Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-8bhkd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-17T15:07:14.092Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The End of Family Business? The Mittelstand and German Capitalism in Transition, 1949–2000

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 December 2011

Hartmut Berghoff
Hartmut Berghoff
Affiliation:
HARTMUT BERGHOFF is professor of economic and social history and director of the Institute of Economic and Social History at Göttingen University in Germany.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The Mittelstand sector of the German economy, which is made up of small and medium-sized family firms, is generally not mentioned in debates about German capitalism. This article makes the case that the focus of research on the German economy should shift from large corporate structures to these smaller firms. The classic Mittelstand model, which dominated the economy until about 1970, was characterized by identity of ownership and management, strong emotional investment by owners and staff, and an emphasis on continuity, paternalism, and independence. Beginning in the 1960s, this model was undermined by fundamental changes in the country's economic and sociocultural environment. In response, the firms abandoned a number of their traditional attributes, a process that led to the demise of some businesses and the regeneration of others. Although the modern form adopted by the surviving Mittelstand firms allows them to be less dependent on individual families, to enjoy more access to external capital, and to display more openness and international orientation, they can no longer rely on the prospect of long-term stability, as they did in the past.

Type
Articles
Information
Business History Review , Volume 80 , Issue 2 , Summer 2006 , pp. 263 - 295
Copyright
Copyright © The President and Fellows of Harvard College 2006

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 Economist 337 (16 Dec. 1995): 57–58Google Scholar.

2 Marx, Karl and Engels, Friedrich, Manifest der Kommunistischen Partei (1848; Leipzig, 1973), 33, 40Google Scholar.

3 Sozialdemokratische Partei Deutschlands, Erfurt Party program of 1891, reprinted in Miller, Susanne and Potthoff, Heinrich, Kleine Geschichte der SPD: Darstellung und Dokumentation, 1848–1983 (Bonn, 1983), 312Google Scholar.

4 For historical research on SMEs and family firms in Germany, see Sachse, Wieland, “Familienunternehmen in Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft bis zur Mitte des 20. Jahrhunderts. Ein historischer Überblick,” Zeitschrift für Unternehmensgeschichte 36 (1991): 9–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Berghoff, Hartmut, “Historisches Relikt oder Zukunftsmodell? Kleine und mittelgrosse Unternehmen in der Wirtschafts- und Sozialgeschichte der Bundesrepublik Deutschland,” in Ziegler, Dieter, ed., Grossbürger und Unternehmer: Die deutsche Wirtschaftselite im 20. Jahrhundert (Göttingen, 2000), 249–82Google Scholar; Berghoff, Hartmut, “Abschied vom klassischen Mittelstand. Kleine und mittlere Unternehmen in der bundesdeutschen Wirtschaft des späten 20. Jahrhunderts,” in Berghahn, Volker R., Unger, Stefan, and Ziegler, Dieter, eds., Die deutsche Wirtschaftselite im 20: Jahrhundert: Kontinuität und Mentalität (Essen, 2003), 93–113Google Scholar; Grabas, Margrit and Frey, Paul W., “Der vergessene Mittelstand—Entwicklung und Bedeutung kleiner und mittelgrosser Unternehmen an der Saar in der Zeit des krisenhaften Strukturwandels 1873 bis 1894/95,” Vierteljahrschrift für Sozial- und Wirtschaftsgeschichte 89 (2002): 41–71Google Scholar. See also a collection of short case studies by Boelcke, Willi A., ed., Wege zum Erfolg. Südwestdeutsche Unternehmerfamilien (Leinfelden-Echterdingen, 1996)Google Scholar. For detailed histories of individual companies, see Kampmann, Tobias, Vom Werkzeughandel zum Maschinenbau. Der Aufstieg des Familienunternehmens W. Ferd. Klingelnberg Söhne 1900–1950 (Stuttgart, 1994)Google Scholar; Berghoff, Hartmut, Zwischen Kleinstadt und Weltmarkt. Hohner und die Harmonika, 1857–1961: Unternehmensgeschichte als Gesellschaftsgeschichte (Paderborn, 1997)Google Scholar; Bräutigam, Petra, Mittelständische Unternehmer im Nationalsozialismus. Wirtschaftliche Entwicklungen und soziale Verhaltensweisen in der Schuh- und Lederindustrie Badens und Württembergs (Munich, 1997)Google Scholar; Soénius, Ulrich S., Wirtschaftsbürgertum im 19. und frühen 20: Jahrhundert. Die Familie Scheldt in Kettwig 1848–1925 (Cologne, 2000)Google Scholar; Berghoff, Hartmut and Rauh-Kühne, Cornelia, Fritz K. Ein deutsches Leben im zwanzigsten Jahrhundert (Stuttgart, 2000)Google Scholar; Lorentz, Bernhard, Industrieelite und Wirtschaftspolitik, 1928–1950: Heinrich Dräger und das Drägerwerk (Paderborn, 2001)Google Scholar; Schöllgen, Gregor, Diehl—Ein Familienunternehmen in Deutschland 1902–2002 (Berlin, 2002)Google Scholar.

