Posts filed under ‘Business/Economic History’
Industrial Entrepreneurship in Early Modern China
| Peter Klein |
Coase, Williamson, and others have long called for comparative institutional analysis across countries and across time. How do various institutional arrangements perform under alternative institutional environments? We are only beginning to understand this question. (Important contributors to the literature include Witold Henisz, Tarun Khanna, Masahiko Aoki, and various members of the Centre ATOM, among others.) Can changes in the institutional environment be regarded as exogenous “shift parameters,” as Williamson has articulated the problem, or is there a more subtle, complex co-evolution among institutions and organizational form?
These issues are raised in Madeleine Zelin’s The Merchants of Zigong: Industrial Entrepreneurship in Early Modern China (Columbia University Press, 2006), reviewed here by Carol Shiue for EH.Net. Zelin’s new book traces the history of the salt merchants of western Sichuan province, who created one of the first, vertically integrated industrial enterprises in modern China. Though not explicitly a comparative study, Zelin’s volume provides a useful companion to the landmark studies by Chandler and others of the history of modern enterprise in the West. As Shiue observes, “A recurrent theme of the book is that the business arrangements seen in the Chinese salt industry belie not only previous perceptions about the predatory influence of the ‘feudal’ state on entrepreneurial incentives in China, but also the purported uniqueness of Western business practice.”
See also Shiue’s earlier review of Zelin, Ocko, and Gardella, eds., Contract and Property in Early Modern China (Stanford University Press, 2004).
General-Purpose Technologies and Long-Term Economic Growth
| Peter Klein |
Another interesting book review from EH.Net, this time by Joel Mokyr on Economic Transformations: General Purpose Technologies and Long-Term Economic Growth by Richard G. Lipsey, Kenneth I. Carlaw, and Clifford T. Bekar.
The book is hard to summarize because it is unusually rich and diverse. It contains long discussions of technological change, its nature, sources, and consequences. Lipsey maintains that technology is at the heart of modern economic growth and asks — once again — what the sources of Western success are. Among other things, the book also treats at length the economics of technological change, the history of science, and population dynamics. It is part grand synthesis, part textbook, part statement of the author’s idiosyncratic views, and throughout an excellent read — informed, curious, unafraid of being unconventional or politically incorrect.
And:
Lipsey joins a large number of economists who, when thinking about the long run, feel that evolutionary models are more appropriate than standard neoclassical ones.
Hopefully, as if responding to Nicolai’s plea, Lipsey et al. also discuss some policy implications of their evolutionary perspective.
A Muddle on Vertical Integration
| Peter Klein |
Slate’s Daniel Gross offers a hopeless muddle on vertical integration in his latest Moneybox column. Citing several examples of forwards integration mentioned in a recent WSJ article, Gross proclaims “the return of one of the great industrial developments of the late 19th century: vertical integration.” But the reasoning is a mess.
First, there’s no systematic evidence that vertical integration ever went away. We have plenty of anecdotal information about outsourcing, increased use of networks and alliances, “refocusing,” and the like, but little systematic evidence for a comprehensive, economy-wide trend toward vertical dis-integration. (more…)
Greif and Hayek on Institutions
| Peter Klein |
The EH.Net review of Avner Greif’s new book provoked this testy exchange on a history of of economic thought mailing list:
Professor A: This doesn’t sound very profound or “pathbreaking,” just mathed-up Hayek with a soupçon of history.
Professor B: Avner Grief’s work is not “mathed-up” Hayek. His use of game theory allows him, inter alia, to examine the multiple equilibria in “spontaneous orders,” if you like, something to which Hayek paid very little attention.
Professor C: Quote from Greif: “Yet this private order was not, as advocates such as Friedrich A. von Hayek and Milton Friedman would have us believe, a result of ‘spontaneous order’ among economic agents. Rather, it was a product of intentional and coordinated efforts by many individuals […].” Greif (2006: 389)
I agree with Professor B. that Greif does more than simply put a modern gloss on Hayek’s (actually Menger’s) pioneering studies of institutions. But Greif misunderstands Hayek by reading “spontaneous” as “not planned or intended by anybody.” Hayek’s concept of spontaneous order obviously allows for individual purpose and intent, even if individuals’ actions help establish an order that was itself undesigned. (Hayek’s emphasis on rule-following behavior or instinct — OK, to be fair, behavior “between instinct and reason” — perhaps lends itself to Greif’s misunderstanding, however.)
For more on this see Dan Klein’s “The Two Coordinations.”
Capitalism, Socialism, and the Cote d’Azur
| Richard Langlois |
Thanks to Nicolai and Peter for inviting me to join in on the fun.
