Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-t5tsf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-15T07:26:38.223Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Global Perspectives and British Paradoxes

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 December 2011

Geoffrey Jones
Geoffrey Jones
Affiliation:
Geoffrey Jones is professor of business history in the economics department of theUniversity of Reading, U.K.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

For Alfred D. Chandler, Jr., in Scale and Scope, “the British story provides a counterpoint, an antitheses, to the American experience.” Chandler shows that fewer of the largest firms appeared in Britain. British companies preferred to retain family or family-like control and management; he terms this “personal capitalism.” Firms were reluctant to recruit professional managers, and if they did so, they did not like them to have received much formal education. There were no business schools in the pre-1945 U.K. These personal capitalists on the whole preferred personal income to making the 3-pronged investments in manufacturing, marketing and management in the capitalintensive industries of the Second Industrial Revolution. The more complex the technical and managerial skills required in an industry, the worse these personal capitalists performed and the greater the missed opportunities. For Chandler, Britain stands as a warning of the unpleasant consequences of not adopting managerial capitalism.

Type
Essays
Information
Business History Review , Volume 71 , Issue 2 , Summer 1997 , pp. 291 - 298
Copyright
Copyright © The President and Fellows of Harvard College 1997

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Chandler, Alfred D. Jr, Scale and Scope (Cambridge, Mass., 1990), 236.Google Scholar

2 This short article is designed to provide some “global perspectives” on recent British business history and is not a further British critique of Chandler, of which there are several, including Supple, Barry, “Scale & Scope: Alfred Chandler and the Dynamics of Industrial Capitalism,” Economic History Review 44 (1991): 17–43.Google Scholar See also Hannah, Leslie, “The American Miracle, 1875–1950, and After: A View in the European Mirror,” Business and Economic History 24 (1995): 197–220.Google Scholar In the same volume, Alfred D. Chandler and Takashiikino, “A Historical Perspective on U.S. Industrial Leadership: Comments on Hannah,” and Mary O'Sullivan, “A Battle of Orthodoxies or a Cooperative Effort? Comment on Hannah,” provide important warnings about the dangers of parodying or oversimplifying the Chandlerian approach.

3 Wiener, Martin, English Culture and the Decline of Industrial Spirit, 185–1980 (Cambridge, 1981).Google Scholar

4 Crafts, N.F.R., “Economic Growth,” in Crafts, N.F.R. and Woodward, N., eds., The British Economy since 1945 (Oxford, 1991), 263.Google Scholar

5 Wardley, Peter, “The Anatomy of Big Business: Aspects of Corporate Development in the Twentieth Century,” Business History 33 (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Chapman, Stanley D., “British-based Investment Groups before 1914,” Economic History Review 38 (1985)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Jones, Geoffrey, “Diversification Strategies and Corporate Governance in Trading Companies: Anglo-Japanese Comparisons since the late Nineteenth Century,” Business and Economic History 25 (1996): 103–118Google Scholar; Jones, Charles, “Institutional Forms of British Direct Investment in South America,” Business History 39 (1997): 21–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

6 Channon, Derek F., The Strategy and Structure of British Enterprise (London, 1973)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Prais, S. J., The Evolution of Giant Firms in Britain (Cambridge, 1976)Google Scholar; Hannah, L., The Rise of the Corporate Economy (London, 1983)Google Scholar; Kirby, Maurice W., “The Corporate Economy in Britain: Its Rise and Achievements since 1900,” in Business Enterprise in Modern Britain, ed. Kirby, Maurice W. and Rose, Mary B. (London, 1994), 139–171.Google Scholar

7 Church, Roy, The Rise and Decline of the British Motor Industry (Cambridge, 1994).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

8 Tweedale, Geoffrey, “Marketing in the Second Industrial Revolution: A Case Study of the Ferranti Group, 1949–1963,” Business History 34 (1992): 96–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

9 O'Mahony, Mary, “Productivity Levels in British and American Manufacturing,” National Institute Economic Review 142 (1992): 63–73.Google Scholar

10 Kitson, Michael and Michies, Jonathan, “Britain's Industrial Performance since 1960: Under-Investment and Relative Decline,” Economic Journal 106 (1996).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

11 Kogut, Bruce and Parkinson, David, “The Diffusion of American Organising Principles to Europe,” in Country Competitiveness, ed. Kogut, Bruce (New York, 1993).Google Scholar

12 O'Mahony, “Productivity Levels.”

13 O'Mahony, Mary, Oulton, Nicholas, and Vass, Jennet, “Productivity in Market Services: International Comparisons,” National Institute of Economic and Social Research, Discussion Paper No. 105 (1996): 1–54.Google Scholar

14 Dunning, J.H., American Investment in British Manufacturing Industry (London, 1958)Google Scholar; Jones, Geoffrey, “Foreign Multinationals and British Industry before 1945,” Economic History Review 41 (1998): 429–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Bostock, Frances and Jones, Geoffrey, “Foreign Multinationals in British Manufacturing, 1850–1962,” Business History 36 (1994): 89–126CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Jones, Geoffrey and Bostock, Frances, “U.S. Multinationals in British Manufacturing before 1962,” Business History Review 70 (1996): 207–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

15 Strange, Roger, Japanese Manufacturing Investment in Europe. Its Impact on the U.K. Economy (London, 1993).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

16 United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, World Investment Report 1996 (New York, 1996): 249–250.Google Scholar

17 Geoffrey Jones, “British Multinationals and British Business since 1850,” in Business Enterprise, ed. Kirby and Rose, 172–206.

18 United Nations, World Investment Report 1996, 249–50.

19 Hamill, J., “Strategic Restructuring through International Acquisitions and Divestments,” Journal of General Management 17 (1991).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

20 Reddaway, W. B., Effects of U.K. Direct Investment Overseas (Cambridge, 1968)Google Scholar; Shephers, David, Silbertson, Aubrey, and Strange, Roger, British Manufacturing Investment Overseas (London, 1985).Google Scholar

21 Jones, “British Multinationals,” 188–189; Jones, Geoffrey, The Evolution of International Business (London, 1996), 118.Google Scholar

22 Balasubramanyan, V. N., “Entrepreneurship and the Growth of the Firm: the Case of the British Food and Drink Industries in the 1980s,” in Entrepreneurship, Networks and Modern Business, ed. Brown, Jonathan and Rose, Mary B. (Manchester, 1993).Google Scholar

23 Wardley, Peter, “The Anatomy of Big Business: Aspects of Corporate Development in the Twentieth Century,” Business History 33 (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Jones, Geoffrey, “Diversification Strategies and Corporate Governance in Trading Companies: Anglo-Japanese Comparisons since the Late Nineteenth Century,” Business and Economic History 25 (1996): 103–118Google Scholar; Jones, Charles, “Institutional Forms of British Direct Investment in South America,” Business History 39 (1997): 21–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar