur, and Karen Á. Vignisdóttir. 2011. “Price Setting in Turbulent Times: Survey Evidence from Icelandic Firms,” Working Paper Central Bank of Iceland
www.sedlabanki.is/lisalib/getfile.aspx?itemid=8891‎

Park, Anna, Rayner, Vanessa and Patrick D’Arcy. 2010. “Price-Setting Behaviour – Insights from Australian Firms,” Reserve Bank of Australia Bulletin (June Quarter): 7–14.
http://www.rba.gov.au/publications/bulletin/2010/jun/bu-0610-2a.html

Parker, Miles. “Price-Setting Behaviour in New Zealand”
https://cama.crawford.anu.edu.au/amw2013/doc/Parker,Miles.pdf

Pittman, Russell. 2009. “Who Are You Calling Irrational? Marginal Costs, Variable Costs, and the Pricing Practices of Firms,” Economic Analysis Group Discussion Paper 09-3
http://www.justice.gov/atr/public/eag/248394.htm

Shim, Eunsup, and Ephraim Sudit. 1995. “How Manufacturers Price Products,” Management Accounting 76.8: 37–39.

Appendix 1
Below are the main surveys and articles in the “full cost” and marginalist pricing debate of the 1940s to 1970s

Against Marginalism
Kaplan, A. D. H., Dirlam, J. B. and Lanzillotti, R. F. 1958. Pricing in Big Business: A Case Approach. The Brookings Institution, Washington DC.

Lanzillotti, Robert F. 1958. “Pricing Objectives in Large Companies,” American Economic Review 48.5: 921–940.

Kahn, Alfred E. 1959. “Pricing Objectives in Large Companies: Comment,” American Economic Review 49.4: 670–678.

Lanzillotti, Robert F. 1959. “Pricing Objectives in Large Companies: Reply,” American Economic Review 49.4: 679-687.

Barback, R. H. 1964. Pricing of Manufactures. Macmillan and Co Ltd., London.

Wentz, Theodore E. 1966. “Realism in Pricing Analyses,” Journal of Marketing 30.2: 19–26.

Skinner, R. C. 1970. “The Determination of Selling Prices,” Journal of Industrial Economics 18.3: 201–217.

Sizer, John. 1971. “Note on ‘the Determination of Selling Prices,’” The Journal of Industrial Economics 20.1: 85–89.

Hague, D. C. 1971. Pricing in Business. George Allen and Unwin, London.

Burck, G. 1972. “The Myths and Realities of Corporate Pricing,” Fortune 85.4: 85–89, 125–126.

Atkin, B. and Skinner, R. 1975. How British Industry Prices. Industrial Market Research Limited, London.

Shipley, David D. 1981. “Pricing Objectives in British Manufacturing Industry,” The Journal of Industrial Economics 29.4: 429–443.

Gordon, L. A., Cooper, R., Falk, H., and D. Miller. 1981. The Pricing Decision. National Association of Accountants, New York.

Hankinson, A. 1985. A Study of Pricing Behaviour of Dorset-Hampshire Small Engineering Firms. Dorset Institute of Higher Education, Poole, Dorset.

Bruegelman, T., Haessly, G., Wolfangel, C. P. and Schiff, M. 1985. “How Variable Costing is used in Pricing Decisions,” Management Accounting 66: 58–61, 65.

Samiee, S. 1987. “Pricing in Marketing Strategies of US- and Foreign-based Firms,” Journal of Business Research 15: 17–30.

Defending Marginalism
Gordon, R. A. 1948. “Short Period Price Determination in Theory and Practice,” American Economic Review 38: 265–288.

Hague, D. C. 1949–1950. “Economic Theory and Business Behaviour,” Review of Economic Studies 16: 144–157.

Edwards, R. S. 1952. “The Pricing of Manufactured Products,” Economica 19: 298–307.

Simon, H. A. 1952. “A Behavioural Model of Rational Choice,” Quarterly Journal of Economics 69: 99–118.

Simon, H. A. 1959. “Theories of Decision Making in Economies,” American Economic Review 49: 253–283.

Shackle, G. L. S. 1955. “Businessmen on Business Decisions,” Scottish Journal of Political Economy 2: 32–46.

