The emergence of big business: The largest corporate employers of labour in the United Kingdom, Germany and the United States c. 1907

Business History

Volumn 41, Issue 4, 1999, Pages 88-116

  Wardley, Peter ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF THE WEST OF ENGLAND   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0012955333     PISSN: 00076791     EISSN: 17437938     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/00076799900000346     Document Type: Article

References (73)

1. This survey of large employers encompasses the whole economy apart from the agricultural sector, the armed forces and public administration.
2. L. Hannah, The Rise of the Corporate Economy (London, 2nd edn. 1983); P. Wardley, 'The Anatomy of Big Business: Aspects of Corporate Development in the Twentieth Century', Business History, Vol.33 (April 1991), pp.268-96.
3. L. Hannah, The Rise of the Corporate Economy (London, 2nd edn. 1983); P. Wardley, 'The Anatomy of Big Business: Aspects of Corporate Development in the Twentieth Century', Business History, Vol.33 (April 1991), pp.268-96.
4. C. Shaw, 'The Largest Manufacturing Employers of 1907', Business History, Vol.25 (March 1983), pp.42-60.
5. L. Johnman, 'The Largest Manufacturing Companies of 1935', Business History Vol.28 (April 1986), pp.226-45.
6. C.H. Lee, The British Economy since 1700: A Macroeconomic Perspective (Cambridge, 1986); N. Gemmell and P. Wardley, 'The Contribution of Services to British Economic Growth, 1856-1913', Explorations in Economic History, Vol.27 (1990), pp.299-321.
7. C.H. Lee, The British Economy since 1700: A Macroeconomic Perspective (Cambridge, 1986); N. Gemmell and P. Wardley, 'The Contribution of Services to British Economic Growth, 1856-1913', Explorations in Economic History, Vol.27 (1990), pp.299-321.
8. D.J. Jeremy, 'The Hundred Largest Employers in the United Kingdom, in Manufacturing and Non-Manufacturing Industries, in 1907, 1935 and 1955', Business History, Vol.33 No.1 (Jan. 1991), pp.93-111.
9. Swift incorporation into a broader historiography is indicated by, for example, R. Floud, The People and the British Economy, 1830-1914 (Oxford, 1997), pp.111-12 ; and R. Middleton, Government versus the Market: The Growth of the Public Sector Economic Management and British Economic Performance (Cheltenham, 1996), p.63. Furthermore, within a year of its publication David Jeremy's article was reprinted in a collection of essays, B. Supple (ed.), The Rise of Big Business (Aldershot, 1992), pp.414-32. Here, although a postscript has been added to the notes (p.416) stating that 'The following tables have been corrected by the author and thus differ to those originally published in Business History', the quantitative data is reproduced as originally published in this journal.
10. Swift incorporation into a broader historiography is indicated by, for example, R. Floud, The People and the British Economy, 1830-1914 (Oxford, 1997), pp.111-12 ; and R. Middleton, Government versus the Market: The Growth of the Public Sector Economic Management and British Economic Performance (Cheltenham, 1996), p.63. Furthermore, within a year of its publication David Jeremy's article was reprinted in a collection of essays, B. Supple (ed.), The Rise of Big Business (Aldershot, 1992), pp.414-32. Here, although a postscript has been added to the notes (p.416) stating that 'The following tables have been corrected by the author and thus differ to those originally published in Business History', the quantitative data is reproduced as originally published in this journal.
11. Swift incorporation into a broader historiography is indicated by, for example, R. Floud, The People and the British Economy, 1830-1914 (Oxford, 1997), pp.111-12 ; and R. Middleton, Government versus the Market: The Growth of the Public Sector Economic Management and British Economic Performance (Cheltenham, 1996), p.63. Furthermore, within a year of its publication David Jeremy's article was reprinted in a collection of essays, B. Supple (ed.), The Rise of Big Business (Aldershot, 1992), pp.414-32. Here, although a postscript has been added to the notes (p.416) stating that 'The following tables have been corrected by the author and thus differ to those originally published in Business History', the quantitative data is reproduced as originally published in this journal.
