This article was downloaded by: 10.3.98.104 On: 26 Sep 2021 Access details: subscription number Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: 5 Howick Place, London SW1P 1WG, UK
The Routledge Companion to Business History
John F. Wilson, Steven Toms, Abe de Jong, Emily Buchnea
A revisionist historiography of business history
Publication details https://www.routledgehandbooks.com/doi/10.4324/9780203736036.ch3 Matthias Kipping, Takafumi Kurosawa, R. Daniel Wadhwani Published online on: 12 Dec 2016
How to cite :- Matthias Kipping, Takafumi Kurosawa, R. Daniel Wadhwani. 12 Dec 2016, A revisionist historiography of business history from: The Routledge Companion to Business History Routledge Accessed on: 26 Sep 2021 https://www.routledgehandbooks.com/doi/10.4324/9780203736036.ch3
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR DOCUMENT
Full terms and conditions of use: https://www.routledgehandbooks.com/legal-notices/terms
This Document PDF may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproductions, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.
The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The publisher shall not be liable for an loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material. Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 00:54 26 Sep 2021; For: 9780203736036, chapter3, 10.4324/9780203736036.ch3 Jones, 2011; Scranton and 2011;Jones, Scranton and 1999; Friedman e.g., Hannah, see 2003; (Hausman, topics and terms Chandlerian in not if work Chandler’s to reference in framed remains history business of historiography the era, “post-Chandlerian” aso-called Even in past. history’s business of re-interpretations to devoted been has energy creative this of Yet, little forward. paths and futures multiple with bursting mood, inventive an in is conclude, to fair it is history, 2015). Business Wadhwani, Wad and Scranton 2012; (e.g., Hansen, research their of foundations retical theo and methodological the expanding and disciplines academic other to relationships re- topics, new of arange exploring involved have re-imaginings These pline. disci their of future the to attention considerable devoted recently have historians Business Introduction interest (Jones and (Jones interest growing of subjects became organizations networked and groups business businesses, family enterprise, sized medium and small including organization, of forms other when period the and them controlled which hierarchies managerial the and rms industrial large of rise the on focused particularly indeed were historians business many when amoment between distinction the It designates traditions. historiographical eld’s the vis-à-vis one’s position establishing for hand short a useful provide does discipline the of history the characterize to lands. new into strayed have detractors his and disciples his both which in epoch, current 1988), the (McCraw, and entrepreneurs ethical always not if heroic of accounts narrative purely outof history business of study the lifted supposedly founder”, who “the of era the into neatly divided be should and can history eld’s the periodization of terms in that plies is somewhat meaningful. somewhat is history business of historiography the of periodization conventional the regard, 2016). this In of foundations political and social cultural, the and entrepreneurship institutions, to form, organizational beyond To some extent, the neat Chandlerian/post-Chandlerian periodization that is often used used often is that periodization Chandlerian/post-Chandlerian neat the To extent, some Matthias Kipping, TakafumiMatthias Kipping, Wadhwani Daniel Kurosawa R. and hwani hwani and Bucheli, 2014; de Jong, Higgins and 2014; Higgins Jong, de Bucheli, Zeitlin, 2007). It also signals a broadening of interest in business history history business in interest of abroadening signals It also 2007). Zeitlin, A revisionist historiography revisionist A enterprise (Scranton enterprise Fridenson, 2013). The very designation “post-Chandlerian” im “post-Chandlerian” designation 2013). very The Fridenson, A richer past for aricher future of business history and Fridenson, 2013; Yeager, 2015; Lipartito, 2013; Yeager, 2015; Lipartito, Fridenson, and Driel, 2015; Decker, Kipping and 2015; Kipping Decker, Driel, Fridenson, 2013; Fridenson, con guring 3 19 1 - - -
Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 00:54 26 Sep 2021; For: 9780203736036, chapter3, 10.4324/9780203736036.ch3 the interest of enriching our research and enhancing our future impact. future our enhancing and research our enriching of interest the parts of the world and its ongoing or emerging relationships with other discipline other with relationships emerging or ongoing its and world the of parts other in history business of histories varied the into investigations further for acall as understood be should chapter Our own. our with disciplines these of interactions the and countries these in developments covering information sucient of availability the (iii) and paths; multiple and illustrate clearly to ability their (ii) today; history business as we understand what of development the by mainly driven was disciplines and phies the second period is already quite well covered by others (e.g. others by covered well quite already is period second the twentieth the of half second the War II, future. its enriching to essential is raphy historiog discipline’s the into paths disciplinary and national multiple its and past complex more and longer the incorporating that we believe Rather, discipline. the of development the in signi cance his nor contributions, Chandler’s discount to seek not we so, do doing In discipline. the of development the of account aUS-centric ultimately, and, Chandler beyond moves that history business of historiography arevisionist outline to seek we therefore ter, chap this In debates. and traditions international and intellectual interesting these on build and with engage to opportunity the of historians business deprives it also history, business in developments recent the of some of novelty the exaggerate to tends only not past, contrast, in intellectual this Ignoring recognized. commonly is than traditions intellectual of set eclectic more and aricher on draw to boundaries theoretical and epistemological ological, method its extend and explore to aiming those It allows future. its write and we imagine how from inseparable is paths multiple and past history’s business revising and Revisiting reasons. and/orcomparative antiquarian simple than more for –matters travelled not roads path alternative development intellectual of trajectories di erent very on took and Chandler before both developed history business Europe, Western extent some to and States United the beyond notably, most perhaps And, control. and form organizational on focus amyopic of less with studies, management and economics sociology, as such plines, disci related in ourished often business of studies historical in uence, Chandler’s of height the Even around hierarchies. and form on organizational focus Chandlerian the than scope in broader much were studies These research. of area identi able an as history” “business of designation formal the before decades developed and Chandler, predate long neurship entrepre and business of history the of studies Scholarly past. intellectual own their with engagement historians’ business sti es and ways fundamental in development its and cipline history), history, sociology and management studies. The choice of these geogra these of choice The studies. management and sociology history, history), economic (and economics including business, of history the researching in traditions intellectual and disciplines academic various of involvement the and Japan and Kingdom United the Germany, on States, United the to addition in focusing, countries, selected of a number in developments at we look periods, three the of each Within here. account conventional the to revisions gest Kipping, Kurosawa,Kipping, Wadhwani 20 1927 in History Business in Chair Straus Isidor the of creation the notably and (HBS), School Business Harvard the to history business of origins the trace accounts conventional Most Histories of business before “business history” We nevertheless contend that the conventional historiographical account distorts the dis the distorts account historiographical conventional the that contend We nevertheless The main structure of the chapter is chronological, subdivided into three periods: World periods: three into subdivided chronological, is chapter the of structure main The considering and history business of historiography the of view a longer-term Taking our main concern regarding the need for an examination of long-term developments developments long-term of examination an for need the regarding concern main our s – both from disciplinary and geographical perspectives and including the the including and perspectives geographical and disciplinary from s –both century and the early twenty- rst early the and century : (i) hindsight regarding the roles they played in in played they roles the regarding hindsight (i) even at the height of his in uence. his of height the at , even , Hausman, 2003), we also sug we also 2003), Hausman, century. And while while And century. s –a lways in in ------Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 00:54 26 Sep 2021; For: 9780203736036, chapter3, 10.4324/9780203736036.ch3 that coul monographs detailed of production the and research inductive painstaking through was ward for path methodological the that former the of claims the and century, nineteenth late the Methodenstreit or methodology about dispute the with familiar are historians business Many process. research the in theory and methodology of role the to pertained these of One ways. lasting in history business of ment develop subsequent the shape would research historical to approach their of aspects other 1954b, pp. 176–180). Schumpeter, overview, an for (see, over time changed relations economic of forms as stages, of a series through proceeding as capitalism in change viewed economists historical particular, In over time. interacted entrepreneurship and rms tutions, neoclassical neoclassical and classical of focus the been had that processes equilibrating or static the than rather capitalism, within processes evolutionary and dynamic in interested was economics 2010). Historical (Wadhwani, production of factors abstract to reference economics’ mainstream of acritique as part in people, business of entrepreneurship and agency the of importance the emphasized also They 2004). (Hodgson, business of ness competitive and productivity role, the shaping in instance, for institutions, with concerned particularly was economics Historical today. history business in resonate to continue that concerns intellectual other of range awide engaged also economists 1978). historical But Weber’s (Weber, work Max with associated closely most perhaps –atopic control and tion organiza in variations such for allowed that authority the of nature the and forms zational