Earley, James S. 1956. “Marginal Policies of ‘Excellently Managed’ Companies,” American Economic Review 46.1: 44–70.

Cook, A. C., Dufty, N. F. and Jones, E. H. 1956. “Full Cost Pricing in the Multiproduct Firm,” The Economic Record 32: 142–147.

Pearce, I. F. 1956. “A Study in Price Policy,” Economica n.s. 23.90: 114–127.

Pearce, I. F. and Amey, L. R. 1956–1957. “Price Policy with a Branded Product,” The Review of Economic Studies 24: 49–60.

Fog, B. 1960. Industrial Pricing Policies: An Analysis of Pricing Policies of Danish Manufacturers. North Holland Publishing, Amsterdam.

Knox, R. L. 1966. “Competitive Oligopolistic Pricing,” Journal of Marketing 30: 47–51.

Neutral Studies
Alt, R. M. 1949. “The Internal Organisation of the Firm and Price Formation: An Illustrative Case,” Quarterly Journal of Economics 63: 92–110.

Woodruff, W. 1953. “Early Entrepreneurial Behaviour in Relation to Costs and Prices,” Oxford Economic Papers 5: 41–64.

Blackwell, R. 1953–1954. “The Pricing of Books,” Journal of Industrial Economics 2: 174–183.

Cook, A. and Jones, F. 1954. “Full Cost Pricing in Western Australia,” The Economic Record 30: 272–274.

Balkin, N. 1956. “Prices in the Clothing Industry,” Journal of Industrial Economics 5.1: 1–15.

Lazer, W. 1956–1957. “Price Determination in the Western Canadian Garment Industry,” Journal of Industrial Economics 5: 124–136.

Pool, A. G. and Llewellyn, G. 1957. The British Hosiery Industry: A Study in Competition. Leicester University Press, Leicester.

Lydall, H. F. 1958. “Aspects of Competition in Manufacturing Industry,” Institute of Economics and Statistics Bulletin 20: 319–337.

Haynes, W. W. 1962. Pricing Decisions in Small Business. University of Kentucky Press, Lexington, KY.

Haynes, W. W. 1964. “Pricing Practices in Small Firms,” The Southern Economic Journal 30: 315–324.

Lanzillotti, R. F. 1964. Pricing Production and the Marketing Policies of Small Manufacturers. Washington State University Press, Pullman, Washington.

Rosendale, R. B. 1973. “The Short Run Pricing Policies of Some British Engineering Exporters,” National Institute Economic Review 65: 44–51.

Nowotny, Ewald and Herbert Walther. 1978. “The Kinked Demand Curve—Some Empirical Observations,” Kyklos 31: 53–67.

Forgionne, G. A. 1984. “Economic Tools used by Management in Large American Operated Corporations,” Business Economics 19: 5–17.

Jobber, D. and Hooley, G. 1987. “Price Behaviour in the UK Manufacturing Service Industries,” Managerial and Decision Economics 8.2: 167–171.

Smiley, Robert. 1988. “Empirical Evidence on Strategic Entry Deterrence,” International Journal of Industrial Organization 6.2: 167—180.

Blinder, Alan S. 1991. “Why are Prices Sticky? Preliminary Results from an Interview Study,” American Economic Review 81.2: 89–96.

Additional Studies
Alchian, A. A. 1950. “Uncertainty, Evolution and Economic Theory,” Journal of Political Economy 58: 211–221.

Robinson, A. 1950. “The Pricing of Manufactured Products,” Economic Journal 60: 771–780.

Machlup, F. 1946. “Marginal Analysis and Empirical Research,” American Economic Review 36: 519–554.

Heflebower, R. F. 1955. “Full Costs, Cost Changes, and Prices,” in National Bureau of Economic Research, Business Concentration and Price Policy. Princeton University Press, Princeton. 361–392.

Coase, R. 1955. “Full Cost, Cost Changes, and Prices: Comment,” in National Bureau of Economic Research, Business Concentration and Public Policy. Princeton University Press, Princeton. 392–394.

Wiles, P. 1950. “Empirical Research and the Marginal Analysis,” Economic Journal 60: 515–530.

Robinson, J. V. 1953. “Imperfect Competition Revisited,” Economic Journal 63: 579–593.