Abstract
The purpose of this paper is to respond to the comment by James H. Love on our 1991 paper inEmpirica explicitly examining the impact that the two distinct methods used to measure entry rates have had in influences made from statistical analyses. While we generally concur with Love's extension of our original paper, we do suggest that both theecological approach to measuring entry rates as well as thelabor market approach has an important contribution to make. What determines which method should be used to measure entry is the fundamental question being addressed.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Audretsch, David B. (1995)Innovation and Industry Evolution. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Audretsch, David B. and Michael Fritsch (1994) ‘On the Measurement of Entry Rates’,Empirica 21, 105–113.
Bain, Joe (1956)Barriers to New Competition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Love, James H. (1995) ‘The Measurement of Entry Rates: Reconsideration and Resolution’,Empirica 22, 000-000.
Mueller, Dennis, ed. (1990)The Dynamics of Company Profits. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Knight, Frank H. (1921)Risk, Uncertainty and Profit. New York: Houghton Mifflin.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Audretsch, D.B., Fritsch, M. The measurement of entry rates: Reply. Empirica 22, 159–161 (1995). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01384652
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01384652