12. The intrinsic problems and hazards of this type of compilation are explicitly addressed in Shaw. 'Largest Manufacturing Companies of 1907', pp.43-5 and Johnman, 'Largest Manufacturing Companies of 1907', pp.226-31. However, at least one methodological difficulty inherent in the compilation of all these lists of large employers should be highlighted at this point, if only for the benefit the unwary. Frequently, the data cited reports the workforce in a year close to the target year rather than the target year itself: for example, David Jeremy's data set is more accurately described as reporting 1911, the year which provides both the largest number of companies reported and a substantial portion of the total number of employees enumerated, rather than 1907. For associated reasons, conclusions concerning the relative merits of particular surveys and the years they purport to represent, particularly for the purposes of analysing productivity under differing conditions of capacity utilisation, should be resisted; cf. M. Chick, 'British Business History: A Review of the Periodical Literature for 1991', Business History, Vol.35 No.1 (Jan. 1993), p.3.
13. The intrinsic problems and hazards of this type of compilation are explicitly addressed in Shaw. 'Largest Manufacturing Companies of 1907', pp.43-5 and Johnman, 'Largest Manufacturing Companies of 1907', pp.226-31. However, at least one methodological difficulty inherent in the compilation of all these lists of large employers should be highlighted at this point, if only for the benefit the unwary. Frequently, the data cited reports the workforce in a year close to the target year rather than the target year itself: for example, David Jeremy's data set is more accurately described as reporting 1911, the year which provides both the largest number of companies reported and a substantial portion of the total number of employees enumerated, rather than 1907. For associated reasons, conclusions concerning the relative merits of particular surveys and the years they purport to represent, particularly for the purposes of analysing productivity under differing conditions of capacity utilisation, should be resisted; cf. M. Chick, 'British Business History: A Review of the Periodical Literature for 1991', Business History, Vol.35 No.1 (Jan. 1993), p.3.
14. The intrinsic problems and hazards of this type of compilation are explicitly addressed in Shaw. 'Largest Manufacturing Companies of 1907', pp.43-5 and Johnman, 'Largest Manufacturing Companies of 1907', pp.226-31. However, at least one methodological difficulty inherent in the compilation of all these lists of large employers should be highlighted at this point, if only for the benefit the unwary. Frequently, the data cited reports the workforce in a year close to the target year rather than the target year itself: for example, David Jeremy's data set is more accurately described as reporting 1911, the year which provides both the largest number of companies reported and a substantial portion of the total number of employees enumerated, rather than 1907. For associated reasons, conclusions concerning the relative merits of particular surveys and the years they purport to represent, particularly for the purposes of analysing productivity under differing conditions of capacity utilisation, should be resisted; cf. M. Chick, 'British Business History: A Review of the Periodical Literature for 1991', Business History, Vol.35 No.1 (Jan. 1993), p.3.
15. The cluster of 12 firms ranked 96th in Table 1 precludes analysis of the relative sectoral composition of the hundred largest employers in the United Kingdom as an arbitrary and unreasonable decision would be required to cull seven of these companies from this list.
16. The 13 colliery companies are: Lambton Collieries; Nixon's Navigation Co. Ltd; Ocean Coal Co.; Davis & Sons Ltd, Lewis Merthyr Consolidated Collieries Ltd; Ashington Coal Co. Ltd; Cory Brothers & Co. Ltd; Tredegar Iron & Coal Co. Ltd; John Bowes & Partners, Ltd; Weardale Steel, Coal & Coke Co. Ltd; Harton Coal Co. Ltd; Archibald Russell Ltd; and Londonderry Collieries Ltd.
