RESTRICTIVE PRACTICES, TRAINING AND THE LEGAL PROFESSION IN SCOTLAND: A REPLY
| Date | 01 August 1983 |
| Author | Charles Mulvey |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9485.1983.tb01022.x |
| Published date | 01 August 1983 |
Scortuh
Journal
of
Polirrcal
Economy,
Vol.
30,
No.
3,
Novembcr
1983
Q
1983
Scottish
Ecooomic
Society
RESTRICTIVE PRACTICES, TRAINING
AND THE LEGAL PROFESSION
IN SCOTLAND:
A
REPLY
CHARLES
MULVEY
University
of
Western Australia
Ziderman
(1983)
takes issue with my methodology in computing rates of
return to the legal profession in Scotland [Mulvey
(1980)l.
His main criticism
is that
I
estimated average, rather than marginal, rates of return. In
so
doing he
implies that
I
ought to have been asking the question
“.
. .
having completed a
given level ofeducation, is it profitable on average to take an additional, higher
qualification?” [Ziderman
(1983)
p.
2963.
While
I
regard that as a very
interesting question, it happens not to be the one which
I
addressed myself to
in my paper. My paper was originally prepared at the request
of
the Royal
Commission on Legal Services in Scotland in order to assist them in judging
whether or not the earnings of Solicitors and Advocates in Scotland were high
relative to other professions, given the total investment in education involved
in each. Average rates
of
return are appropriate in such an exercise.
Ziderman’s second point concerns the use of the age/earnings profile of
unqualified legal assistants (ULA’s) as an appropriate reference group for such
calculations.
My
main reason for utilising the age/earnings profile of ULA’s
was to ensure that the “unqualified” reference profile did not include an
earnings stream which reflected postcompulsory schooling investments in
education or training (as the conventional all male average age/earnings
profile does). Ziderman
(1983)
confirms that this
is
the proper procedure when
he says, in relation to computing average rates
of
return,
“.
.
.
earnings streams
associated with those completing the educational programme in question, less
investment costs, are compared with the non-investment alternatives, as
measured by the life-time earnings of those who complete their schooling on
reaching the statutory school leaving age, and do not top this up subsequently
with additional education” [Ziderman
(1983),
p.
2961.
This
was my procedure
exactly.
Ziderman then suggests that ULA’s cannot be shown to be the “major (non-
investment) alternative to investment in the solicitor and advocate qualifi-
cations”
(p.
296-7).
Quite what is meant in practice by “major non-investment
alternative“ in the case
of
a profession is not at all clear. Almost by definition,
the members of a profession and those
of
a “non-investment alternative” will
be drawn from different populations with different career aspirations.
However, ULA’s are arguably more appropriate as a reference group in this
Date
of
receipt
of
final manuscript:
23
March
1983.
302
To continue reading
Request your trial