I trust that Nicolai and family are enjoying their vacation in Antibes, soaking up the sun and t
he local communist ideology. As it happens, I was in that part of the world about a month ago. On a free day while exploring Nice, I headed up to Nice Castle in search of some medieval ambience. Instead I found the annual local fete of the French Communist Party. The experience was surreal in that the event reminded me of nothing so much as the small-town agricultural fairs here in New England. The main difference seemed to be that the booths offering grilled sausages were staffed not by the Columbia Lions Club but by the Pablo Picasso Cell. (I must admit, however, that, even though the towns near me have names like Hebron and Lebanon, none of them would have had a pro-Palestinian anti-Israeli booth.) Adding to the surreal experience, the sound system kept pumping out Steely Dan’s “Cousin Dupree” over and over, apparently as a way of checking the settings.
I was in Nice — actually Sophia Antipolis, which is closer to Antibes — for the biennial meeting of the International Joseph A. Schumpeter Society. This was a rather more capitalistic experience, at least from my point of view. For one thing, the conference dinner, which featured the award of the Schumpeter Prize, took place at a former Rothschild Villa overlooking the sea. As a certain modicum of self promotion is apparently de rigeur in blogs, I suppose I should admit that one of the winners of the Schumpeter Prize was, well, me. The manuscript in question, called The Dynamics of Industrial Capitalism: Schumpeter, Chandler, and the New Economy, started out as the Graz Schumpeter Lectures in 2004. (In this respect I followed in the footsteps of Brian Loasby, whose 1996 Graz Lectures won the 2000 Schumpeter Prize.) The book (which Routledge is to publish) mixes intellectual history and economic history, tracing the (remarkably similar) Weberian accounts of Schumpeter and Chandler, who see the large managerial corporation as the apotheosis of “rational” economic organization, and confronting those accounts with the rather contrary evidence of the last quarter century — what I call the Vanishing Hand thesis. At least until I sign the rights over to Routledge, the manuscript is available here.
More substance next time.
Emergence of the East India Company
| Peter Klein |
An example of spontaneous order in the emergence of the large firm: Emily Erikson and Peter Bearman’s “Routes into Networks: The Structure of English Trade in the East Indies, 1601-1833,” forthcoming in the American Journal of Sociology. Working paper here. Abstract:
Drawing on a remarkable data set compiled from ships’ logs, journals, factory correspondence, ledgers, and reports that provide unusually precise information on each of the 4,572 voyages taken by English traders of the East India Company (hereafter EIC), the authors describe the EIC trade network over time, from 1601 to 1833. From structural images of voyages organized by shipping seasons, they map the (over time and space) emergence of dense, fully integrated, global trade networks: of globalization before globalization. The paper shows that the integration of the world trade system under the aegis of the EIC was the unintended by-product of systematic individual malfeasance (private trading) on the part of ship captains seeking profit from internal Eastern trade.
The paper even gets a plug from Scientific American:
The researchers . . . describe how many rogue captains ignored orders to trade in established markets and then return directly to England, choosing instead to explore new locations and trade between local Asian ports for their own personal profit. Although they were breaking the law by appropriating supplies and ship crews for this private trading, in doing so they ultimately benefited the East India Company by building a larger market and gaining a unique knowledge of local market fluctuations.
Via Craig Newmark. Related: my earlier post on market-based management.
The Birth of Big Business in the US
| Peter Klein |
David L. Mason reviews David O. Whitten and Bessie E. Whitten’s The Birth of Big Business in the United States, 1860-1914: Commercial, Extractive and Industrial Enterprise (Praeger, 2005), in the latest EH.Net book review. It sounds like a valuable overview of an extremely important period:
The roughly fifty-year period between the end of the Civil War and the start of World War I was one of the most dynamic periods in American economic history, in no small part because of the rise of big business. _The Birth of Big Business in the United States_, an introductory work intended for students and the general reader, chronicles the developments and processes that led to the rise of large-scale firms in both well-known industries like oil and steel, as well as in the extractive industries like mining and forestry. Throughout the concisely written narrative, the authors highlight the role of government in both encouraging and restraining the expansion of big business. This work succeeds in placing industrialization in the broader context of American history, an important consideration for first-time students of business history.
Good to see the role of government highlighted. As an aside, many economists and management scholars seem surprisingly uninformed about the role of the state in the emergence of modern business enterprise. As a young lad I was strongly influenced by the Kolko thesis, at least as interpreted by Murray Rothbard and his students (1, 2). Today, while the better strategy and managerial economics texts include some modern political economy, fields like organizational behavior, labor economics, industrial organization, and some others appear stuck with the naive, high-school-civics-class view of government as benevolent and efficient protector of the common man against the rapacious capitalist.
Incidentally, let me take this opportunity to plug one of the best, and underappreciated, recent books in this area: Butler Shaffer’s In Restraint of Trade: The Business Campaign Against Competition, 1918-1938 (Bucknell University Press, 1997).
More on Family Firms
| Peter Klein |
Recent posts here at O&M and at orgtheory.net have discussed the nature and consequences of family ownership. Today’s Wall Street Journal ($) profiles Fiat’s John Elkann, great-great-grandson of founder Giovanni Agnelli and next in line for the top spot, and discusses the challenges of family capitalism more generally. Excerpts:
[A]s Mr. Elkann is poised to move into the driver’s seat at the 107-year-old icon, the European model of family capitalism espoused by his clan is struggling to endure. Financial markets have become impatient with family-dominated companies, which sometimes put dynastic interests first and occasionally have murky corporate-governance practices. There is also increased skepticism that companies controlled by Europe’s grand families can produce top-flight managers. . . .