17. The five combined coal and ferrous metallurgical goods producing companies are: Butterley Iron & Coal Co. Ltd; William Baird & Co. Ltd; Cammell Laird & Co. Ltd; Consett Iron Co. Ltd; Ebbw Vale Steel, Iron & Coal Co. Ltd. Employment at the mines and quarries of these companies is published in the List of Mines, 1907 and List of Quarries, 1907. Employment data for the iron and steel works of these companies was drawn from a number of sources: for Cammell Laird, manufacturing employment for 1908, extracted from the directors' minute books, was kindly provided by Kenneth Warren; for Consett Iron, Kelly's Directory for County Durham, 1910; for Ebbw Vale, The Ebbw Vale Steel Iron and Coal Company, Limited (Sheffield, 1907), p.9; for Baird and for Butterley an estimate was made on the basis of furnaces in blast recorded in Mineral Statistics, 1907;
18. The five combined coal and ferrous metallurgical goods producing companies are: Butterley Iron & Coal Co. Ltd; William Baird & Co. Ltd; Cammell Laird & Co. Ltd; Consett Iron Co. Ltd; Ebbw Vale Steel, Iron & Coal Co. Ltd. Employment at the mines and quarries of these companies is published in the List of Mines, 1907 and List of Quarries, 1907. Employment data for the iron and steel works of these companies was drawn from a number of sources: for Cammell Laird, manufacturing employment for 1908, extracted from the directors' minute books, was kindly provided by Kenneth Warren; for Consett Iron, Kelly's Directory for County Durham, 1910; for Ebbw Vale, The Ebbw Vale Steel Iron and Coal Company, Limited (Sheffield, 1907), p.9; for Baird and for Butterley an estimate was made on the basis of furnaces in blast recorded in Mineral Statistics, 1907;
19. The five combined coal and ferrous metallurgical goods producing companies are: Butterley Iron & Coal Co. Ltd; William Baird & Co. Ltd; Cammell Laird & Co. Ltd; Consett Iron Co. Ltd; Ebbw Vale Steel, Iron & Coal Co. Ltd. Employment at the mines and quarries of these companies is published in the List of Mines, 1907 and List of Quarries, 1907. Employment data for the iron and steel works of these companies was drawn from a number of sources: for Cammell Laird, manufacturing employment for 1908, extracted from the directors' minute books, was kindly provided by Kenneth Warren; for Consett Iron, Kelly's Directory for County Durham, 1910; for Ebbw Vale, The Ebbw Vale Steel Iron and Coal Company, Limited (Sheffield, 1907), p.9; for Baird and for Butterley an estimate was made on the basis of furnaces in blast recorded in Mineral Statistics, 1907;
20. The five combined coal and ferrous metallurgical goods producing companies are: Butterley Iron & Coal Co. Ltd; William Baird & Co. Ltd; Cammell Laird & Co. Ltd; Consett Iron Co. Ltd; Ebbw Vale Steel, Iron & Coal Co. Ltd. Employment at the mines and quarries of these companies is published in the List of Mines, 1907 and List of Quarries, 1907. Employment data for the iron and steel works of these companies was drawn from a number of sources: for Cammell Laird, manufacturing employment for 1908, extracted from the directors' minute books, was kindly provided by Kenneth Warren; for Consett Iron, Kelly's Directory for County Durham, 1910; for Ebbw Vale, The Ebbw Vale Steel Iron and Coal Company, Limited (Sheffield, 1907), p.9; for Baird and for Butterley an estimate was made on the basis of furnaces in blast recorded in Mineral Statistics, 1907;
21. The five combined coal and ferrous metallurgical goods producing companies are: Butterley Iron & Coal Co. Ltd; William Baird & Co. Ltd; Cammell Laird & Co. Ltd; Consett Iron Co. Ltd; Ebbw Vale Steel, Iron & Coal Co. Ltd. Employment at the mines and quarries of these companies is published in the List of Mines, 1907 and List of Quarries, 1907. Employment data for the iron and steel works of these companies was drawn from a number of sources: for Cammell Laird, manufacturing employment for 1908, extracted from the directors' minute books, was kindly provided by Kenneth Warren; for Consett Iron, Kelly's Directory for County Durham, 1910; for Ebbw Vale, The Ebbw Vale Steel Iron and Coal Company, Limited (Sheffield, 1907), p.9; for Baird and for Butterley an estimate was made on the basis of furnaces in blast recorded in Mineral Statistics, 1907;
22. and for Stanton and for Staveley, Shaw, 'Large Manufacturing Employers', p.51.
