The authors would like to thank Lee Alston, Fred Carstensen, Daniel Raff, John D. Robertson, and John R. Robertson for helpful comments.Google Scholar

¹ Young, Allyn A., “Increasing Returns and Economic Progress,” Economic Journal, 38 (12 1928), pp. 523–42;CrossRefGoogle Scholar and Stigler, George J., “The Division of Labor Is Limited by the Extent of the Market,” Journal of Political Economy, 59 (06 1951), pp. 185–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

² Coase, Ronald H., “The Nature of the Firm,” Economica (new series), 4 (11 1937), pp. 386–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

³ Williamson, Oliver E., The Economic institutions of Capitalism (New York, 1985), esp. p. 103.Google Scholar

⁴ Aichian, Armen and Demsetz, Harold, “Production, Information Costs, and Economic Organization,” American Economic Review, 62 (12 1972). pp. 777–95.Google Scholar For a more general formulation of this measurement-cost approach, see Barzel, Yoram, “Measurement Costs and the Organization of Markets,” Journal of Law and Economics, 25 (04 1982), pp. 27–48;CrossRefGoogle Scholar and Cheung, Steven N. S., “The Contractual Nature of the Firm,” Journal of Law and Economics, 26 (04 1983), pp. 1–21.Google Scholar

⁵ Langlois, Richard N., “Economic Change and the Boundaries of the Firm,” Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics, 144 (09 1988), pp. 635–57.Google Scholar

⁶ Adelman, Morris, “Concept and Statistical Measurement of Vertical Integration,” in Business Concentration and Price Policy (Princeton, 1955), pp. 318–20.Google Scholar

⁷ Silver, Morris, Enterprise and the Scope of the Firm (London, 1984).Google Scholar

⁸ William Lazonick has lately put great emphasis on this point in presenting a theory of the vertically integrated firm that is otherwise much in the spirit of the Adelman-Silver view. See Lazonick, William, “The Social Determinants of Technological Change: Innovation and Adaptation in Three Industrial Revolutions” (paper presented at the Second International Conference on the History of Enterprise, Terni, Italy, October 1–4, 1987);Google Scholar and Lazonick, William, “The Causes and Consequences of the Modern Corporation: Innovation and Adaptation in the Theory of the Firm” (paper presented at the U.C. Intercampus Group in Economic History Conference,University of California,Santa Cruz,April 29–May 1, 1988).Google Scholar

⁹ Pollard, Sidney and Robertson, Paul, The British Shipbuilding Industry. 1870–1914 (Cambridge, MA, 1979), p. 92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar For a general theory of innovation in a network of suppliers and producers, see von Hippel, Eric, The Sources of Innovation (Oxford, 1988).Google Scholar

¹⁰ Abernathy, William, The Productivity Dilemma: Roadblock to Innovation in the Automobile Industry (Baltimore, 1978).Google Scholar

¹¹ Teece, David J., “Profiting from Technological Innovation: Implications for Integration, Collaboration, Licensing, and Public Policy,” Research Policy, 15 (12 1986), pp. 285–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹² Thomas, Robert Paul, An Analysis of the Pattern of Growth of the Automobile industry, 1895–1929 (New York, 1977), pp. 6–8.Google Scholar For a more detailed account of the history of vertical integration in the auto industry, see Robertson, Paul L. and Langlois, Richard N., “Innovation and Vertical Integration in the American Automobile Industry, 1900–1940” (working paper, economics and management dept., University College, University of New South Wales, 01 1989).Google Scholar

¹³ Thomas, Pattern of Growth, p. 269.Google Scholar Compare Hounshell, David A., From the American System to Mass Production, 1800–1932 (Baltimore, 1984), p. 233.Google Scholar

¹⁴ Ford, Henry with Crowther, Samuel, My Life and Work (Garden City, 1923), pp. 83–84.Google Scholar

¹⁵ Chandler, Alfred D., Strategy and Structure (Cambridge, MA, 1962), p. 116.Google Scholar

¹⁶ Seltzer, Lawrence E., A Financial History of the American Automobile Industry (Boston, 1928). p. 59.Google Scholar

¹⁷ Shidle, Norman G., “Trend Toward More Car Models Helping Outside Suppliers,” Automotive Industries (July 30, 1927), p. 146;Google Scholar and Katz, Harold, The Decline of Competition in the Automobile Industry, 1920–1940 (New York, 1977), p. 260.Google Scholar

¹⁸ Seltzer, Financial History, p. 50.Google Scholar

¹⁹ Flugge, Eva, “Possibilities and Problems of Integration in the Automobile Industry,” Journal of Political Economy, 37 (04 1929), p. 166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

²⁰ Abernathy, Productivity Dilemma, p. 37.Google Scholar

²¹ Ibid., p. 64.

²² Hounshell, American System, pp. 265–66.Google Scholar

²³ Klein, Benjamin, Crawford, Robert, and Aichian, Armen, “Vertical Integration, Appropriable Rents, and the Competitive Contracting Process.” Journal of Law and Economics, 21 (10 1978), pp. 308–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

²⁴ In a recent re-examination of the Fisher Body case (which came to our attention after this paragraph was written), Klein presents an interpretation substantially in accord with our own. Klein, Benjamin, “Vertical Integration as Organizational Ownership: The Fisher Body-General Motors Relationship Revisited,” Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, 4 (Spring 1988), pp. 199–213.Google Scholar

²⁵ Katz, Decline of Compelilion, p. 258.Google Scholar

²⁶ Williamson, Economic Institurions, pp. 279–85.Google Scholar

²⁷ Klein, “Vertica1 Integration,” p. 202.Google Scholar In this formulation, it appears that economic change, “uncertainty” in Klein's language, plays as important a role as the degree of asset specificity in explaining vertical integration. This has been noticed before. See Langlois, Richard N., “Internal Organization in a Dynamic Context: Some Theoretical Considerations,” in Jussawalla, M. and Ebenfield, H., eds., Communication and Information Economics: New Perspectives (Amsterdam, 1984), pp. 31–33.Google Scholar