organi of evolution the understanding for concern the is today historiography business in these of recognized commonly most The concerned. it was which with matter subject the change. historical for basis materialist Understanding century. nineteenth the in UK the and Germany in economics” of schools “historical of emergence the in particularly and past, deeper the in lay business of histories modern of roots the coined, was aterm as history” “business where indeed was HBS while shows, section this enterprise, as well as comprehending its divergent paths of development around the world. the around development of paths divergent its comprehending as well as enterprise, business on research historical characterized has that concerns theoretical and odological (e.g. rm the on focused teaching and research of eld independent an as history business establish to worked who Gras, B. N.S. holder, rst its and dialectics and – given their emphasis on human agency – were skeptical of a predominantly apredominantly of skeptical –were agency human on emphasis their –given and dialectics a priori eschewed they Marxism and thought Hegelian unlike Thus, terms. historical in process economic and change understand to aimed that movements intellectual prominent other from also but economics, classical from only not a 1954b, pp.1954a, 807–24, pp. 152–201; econom Gay, 1941, pp. 9–14). historical These (Schumpeter, processes economic understanding for path promising amore as history of study the saw UK, the in Cunningham William and Germany in von Schmoller Gustav as such economists, historical of generation ayounger ones, “historical” albeit “laws” for quest a economists classical with shared school historical “old” the While processes. economic describe to terms theoretical abstract, of use their and economics, of schools neoclassical, later and classical, the of acritique as UK the and Germany in arose economics Historical The historical schools and the origins of business history nd their successors, such as Max Weber and Werner Sombart – distinguished themselves themselves –distinguished Sombart Werner Weber and Max as such successors, their nd In addition to the range of research that concerned historical schools of economics, two two economics, of schools historical concerned that research of range the to addition In These historical schools anticipated modern business history in the range and nature of of nature and range the in history business modern anticipated schools historical These d – one day in the future – allow for broader theoretical claims (Peukert, 2001). (Peukert, claims theoretical broader for – allow future the in day d –one these deeper origins is crucial for grasping both the diversity of topical, meth topical, of diversity the both grasping for crucial is origins deeper these between Gustav von Schmoller and Carl Menger in in Menger Carl and von Schmoller Gustav between A revisionist historiography of business history history business of historiography A revisionist , Larson, 1947; Hausman, 2003). But, as as But, 2003). 1947; Hausman, Larson, metaphysical claims about historical historical about claims metaphysical economics, tracking how insti tracking economics, ist s – 21 ------Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 00:54 26 Sep 2021; For: 9780203736036, chapter3, 10.4324/9780203736036.ch3 a separate academic discipline, distinct from economic history. In developing his research research his developing In history. economic from distinct discipline, academic a separate 2001). Yeager, ( Review History Business the into it turned 1953, 1938 year and the between Society Historical Business of the the of Bulletin editor as including Harvard, at history business establishing in instrumental was She retirement. her before 1961, in there shortly professor afull become to woman rst the and 1939 in member faculty female rst schools’ the became 1926, in associate aresearch as HBS History Business American in a Casebook and History Business to Introduction An Capitalism: and Business 1939, published Gras In history. business in course afull now become had what for material teaching provide to meant partially were These pp. 86–7). 2003, (Hausman, histories rm-level internal detailed on developing focused associates research of a coterie and however, Gras HBS, At lennia. mil of course over the development economic of stages the as seen he had outwhat sketch to tried and prices commodity researched had Gras history, on economic studies German, especially European, by in uenced deeply Gay’s of and 2001). Astudent 1956; Boothman, (Anon., history business of development the on school historical German the of in uence 1987, pp. 112, 157–62). (Cruickshank, Isidor father late their of memory in history business in achair endow to store, department Macy’s owned who brothers, Straus the 1927, in convinced and, 1928, in course elective aseparate as then 1927, in course Policy Business the of part as rst history business of inclusion the approved 1925, in Society Historical aBusiness of creation the endorsed therefore Donham HBS. at decisions made by leaders in the past as examples from which leaders in the present could learn. could present the in leaders which from examples as past the in leaders by made decisions practical a as history saw particular, in Schmoller, economics. neoclassical and classical by provided abstractions the than eld practical more amuch economics historical made argued, torians his situations, contextualized speci c, and evidence concrete of use historical The present. the in making decision for knowledge historical of value practical the in abelief was history come. to decades the in proper history business of discipline emerging the in uence would that approach an types”, “ideal of use the through history from theorizing of aform braced em Schmoller followed who economists historical of generation the out, (1954a) pointed Schumpeter As ways. meaningful in research conduct how to considered they as theory and methods of questions with explicitly grapple to continued actually historians business early then and economists historical theory, and methods with engagement historical the Methodenstreit the However, while Kurosawa,Kipping, Wadhwani 22 so economics, in reasoning historical and thinking institutional of growth the shaped rst schools historical the ideas, and ow scholars of international the Through States. United the was in uence signi cant and immediate an had schools historical the where place One Independence and isolation: From economic to business history in the US b for insight of source avaluable as situations past of study the 1942, saw who 1919from until Dean Donham, B. Wallace successor, his 1987). it was But (Cruikshank, 1908 in School his toral usinessme ciology, political science and law (Herbst, 1965). Among those who received their doc their received who those 1965). Among (Herbst, law and science political ciology, tory at Harvard and, more importantly, became the rst dean of the Harvard Business Business Harvard the of dean rst the became importantly, more and, Harvard at tory Gras and his group at HBS also drove forward the development of “business history” as as history” “business of development the forward drove also HBS at group his and Gras enduring the demonstrates chairholder rst the as Gras B. N.S. of appointment The The other aspect of historical economics that would shape the development of business business of development the shape would that economics historical of aspect other The education with Schmoller was Edwin F. Gay who then obtained a position in economic economic in aposition obtained F. then who Gay Edwin was Schmoller with education guide for policymakers in the present, an approach that provided concrete examples of of examples concrete provided that approach an present, the in policymakers for guide n – one that also coincided with the case method of teaching he had introduced introduced hehad teaching of method case the with coincided also that n –one , the latter together with Henrietta M. Larson, who had joined joined had who Larson, M. Henrietta with together latter , the is often interpreted as both the starting and end point of of point end and starting the both as interpreted often is - - - - Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 00:54 26 Sep 2021; For: 9780203736036, chapter3, 10.4324/9780203736036.ch3 development elsewhere. development of paths the to contrast stark in was This isolated. eld new the left had walls disciplinary its fortify to colleagues his and Gras by e orts of century a quarter US, the in coined was term a as history” “business while Indeed, history”. economic American of body main the from it[self] “divorce to managed p. 71), 2001, discipline new the Boothman, Wohl in (quoted Richard Chicago’s of University the complained aconsequence, As entrepreneurs. and rms powerof and motives the about skeptical were general, in public American the and scholars, when period interwar the in amoment –at history and sociology economics, including – disciplines related with dialogue from o themselves cut historians business early records, internal their on based rms of dynamics the studying on focus singular his and Gras by 1949). (Holton, fteen only at latter the of number the putting a1948 sur with history, business in teaching and research embraced universities American other Few US. the in success limited with met discipline aseparate as history business se of perspective the essentially was what from development business of story the telling and records company internal of use the embracing novel in methodologically ways some in was research Their program. research Schmoller’s on patterned monographs, detailed of duction pro the on instead insisting types”, “ideal of analysis and identi cation the for sociologists and economists historical of generation younger the from calls the eschewed Gras agenda, tionalized in the 1920s. the in tionalized institu increasingly become had which history, (socio)economic within topic important an as ourish often it to leaving instead discipline, aseparate as history business of emergence the for room little left elsewhere settings organizational di erent rather The teaching. of method auseful proved Harvard, at rst developed studies, case company where schools, ness busi university-based of development awidespread saw that country only the was US The 2016). al., et (Engwall century twentieth the of half rst the during education business of isolate more ultimately –and aseparate as history business of emergence the for reason main The Integration with economic history and sociology almost else everywhere Socio the association, nationwide 1933. rst in The established was Japan of History Economic the in Research for Institute an 1929 and in launched was periodical history economic rst Tokyo of Kyoto 1919. and in Kyoto, In universities Japan’s the at departments economics the 1971). 