23. Baldwins Ltd.
24. Employment by Cunard of its United Kingdom-based and ocean-going workforce has been estimated on the basis of the company's workforce in 1911 and relative tonnage in 1907 and 1911; D42\C1\124, 'Men Directly Employed', memo dated 25 Jan. 1911, Chairman's correspondence, Liverpool University Library.
25. The two insurance companies are the Prudential Assurance Company and the Pearl Assurance Company. The estimates of employees for these companies which appear in Table 1 are based on a close reading of their respective official company histories: L. Dennett, A Sense of Security: 150 Years of Prudential (London, 1998), and Anon., Pearl Assurance: An Illustrated History (London, 1990) (see, especially, pp.19-27, 47-73 and 107-14 which suggests that employment at the Pearl did not exceed 7,000 before 1914). David Jeremy provides alternative estimates of the number of employees for these two companies in his recent textbook, A Business History of Britain 1900-1990 (London, 1998), along with a conjecture that in 1914 the Refuge Assurance Company employed 5,000 employees and agents: I think 3,500 is more probable estimate for this company in 1907. I also think it likely that a similar number were employed in 1907 by the Manchester Ship Canal Company rather than the 10,000 employees reported in his table A.2 'The Largest Employers in the UK in 1907, 1935, 1955 and 1992', p.569.
26. The two insurance companies are the Prudential Assurance Company and the Pearl Assurance Company. The estimates of employees for these companies which appear in Table 1 are based on a close reading of their respective official company histories: L. Dennett, A Sense of Security: 150 Years of Prudential (London, 1998), and Anon., Pearl Assurance: An Illustrated History (London, 1990) (see, especially, pp.19-27, 47-73 and 107-14 which suggests that employment at the Pearl did not exceed 7,000 before 1914). David Jeremy provides alternative estimates of the number of employees for these two companies in his recent textbook, A Business History of Britain 1900-1990 (London, 1998), along with a conjecture that in 1914 the Refuge Assurance Company employed 5,000 employees and agents: I think 3,500 is more probable estimate for this company in 1907. I also think it likely that a similar number were employed in 1907 by the Manchester Ship Canal Company rather than the 10,000 employees reported in his table A.2 'The Largest Employers in the UK in 1907, 1935, 1955 and 1992', p.569.
27. The two insurance companies are the Prudential Assurance Company and the Pearl Assurance Company. The estimates of employees for these companies which appear in Table 1 are based on a close reading of their respective official company histories: L. Dennett, A Sense of Security: 150 Years of Prudential (London, 1998), and Anon., Pearl Assurance: An Illustrated History (London, 1990) (see, especially, pp.19-27, 47-73 and 107-14 which suggests that employment at the Pearl did not exceed 7,000 before 1914). David Jeremy provides alternative estimates of the number of employees for these two companies in his recent textbook, A Business History of Britain 1900-1990 (London, 1998), along with a conjecture that in 1914 the Refuge Assurance Company employed 5,000 employees and agents: I think 3,500 is more probable estimate for this company in 1907. I also think it likely that a similar number were employed in 1907 by the Manchester Ship Canal Company rather than the 10,000 employees reported in his table A.2 'The Largest Employers in the UK in 1907, 1935, 1955 and 1992', p.569.
28. Apart from the London & South Western Railway Company and the London & North Western Railway Company, the number of employees reported for the railway companies is as in Jeremy, 'The Hundred Largest Employers', except that Table 1 here provides the correct source for this information.
29. John Lysaght Ltd, another previously unrecorded industrial enterprise in this context, had almost 5,000 employees in 1908 and is ranked at 108 in Table 1; C. Harvey and J. Press (eds.), Studies in the Business History of Bristol (Bristol, 1988), pp.20, 31.
