Business History In The United States At The End Of The Twentieth Century
Business history in the united states at the end of the twentieth century and the beginning of the twenty-first is simultaneously thriving and strungling with itsidentity.There are clear signs of vigor, including a rising membership in the major professional organization in the field, BHC (Business History Conference).
The organization recently launched a new quarterly professional journals;
Enterprise & Society
Economic and Business Historical Society.
There are also some signs of stress, including a growing debate among business historians over the future direction of the field.
Business history has grown tremendously in recent years, not only in terms of the number of scholar interested in the subject but also in academic structure
Alfred D. Chandler has dominated the field over the past several decades.But, business history, of course, is more than Chandler.But thought business historians are doing exciting new work, there is no consensus about which way the field should be headed in the twenty-first century.
The Economic History Association (EHA) lists 1,242 members, over twice the membership of the BHC.
To examine the state of business history in the United States at the end of the twentieth century, we must get down to basics and ask a few questions about business history.These are;
Where have we come from?
What are its practitioners saying about the future of business history?
Who is currently doing business history, and what are they doing ?
The ebating the future of business history, can perhaps best be expressed as questions;
What þs relationship between economic history and business history?
Should a particular theory from the basis of analysis in business history?
Although both economic and business history trace their roots to German and English scholarship in the ninetennth century, business history as a distinct area of study was born at the Harward Business Scholl in the mid 1920s. From the beginning, the economic historian Edwin F. Gray and his student, Gras, the first Straus professor of Business History at the school. Gay and other economic historians at the time believed that business history should contribute to the synthetic view of economic history.
After strating discussing in World War II, historians were an obvious source of potential support because they are always looking for new themes and new sources of study. Business can be put alongside politics, religion, education, and recreation as component parts of life.
Economic historians, of course, were not much better than economist, because the economic historian often takes his clue from the economist and therefore has no clear vision of the importance of the busines man.
Robber Barons and the Gilded Age Did the Robber Barons and the Gilded Age of the 1890’s and early 20th Century have a negative impact on 21st Century Corporate America today? Carnegie, Rockefeller, Morgan, and Vanderbilt all had something in common, they were all “Robber Barons,” whose actions would eventually lead to the corruption, greed, and economic problems of Corporate America today. During the late 19th century, these men did all they could to monopolize the railroad, petroleum, banking, and steel industries, profiting massively and gaining a lot personally, but not doing a whole lot for the common wealth. Many of the schemes and techniques that are used today to rob people of what is rightfully theirs, such as pensions, stocks, and even their jobs, were invented and used often by these four men.
In post-Civil War United States, big businesses and corporations grew resulting with positive and negative impacts on politics, the economy and the responses of Americans. corporations and big businesses had a great impact in america because they had power that resulted with negative and positive impacts. The economy and responses of the americans show how much impact and the effect of the growth of the corporations.
True, Andrew Carnegie and John D Rockefeller may have been the most influential businessmen of the 19th century, but was the way they conducted business proper? To fully answer this question, we must look at the following: First understand how Andrew Carnegie and John D. Rockefeller changed the market of their industries. Second, look at the similarities and differences in how both men achieved domination. Third and lastly, Look at how both men treated their workers and customers in order achieve the most possible profit for their company.
The end of the Civil War brought a whole new era of economy, political control, and Presidential intervention. The economy emerged from its agriculturally based economy into a flourishing big business dominated world and eventually in 1929 came crashing down. I agree only partially with the quote " The Civil War saw the beginning of an 80-year decline of real individual economic opportunity; nonetheless, the vast majority of Americans continued to profess their belief in individualism as evidenced by the Presidents they elected. Thus, between 1865 and 1939, the majority of Americans accepted big business dominance and rejected all forms of government interference and regulation contrary to individualism."
The growth of large corporations had impacted American politics by causing governmental corruption because of the power some industries had in society. Since the government had used laissez faire in the late 1800s for the big businesses to...