Some argue that the model has served Europe poorly. “The sooner we get rid of family capitalism the better off we all are,” says Umberto Mosetti, a corporate-governance expert at the University of Siena and president of shareholder adviser Deminor.
When markets were regional, says Mr. Mosetti, families could finance their businesses through cash flow and loans from friendly local banks. As markets went global, large companies needed to go to capital markets to fuel expansion. Family-controlled firms were often ill-prepared. Something similar happened at Fiat. When competitors from Asia entered the European market, Fiat was caught flat-footed and lost market share; it has been trying to recover ever since.
Between Society and Market
| Peter Klein |
I know little about the economic history of the Middle East, but the title of this upcoming workshop, "Between Society and the Market: Novel Approaches to the Business History of the Middle East," caught my eye. The workshop, organized by Relli Shechter and Andrew Godley, is part of the 8th Mediterranean Research Meeting, coming in March 2007. From the call for papers:
In the period before independent states in the Middle East (the Ottoman and colonial eras), businesses were often studied in the context of community history. It is known that entrepreneurial ethnic minorities were very active, but little is known of their larger economic and social impact on the region, and even less on Muslim entrepreneurship. There is also a large body of literature on the activities of foreign multinationals in the region, especially in the oil industry of course, but also in banking (Bamberg, Clay, Ferrier, Corley, Codley et al Jones 1981, 1987, Yergin). While these multinationals were the progenitors of the modern commercial enterprise in the region, this literature overwhelmingly views their Middle Eastern activities through the lenses of the parent companies or corporate HQ rather than understanding how the introduction of new products, techniques and business forms may have influenced local entrepreneurs, workers and consumers. . . .
During the period of emerging nation-states nad the rapid build up of national economies . . . , the study of businesses was again relegated to a secondary status. Private businesses were either discredited or simply ignored, and the rise of public sector ones mostly discussed from an administrative and political perspective. How small, medium, and large (the latter mostly state owned) businesses actually operated, and how the role of management and workers changed during these transitions has hardly been discussed.
Read the rest here.
Has Corporate Corruption Increased?
| Peter Klein |
Teppo Felin asks an important question: has corporate malfeasance — earnings manipulation, information distortion, and outright fraud — increased systematically in recent decades, or are Enron, WorldCom, Global Crossing, and their ilk just a few bad apples?
Despite all the sound and fury over this question, the evidence appears to be surprisingly thin. First, there is the obvious methodological problem that we don't observe corruption per se, but only responses to alleged or actual corrpution. We know when firms restate their earnings, but not when firms should have restated their earnings and didn't. We observe SEC investigations and enforcement actions, but not the (presumably many) instances of Type I or II error.
Second, the time-series evidence on even these proxies is slim. Several descriptive studies document an increase in earnings restatements over the past 20 years (especially the last 5-7 years), though as far as I know there are no studies looking at longer time periods. (more…)
Ken Lay, Local Boy
| Peter Klein |
Today’s edition of my local paper, the Columbia (Missouri) Daily Tribune, adds a little local color to the Enron story with this item on Ken Lay, a Missouri minister’s son who attended the University of Missouri in the 1960s and earned BA and MA degrees in economics. Lay was a protégé of economics professor Pinkney Walker, who brought Lay to Washington when Walker was appointed by Richard Nixon to head the Federal Power Commission (now FERC). That, for better or worse, is where Lay learned about the energy industry.
A 1991 profile of Lay in the Houston Chronicle goes further in crediting — certain people would say “blaming” — Lay’s economics training for his later accomplishments. “His sophomore year at the University of Missouri, in professor Pinkney Walker’s introductory economics class, the small-town boy who had never been outside the Missouri state line became hooked on the world of money, from Wall Street horse-trading to monetary policy and international trade. ‘It all became so clear, so logical,’ Lay says. ‘I could see how markets worked, how firms worked. All of it just sort of fit together.’ ”
Of course, Lay understood markets well, but was no friend of free ones. (more…)
Emergence of Modern Business Enterprise in France
| Peter Klein |
My co-blogger has a reputation for poking fun at French intellectuals, so in this blog's spirit of international brotherhood I direct you to an interesting review of Michael Stephen Smith, The Emergence of Modern Business Enterprise in France, 1800-1930 (Harvard University Press, 2005). The review, by Pierre-Cyrille Hautcoeur, appears in the excellent book review series at Eh.Net. The book "'argues that the same forces that were giving rise to a new kind of very large, very complex business organization in the United States, Germany, and Great Britain between 1880 and 1930 were also at work in France,' contrary to the idea of a special or a backward path for French economic development."
Organizations and Markets 
Recent Comments