5 Chandler, Alfred D. Jr., Scale and Scope: The Dynamics of Industrial Capitalism (Cambridge, Mass., 1990)Google Scholar. The central arguments are summarized in Chandler, Alfred D. Jr., and Hikino, Takashi, “The Large Industrial Enterprise and the Dynamics of Modern Growth,” in Chandler, Alfred D. Jr., Amatori, Franco, and Hikino, Takashi, eds., Big Business and the Wealth of Nations (Cambridge, U.K., 1997), 24–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar. For criticism from various international perspectives, see the articles in Business History Review 64 (Autumn 1990): 690–758CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Alford, Bernard W. E., “Chandlerism, the New Orthodoxy of U.S. and European Corporate Development,” Journal of European Economic History 23 (1994): 631–43Google Scholar; Plumpe, Werner, “Perspektiven der Unternehmensgeschichte,” in Schulz, Günther et al. , eds., Sozial- und Wirtschaftsgeschichte. Arbeitsgebiete, Probleme, Perspektiven: 100 Jahre Vierteljahrschrift für Sozial- und Wirtschaftsgeschichte (Stuttgart, 2004), 403–25Google Scholar; Berghoff, Hartmut, Moderne Unternehmensgeschichte: Eine themen- und theorieorientierte Einführung (Paderborn, 2004), 71–73, 80–82, 103–10Google Scholar.

6 Although family firms and SMEs are not identical, there is a considerable overlap. See Jones, Geoffrey and Rose, Mary B., eds., Family Capitalism (London, 1993)Google Scholar; Müller, Margit, ed., Structure and Strategy of Small and Medium-Size Enterprises since the Industrial Revolution (Stuttgart, 1994)Google Scholar; Rose, Mary B., ed., Family Business (Aldershot, 1995Google Scholar). For an ahistorical perspective, see Odaka, Konosuke and Minoru, Sawai, eds., Small Business, Large Concerns: The Development of Small Business in Comparative Perspective (Oxford, 1999)Google Scholar; Fletcher, Denise E., ed., Understanding the Small Family Business (London, 2002)Google Scholar; Ward, John, Perpetuating the Family Business: 50 Lessons Learned from Long-Lasting, Successful Families in Business (Basingstoke, 2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Miller, Danny and Le Breton-Miller, Isabel, Managing for the Long Run: Lessons in Competitive Advantage from Great Family Businesses (Boston, Mass., 2005)Google Scholar. For a historical focus on the United States, see Blackford, Mansel G., “Small Business in America: A Historiographic Survey,” Business History Review 65 (Spring 1991): 1–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and the other articles in the volume. See also Scranton, Philip, Proprietary Capitalism: The Textile Manufacture in Philadelphia, 1880–1885 (Cambridge, U.K., 1983)Google Scholar.