30. R.S. Edwards and H. Townsend, Business Enterprise: Its Growth and Organisation (London, 1965), p.66. The estimate presented here is based on output, employment and labour productivity data drawn from a variety of sources including: the report on the tobacco industry in the Final Report of the First Census of Production (1907) of the United Kingdom, p.538; employment records of the Imperial Tobacco Company now held at the Bristol Record Office (hereafter BRO) 38169/E/11; and B.W.E. Alford, W.D. & H.O. Wills and the Development of the UK Tobacco Industry, 1786-1965 (London, 1973), pp.292, 324. Interestingly, Lewis Johnman, in 'The Largest Manufacturing Companies', estimated the workforce of Imperial Tobacco, on the basis of similar information, as 30,000 in 1935; this corresponds exactly with the company's UK employment in 1937: BRO 8169/PB/279/1 Imperial Tobacco Co. (of Great Britain & Ireland), a booklet produced for shareholders.
31. R.S. Edwards and H. Townsend, Business Enterprise: Its Growth and Organisation (London, 1965), p.66. The estimate presented here is based on output, employment and labour productivity data drawn from a variety of sources including: the report on the tobacco industry in the Final Report of the First Census of Production (1907) of the United Kingdom, p.538; employment records of the Imperial Tobacco Company now held at the Bristol Record Office (hereafter BRO) 38169/E/11; and B.W.E. Alford, W.D. & H.O. Wills and the Development of the UK Tobacco Industry, 1786-1965 (London, 1973), pp.292, 324. Interestingly, Lewis Johnman, in 'The Largest Manufacturing Companies', estimated the workforce of Imperial Tobacco, on the basis of similar information, as 30,000 in 1935; this corresponds exactly with the company's UK employment in 1937: BRO 8169/PB/279/1 Imperial Tobacco Co. (of Great Britain & Ireland), a booklet produced for shareholders.
32. R.S. Edwards and H. Townsend, Business Enterprise: Its Growth and Organisation (London, 1965), p.66. The estimate presented here is based on output, employment and labour productivity data drawn from a variety of sources including: the report on the tobacco industry in the Final Report of the First Census of Production (1907) of the United Kingdom, p.538; employment records of the Imperial Tobacco Company now held at the Bristol Record Office (hereafter BRO) 38169/E/11; and B.W.E. Alford, W.D. & H.O. Wills and the Development of the UK Tobacco Industry, 1786-1965 (London, 1973), pp.292, 324. Interestingly, Lewis Johnman, in 'The Largest Manufacturing Companies', estimated the workforce of Imperial Tobacco, on the basis of similar information, as 30,000 in 1935; this corresponds exactly with the company's UK employment in 1937: BRO 8169/PB/279/1 Imperial Tobacco Co. (of Great Britain & Ireland), a booklet produced for shareholders.
33. R.S. Edwards and H. Townsend, Business Enterprise: Its Growth and Organisation (London, 1965), p.66. The estimate presented here is based on output, employment and labour productivity data drawn from a variety of sources including: the report on the tobacco industry in the Final Report of the First Census of Production (1907) of the United Kingdom, p.538; employment records of the Imperial Tobacco Company now held at the Bristol Record Office (hereafter BRO) 38169/E/11; and B.W.E. Alford, W.D. & H.O. Wills and the Development of the UK Tobacco Industry, 1786-1965 (London, 1973), pp.292, 324. Interestingly, Lewis Johnman, in 'The Largest Manufacturing Companies', estimated the workforce of Imperial Tobacco, on the basis of similar information, as 30,000 in 1935; this corresponds exactly with the company's UK employment in 1937: BRO 8169/PB/279/1 Imperial Tobacco Co. (of Great Britain & Ireland), a booklet produced for shareholders.
34. I am grateful to Andrew C. Godley for providing this information; see A. Godley, 'The Determinants and Impact of the Pioneering Foreign Direct Investment in British Manufacturing', Business History Review (forthcoming).
