Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-dh8gc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-09T08:51:10.887Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Business History: Some Major Challenges

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 July 2012

Clarence C. Walton
Clarence C. Walton
Affiliation:
Professor of Business Institutions and Associate Dean, At Columbia Graduate School of Business
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Substantial gains made within the past score years in clarifying the nature and scope of business history afford ample grounds for confidence that this academic youngster will assuredly develop into a vigorous adult. Such high optimism can be sustained, however, only if this small guild of practitioners develops and administers appropriate intellectual booster shots necessary for its continued health. At the moment it does appear that business history is vulnerable to a large number of afflictions. To put the matter more specifically, business historians as a group give the impression of being sharply divided on issues where agreement might reasonably be expected at this stage of the field's development. Signs of a recent shift from emphasis on decision-making, innovation, and administration to a stress on a vaguely defined “general environment” fueled concern.

Type
Research Article
Information
Business History Review , Volume 36 , Issue 1: Business History Conference Issue Dedicated to Henrietta M. Larson , Spring 1962 , pp. 21 - 43
Copyright
Copyright © The President and Fellows of Harvard College 1962

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 [Italics mine.] Gordon, Robert A. and Howell, James E., Higher Education for Business (New York, 1959), pp. 170–171.Google Scholar The companion piece to the Ford Study was the Carnegie-sponsored inquiry directed by Pierson, Frank C., et al., The Education of American Businessmen (New York, 1959).Google Scholar Even before the appearance of these studies many institutions had initiated self-studies. The Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania has detailed reports in mimeographed form but has made no public distribution. On the other hand, Columbia has released a very interesting book of Senkier, Robert, Revising a Business Curriculum — The Columbia Experience (New York, 1961).Google Scholar

2 Aycock, W. A., Chancellor of the University of North Carolina, in Views on Business Education (Chapel Hill, North Carolina, 1960), p. 61.Google Scholar

3 This criticism is less applicable to those who take their observations beyond the scholarly community to an audience which is understandably less informed on the relevance of business history to his effective performance as a businessman. See Johnson's, Arthur recent piece, “Business History for the Businessman,” Harvard Business Review, Vol. XXXIX (May-June, 1961), pp. 32–14, 174–176.Google Scholar

4 The late Wesley Mitchell invariably began his famous lectures on economic theory at Columbia by reminding students that, in his view, every major advance in economics came when the scholar wrestled to explain old theory in the light of new issues. Mitchell, Wesley, Mimeographed Lecture Notes on Types of Economic Theory (New York, 1949), 2 vols., pp. 1–3.Google Scholar

5 “To confound model and reality — is equivalent to misunderstanding the meaning and rank of the virtue of prudence.” Niebuhr, Reinhold, The Structure of Nations and Empires (New York, 1960), p. 3.Google Scholar

6 Snow, C. P., The Two Cultures and the Scientific Revolution (New York, 1959), pp. 23, 31.Google Scholar

7 Snow's kind of scientism and his emphasis on “strict empiricism as the domain of legitimate knowledge” is rejected by Polanyi, Michael, The Study of Man (London, 1959), p. 20.Google Scholar

8 “The Uses of Economics,” Research for Public Policy (Washington, D.C., The Brookings Institution, 1961), p. 92. Hitch and McKean, R. N. have given us a sample of such uses in The Economics of Defense (Cambridge, 1960).Google Scholar

9 Galbraith, John Kenneth, The Affluent Society (Boston, 1958).Google Scholar

10 See, for example, the careful distinction drawn by Baumöl, William J. between the economist's way of viewing profit maximization and the modifications introduced on this model by ethical, cultural and social patterns: Business Behavior, Value and Growth (New York, 1959).Google Scholar

11 Zebot, Cyril, “Autonomy and Dependence of Economic Analysis,” Review of Social Economy, Vol. XX (1961), pp. 128–146.Google Scholar

12 Goodrich, Carter, “Economic History: One Field or Two?,” Journal of Economic History, Vol. XX (Dec, 1960), pp. 531–532, 538.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