7 For political science, see the influential book by Hall, Peter A. and Soskice, David, eds., Varieties of Capitalism: The Institutional Foundations of Comparative Advantage (Oxford, 2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; but also, see Kitschelt, Herbert, Lange, Peter, Marks, Gary, and Stephens, John, eds., Continuity and Change in Contemporary Capitalism (Cambridge, U.K., 1997)Google Scholar; Crouch, Colin and Streeck, Wolfgang, eds., Political Economy of Modern Capitalism (London, 1997)Google Scholar; Whitley, Richard, Divergent Capitalisms: The Social Structuring and Change of Business Systems (Oxford, 1999)Google Scholar; Morgan, Glenn, Whitley, Richard, and Moen, Eli, eds., Changing Capitalisms? Internationalization, Institutional Change, and Systems of Economic Organization (Oxford, 2005)Google Scholar. For sociology, see Windolf, Paul and Nollert, Michael, “Institutionen, Interessen, Netzwerke: Unternehmensverflechtungen im internationalen Vergleich,” Politische Vierteljahresschrift 42 (2001): 51–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar. For history, see various articles in Winkler, Heinrich August, ed., Organisierter Kapitalismus: Voraussetzungen und Anfänge (Göttingen, 1974)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. For economic history, see Abelshauser, Werner, “Umbruch und Persistenz: Das deutsche Produktionsregime in historischer Perspektive,” Geschichte und Gesellschaft 27 (2001): 503–23Google Scholar; Abelshauser, Werner, The Dynamics of German Industry: Germany's Path toward the New Economy and the American Challenge (Oxford, 2005)Google Scholar. For business history, see Chandler, Scale and Scope.

8 Herrigel, Gary, Industrial Constructions: The Sources of German Industrial Power (New York, 1996)Google Scholar.

9 Herrigel completely ignores the fact that SMEs were also widespread and successful outside of Baden, Wurttemberg, Saxony, Hesse, and parts of the Rhineland, and that land inheritance patterns were far from uniform in these territories. He further fails to tackle the effects of migration. In his account the population seems to be tied to the partible or impartible soil forever, and a land market is unheard of.

10 This is the definition used by the IFM (Institut für Mittelstandsforschung) in Bonn. The European Union draws the line between medium-sized and large firms at 249 employees and a turnover of up to 40 million Euros (until 1996) and 50 million (since 1997).

11 Meyer-Stamer, Jörg and Wältring, Frank, Behind the Myth of the Mittelstand Economy: The Institutional Environment Supporting Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises in Germany (Duisburg, 2000), 14Google Scholar.

12 Soskice, David, “Reconciling Markets and Institutions: The German Apprenticeship System,” in Lynch, Lisa M., ed., Training and the Private Sector: International Comparison (Chicago, 1994), 25–60Google Scholar. For a long-term, comparative view, see Thelen, Kathleen A., How Institutions Evolve: The Political Economy of Skills in Germany, Britain, the United States and Japan (Cambridge, U.K., 2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. On the legacy of the Nazi regime, see Gillingham, John, “The ‘Deproletarianisation’ of German Society: Vocational Training in the Third Reich,” Journal of Social History 19 (1985): 423–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar. For a general history, see Schöfer, Rolf, Berufsausbildung und Gewerbepolitik in Deutschland: Geschichte der Ausbildung in Deutschland (Frankfurt, 1981)Google Scholar.

13 This comparison is based on figures from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) for the early 1990s. They are reproduced in Meyer-Stamer and Frank Wältring, Behind the Myth, 11. On the United States, see Blackford, Mansel G., A History of Small Business in America (Chapel Hill, 2003)Google Scholar. On Italy, see Bull, Ann Cento and Corner, Paul, eds., From Peasant to Entrepreneur: The Survival of the Family Economy in Italy (Oxford, 1993)Google Scholar.

14 Berghoff, Moderne Unternehmensgeschichte, 120–23; Hamer, Eberhard, Wie Unternehmer entscheiden: Motive und Verhalten Mittelständischer Firmenchefs (Landsberg, 1988)Google Scholar. For a fascinating study of the everyday life in Mittelstand firms, see Kotthoff, Hermann and Reindl, Josef, Die soziale Welt kleiner Betriebe: Wirtschaften, Arbeiten und Leben im mittelständischen Industriebetrieb (Göttingen, 1990)Google Scholar.

15 On Würth, see Schönherr, Karlheinz, Nach oben geschraubt: Reinhold Würth, die Karriere eines Unternehmers (Künzelsau, 2001)Google Scholar; Grau, Ute and Guttmann, Barbara, Reinhold Würth: The Entrepreneur and His Company (Künzelsau, 2005)Google Scholar.