35. Whereas in 1907 86 and 27 coal companies employed more than 3,000 and 5,000 workers, respectively, in 1912 94 and 36 colliery companies employed corresponding labour forces: List of Mines, 1907, List of Mines, 1912; see also B. Supple. The History of the British Coal Industry: Volume 4, 1913-1946 (Oxford, 1987). p.303.
36. Whereas in 1907 86 and 27 coal companies employed more than 3,000 and 5,000 workers, respectively, in 1912 94 and 36 colliery companies employed corresponding labour forces: List of Mines, 1907, List of Mines, 1912; see also B. Supple. The History of the British Coal Industry: Volume 4, 1913-1946 (Oxford, 1987). p.303.
37. Whereas in 1907 86 and 27 coal companies employed more than 3,000 and 5,000 workers, respectively, in 1912 94 and 36 colliery companies employed corresponding labour forces: List of Mines, 1907, List of Mines, 1912; see also B. Supple. The History of the British Coal Industry: Volume 4, 1913-1946 (Oxford, 1987). p.303.
38. Wardley, 'The Anatomy of Big Business', p.278; excluding the General Post Office, a stateowned enterprise, the five largest railway companies which appear in Table 1 are also the five largest UK companies ranked by capital (as measured by market value).
39. The London & East India Dock Company and the Manchester Ship Canal Company; on the latter, see note 14.
40. Arthur Guinness, Son & Co. and Watney, Combe, Reid & Co. Ltd; ibid.
41. Brunner Mond and Co. Ltd.
42. A. Chandler, Scale and Scope: The Dynamics of Industrial Capitalism (Cambridge, MA,
43. See note 8 above.
44. C.H. Feinstein, National Income, Expenditure and Output of the United Kingdom, 1855-1965 (Cambridge, 1972), T126 suggests 18.98 million as an estimate of the total working population in 1907. Jeremy, who reports an aggregate workforce of 1,420,667, or 133,951 less than the total reported in Table 1, suggests the share of the 100 largest employers of the United Kingdom total labour force was 7.9 per cent rather than 7.5 per cent as suggested by Feinstein's data: 'Hundred Largest Employers', p.94. In other words, on a consistent basis, the revisions here raise the share of the 100 largest employers from 7.5 per cent to 8.2 per cent of the labour force employed in the United Kingdom.
45. C.H. Feinstein, National Income, Expenditure and Output of the United Kingdom, 1855-1965 (Cambridge, 1972), T126 suggests 18.98 million as an estimate of the total working population in 1907. Jeremy, who reports an aggregate workforce of 1,420,667, or 133,951 less than the total reported in Table 1, suggests the share of the 100 largest employers of the United Kingdom total labour force was 7.9 per cent rather than 7.5 per cent as suggested by Feinstein's data: 'Hundred Largest Employers', p.94. In other words, on a consistent basis, the revisions here raise the share of the 100 largest employers from 7.5 per cent to 8.2 per cent of the labour force employed in the United Kingdom.
46. Jeremy, 'Hundred Largest Employers', p.94.
47. See note 8 above.
48. For the data for 1912 contact the author.
49. Hannah, Rise of the Corporate Economy, pp.99-100. In this context the preceding sentence is also interesting: 'To attempt to identify "stages" in such gradual, evolutionary processes is perhaps arbitrary, but in this case we have good reason for settling a label on one important "stage".' In fairness to Hannah, it should be emphasised that his survey concentrates on the manufacturing sector.
50. L. Hannah, 'New Issues in British Business History', Business History Review, Vol.57 (1983), p.169.
51. Wardley, 'The Anatomy of Big Business', p.288.
52. M. Fiedler, 'Die grössten Unternehmen in Deutschland - nach der Zahl ihrer Beschäftigten - 1907, 1938, 1973 und 1995'. Zeitschrift für Unternehmensgeschichte, Vol.44 No.1 (1999, forthcoming).