13 Metha, J. K., Lectures on Modern Economic Theory (Allahabad, 1959), p. iv.Google Scholar

14 The Social Sciences in Historical Study (New York, 1959), Bulletin 64, p. 13.

15 This approach has been employed fruitfully in reviewing national developments by Vann Woodward, C. in his “Age of Reinterpretation,” The American Historical Review, vol. LXVI (Oct., 1960), pp. 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

16 See, for example, Bauer, P. T., Economic Analysis and Policy in Underdeveloped Coun tries (Durham, North Carolina, 1957)Google Scholar, and Buchanan, Norman and Ellis, Howard, Ap proaches to Economic Development (New York, 1955).Google Scholar

17 Meade's, J. E.A Neo-Classical Model of Equilibrium Growth (London, 1961)Google Scholar is a case in point. Cf. Kaldor, N., Essays on Economic Stability and Growth (Glencoe, Illinois, 1960).Google Scholar

18 “Equilibrium Growth Models,” American Economic Review, Vol. LI (1961), pp. 360–368.

19 The Social Sciences in Historical Study, p. 106. See also pages 24–30.

20 Blough, Roger, The Corporate Key to a Greater Society (New York, 1959), especially Chap. 2Google Scholar.

21 Richardson V. Buhl, 777 Michigan 632, 658 (1889).

22 The need is well stated by Mason, Edward S., “The Apologetics of Managerialism,” The Journal of Business, Vol. XXXI (Jan., 1959), pp. 1–11.Google Scholar See also Polanyi, Karl, The Great Transformation (Boston and New York, 1944).Google Scholar

23 Veblen, Thorsten, A Theory of Business Enterprise (New York, 1904)Google Scholar, and Snow, Two Cultures and the Scientific Revolution, chap. III.

24 Hofstadter, Richard, Social Darwinism in American Thought (Boston, 1955).Google Scholar [First published under the auspices of the American Historical Association by the University of Pennsylvania Press, 1944.]

25 See Kaysen, Carl, “The Social Significance of the Modern Corporation,” American Economic Review, Vol. XLVII (1957), pp. 311–315;Google Scholar and Berle, A. A., The Twentieth Century Capitalist Revolution (New York, 1954), chaps. Ill and VGoogle Scholar.

26 A fascinating exploratory essay has recently been penned by Chandler, A. D. and Redlich, Fritz, “Recent Developments in American Business Administration and their Conceptualization,” Business History Review, Vol. XXXV (Spring, 1961), pp. 1–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

27 Economic Institutions and Human Welfare (New York, 1957), p. 179. The same view is shared by Bowen, Howard, Social Responsibilities of the Businessman (New York, 1953), p. 109.Google Scholar

28 Knight, Frank, Freedom and Reform (New York, 1947), p. 61.Google Scholar See also F. A. Hayek's essay in Ansehen, Melvin and Bach, G. L., eds., Management and Corporations (New York, 1960).Google Scholar

29 See The Bulletin of the New York Personnel Management Association, Vol. XVIII (Sept., 1961), pp. 3–6.

30 Character and Opinion in the United States (New York, 1954).

31 Fred Foy in Views on Business Education, p. 19.

32 Bunn, R. F., “The Federation of German Employers' Associations: A Political Interest Group,” The Western Political Quarterly, Vol. XIII (Sept. 1960), pp. 652–669.Google Scholar

33 Worthy, James, “Education for Business Leadership,” Journal of Business, Vol. XXVIH (Jan., 1955), p. 78.Google Scholar

34 See, for example, Hartz, Louis, Economic Policy and Democratic Thought: Pennsylvania, 1778–1860 (Cambridge, Mass., 1948)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and Heath, Milton, Constructive Liberalism: The Role of The State in the Economic Development of Georgia to 1860 (Cambridge, Mass., 1941).Google Scholar

35 Steigerwalt, A. K., “Business History in Academic Curricula: Central or Peripheral,” The Atlanta Economic Review (Nov., 1960), pp. 10–12.Google Scholar