16 Joly, Hervé, “Ende des Familienkapitalismus? Das Überleben der Unternehmerfamilien in den deutschen Wirtschaftseliten des 20. Jahrhunderts,” in Berghahn, Volker R., Unger, Stefan and Ziegler, Dieter, eds., Die deutsche Wirtschaftselite im 20. Jahrhundert: Kontinuität und Mentalität (Essen, 2003), 75–91Google Scholar. See also Windolf, Paul and Nollert, Michael, “Institutionen, Interessen, Netzwerke: Unternehmensverflechtungen im internationalen Vergleich,” Politische Vierteljahresschrift 42, no. 1 (2001): 51–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar, esp. 64.

17 Shanker, Melissa and Astrachan, Joseph H., “Myths and Realities: Family Businesses’ Contribution to the US Economy—A Framework for Assessing Family Business Statistics,” Family Business Review 9 (1996): 107–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

18 For a broad international perspective, see Church, Roy Anthony, “The Family Firm in Industrial Capitalism: International Perspectives on Hypotheses and History,” Business History 35 (October 1993), 17–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Colli, Andrea and Rose, Mary B., “Family Firms in Comparative Perspective,” in Amatori, Franco and Jones, Geoffrey, eds., Business History Around the World at the Turn of the Century (Cambridge, Mass., 2003), 339–352Google Scholar; Colli, Andrea, The History of Family Business, 1850–2000 (Cambridge, U.K., 2003)Google Scholar.

19 James, Harold, The Familiarity of Capitalism, unpublished conference paper, Princeton 2006, 3Google Scholar. See also James, Harold, Family Capitalism: Wendels, Haniels, Falcks and the Continental European Model (Cambridge, Mass., 2006), 1–35Google Scholar.

20 Hengstenberg, Richard, Menschen unserer Zeit: Persönlichkeiten des öffentlichen Lebens, der Kirche, Wirtschaft und der Politik, edited by Akademie, “Kontakte der Kontinente” (Bonn, 1972)Google Scholar, n.p. (my translation). On the attitudes of Italian patriarchs, see the anthropological study by Yanagisako, Sylvia Junko, Producing Culture and Capital: Family Firms in Italy (Princeton, N.J., 2002), esp. 70–100Google Scholar.

21 The coat of arms was used as a trademark until 1926. In 2006, Eckart Hengstenberg is the fourth-generation CEO of his family.

22 Porter, Michael, The Competitive Advantage of Nations (London, 1990), 132–238CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

23 This argument is made for the United States by Scranton, Philip, Endless Novelty: Specialty Production and American Industrialization, 1865–1925 (Princeton, N.J., 1998)Google Scholar.

24 Berger, Suzanne and Piore, Michael J., eds., Dualism and Discontinuity in Industrial Societies (Cambridge, U.K., 1980)Google Scholar; Piore, Michael and Sabel, Charles F., The Second Industrial Divide: Possibilities for Prosperity (New York, 1984)Google Scholar; Sabel, Charles F. and Zeitlin, Jonathan, eds., World of Possibilities: Flexibility and Mass Production in Western Industrialization (Cambridge, U.K., 1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Karrer-Ruedi, Erna E., Der Trend zum Wirtschaftsstil der flexiblen Spezialisierung: Eine Diskussion am Beispiel der Region der Schweizer Uhrenindustrie (Bern, 1992)Google Scholar; Miller and Breton-Miller, Managing for the Long Run.

25 Simon, Hermann, Hidden Champions: The Lessons from 500 of the World's Best Unknown Companies (Cambridge, Mass., 1996)Google Scholar. See also Rommel, Günter et al. , Simplicity Wins: How Germany's Mid-sized Industrial Companies Succeed (Boston, Mass., 1995)Google Scholar.

26 There are, however, numerous examples of dispersed and disharmonious families.

27 Aronoff, Craig E. and Ward, John L., “Family-Owned Businesses: A Thing of the Past or a Model for the Future?” Family Business Review 8 (1995): 121–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

28 See, for example, Colli, History of Family Business; Loveman, Gary and Sengenberger, Werner, “The Re-emergence of Small-Scale Production: An International Comparison,” in Small Business Economics 3 (1991): 1–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Müller, Structure and Strategy of Small and Medium-Size Enterprises; Odaka, Konosuke and Minoru, Sawai, eds., Small Business, Large Concerns. The Development of Small Business in Comparative Perspective (Oxford, 1999)Google Scholar; Dembinski, Paul H., KMU in der Schweiz: Profile und Herausforderungen (Zürich, 2004)Google Scholar; Carnevali, Francesca, Europe's Advantage: Banks and Small Firms in Europe and Britain (Oxford, 2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

29 Tatzkow, Monika, “Privatindustrie ohne Perspektive: Der “Versuch zur Liquidierung der mittleren privaten Warenproduzenten,’” in Cernij, Jochen, ed., Brüche, Krisen, Wendepunkte. Neubefragung von DDR-Geschichte (Berlin, 1990), 97–103Google Scholar; Kaiser, Monika, 1972—Knockout für den Mittelstand. Zum Wirken von SED, CDU, LPD und NDPD für die Verstaatlichung der Klein- und Mittelbetriebe (Berlin, 1991)Google Scholar; Ebbinghaus, Frank, Ausnutzung und Verdrängung. Steuerungsprobleme der SED-Mittelstandspolitik 1955–1972 (Berlin, 2003)Google Scholar.

30 Smaller firms were the latest to be dispossessed, and their chances of preserving some independence were highest. This rule did not apply when the owners aroused political suspicion, especially when they had been active members of the National Socialist Party. In these cases, their companies were socialized right away.

31 Benz, Wolfgang, ed., Die Vertreibung der Deutschen cuts dem Osten: Ursachen, Ereignisse, Folgen (Frankfurt, 1985)Google Scholar; Bade, Klaus J., Neue Heimat im Westen. Vertriebene, Flüchtlinge, Aussiedler (Münster, 1990)Google Scholar; Schulze, Rainer, der Brelie-Lewien, Doris von and Grebing, Helga, eds., Flüchtlinge und Vertriebene in der westdeutschen Nachkriegsgeschichte (Hildesheim, 1987)Google Scholar; Rock, David and Wolff, Stefan, eds., Coming Home to Germany? The Integration of Ethnic Germans from Central and Eastern Europe in the Federal Republic since 1945 (Oxford, 2002)Google Scholar.

32 Ambrosius, Gerold, “Der Beitrag der Vertriebenen und Flüchtlinge zura Wachstum der westdeutschen Wirtschaft nach dem Zweiten Weltkrieg,” Jahrbuch für Wirtschaftsgeschichte (no. 2, 1996): 39–72Google Scholar; Berghoff, Hartmut, “Population Change and its Repercussions on the Social History of the Federal Republic,” in Larres, Klaus and Panayi, Panikos, eds., The Federal Republic of Germany since 1949: Politics, Society and Economy before and after Unification (London, 1996), 35–73Google Scholar; Kift, Dagmar, ed., Aufbau West: Neubeginn zwischen Vertreibung und Wirtschaftswunder (Essen, 2005Google Scholar). For an autobiographical work, see Wernicke, Konrad, Flucht und Neubeginn: Schicksalsjahre eines Unternehmens, 1944–48 (Sigmaringen, 1996)Google Scholar.

33 “For over 80 years, the name Otto Bock has stood for product innovation and corporate success. For such strong roots I can only look to my grandfather…. He had the courage to take a new approach and to establish higher standards, and in doing so he helped to revolutionize an entire industry from the ground up.” Hans Georg Näder in http://www.ottobock.com/en/the_company/otto_bock_today, accessed on 11 Apr. 2006. All information on Otto Bock is taken from company statements on the same Web site.

34 James, Family Capitalism, 12.

35 James, “The Familiarity of Capitalism,” 2.

36 The figure for 1946 refers to all four occupational zones. Agriculture is also included. See Niehuss, Merith, Familie, Frau und Gesellschaft: Studien zur Strukturgeschichte der Familie in Westdeutschland 1945–1960 (Göttingen, 2001), 72Google Scholar.

37 Niehuss, Familie, 265.

38 Jones, Geoffrey, The Evolution of International Business: An Introduction (London, 1996), 52–59 and 137–45Google Scholar.

39 Stamer and Frank Wältring, Behind the Myth, 20.

40 Chandler, Scale and Scope, 21–31.

41 Hardest hit were small retailers in communities with less than ten thousand inhabitants. See Eugen Singer, “Starker Ausleseprozess im Handel,” Der Verbraucher (1974): 8.