1927; (Ashley, Harte, people business and entrepreneurship ethics, institutions, of studies including thrived, business of Review History Economic the publishing began 1926 and in formed was Society History Economic An departments. economics in embedded deeply became and country the in ourished history economic economics, cal histori of pioneers the of one been having But discipline. aseparate as history business of creation the for foundation no o ering hence Oxford, and Cambridge at ones ancient the from absent entirely and universities afew in commerce of departments to con ned ginal, separate business history from socio-economics. Rather, the study of business and economic economic and business of study the Rather, socio-economics. from history business separate 2015 (Saito, con nes its within ourished industries and business on nior management (Anon., 1956, p. 358; Boothman, 2001). But Gras’ attempts to build build to attempts 2001). Gras’ But 1956, p. 358; Boothman, (Anon., management nior More importantly, due to the rather narrow scope, methods and epistemic goals chosen chosen goals epistemic and methods scope, narrow rather the to due importantly, More In the UK, the development of separate higher education for business remained mar remained business for education higher separate of development the UK, the In In Japan, scholars who had studied historical economics in Germany returned to establish establish to returned Germany in economics historical studied had who scholars Japan, In -Economic History Society, was established in Tokyo in 1930, and empirical re Tokyo empirical 1930, in and in established was Society, History -Economic d – discipline in the United States was its unique context in terms of the development development the of terms in context unique its was States United the in d –discipline in 1927. It is here where broadly conceived histories histories conceived 1927.in broadly where here It is A revisionist historiography of business history history business of historiography A revisionist to to e ort little was ). There search search vey vey 23 - - - - -
Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 00:54 26 Sep 2021; For: 9780203736036, chapter3, 10.4324/9780203736036.ch3 (Schwentker, 1998; Roth, 1999; Yanagisawa, 2001). 1999; Yanagisawa, 1998; Roth, (Schwentker, US the in did they than objectives di erent very with albeit development, its shaping in role aformative played particular, in historicism German and economics, of schools torical his the then, surprisingly Not development. economic and modernization for foundations institutional the understand to desire the and backwardness economic country’s the as saw policymakers and scholars what for account to need the by shaped fundamentally was history Kurosawa,Kipping, Wadhwani 24 sciences”. social the in specialists like more and expert more become “to though forced sources”, while historical in research of methods about something scientists social other the “teach could historians that sense the in interest” and skills of sis “a synthe advocated He therefore tested”. be can hypotheses a myriad which against fact of deposit enormous an “provide to history business for opportunity an as developments these portraying schools, business within methods their and sciences social the of importance Review History Business the of issue a 1962 special from apparent is as historians, business of attention the escape not did 2016). developments al., et These (Engwall research in and faculty of recruitment their in disciplines scienti c established to turning education, higher of system academic the within legitimacy own their enhance to model science natural hypothesis-testing the emulated increasingly US the in schools business 1960s early and 1950s late the in Beginning marginalization of business history The scientistic turn in management studies and the concerns. non-Chandlerian distinctly with and terms non-Chandlerian in ourish to continued history business US, the beyond And, business. of studies historical within movement intellectual vibrant most the even times at or only, the not it was Moreover, Gras. under than more even adiscipline as history business isolated it actually ways, some In be. it out to made have some as all-encompassing or successful as never it was shows, section this as But, organizations. and management of study the to o er can history what of atriumph as understood often is research His 2003). (Hausman, 1960s the after particularly and post-World the War era, in II it’sand concerns history business de ne eventually to comes work Chandler’s account, conventional the In century twentieth ofthe half second the in history Business 1933. in Nazis seizure the following decimated was thought such for environment demic aca the century, twentieth early the in sociology economic German in legacy promising a had Sombart Weber àla and School Historical the while And entrepreneurs. and rms Volkswirtschaftslehre or economics national of faculties the within in uence intellectual some retain did nomics eco Historical scienti c. suciently as seen not were US, the in used and developed being were they as studies case historical context, 2016). this al., et In (Engwall period interwar Betriebswirtschaftslehre or economics business as incorporated it became Wissenschaft predominant the to akin approach ascienti c developed quickly business for education century, twentieth the of turn the at universities outside originating While decline. precipitous into went economics and ness busi of studies historical historians, business and economic Japanese and American of tion Ironically, in Germany, which had served as the cradle of education for the rst genera rst the for education of cradle the as served had which Germany, in Ironically, (VWL), but here the focus was on the role of the state rather than on than rather state the of role the on was focus the here but (VWL), . In particular, Glover (1962, pp. 71–73) highlighted the increasing increasing the (1962, Glover pp. 71–73) highlighted particular, . In tradition in the country’s universities, where where universities, country’s the in tradition (BWL) during the the during (BWL) of power by the the powerby of ------Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 00:54 26 Sep 2021; For: 9780203736036, chapter3, 10.4324/9780203736036.ch3 tory, focusing its research interest on large-scale organizations –a organizations large-scale on interest research its focusing tory, his business shaped 1977; 1997), also John, (Chandler, business US in management of hand 1991). (e.g., Eisenhardt, research management theory-building comparative, for examples classic the of one considered he is and (Üsdiken studies organizational of eld diversifying and emerging the in thought of schools contradictory even sometimes additional, in uenced and Kipping see overview, (for an Williamson economist by formulated hypothesis M-form so-called the of testing empirical ing includ and day present the to stretching studies follow-up 1970, in with chair Straus the to appointed was hehimself where School, Business Harvard the at initially M-form, the on e ort research empirical a large-scale prompted book Chandler’s diversi cation. and growth their accommodate to M-from, or multidivisional the called later structure, a decentralized developed other, each of independently had, rms pioneering how four Roebuck), showing Sears and Oil Standard DuPont, (GM, studies case in-depth four with survey simple tistically sta but alarge-scale, combining rms, US largest the in changes organizational the explored study The theories. and generalizations develop to data empirical with scientists social vide 1962 Strategy and Structure book 1988). (McCraw, his In Hopkins John and MIT at career initial his spent had who Chandler, Alfred of work early the was time own narrow historiography that began –a began that historiography narrow own its invented history business 1980s, 1970s and the in extreme its At business. of history the the represented control and coordination of problems the that premise strong the and it valorized, sources company the of nature the analysis, of object particular its by separated sub-discipline, anarrow as US the in identi ed be to came history more dynamic research agenda pertaining to the history of business was “entrepreneurial “entrepreneurial was business of history the to pertaining agenda research dynamic more the 1960s, early and 1950s the in Indeed, business. of studies historical in focus primary the even or only, the be should rms of development internal the that consensus no was there EvenHBS, at States. United the for including incomplete, best at is period post-war the in history business in prevailed synthesis organizational an that claim However, the Entrepreneurial history as astymied alternative in the US Kipping Kipping (see studies management and organization outside developed history business of lications pub and associations scholarly the since overlaps institutional few were there Moreover, directions. opposite moved in history business and management as achasm, into turned methods. science natural with organizations contemporary studying on embarked now fully had which management, in developments from separation increasing an to it led history, business to direction uni ed some provided synthesis” “organizational this while But 1970, pp. 279–280). (Galambos, authority” of structure abureaucratic by ized […] character organizations formal national, “large-scale, on it focused content of terms in and explicit; very those making without albeit thought”, historical of tools “traditional the using it proposed methodologically, Parsons; Talcott via Chandler in uenced also had which heritage, aWeberian it claimed (1970, 1983). Intellectually, Galambos Louis by formulated (1962) Glover by advocated theories and methodology science social with interaction of kind the spurring Chandler’s work, and in particular his subsequent study of the emergence of the visible visible the of emergence the of study subsequent his particular in and work, Chandler’s the at emerge would that interest” and skills of a“synthesis such for example prime The Thus, what seemed like an opportunity for close cooperation in the early 1960s quickly quickly 1960s early the in cooperation close for opportunity an like seemed what Thus, and Üsdiken, 2007; Üsdiken and Üsdiken 2007; Üsdiken, . The “synthesis” that prevailed instead among business historians was the one one the was historians business among instead prevailed that “synthesis” . The nd often ende nd often Kipping, 2014 for details). As a result, business business aresult, As 2014 details). for Kipping, Westerhuis, 2012). Chandler’s 1962 study also also 1962 study 2012). Chandler’s Westerhuis, A revisionist historiography of business history history business of historiography A revisionist d –w central concern to be explained in in explained be to concern central Kipping, 2014) and, to this day, this to 2014) and, Kipping, ith Chandler. , he explicitly aimed to pro to aimed , he explicitly lbeit without ultimately ultimately without lbeit Oliver Oliver 25 ------Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 00:54 26 Sep 2021; For: 