In this article, Professor Chandler compares and contrasts the emergence of managerial capitalism in the United States, Great Britain, Germany, and Japan. Though he observes that large firms tended to evolve according to a common pattern, he is equally impressed by international differences in the pace, timing, and character of change.

An important factor in the poor performance of the British economy in the twentieth century is the low level of investment by British firms in research and development. In this article, Professor Mowery compares the development of industrial research in Great Britain and the United States between 1900 and 1950, focusing on the reasons for the much lower levels of industrial research investment in Britain. He concludes that the substantial British lag can be attributed to differences in corporate structure, educational systems, and government policy.

The factors responsible for Latin American economic “dependency” have long been debated by economic historians. In this article, Professor Guy considers the example of Argentine industrialization between 1870 and 1940. Argentine reliance upon foreign capital, she concludes, was due much more to local Argentine institutions — the commercial law, the stock market, and the government inspection bureau — than to any pressures from abroad. She adds that, though dependency theory has its limits, by focusing attention on local institutions, it remains a valuable tool for understanding Third World development.

The failure of the Potomac Company—the first interregional internal improvement project attempted in the United States—has been largely neglected by historians. From the mid 1780s to the 1820s, this company struggled unsuccessfully to link the East Coast with the Old Northwest by enhancing the navigability of the Potomac River. In this article, Mr. Littlefield examines this little-known episode, describing how the project was overwhelmed by a combination of factors that included an unstable American economy, unreliable government aid, and interstate rivalries. He concludes that the Potomac Company's failure demonstrated how the absence of federal support could cripple a large-scale internal improvement project, and suggests that its example spurred the U.S. government to become directly involved in the economic development of the young republic.