1301-1/1

COMPARATIVE HISTORICAL STUDY OF THE ZAIBATSU

Yotaro Sakudo

Osaka University

One of the major topics in the recent studies of Japanese business history has been the investigation of “zaibatsu” and since the common topic of the thirteenth national conference of the Business History Society was decided to be “Comparative Historical Study of the Zaibatsus”, the organization committee has tried to arrange the papers to be read to examine the basic characteristics of the Japanese zaibatsu in comparison with the Western big business and also to make clear the organizational and functional differences between the Japanese zaibatsus.

The first paper by Yotaro Sakudo, Osaka University, “Comparative Historical Study of the Zaibatsus” presented the several problems to be discussed in the present’ day study on “zaibatsus” such as the zaibatsu investment strategies and their management organizations.

The second paper by Professor Shigeaki Yasuoka, Doshisha University, “Characteristic Features of the Zaibatsus Capital in Comparison with the Rothschild and the Dupont”, elucidated why and how the zaibatsu families had excluded the joint-stock capital and employed the professional managers. Further Professor Yasuoka pointed out the several contrasts between the Japanese zaibatsus and the Western family enterprises by examining specific cases.

The third reporter, Professor Hidemasa Morikawa of the Hosei University, read on “Business Strategy of the Japanese Zaibatsus”. He examined the process of diversification in the three Japanese zaibatsus, Mitsui, Sumitomo and Furukawa in an effort to confirm the differences of business strategies among them and tried to explain the differences by the difference in their decision-making processes.

The fourth paper by Professor Hisashi Masaki of the Doshisha University, “Power Structure of the Japanese Zaibatsus” identified some characteristic features of the structure for control in the Japanese zaibatsus by comparing it with that of the 200 large American enterprises.

The fifth reporter, Professor’ Moriaki Tsuchiya of the Tokyo University, read on “Economic Opportunities and Limiting Factors for the Development of Large-Scale Enterprises: Comparative Study of Japan and the United States”, discussed the volume and nature of the economic opportunities and of the human, natural and monetary resources at the different stages of the development of domestic market in the United States and Japan and explained how the Japanese zaibatsus were developed by a unique combination of the economic opportunity and resources which was entirely different from that in the United States.

Through the above reports and the following comments and panel discussion, it was confirmed that the big business in Japan possessed various unique features which were derived ‘from the socio-economic as well as cultural structures in Japan although there existed certain similarities between the zaibatsus of Japan and the large scale family enterprises of the Western countries.

1302-1/2

LE ROLE DU PATERNALISME DANS L’INDUSTRIALISATION EN FRANCE

Kazufumi Koga

University de Saga

L’Alsace a connu une industrialisation pr~coce et rapide. On a pu dire qu’elle fut une region pilote de l’essor du capitalisme francais, mais egalement une region ou un patronat eclaire rut dis avant 1870 createur d’oeuvres sociales. Le calme social de cette region tres industrialisee etait maintenu jusqu’h la grande greve de 1870, ce qui est du a l’importance de l’effort social du patronat calvinien. Cet article ont pour objet d’indiquer quelque direction de recherches pour l’etude des rapports sociaux dans un pays en voie d’industrialisation, FANace du XIX-siecle. L’accent est mis sur certains des relations entre patrons et ouvriers.

1302-2/2

ON THE ESTABLISHMENT OF FORMOSA RAILWAY

Yasutaka Takahashi

Formosa Railway in occupation by Japan (1895)was under the control of military forces and the railway construction plan was based on militarism first of all. From this point of view, Formosa Railway in early stage of Japanese occupation can be said militaristic one. When the Railway Bureau of the Government-General of Formosa managed Formosa Railway, the militaristic aim of railway was made a large revision. Thus constructed Formosa Railway became not only militaristic line but also industrial one greatly.

In other words, goods transport was most important in Formosa Railway. Goods transport by train putting Formosa economy into a group of Japanese Capitalism, Formosa colonization was completed. On this stage, Taiwan Seito & Co., Ltd. being in a strong position over many companies of sugar industry and Mitsui Bussan, a trading corporation, established the transport route of raw materials and goods. These companies in Formosa under Japanese occupation made the Government-General of Formosa construct the railway and the seaports throughout the whole. After the construction of them, they linked their private lines to Formosa Railway and the seaports, shortened the transport time, increased the safety of transport and saved the transport-cost. As a result of it they got much profit.

1303-1/2

HUMAN FACTORS IN RATIONALIZATION AT A.T.&T.

--C. I. Barnard and A. T. & T.--

Hideo Kawada

Senshu University

Studies on Barnard’s theories are conducted with increasing intensity and a number of articles with some volumes of books are published. Most of them could be classified into two categories’ (1) interpretation of Barnard’s theories, concepts, frameworks, etc. and (2) studies on some other scholars and their theories giving influences to Barnard’s theories as Henderson, Whitehead, etc. This writer proposes the third approach to the Barnard’s theories, that is, the One from the studies of the background and personal history of Mr. C. I. Barnard as an executive or an administrator of various organizations. In this article, our interest is focussed on the relation between one of the important concepts in The Functions of the Executive by Mr. Barnard Incentives and the personnel policies of A.T.&T. with the special emphasis on the human factors in rationalization at A.T.&T. during the period of the “Great Depression”.

Series of Innovation are introduced in the field of telecommunication. One of the biggest events was the introduction of automatic I dial telephones. How did they accept them at A.T.&T.? A part of Mr. C. I. Barnard’s administration at New Jersey Bell Telephone company, specifically his attitude toward the introduction of automatic dial telephones, is analized based on the personnel policies of A.T.&T. Readers will find the interesting correlation between Mr. Barnard’s way of thinking and A.T.&T. policies in general and Mr. W. S. Gifford’s thoughts in particular.

1303-2/2

THE STRATEGY AND DEVELOPMENT OF GEC

--An Aspect of the British Electrical Industry before World War I--

Takuji Sakamoto

Nagasaki University

The electical industry of Britain before World War I was relatively backward, stagnant and immature, in comparison with that of the United States or Germany. We can point out these features of the British electrical industry in several aspects: (1) the inactive trust movements, (2) the small sizes of business and the small scale of the industry as a whole, (3) the weakness in the inter-national competition, (4) the industrial domination by foreign subsidiary enterprises and (5) the technological retardation. In these industrial circumstances, the General Electric Co. (GEC) had grown very rapidly to be one of the leading electrical manufacturers by World War I. The direct ancestor of the company was the General Electric Apparatus Co. (GEA), which had been mainly engaged in selling electrical goods. The basic strategy of GEC was the “generalization” that had been settled in the age of GEA. After it was organized and began to produce electrical goods in 1889, GEC kept on developing rapidly and sometimes steadily by adopting a policy of “diversification” which formed a part of the “generalization”.

From the viewpoint of the policy of “diversification”, the process of the development of GEC might be divided into two stages: (A) 1889-1900 and (B) 1900-1913. At the former stage, GEC produced many kinds of electrical goods which were, however, limited to those with less sophisticated technology. Among them, one of the key products was the incandescent electric lamp. At the latter stage, GEC began to produce not only heavy electrical machinery but also other new electrical goods, responding to the changing structure of the market. Thus GEC developed to be a “general” electrical manufacturer by the outbreak of World War I.