dency to errors of the same sort that seriously affects inferences drawn where the significant numbers are relative. The constant errors, moreover, are such as to reduce the appearance of concentration. There is a tendency to overstate the value of small estates on account of not allowing for debts. For large estates there is a presumption of understatement, perhaps from habits acquired relative to statements made with reference to assessment for taxation. If this last is true, the weight of the large and largest fortunes is greater than appears. In the test, by the comparative slant of logarithmic curves the effect of the most important sources of constant error may be evaded by disregarding the portion of the curve that represents the number of small estates. Probated estates are also to a degree misrepresentative of contemporary fortunes, since they were made in the past and are in larger proportion estates of inactive investors. But this error is also constant or else to some degree unfavorable to the inferences drawn.* Of other objections to basing conclusions on probate statistics, it may likewise be said, in general, either that they are constant and do not affect the inference as to tendency or that they are different in their incidence on estates in such a way as to give the large estates less apparent than real gain.† A pertinent objection to inferences as to the growth of riches is that the fewness of the largest fortunes implies a large "probable error" in the conclusion. But this objection is of more force against attempts to measure degree of concentration than against the determination merely of the fact that there is a tendency in that direction. And the establishment of this fact does not depend on this one point in the evidence. It is perhaps worth while to test the comparative width of distribution; that is, the proportion of propertied to propertyless classes. This can be done for comparative purposes by Has the adult death-rate among classes having property declined much in Massachusetts from 1830 to 1890? Only so far as such a decline has affected different economic classes differently would it affect inferences relating to concentration. † Cf. Mayo-Smith, "Statistics and Economics," p. 434, and Ely's comment, “ Evolution of Industrial Society," pp. 266, 267. getting ratios of probates to population. These are, probates per 10,000 of population, in Massachusetts: No attempt is made to calculate the percentage of property owners to total population. The ratio of probates to population we should expect to increase, owing to the growth of savings institutions. A declining birth-rate or any other cause (e.g., immigration) that tends to increase the proportion of adults in the total population would produce the same appearance. This phase of the question, touching the proportion of property owners in the population, is also most affected by inaccuracy in probate statistics, hence the symptoms exhibited among the property owners are more significant. Perhaps the most that can be inferred from the ratios just given is that there has been no important change in the relative number of probates such that it would give ground for a suspicion that the figures for different decades are not comparable. The tendency to concentration, or to an increase in large fortunes, is a result of general causes operating throughout the western world. Evidence from other countries is important as supporting the conclusion from the statistics directly relating to the United States. Probate statistics for Great Britain and Ireland follow: AMOUNT OF PERSONAL PROPERTY IN ESTATES SUBJECT TO PROBATE AND ADMINISTRATION DUTIES IN THE UNITED KINGDOM, 1838.* Population of United Kingdom in 1838 (estimated), 25,905,194. NUMBER AND NET CAPITAL Value of ESTATES ASSESSED to Probate DUTY IN THE UNITED KINGDOM, CLASSIFIED BY SIZE, DURING THE 5-YEAR PERIOD 1884-85 To 1888-89 (EXCLUSIVE OF PROPERTY ASSESSED TO CORPORATION DUTY).‡ * Data from Porter, "Progress of the Nation," 1843, vol. iii, pp. 131-133. errors in certain of his totals which are corrected in the above. The lowest class taxed is £20 to £100. There are United Kingdom Statistical Abstract, 41st number, p. 35. § Estates below £1,000 include estates below £300 at gross value, hence this class is omitted. NUMBER AND NET CAPITAL VALUE OF ESTATES OR PORTIONS OF ESTATES LIABLE TO ESTATE DUTY IN THE United KingDOM, CLASSIFIED BY SIZE, FOR THE 5-YEAR PERIOD 1901-02 TO 1905-06.* The numbers for which logarithms are wanted, with their logarithms, follow: * United Kingdom Statistical Abstract, 53d number, p. 45. + Ibid., p. 347. |