Industrial development of the late 18th century (around 1865-1900) is often characterized by it’s affluent, aggressive and monopolistic industrial leaders of the likes of men such as Andrew Carnegie, William H. Vanderbilt, and John D. Rockefeller. Due to their ruthless strategies, utilization of trusts, and exploitation of cheap labor in order to garner nearly unbreakable monopolies and massive sums of wealth, these men are often labelled as “robber barons”. At the same time, they are also often referred to as “industrial statements” for their organization, and catalyst of, industrial development; not to forget their generous contributions to the betterment of American society. Therefore, whether or not their aforementioned advances in industry were undertaken for their own personal benefits, one cannot ignore their positive effects on America. Thus, one can conclude that not only were the captains of industry both “robber barons” and “industrial statements”, but that that these two labels, in fact, go hand-in-hand.
Among the many changes during the Gilded Age, large corporations became powerful forces in American society. New technologies in communication and transportation allowed for a national marketplace and fueled industries including the railroad and telegraph grids. The wealth of this expanding industry became increasingly concentrated in the hands of a relative few. Often by gaining a monopoly in their respective markets, these “Robber Barons” amassed wealth and notoriety, making names for themselves that remain recognizable even today like Carnegie, Vanderbilt and Rockefeller. In 1890, the Sherman Anti-Trust Act was passed to combat these large trust-based monopolies as the power of the large corporations invited abuses of government and individuals (America’s Library).
During the last 40 years of the nineteenth century the United States became the worlds greatest economic power. The rapid rate of economic growth happened for a
Gaynor Ellis, Elisabeth, and Anthony Esler. ""New Economic Thinking"" World History: The Modern Era. Prentice Hall. 186. Print.
The start of this decade was an economic boom. With the war over and done, people were happy and rich. This did not last long. By the end of the century the Great Depression would begin.
As a result, business enjoys a certain “privileged position” and is widely accepted by the American public. However, there appears to be a shift as people begin to see that busin...
In the late 1800s' economy there were many Americans who considered themselves to be business affiliated, but really didn't understand the full meaning of a business or knowing any financial obligations within a business. However, there was one peculiar man John Pierpont Morgan also know as J.P. Morgan who stood out to be a triumphant entrepreneur of many Americans in the late 1800s U.S. Economy.
An important mark in history is a point when there is a change of great significance. Big business grew to sizes wielding incredible power during the late 19th century. The power of these businesses would be expressed in the form of monopolies that would allow them to dominate their specific area of the market, if not multiple areas of the market. John D. Rockefeller’s Standard Oil was a prime example of a large monopoly over oil and everything that was needed to produce it and distribute it. His control over oil would eventually lead to the need of enacting laws of regulation by the government. Standard Oil would initially draw the attention of the State of Ohio and eventually the Supreme Court. The dissolution of the companies that made up the monopoly of Standard Oil would come with the passage of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act of 1890 (The Editors of Encyclopædia Britannica).
Business anthropology is a practice or inquiry within the business field that is based on substantive knowledge or methodology, anthropological epistemology, or a blend of these (Jordan, 89). In the beginning of the twentieth century, as a discipline, business anthropology was reinvigorated and fully supported by the business interests in America to build up as an experientially founded social science that could offer a scientific source for social welfare (Kuklick, 134). To some extent, because of this inspiration, the problem-solving and research interests of the American anthropologists in the business field concentrated predominantly on manufacturing efficiency, and they were formed by the customs and conducts of other disciplines, for instance industrial psychology, by means of the Human Relations school. Moreover, following the Second World War, anthropological exploration of industries turned out to be more intellectually independent and split into more than a few literary streams, together with neo-Marxian methods and industria...
The crucial importance and relevance of economics related disciplines to the modern world have led me to want to pursue the study of these social sciences at a higher level. My study of Economics has shown me the fundamental part it plays in our lives and I would like to approach it with an open mind - interested but not yet fully informed.