9780203736036, chapter3, 10.4324/9780203736036.ch3 the explanation for historical change. In economic history, the primary school of thought coalesced coalesced thought of school primary the history, economic In change. historical for explanation the scholarship History Explorations in 1969, to Economic in converted was, entrepreneurship, to devoted discipline 2007). Wadhwani, and (Jones US the in history economic in cliometrics and history business in Chan both of in uence growing the to attributable partly least at were but complex, were decline this for reasons The rise. the on was entrepreneurship in interest popular as just 1970s, lative, and debates, sometimes debates, and lative, specu quite often ow ideas, of cross-disciplinary the included that camp diverse and broad a was eld the that meant history, and economics sociology, psychology, including 1960s, and 1950s the in history entrepreneurial in engaged disciplines of array wide The imagined. (1949) had Schumpeter what to closest agenda the probably was which change, industrial to relationship their and processes entrepreneurial in (1959), Cole interested were Arthur ing includ (2010). Baumol Others, and Mokyr Landes, by co-edited volume a recent in persists still that –atendency behavior entrepreneurial of types national so-called into investigations to led which particular, in institutions national consider to tended They growth. economic on impact the and entrepreneurship of supply the shaped norms cultural and rules legal both which in ways the for looked institutionalists The North. Douglas and Landes David Cochran, Thomas including institutionalists, of up made was camp strongest The debate. and theory evidence, ideas, of hothouse interdisciplinary adiverse, was particular, in HBS at analysis”. theoretical and historical between take and give incessant “an for (1951, need the Schumpeter p. 259) suggested entrepreneurship, and history of intersection the at research for agenda outthe laying In task. paramount its as research by Schmolle inspired –and Gras by taken position the eschewing theory, in engaging of reticent less far also was history Entrepreneurial history. business of view embedded socially amore taking thus shaped, they which and embedded both were they which in setting economic and broader the incorporating while foreground” the in […] continually businessmen and “business keep to sought history entrepreneurial Cole, Arthur historian economic HBS by organized and Schumpeter, by supported explicitly and 2010). Inspired (Wadhwani, history business in program Gras’ to path alternative an as extent some to emerged which history”, Kurosawa,Kipping, Wadhwani 26 socio traction. gained eventually history business of kind what determining in role important amore played elds, education business national in developments the namely factors, institutional period, earlier the in did they as But, history. economic within sway some held ideas Marxist where contexts in particular in developments, over these in uence some had ideas Chandlerian organizations. and identity own its develop to came paces, di erent at and gradually, it also economic and by had large history business US, the Outside of business history around the world toFrom Marx Chandler? The post-WWII emergence Ironically, the interest in “entrepreneurial history” went into decline in the 1960s and and 1960s the in decline into went history” “entrepreneurial in interest the Ironically, Entrepreneurial history, and the Research Center in Entrepreneurial History (1948–58) (1948–58) History Entrepreneurial in Center Research the and history, Entrepreneurial sub-discipline asub-discipline as 1950s the in rapidly emerged history business Japan, postwar In - economic , a venue for the growing interest in cliometrics. in interest growing the , avenuefor Explorations in Entrepreneurial History inExplorations Entrepreneurial history and, generally, addressed broader research questions. But since the 1950s 1950s the since But questions. research broader addressed generally, and, history in the period was dominated by Marxism, which hued closely to materialist dialectics as as dialectics materialist to closely hued which Marxism, by dominated was period the in r – that historical research needed to focus on painstaking and detailed archival archival detailed and painstaking on focus to needed research historical r –that history with its own identity well before Chandler (Mishima, 1961). Socio (Mishima, Chandler before well identity own its with history quite heated (Jones and (Jones heated quite , which had been the rst scholarly journal in any any in journal scholarly rst the been had , which remained embedded within (socio) within embedded remained Wadhwani, 2007). Wadhwani, - economic social dler dler of of - -
Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 00:54 26 Sep 2021; For: 9780203736036, chapter3, 10.4324/9780203736036.ch3 basis for comparison (Kurosawa, 2014). (Kurosawa, comparison for basis conceptual and theoretical little with studies narrow and focused increasingly for rewarded were scholars as worse, situation the made tradition Schmoller the in work archival taking pains on and specialization on emphasis the up. And catch to struggling one than rather economy amature of problems the with aicted country arich into grew Japan as relevant, stand stand under to need The foundations. original its of nature very the to due relevance of crisis associations. related management with so did 20–30% approximately and Society, History Socio-Economic the with aliation ble adou retained BHSJ the of members the half than More persisted. studies management and history economic history, business between overlap extensive an country, the in studies ment manage in proceeded scientization which at pace slow the and history, economic Japanese in cliometrics of expansion limited and late 1985, the to 2014; due Moreover, 2003). Kudo, Gakkai, (Keieishi methodologies and topics both on perspective broader its retained itself discipline the but historians, business as identity their intensi ed and renewed work tematic sys Chandler’s BHSJ, the of “core” members the of some For country. the in identity own its and momentum strong had already history business impact, important an have did 1960s (Kobay decades subsequent the in history business Japanese of feature aconspicuous formed search, re comparative as well as business, American and European of studies 2014). Historical Gakkai, (Keieishi interdisciplinary and broad remained subject the that ensuring recruited, employing historians economic historians, business of training the preceded history business in positions of creation the Since education. management in mandatory courses history business make to Education of Ministry the convinced cessfully suc historians business Japanese of generation rst the opportunities, these on capitalizing By management. of departments of establishment the especially education, university of expansion massive the with coincided also history business in interest 1965. growing The Review History Business Japan the journal, own its publishing it started years; two within members 350 to close enrolled and founded was (BHSJ) Japan of Society History Business 1964, the In 1970s. and 1960s the in creation job massive to led which topic, the on programs Japan. in culture merchant of center the region, Kansai with more optimis more with scholars it attracted and School, Otsuka the by held merchants of role the and tradition Japanese on views negative highly the from free was sub-discipline 2014, pp. 6–10). emerging The Gakkai, (Keieishi history entrepreneurial and business to attracted were School” “Otsuka the of approach Economic US. the in history” “entrepreneurial behind ideas the by so more but Larson, and Gras of methods the by extent some to shaped approach, alternative an as emerged history business context, academic this 1982; 1993). Kondo, Within (Otsuka, perspective comparative-historical in societies examine to a applying economies, national of formation the –and Japan in commerce and merchants pre-modern of role social and economic on the view a negative held suka Ot –where era modern early the on particular, in It focused, society. Japanese of “backwardness” the West the and in “modernity” of origins the explain to ethics and society on view a Weberian and economics Marxist combined School” “Otsuka The Japan. postwar in intellectuals uential aprofessor Hisao, Otsuka of ideas the around Since the turn of the twenty- rst century, however, the discipline has faced a growing agrowing faced has discipline however, the century, twenty- rst the of turn the Since in beginning mix this into thought Chandlerian of introduction the Though Interest in business history was propelled by the rapid institutionalization of educational educational of institutionalization rapid the by propelled was history business in Interest backwardness” “economic ashi, 1978). ashi, historians with an antipathy to orthodox Marxism and ones dissatis ed with the stylized stylized the with dissatis ed ones and Marxism orthodox to antipathy an with historians tic assessments of postwar Japanese business and society, especially ones from the the from ones especially society, and business Japanese postwar of assessments tic and economic development processes became less broadly broadly less became processes development economic and at the University of Tokyo and one of the most in most Tokyo of the of one and University the at A revisionist historiography of business history history business of historiography A revisionist Weberian methodology of ideal types types ideal of methodology Weberian a variety of approaches were were approaches of avariety the mid- the , in , in 27 ------Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 00:54 26 Sep 2021; For: 9780203736036, chapter3, 10.4324/9780203736036.ch3 Gesellschaft für Unternehmensgeschichte für Gesellschaft or History Enterprise for Society the association, rst The image. public their shaping in agenda and interest an had themselves which companies, from 1973, (Yonekawa, p. 173;2003). Schröter, non-existent largely history” “business as ically - specif identi ed positions with support, little provided Universities descriptions. narrative basic move beyond and independence academic its develop to struggled discipline the But 1956. , in Unternehmerbiographie und Firmengeschichte Tradition: für Zeitschrift ajournal, establish Treue did Wilhelm historian The descriptive. largely remained commerce, of chambers local and rms of support ( nancial) the with often conducted, were that studies The neurship. entrepre and business of histories for home intellectual the been once had what gutted had period Nazi the during particular, in sociology of and centers, academic many of decimation The era. post-WWII the in develop to most the struggled history business where Germany in it was research, historical and archives for support of tradition strong the given and School education management broader the within embedded well discipline vibrant arather is UK the in history business vanished, but all have departments history Today, economic (ABH). while Historians Business of Association aseparate of establishment the warranted that extent an to grown had historians business self-identi ed of number the 1980s, the of end By the there. historians business of groups active establishing universities, other moved on to eventually members its of several and agenda research abroader developed it soon scholars, Chandlerian and 1978 in (Jones College Imperial and Economics of School London the by established (BHU), Unit History Business the was countries other from also and UK the in both research historical business conducting studies. case (comparative) and historians business towards favorable more and testing hypothesis on keen less sociologists, (economic) by populated often were latter the initially, grow. least At to began schools business and departments ment manage of number the while historians, business for hospitable less became and revolution cliometric the by a ected increasingly were history economic and economics when 1970s, late the in beginning changed 1967). dynamics 1960; Payne, The al., et (e.g., Barker history economic of abranch as work their 1973). (Yonekawa, positioned They entities micro-level of view the from development industrial and politics and business between relationships processes, decision-making innovations, organizational entrepreneurship, as such issues, of a examining studies produced scholars of number alarge where though, departments history economic and economics in based remained business of history the studying those of Most 1959, in Liverpool. by followed Glasgow of University the at created was chair Europe. across history business of development the determining in powerful more ultimately proved frameworks institutional evolving and extant the sities, univer certain in teaching and research history business dominated have might they while But studies. replication fomented and and/or conducted books Chandler’s translated scholars these return, their Upon business. big on focusing history –business isolated words, other –i a“pure”, for acenter self-contained become again, once had, which HBS, to grimage pil of akind took 2015). them of Some (Amatori, ideas Marxist by inspired often scholars” left-leaning “many to appealed also rationality” economic of act “an as business big of gence emer the and scale, of economies creating in organization of role the progress, technological Kipping, Kurosawa,Kipping, Wadhwani 28 Lacking university-based resources, business historians depended on organized support support organized on depended historians business resources, university-based Lacking Historical German the and Schmoller of in uence formative the given that ironic It is An important vehicle for the promotion of a separate identity and a hub attracting those those attracting ahub and identity aseparate of promotion the for vehicle important An a rst 1958, and in journal eponymous own its gained history business UK, the in Thus, of importance the regarding views Chandler’s 1970s, and 1960s late the during Europe, In eld (Kurosawa, 2014). (Kurosawa, eld Sluyterman, 2007, p. 114). While initially home to a group of of agroup to home 2007, p. 114). initially While Sluyterman, variety variety n - - - - -
Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 00:54 26 Sep 2021; For: 9780203736036, chapter3, 10.4324/9780203736036.ch3 partially been heeded. been partially dissatisfaction with the dominant science paradigm (for details, see Üsdiken and Üsdiken see (for details, paradigm science dominant the with dissatisfaction agrowing to due studies management of base ontological and epistemological odological, continuing gap (e.g., Kipping and (e.g., Kipping gap continuing far So engagement. of pace slow the explains probably ries, theo build alone let generalizations, broader make to historians business most of reticence noted already The journals. such in publishing for requirements the with familiarity their on journal management leading of issues special of anumber in available being opportunities despite ad to references making and sources archival using scholars management of number the ously, se more history taking for calls explicit were there while and visibility in increased and and (Kipping themselves theories the of part became processes or events past where constructs theoretical new and studies. management and organization remains weak. remains universities the from support institutional but industries, and rms of development the of analyses social and political employing particularly stronger, grown has history business in research academic Overall, research. transdisciplinary recently, more and, 2000) (Schröter, Germany in enterprise and business on perspective historical critical amore promote to (AKKU), Industriegeschichte und Unternhemens- kritische für Arbeitskreis or history industry and enterprise critical for party aworking founded historians academic of group a dissenting 1991 that until not It was council. advisory an to con ned academics with GUGboard, the dominate ones, large the usually companies, from 1977., since Representatives mensgeschichte Unterneh für Zeitschrift the journal, own its publishing industry, German of work relations public and historical, archival, the support to order in federations business and employers German the of tank think the from initiative an on 1976 in based founded (GUG), was approaches (Kipping and (Kipping approaches historical for open remained topics some research, management of “scientization” the to due US the in schools business most within history business of marginalization the Despite Rejoining roads? Management and business history economics. and history management, of plines disci the and history business between engagements recent in seen be can as done, long has discipline the what with line in more and past the from break astark of less seem e orts these avenues methodological and theoretical new exploring and frontiers interdisciplinary engaging tions, direc new seemingly of anumber moved in have historians business decades, two last the In ofrecent changes continuity hidden The (Kha service lip than more little be to tended importance its and history to reference the here, even but resonated; also work Chandler’s where business, international and enterprise tional vantage of this openness by attempting to make contributions to these research programs, programs, research these to contributions make to attempting by openness this of vantage On the other hand, history more generally became part of an e ort to broaden the meth the broaden to e ort an of part became generally more history hand, other the On On the one hand, this was due to novel research questions, which required historical data data historical required which questions, novel research to due was this hand, one the On studies historical nna nna s – opportunities predominantly exploited by management scholars themselves, based based themselves, scholars management by exploited predominantly s –opportunities . In light of business history’s origins and multiple paths of development, however, development, of paths multiple and origins history’s business of light . In and Jones, 2006). Since the 1980s, however, a new interest in history arose within within arose history in however, interest anew 1980s, the Since 2006). Jones, has has Üsdiken, 2007). This was notably the case of studies on multina on studies of case the notably was This 2007). Üsdiken, Üsdiken, 2014). While these research programs proved popular popular proved programs research these 2014). While Üsdiken, grown only slowly. Business historians have not yet taken full full yettaken not have historians slowly. Business only grown Üsdiken, 2007; Wadhwani and Wadhwani 2007; Üsdiken, A revisionist historiography of business history history business of historiography A revisionist repeated calls for bridging the the bridging for calls , repeated Bucheli, 2014) have only 2014) only have Bucheli, Kipping, Kipping, ri 29 ------Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 00:54 26 Sep 2021; For: 9780203736036, chapter3, 10.4324/9780203736036.ch3 2004; see also Rowlinson, Hassard and Hassard Rowlinson, also see 2004; and (Clark turn” “historic an need awhole as studies organization that arguing further, even gone have Others hypotheses. new generate or types” “ideal apply and develop to a way as cases historical suggesting history, and sociology combining of bene ts the for example an Weber to as pointed (1994), surprisingly, not Kieser originated, had traditions these where Europe In above. shown we have as originally drawn also had history business which on –traditions, discipline the of traditions” hermeneutic and historical philological, “philosophical, the to areturn for (1993,2014). p. Zald argued 514), US, the In instance, for Kurosawa,Kipping, Wadhwani 30 have narratives cultural and social then and political for history academic in Preferences 2003). Hausman, also (see societies modern of institution acentral as business studying in interest limited history’s mainstream to due been also has this though, extent some To sociology. and history economic with engagement primary its to elsewhere and stance once-is history’s business to attributed be partly can this US, the In history. stream main is engaged infrequently rather have historians business which with discipline One Business history in history history. economic “new”, to i.e. cliometric, analog an as history, “new” business for forward path important an as testing and development hypothesis and quanti cation promoted recently (2015) have al. et Jong de Methodologically, history. entrepreneurial and business into asymmetry information of theories economic incorporate to much done have others, among UK, the (1997) in Casson and US the in Temin (2003) and Ra Lamoreaux, Theoretically, disciplines. the of frontiers methodological and theoretical the both at work shar been often has distinction the where US, the like contexts, in and section inter this at way under been also have e orts But history. entrepreneurial and business tive narra included tents”, which “big been long have respectively history economic and history socio- where UK, the and Japan like contexts, national some in sharp been never disciplines two these between barriers the seen, we have As history. economic or nomics eco and history business of intersection the at developments notable been also have There Business history and economic and methods theory concu would 343) (p. – contingency” and […] uniqueness stress complexity, “to away as but analysis formal even critical, its of sense the in not central, “narrative” not concur (for an exception, see Hansen, 2012). Hansen, see exception, (for an concur not would historians business most here, –and claims truth objectivist any beyond se per value little traction gained far thus has perspective this but scholars, management among history to approach particular Foucault’s to recourse some been has there 2010). al., et Relatedly, Suddaby 2008; (e.g., Mordhorst, behavior and choices their themselves, view 2014), how actors i.e. shapes and (Wadhwani “constitutive” is how history examined has research of stream this identity, organizational and strategy in interested scholars by Led actions. and existence their legitimize to artefacts, to histories company from ranging sense, broadest the in ratives” “nar on draw organizations how (business) at looks and scholars management and historians business together It past.” brings the of “uses as to referred now work widely scholarly of strand emerging an to leading though, resonance some found have suggestions these ory, mentioned mentioned above the Unlike among business historians (for an exception, see McKinlay, 2013). McKinlay, see exception, (for an historians business among r – while ultimately also, in a postmodern sense, accepting its subjectivity and and subjectivity its accepting sense, apostmodern in also, ultimately r –while research programs in organization and management the management and organization in programs research Decker, 2014). In essence, they suggest making the the making suggest they 2014). Decker, essence, In here, most business historians historians business most here, per –i Rowlinson, Rowlinson, economic olationist Bucheli, Bucheli, ncluding ncluding have have ------
Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 00:54 26 Sep 2021; For: 9780203736036, chapter3, 10.4324/9780203736036.ch3 with business history. engaged consistently more have historians academic however, mainstream decades, two last 1988). the In (e.g., 1963; Kolko, Sklar, business big of rise the of explanations critical important produced who historians Marxist and left new notable been have there though institutions, business of rise the of analysis careful of alack with hand in hand gone often ing organizational development was challenged by entrepreneurial history’s more sweeping sweeping more history’s entrepreneurial by challenged was development organizational ing narrat and archives company mining of methods Gras-and-Larson the instance, for HBS, post-WWII of con nes narrow the in varied; likewise have methodologies interpretive and sources” “legitimate Its conceptualization. Weberian bolder in engaging times other at while abstraction, of skepticism Schmoller’s embracing sometimes theory, of role the on positions varying widely held it has periods, and places historical di erent In practices. “legitimate” discipline the of “essence” the about claims originalist or purist resists words, other in history, business of history The recognized. been often has than protean and diverse open, position. isolationist unusually an occupying traditionally US the in history business with over time, evolved and place to place from di ered history studies management sociology, economics, including disciplines, related to relationship its And, varied. also rms of activities “storytelling” the to relationship its and education higher in institutionalization of patterns Its capitalism. and enterprises Western of strength relative the understanding for alens as Japan in purposes its from di ered instance, for States, United the in education business for atool as foundations its world; the of parts various in d’être raison academic and contexts intellectual The development. of paths these in divergences shaped factors several that found We world. the –around so do to failed –or root took and it spread which through paths multiple the trace to also but business, about research and reasoning historical of ginnings be common deeper, the see to only not us allowed eld the of origins the back Drawing thought. economic of schools historical nineteenth-century of development the to roots their trace business of histories academic that shown We instead have present. the in topics, “post- history business of narrative linear the to alternative an developed we have chapter, this In Implications and conclusion Lipartit (e.g., culture and narrative language, of analysis the 1998), has (e.g., as Kwolek-Folland, research history business to central more become has gender of especially and race, class, of analysis the Thus, history. business to history mainstream in predominated has that analysis cultural and social of kind the apply to e orts the by shaped been also 2013). it has But and (Scranton history business to topics historical of range agreater troducing an important topic within business history. business within topic important an as slavery of history the incorporate to e orts successful largely the been have regard, this in note particular Of system. evolving an as capitalism of analysis their into culture and gender race, class, as well as business, and labor incorporating history, down top and up bottom integrating and encompassing as research their describe often capitalism of historians ment, of “history the under place taken mainly has history business and history mainstream tween 2014 (Interchange, label capitalism” In part, this engagement has been promoted and prompted by scholars interested in in in interested scholars by prompted and promoted been has engagement this part, In The complex lineage of business history, we nd, suggests that the discipline has been more more been has discipline the that suggests we nd, history, business of lineage complex The Chandleria as originating with N.S.B. Gras, maturing with Alfred Chandler, and entering a entering and Chandler, Alfred with maturing Gras, N.S.B. with originating as o, 1995; Laird, 2009; Hansen, 2012). Most recently, in the US, the engagement be engagement the US, the in 2012). recently, Most Hansen, 2009; o, 1995; Laird, n” period, marked by the “discovery” of new organizational forms and and forms organizational new of “discovery” the by marked n” period, for the emergence of business history, for instance, di ered di ered instance, for history, business of emergence the for ). Though still an intellectual movement in develop in movement intellectual an still ). Though A revisionist historiography of business history history business of historiography A revisionist Fridenson, Fridenson, and its its and and and 31 - - - - - Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 00:54 26 Sep 2021; For: 9780203736036, chapter3, 10.4324/9780203736036.ch3 should give us hope. While he did not refer to business history, he could have. hecould history, business to refer not hedid While hope. us give should past the but unknowable, is future the remarked, famously Churchill Winston As schools. business certain in does it already as role prominent amore claim to able be should history (business) where focus, arts liberal some to returning programs business undergraduate with instance for indicators, encouraging are there today, even But Japan. in mandatory longer no and departments history and economics in mainstream the from far and schools in business US marginalized largely is history business now that particular in homes, organizational of shortage the is it seems danger imminent most The theory. organization and management in programs research promising the of some with happen still might as and past” the of “uses and capitalism” of “history with moment the at happening is as arise, will opportunities new past, its of most for discipline their characterized has that dialogue for willingness and openness the maintain historians business as long As methodologies. speci c or topics worthwhile of lists impose, not if promote, to e orts any of weary and denomination whatever of “orthodoxy” existential threat existential ongoing an represents and feat small no is shows, overview our challenges, institutional these to Attending e ort. collective and ingenuity institutional some with themselves for place make to had have historians –business US the in again departments, history afew in and Can recently, more and countries European several Japan, in so more but US, the in extent Japan and UK the in like departments, economics –i survived it has Where survival. even or success of guarantor no is tradition intellectual astrong clear, abundantly makes case German the As succeed. or survive to order it in have must institution academic no and history business without “incomplete” considered is No discipline homes. organizational and institutional nd to struggled often have torians his business disciplines, all in “foreigners” As problem. existential central history’s business o to whole business systems. business whole or institutions to and practices, or cultures business to processes, entrepreneurial to refer to used been commonly also it has Chandler, with it did as management, internal their and rms of study the to referred sometimes has history” “business in “business” term the while Thus, over time. changed and place to place from varied have study of objects basic history’s Even business actors. economic of embeddedness cultural and social the about interpretations Kurosawa,Kipping, Wadhwani 32 chapter. the to equally contributed authors All order. alphabetical in are Names 1 Note discipline” “home one not speci c has history business sense, this In cores. disciplinary within available readily not proaches ap and ideas in trade to go backgrounds di erent of scholars where afrontier, or “borderlands” of akind been has history business metaphor, To ageographical use organizations. by history of uses the recently, or, more systems business in “backwardness” and progress of causes the change, economic in entrepreneurship of role the business, big of development and emergence temporarily sometimes –s ahome nd who backgrounds, diverse with scholars of communities accurately, or, more community evolving and ashifting as rather but sub-discipline, or pline rganization ry’s ry’s The historiography of business history also should make us cautious about espousing any any espousing about cautious us make should also history business of historiography The his business of source important an is we believe, malleability, and diversity This Its own history thus suggests that business history cannot truly be characterized as adisci as characterized be truly cannot history business that suggests thus history own Its originality and its ability to respond to questions facing societies, economies and and economies societies, facing questions to respond to ability its and originality s – a condition to be protected and nurtured. But it has also historically been been historically also it has But nurtured. and protected be to acondition s – that each generation of business historians must face anew. face must historians business of generation each that – by converging on topics of common and pressing interest, such as the the as such interest, pressing and common of topics on converging –by – not history. not studies, management not sociology, not economics, not business departments or schools, to some some to schools, or departments ; business ometimes permanently, permanently, ometimes ada; ada; a n - - - -
Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 00:54 26 Sep 2021; For: 9780203736036, chapter3, 10.4324/9780203736036.ch3 Business History Review History Business History’). Business to ‘Approaches F. Redlich, (in (1962).Glover ‘Comment’ of Journal History Economic F. History’. Gay, E. (1941). Economic of Tasks ‘The Galambos, L. (1983). ‘Technology, Political Economy, and Professionalization: Central Themes of the the of Themes Central Professionalization: and Economy, (1983). Political L. ‘Technology, Galambos, Revolution’. The American Interest Industrial Second Chandler’s F. (2015). ‘Alfred Amatori, References Business History Review History 1884–1956’. Business Gras, Brien Scott (1956). ‘Norman Anon. The German Historical School in American Scholarship: A Study in the Transfer of Culture of Transfer the in AStudy Scholarship: American in School Historical German (1965). J. The Herbst, Casebook in American Business History Business American in (1939). M. H. Casebook &Larson, B. S. N. Gras, Business and Capitalism: An Introduction to Business History Business to Introduction An Capitalism: and (1939). B. S. N. Business Gras, History’. American Modern in Synthesis Organizational (1970). Emerging L. ‘The Galambos, Review History Debate’. Business for Time History: W. (2011). G. &Jones, ‘Business Friedman, Interchange: The History of Capitalism ( Capitalism of History The Interchange: Society Historical Business the of Bulletin History’. Business of Teaching the of (1949). H. Holton, ‘Survey Century Twentieth the of End the at States United the in History W. ‘Business (2003). J. Hausman, 1893–1970 Cass. lectures, . London: inaugural Collected History: (1971). B. Economic N. of Study The Harte, Review History Business Approach’. Narrative and ACultural History: P. (2012). ‘Business H. Hansen, “ (1999). L. ‘Marshall’s Hannah, Consultants, Schools, Business Management: (2016). B. De ning & Üsdiken, M. Kipping, L., Engwall, enterprise industrial the of history the in Chapters Structure. D. and A. Jr. (1962). Strategy Chandler, History Business AWay Forward?’ History: Business and Economics (1997). ‘Institutional M. Casson, The Evolution of Institutional Economics: Agency, Structure, and Darwinism in in Darwinism and Structure, Agency, Economics: Institutional of Evolution The (2004). M. G. Hodgson, Review History Economic Studies’. University in History Economic of W. Place (1927).Ashley, ‘The Eisenhardt, K. M. (1991). ‘Better Stories and Better Constructs: The Case for Rigor and Comparative Comparative and Rigor for Case The Constructs: Better and Stories (1991). M. K. ‘Better Eisenhardt, Business American in Revolution Managerial The Hand: Visible D. A. Jr. (1977). The Chandler, of Emergence the and Gras N.S.B. Treatment: Epic of (2001). ‘A C. Worthy E. B. Theme Boothman, P.History (1960). Business &Mathias, H. R. T. Campbell, C., Barker, Decker, S., Kipping, M. & Wadhwani, R. D. (2015). ‘New Business Histories! Plurality in Business Business in Plurality Histories! D. Business R. (2015). ‘New &Wadhwani, M. Kipping, S., Decker, 1908–1945 School Business Harvard The Experiment: (1987). ADelicate L. J. Cruikshank, Setting Social its in Enterprise (1959). H. A. Cole, Business Business Business History?’ Business aNew (2015). ‘Towards H. Driel, D. &van H. Higgins, A., Jong, de Clark, P. & Rowlinson, M. (2004). ‘The Treatment of History in Organisation Studies: Towards an an Towards Studies: Organisation in History of Treatment ‘The (2004). M. P. &Rowlinson, Clark, Business History Review History Business Synthesis’. Organizational University Press, 83–110. Press, University Crofts Crofts 36 1–8. Crofts Crofts Review History Media American Institutionalism American F. In P. and (eds.), Temin D. Ra G. M. Lamoreaux, N. In New York New 23 86 tries Review Management of Academy Logic’. Cambridg 39 American Business History’. of Macromarketing Journal Business History Business Methods’. Research History 1 Histor Harvard Business School Press. Business History Business Turn?”’ “Historic Press. University Harvard Press Belknap The MA: (1), 1–11. (1), (1), 70–75. (1), (4), 151–171. (4), (2), 96–103. (2), (4), 693–717. (4), 253–93. Press, Chicago of University IL: . Chicago, Business History around the World the around History (eds.), Business Jones G. and Amatori y . New York,. New NY , 57 & Co. & & Co. & e, MA: MIT Press. MIT MA: e, (1), 5–29. (1), , NY: Cornell University Press. University , NY: Cornell , 44 (3), 279–90. : Routledge. : . London: Routledge. . London: Trees , 46 and the Global “Forest”: Were “Giant Redwoods” Di erent?’ Di erent?’ Redwoods” Were “Giant “Forest”: Global the ” and (3), 331–52. , 16 2014 3,60–7. 620 (3), Journal of American History American of Journal ). , 57 (1), 30–40. (1), A revisionist historiography of business history history business of historiography A revisionist , 57 . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. University Harvard MA: . Cambridge, , 21 (4), 471–93. (4), Learning by Doing in Markets, Firms and Coun and Firms Markets, in Doing by Learning (1), 61–73. (1), . London: Historical Association. Historical . London: . Cambridge, MA: Cambridge Cambridge MA: . Cambridge, , 101 , 30 , 1(Supplement), 9–16. (2) . New York,. New NY . New York,. New NY , 503–36. , (4), 357–60. (4), . Boston, MA: MA: . Boston, . , Cambridg 11 (1), 1–10. (1), Business Business , 85 : F.S. F.S. : : F.S. F.S. : (1), (1), 33 e, e, .’ .’ - , . , , . , , Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 00:54 26 Sep 2021; For: 9780203736036, chapter3, 10.4324/9780203736036.ch3 The Oxford Handbook of Business History Business of Handbook Oxford The (2007). (eds.) J. &Zeitlin, G. Jones, . Cheltenham: Capitalism and Global Entrepreneurship D. (2007). R. (eds.) &Wadhwani, G. Jones, Lipartito, K. (1995). ‘Culture and the Practice of Business History’. History’. Business of Practice the and (1995). K. ‘Culture Lipartito, The Essential Alfred Chandler. Essays Toward a Historical Theory of Big Big of Theory Toward a Historical Essays Chandler. Alfred T.McCraw, Essential (ed.) (1988). K. The Kudo, A. (2003). ‘The State of Business History in Japan: Cross-National Comparison and Interna and Comparison Cross-National Japan: in History Business of State ‘The (2003). A. Kudo, Japanese Japan’. Japanese in Research History Economic Comparative and Hisao (1993). M. Kondo, ‘Otsuka Conservatism of Triumph (2008). G. Kolko, Japan’. Business in and Economic History History Business in (1978). Trends K. ‘Recent Kobayashi, of processes political The Structure: and Ideology (2012). G. ‘Strategy, &Westerhuis, M. Kipping, Than More Theory: Management and Organization in (2014). B. ‘History &Üsdiken, M. Kipping, and Jones G. In Studies’. Management and History ‘Business (2007). B. &Üsdiken, M. Kipping, Keiei Shigaku no Nij no Shigaku (1985). Keiei Gakkai Keieishi of Journal Business’. International into (back) History ‘Bringing T. (2006) & Khanna, G. Jones Jr. D. Chandler, Alfred Dissents: Revisions, (1997). ‘Elaborations, R. R. John, Kurosawa,Kipping, Wadhwani 34 Jones G. and F. In. Amatori History’. Business Dutch and ‘British (2003). K. &Sluyterman, G. Jones, [BHSJ (2014). Interviews: History of Business Business of History (2014). Interviews: [BHSJ Kiku Ayumiwo no (2014). Keieishi Gakkai Keieishi Bulletin of the Business Historical Historical Business the of Bulletin Prospect’. and Retrospect History: (1947). M. H. ‘Business Larson, Lipartito, K. (2016). ‘Reassembling the Economic: New Departures in Historical Materialism.’ Historical in Departures New Economic: the (2016). K. ‘Reassembling Lipartito, McKinlay, A. (2013). ‘Following Foucault into the Archives: Clerks, Careers and Cartoons’. Manage Cartoons’. and Careers Clerks, Archives: the into Foucault (2013). A. ‘Following McKinlay, States United the in Business and Women of Ahistory Women: (1998). A. Incorporating Kwolek-Folland, Kurosawa, T. (2014). ‘Sekai no Keieishi Kanren Gakkai no Sousetsu- Hattenshi to Kokusaika: Kadai Kadai Kokusaika: to Hattenshi Sousetsu- no Gakkai Kanren Keieishi T. no (2014). ‘Sekai Kurosawa, Kieser, A. (1994). ‘Why Organization Theory Needs Historical Analyses - And How This Should Be Be Should How This - And Analyses Historical Needs Theory Organization (1994). A. ‘Why Kieser, The Invention of Enterprise: Entrepreneurship from from Entrepreneurship Enterprise: of W. Invention (2010). (eds.) J. &Baumol. The J. D. Mokyr, S., Landes, S Success and P. Networking W. Pull: Laird, (2009). Management & Management History’. Counter-Narrative to History Counterfactual ‘From (2008). M. Mordhorst, Y. [Historiography Tenkai no (1961). Shigaku ofMishima, Keiei Business History]. Kyoto Lamoreaux, N., Ra , D. M. G. & Temin, P. (2003). ‘Beyond Markets and Hierarchies: Toward aNew Hierarchies: and Markets P. D.&Temin, ‘Beyond G. M. (2003). N., Ra , Lamoreaux, Edward Studies Management Strategic in Advances banks’. Dutch two in M-form the introducing Eye’. the AcademyMeets of Management Annals History Business of Handbook Oxford (eds.), The Zeitlin J. Press. Review History Twenty Years’. Business after Business History around the World the around History Business (eds.), History Press. Tokyo of Tokyo: University Perspective]. Future and Retrospection Studies: History Business of Society 1–42. Business American Historical Review, to Senryaku [History and Strategy of Business History Research Associations around the World]’. the around Keieishigaku Associations Research History Business of Strategy and [History Senryaku to NY Business History around the World the around History (eds.), Business Jones G. and F. In Amatori. Relations’. tional 7, 7, Science Organization Performed’. Tokyo: Bunshindo. Japan. of Society International Ancient Mesopotamia to Modern Times Modern to Mesopotamia Ancient Organizational History History &Organizational ment York New Synthesis of American Business History’. American Historical Review Press. University 62–70. : Cambridge University Press, 271–97. Press, University : Cambridge , 21 , 13 Studies]. Commemorative Publication for the 50 the for Publication Commemorative Studies]. Elgar. . Boston, MA . Boston, (6), 173–99. (6), (3), 73–8. (3), , NY ( Business Studies Business Japan Business History Review History Business Japan : Palgrave. : , 3 : Harvard Business School Press. (1), 5–26. (1), 121 , 37 , 8 (1): 101–139. (1): (4) (2), 137–154. (2), , 5 , 453–68. , (4), 608–20. (4), . Princeton: Princeton University Press. University Princeton . Princeton: . New York, NY: Simon and Schuster. and York,. New NY: Simon . New York, NY: Cambridge University Press, 111–45. Press, University York,. New NY: Cambridge ), 49 ), ū , 71 nen: Kaiko to Tenb to Kaiko nen: , 8 (1), 23–50. (1), (2), 151–200. ince Benjamin Franklin Benjamin ince (1), 535–88. (1), . Oxford: Oxford University Press, 96–119. Press, University Oxford . Oxford: th Anniversary of the Business History History Business the of Anniversary [BHSJ (1985). 20 Years History (1985). History Years 20 ō [BHSJ Business and Economic History 108 . Cambridge, MA: Harvard Harvard MA: . Cambridge, . Oxford: Oxford University Oxford . Oxford: (2), 404–33. ’s Hand” Visible “The , 29, 187–237. : Minerva. . New York. New , 24 The The (2), (2), - - , , .
Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 00:54 26 Sep 2021; For: 9780203736036, chapter3, 10.4324/9780203736036.ch3 Zald, M. N (1993). ‘Organization Studies as a Scienti c and Humanistic Enterprise: Toward aRecon Enterprise: Humanistic and aScienti c as Studies N(1993). M. ‘Organization Zald, Yonekawa, S. (1973). S. Yonekawa, Keiei Shigaku: Seitan, Genj 16( &Society, Enterprise Everything’. (215).Yeager, M. ‘Women Change Yeager, M. (2001). ‘Mavericks and Mavens of Business History: Miriam Beard and Henrietta Larson’. Larson’. Henrietta and Beard Miriam History: Business of Mavens and (2001). ‘Mavericks Yeager, M. The Spirit of Capitalism: The Max Weber Thesis in an Economic Historical Perspective Historical Economic an in Thesis Weber Max The Capitalism: of Spirit (1982). H. The Otsuka, Change and the Entrepreneur the and Change History’. Entrepreneurial and Theory (1949). A. J. ‘Economic Schumpeter, Schröter, H. G. (2003). ‘Business History in German-Speaking States at the End of the Century: Century: the of End the at States German-Speaking in History ‘Business (2003). G. H. Schröter, Schröter, H. G. (2000). ‘Die Institutionalisierung der Unternehmensgeschichte im deutschen deutschen im Unternehmensgeschichte der Institutionalisierung ‘Die (2000). G. H. Schröter, Yanagisawa, O. (2001). ‘The Impact of German Economic Thought on Japanese Economist before before Economist Japanese on Thought Economic German of Impact O. (2001). ‘The Yanagisawa, Saito, O. (2015). ‘A very brief history of Japan’s Economic and Social History Research’, XVII Research’, History Social and Economic Japan’s of history O. (2015). brief ‘ASaito, very Rowlinson, M., Hassard, J. & Decker, S. (2014). ‘Research strategies for organizational history: A history: organizational for strategies (2014). S. &Decker, J. ‘Research Hassard, M., Rowlinson, Recep Successful and Genesis Troubled the On Japan: in and Home Weber at (1999). G. ‘Max Roth, Cass. London: History. Business Scottish P. in (1967).Payne, L. Studies of History Political Economy Renaissance’. Schmoller (2001). ‘The H. Peukert, (translated by Aris, A. A. Aris, by (translated Sketch Historical An Method: and Doctrine (1954b). A. J. Economic Schumpeter, Max Weber in Japan. Eine Untersuchung zur Wirkungsgeschichte 1905–1995 Wirkungsgeschichte zur Untersuchung Eine W. Japan. in Schwentker, (1998). Weber Max Schumpeter). B. E. by manuscript from (edited Analysis Economic of (1954a). A. J. History Schumpeter, V. R. (ed.). Clemence, In History’. Entrepreneurial and (1951). A. J. Theory Schumpeter, ‘Economic (edited by G. Roth and and Roth G. by (edited Sociology Interpretative of Outline An Society: and Weber, (1978). M. Economy Organization and Management in Past the of (2014). Future M. ‘The D. R. &Bucheli, Wadhwani, Wadhwani, R. D. (2010). ‘Historical Reasoning and the Development of Entrepreneurship Theory’. Theory’. Entrepreneurship of Development the and Reasoning D. R. (2010). ‘Historical Wadhwani, View’. A Long-Term In Studies: Organization and (2014). M. ‘History & Kipping, B. Üsdiken, Competitive of aSource as History Q. C. (2010). ‘Rhetorical W. &Trank, Foster, M. R., Suddaby, P. History Business (2013). P. Reimagining &Fridenson, Scranton, The corporate reconstruction of American capitalism, 1890–1916: The market, the law, and and law, the 1890–1916: market, The capitalism, American of reconstruction corporate (1988). J. M. The Sklar, Organization Science Organization Field’. the of Foundations the of ceptualization Tokyo: Shinposha. Toyo Perspective]. Keizai Future and Enterprise &Society Enterprise New York New World the around History (eds.), Business Jones F. G. and F. Gaps’. In Amatori, and Achievements Sprachrau History_of_economic_and_social_history_in_Japan.pdf. http://www.wehc2015.org/pdf/ August. 3–7 Kyoto, Japan, Congress, History World Economic The German Historical School Historical World War German II’. Y. (ed.), In The Shionoya Press. California of University 1954). CA: Berkeley, edition, 250–274. dialogue between historical theory and organization theory’. organization and theory historical between dialogue Shoten. Tokyo: Iwanami from the German Epochen der Dogmen- und Methodengeschichte German the from sity Press. sity York New Schumpeter Joseph of Topics Economic on Essays Cambridge International Journal of Politics, Culture, and Society and Culture, Politics, of Journal Work’. International His of tion C. 3–32. Press, University Oxford Oxford: Methods Theory, History, Time: in (eds.), Organizations D. R. Wadhwani and Bucheli M. In Studies’. Chel Research Entrepreneurship of Foundations Historical (eds.), The F. and Lohrke Landstrom H. In NY M. 147–73.Emerald, Research Strategy of Globalization (eds.). J. The Lampel, J. and Baum C. A. J. In, Advantage’. Siebeck. Mohr Tübingen: politics Press. University
Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft:Grundriss der verstehenden Soziologie, 4 Soziologie, verstehenden der Gesellschaft:Grundriss und Wirtschaft of (Translation Wittich) : Oxford University Press, 33–55. Press, University : Oxford Organization in Time: History, Theory, Methods Theory, History, Time: in (eds.), Organization D. R. Wadhwani and Bucheli tenham: Edward Elgar, 343–362. Elgar, Edward tenham: . New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. University York,. New NY: Cambridge Zeitschrift für Zeitschrift Unternehmensgeschichte m’. , NY: Cambridge University Press, 170–91. Press, University , NY: Cambridge , NY: Oxford University Press. University , NY: Oxford , MA: Harvard University Press. University Harvard , MA: , 2 (4), 687–768. (4), . Port Washington, NY: Kennikat Press. NY: Kennikat Washington, . Port ō , Tenb , 45 A revisionist historiography of business history history business of historiography A revisionist [Business History: Origins, Recent Studies, Studies, Recent Origins, History: ō [Business (1), 30–48. Academy of Management Review Management of Academy . New York, NY: Routledge, 173–87. York,. New NY: Routledge, ). New York, NY: Oxford Univer ). York, New NY: Oxford . Baltimore , 4 , 12 4): 744–69. 4): (4), 513–28. (4), (3), 515–525. (3), , 33 , MD: Johns Hopkins Hopkins Johns , MD: (1), 71–116. (1), . New York. New th , Bingley: , Bingley: Ger , 39 man man (3), (3), 35 th - - - . . . . , . .