The Evolution of American Corporate Firms: Understanding Power and Change

Evolution of American Corporate Firms

• Frank Dobin conducted a review of the argument of historical sociologists and identified four significant changes in the organizations of American firms since the mid-19th century.

• Each change, as revealed by sociologists, can be attributed to power dynamics among different groups rather than just efficiency.

• Dobin posed four important questions to understand the evolution of American corporate firms: 1) The rise of giant manufacturing firms in the early textile industry, 2) The consolidation of manufacturing industries in the early 20th century, 3) The dominance of diversified conglomerates after World War II, and 4) The transition to single industry behemoths by the end of the 1990s.

• In Charles Perrow's work 'Organizing America: Wealth, Power, and the Origin of Corporate Capitalism' published in 2002, Dobin addressed the first question through Pero's study of big organizations and their impact on wealth, power, and working life.

• Pero's argument was supported by the works of William Roy and Naomi Lamoreaux, highlighting the rise of large industrial cooperation and the great merger movement in American business, ultimately leading to the entrenchment of corporate capitalism.

Evolution of American Corporate Firms

Rise of American Textile Mills and Railroads

• The rise of huge textile mills and gigantic railroads in America during the early 19th century can be attributed to the constitutional framework that limited state regulatory power.

• The American state, designed as the opposite of the authoritative European state, had limited administrative capacities and was open to influence by powerful groups, allowing them to reshape property rights and trade laws in their favor.

• This created an environment where wealthy industrialists could change property rights to benefit big corporations, giving them new advantages over smaller firms.

• Unlike Europe, where the state protected small firms and regulated large ones, American textile mill owners preferred capital-intensive production methods to reduce dependence on labor, making them more powerful.

• However, this shift towards capital-intensive methods led to the destruction of entrepreneurship, which had been a vibrant alternative source of efficiency in the industry.

Rise of American Textile Mills and Railroads

The Rise of Large Industrial Corporations in America

• In 1997, the book 'The Rise of the Large Industrial Corporation in America' argued that the power of finance was crucial to the rise of manufacturing oligopoly in the early 20th century.

• The author, Alfred Chandler, contended that the advantage of big firms over small firms was not just skilled economy, but also the ability to set a single price after merging, which small firms couldn't do under antitrust laws.

• Chandler's work also explained that firms combined around the turn of the century due to the cost efficiency of large-scale production, rather than just manufacturing efficiency.

• Roy's analysis challenged Chandler's perspective, arguing that the mergers were more a result of antitrust laws ending the refuge of small firms and creating a concentration of power in large corporations.

• A more recent work by Flexten in 1990, 'The Transformation of Corporate Control', traced the competition between different management factions in American corporations—production, marketing, and finance.

• Flexten argued that between 1950 and 1975, the rise of diversified conglomerates was a result of a power play by financial and trade executives, challenging the traditional perspective.

• These differing perspectives shed light on the complex factors and dynamics that led to the rise of large industrial corporations in America.

The Rise of Large Industrial Corporations in America

The Evolution of Corporate Management Models

• After the amendments of the antitrust laws in 1950, it became more difficult for firms to expand into related businesses.

• Finance experts then proposed a new theory of the firm, suggesting that large firms should act like investors with diversified portfolios to spread their risk and invest in industries with high growth potential.

• Finance managers succeeded in convincing the board and investors that the diversified conglomerate was the way of the future, and they were uniquely positioned to pursue this model of growth.

• However, after 1975, the diversified conglomerate model gave way to the focus firm operating under the theory of core competence.

• The rise of the focus firm was attributed to the powerful institutional investors, and by 1990, the patterns of corporate mergers shifted towards this new model.

The Evolution of Corporate Management Models

Transformation of Acquisition Strategies

• In 1970, large firms focused on acquiring companies in different industries to diversify their assets.

• However, by 1990, there was a shift as big firms started acquiring companies within the same industry to leverage their core competencies and managerial capabilities.

• This shift was driven by the influence of institutional investors and securities analysts, who favored single-industry firms for easier valuation and higher value assignment.

• The power of institutional investors and analysts to determine stock value and influence executive compensation based on stock performance led to a focus on catering to investor and analyst preferences.

• The emergence of hostile takeovers further empowered specialist groups to break up diversified firms with low assigned values, leading to a change in corporate strategy to align with market and investor expectations.

Transformation of Acquisition Strategies

Conclusion:

The evolution of American corporate firms reflects the intricate interplay of power dynamics and change, shaping the landscape of business history in the country. Understanding these shifts provides valuable insights into the development of corporate capitalism and the influential forces at play.