42 Henksmeier, Karl Heinz, ed., 50 Jahre Selbstbedienung—ein Rückblick: Dynamik im Handel, special issue of Zeitschrift des Euro-Handelsinstituts e.V. (Cologne, 1988), 37Google Scholar. For a broad overview, see Spiekermann, Uwe, “Rationalisation as a Permanent Task: The German Food Retail Trade in the Twentieth century,” in den Hartog, Adel P., ed., Food Technology, Science and Marketing: European Diet in the Twentieth Century (Edinburgh, 1995), 200–20Google Scholar; Teuteberg, Hans Jürgen, “Vom Kramladen' zum Elektronischen Kommerz,'” in Haverkampf, Michael and Teuteberg, Hans-Jürgen, eds., Unterm Strich: Von der Winkelkrämerei zum E-Commerce (Bramsche, 2000), 17–32Google Scholar; Dirt, Karl, “Rationalisierung im Einzelhandel: Die Einführung und Entwicklung der Selbstbedienung in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland,” in Prinz, Michael, ed., Der lange Weg in den Überfluss. Anfänge und Entwicklung der Konsumgesellschaft seit der Vormoderne (Paderborn, 2003), 315–56Google Scholar.

43 Berghoff, Moderne Unternehmensgeschichte, 356.

44 On general developments in this branch, see Chandler, Alfred D. Jr., Inventing the Electronic Century: The Epic Story of the Consumer Electronics and Computer Industries (New York, 2001), 34–81Google Scholar. On the decline of the German “Mittelstand” firms in consumer electronics, see Kotschenreuther, Norbert, Schwarzwälder Präzision von Weltruf: Dual, PE. Aufstieg und Niedergang der St. Georgener Phonoindustrie (Passau, 2001)Google Scholar.

45 Brunner-Schwer, Hermann and Zudeick, Peter, SABA: Bilanz einer Aufgabe. Vom Aufstieg und Niedergang eines Familienunternehmens (Brühl-Moos, 1990), 302Google Scholar.

46 Ibid., 260.

47 Ibid., 302–3.

48 Stamer and Frank Wältring, Behind the Myth, 12–13 and 15–16.

49 Wittlage, Helmut, “Die Entwicklung der Organisationsstruktur Mittelständischer Unteraehmen: Vergleich empirischer Untersuchungsergebnisse der Jahre 1983 und 1995,” Internationales Gewerbearchiv 45 (1997): 1–18Google Scholar; Parker, Rachel, “From National Champions to Small and Medium Sized Enterprises: Changing Policy Emphasis in France, Germany and Sweden,” Journal of Public Policy 19 (1999): 63–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

50 Berghoff, “Abschied,” 106; Report by Euler Hermes Kreditversicherungs-AG, April 2004.

51 Fear, Jeffrey, Banking on Germany, Harvard Business School, Case no. N9–703–028 (Boston, 2003), 9Google Scholar.

52 Kayser, Gunter, Basel II—Mittelstand vor neuen Herausforderungen: Institut für Mittelstandsforschung (Bonn, 2001)Google Scholar; Wiederaufbau, Kreditanstalt für, Unternehmensfinanziernng in schwierigem Fahrwasser. Wachsende Finanzierungsprobleme im Mittelstand. Ergebnisse der Unternehmensbefragung 2002 (Frankfurt, 2002)Google Scholar; Wallau, Frank, Finanzierung des Mittelstandes (Bonn, 2002)Google Scholar; Meyer-Stamer and Waeltring, Behind the Myth, 32–36, 45–46.

53 Leopold, Günter and Frommann, Holger, Eigenkapital für den Mittelstand: Venture Capital im In- und Ausland (Munich, 1998)Google Scholar. During and immediately after the share-markets crash of 2000–03, the euphoria cooled, but as the market recovered the number of initial public offerings of SMEs rose again. The slow increase after 2003 was due not to the reticence of the SMEs but to the caution of the investors.

54 “Der ‘Neue Mittelstand’: Memorandum des Beirates für Fragen des gewerblichen Mittelstandes und der Freien Berufe beim Bundesministerium für Wirtschaft und Technologie,” Jahrbuch zur Mittelstandsforschung 2 (2000): 22 (my translation)Google Scholar.

55 Albach, Horst and Freund, Werner, Generationswechsel und Unternehmenskontinuität—Chancen, Risiken, Massnahmen (Gütersloh, 1989), 262Google Scholar.

56 For a general discussion of FDI in this period, see Barrell, Roy and Pain, Neigel, “Foreign Direct Investment, Technological Change, and Economic Growth within Europe,” Economic Journal 107 (Nov. 1997): 1770–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Buch, Claudia M. et al. , “Determinants and Effects of Foreign Direct Investment: Evidence from German Firm-level Data,” Economic Policy 20, no. 41 (2005): 52–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Berghoff, Moderne Unternehmensgeschichte, 140–45. On SMEs and FDI, see Commission, European, ed., Observatory of European SMEs 2003, No. 4: Internationalisation of SMEs (Luxemburg, 2003), 21–33Google Scholar. On German SMEs and FDI, see Maass, Frank and Wallau, Frank, Internationale Kooperationen kleiner und mittlerer Unternehrnen—Unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der neuen Bundesländer (Bonn, 2003)Google Scholar; Brenken, Anke, Die Globalisierung des Mittelstandes: Chancen und Risiken (Frankfurt, 2006), 19–31Google Scholar.

57 I thank the Ahlmann family for providing this information. See also http://www.aco-group.com.

58 Wolfgang Brenninkmeyer, quoted in Weiguny, Bettina, Die geheimnisvollen Herren von C&A: der Aufstieg der Brenninkmeyers (Frankfurt, 2005), 187Google Scholar.

59 There is a flood of guidebooks, such as Scherer, Stephan et al. , Familienunternehmen: Erfolgsstrategien zur Unternehmenssicherung (Frankfurt, 2005)Google Scholar; Wimmer, Rudolf, Groth, Torsten, and Simon, Fritz B., Erfolgsmuster von Mehrgenerationen-Familienunternehmen (Witten, 2004)Google Scholar; Pfannenschwarz, Armin, Nachfolge und Nicht-Nachfolge im Familienunternehmen (Heidelberg, 2005)Google Scholar.

60 Institut für Mittelstandsforschung Bonn, Unternehmensnachfolge in Deutschland (Bonn, 2001)Google Scholar, recalculation for 2002: http://www.ifm-bonn.org/ergebnis/136.htm. Succession has always been a critical phase for “Mittelstand” firms, and failure is by no means a new phenomenon during the post–1970 years. However, the number of deviations from the intrafamily pattern and the extent of problems associated with issues of succession have markedly increased.

61 Gruhler, Wolfram, Unternehmensnachfolge im Mittelstand. Gesamt- und einzelwirtschaftliche Bedeutung, Probleme und Lösungsansdtze (Cologne, 1998), 6Google Scholar.

62 Die Welt (21 May 2004).

63 Gruhler, Unternehmensnachfolge; Freund, Werner, Familieninterne Unternehmensnachfolge. Erfolgs- und Risikofaktoren (Wiesbaden, 2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

64 In smaller firms the percentage was still higher. The average number across all brackets of SMEs came to 18 percent of nonfamily firms. Freund, Werner, Kayser, Gunter and Schröer, Evelyn, Generationswechsel im Mittelstand. Unternehmensübertragungen und -übernahmen 1995 bis 2000 (Bonn, 1995), 18Google Scholar.

65 Laraoreaux, Naomi R., Raff, Daniel M. G., and Temin, Peter, in “Beyond Markets and Hierarchies: Toward a New Synthesis of American Business History,” American Historical Review 108 (April 2003): 404–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar, stress that for the United States “a diversity of coordination mechanisms” (p. 409) rather than the preponderance of one type of governance is realistic and that a revision of older monolinear trajectories is called for. See also Lamoreaux, Naomi R., Raff, Daniel M. G., and Temin, Peter, “Against Whig History,” Enterprise & Society 4 (Sept. 2004): suppl. 376–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

66 Berghoff, Hartmut, “Grossindustrie in der Kleinstadt, 1900–1935: Kommunalpolitik zwischen öffentlichen und privatwirtschaftlichen Interessen,” in Frese, Matthias and Zeppenfeld, Burkhard, eds., Kommunen und Unternehmen im 20. Jahrhundert. Wechselwirkungen zwischen öffentlicher und privater Wirtschqft (Essen, 2000), 43–68Google Scholar.