53. J. Kocka and H. Siegrist, 'Die hundert grössten deutschen Industrieunternehmen im späten 19. und frühen 20. Jahrhundert: expansion, diversifikation und integration im internationalen Vergleich', in N. Horn and J. Kocka (eds.), Law and the Formation of the Big Enterprise in the 19th and early 20th Century (Göttingen, 1979), pp.55-121, especially pp.106-12.
54. This appears in the source column of Table 4 as: 'Fiedler add.'
55. A. Kunz, 'The State as Employer in Germany', in W.R. Lee and E. Rosenhaft (eds.), The State and Social Change in Germany, 1880-1980 (New York, 1990), pp.34-60; especially pp.37-8.
56. In this context, Edgerton and Horrocks identify the significant contribution of R&D to British industry and highlight, from an international comparative perspective, the general similarities in the discovery and application of scientific knowledge in German and British firms before 1914; D.E.H. Edgerton and S.M. Horrocks, 'British Industrial Research and Development before 1945', Economic History Review, Vol.47 (1994), pp.213-38;
57. B.R. Mitchell, 'Statistical Appendix 1920-1970', in C. Cipolla (ed.), Fontana Economic History of Europe, Vol. 6 (2) Contemporary Economies - 2 (London, 1976), p.658.
58. Tables 1 and 4.
59. R. Tilly, 'Mergers, External Growth, and Finance in the Development of Large-Scale Enterprise in Germany, 1880-1913', Journal of Economic History, Vol.42 (1982), pp.629-55, provides an analytical account of the consolidation of large German industrial firms, particularly in the mining and metal-producing sectors, to stress the modest contribution of external growth (merger or takeover) relative to internal expansion and the importance of horizontal rather than vertical integration.
60. For example, K. Borchardt, 'Germany 1700-1914', in C. Cipolla (ed.), Fontana Economic History of Europe, Vol. 4 Part 1: The Emergence of Industrial Societies - 1 (London, 1973), pp.76-160.
61. D.O. Whitten, The Emergence of Giant Enterprises, 1860-1914: American Commercial Enterprise and Extractive Industries (Connecticut, 1983), pp.83-5; citing R.B. Davies, Peacefully Working (London, 1976).
62. D.O. Whitten, The Emergence of Giant Enterprises, 1860-1914: American Commercial Enterprise and Extractive Industries (Connecticut, 1983), pp.83-5; citing R.B. Davies, Peacefully Working (London, 1976).
63. D.-W. Kim, 'J. & P. Coats as a Multinational before 1914', Business and Economic History, Vol.26 No.2 (1997), pp.526-39; Shaw, 'Large Manufacturing Employers', p.54, note 12.
64. D.-W. Kim, 'J. & P. Coats as a Multinational before 1914', Business and Economic History, Vol.26 No.2 (1997), pp.526-39; Shaw, 'Large Manufacturing Employers', p.54, note 12.
65. Kocka and Siegrist, 'Die hundert grössten deutschen', p.110; Table 4 above.
66. Statement of Andrew W. Preston, President of United Fruit before the Committee on the Merchant Marine and Fisheries of the House of Representatives, Washington DC on 27 Jan. 1913; reported in the United Fruit Corporation's Annual Report for 1912.
67. S. Pollard, 'Reflections on Entrepreneurship and Culture in European Societies', Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, 5th series, Vol.40 (1990), pp.153-73.
68. N.F.R. Crafts, 'Patterns of Development in Nineteenth Century Europe', Oxford Economic Papers, Vol.36 (1984), pp.438-58; S.N. Broadberry and R. Fremdling, 'Comparative Productivity in British and German Industry, 1907-37', Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, Vol.52 (1990), pp.403-21; S.N. Broadberry, 'Manufacturing and the Convergence Hypothesis: What the Long-Run Data Show', Journal of Economic History, Vol.53 (1993), pp.34-60.
69. N.F.R. Crafts, 'Patterns of Development in Nineteenth Century Europe', Oxford Economic Papers, Vol.36 (1984), pp.438-58; S.N. Broadberry and R. Fremdling, 'Comparative Productivity in British and German Industry, 1907-37', Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, Vol.52 (1990), pp.403-21; S.N. Broadberry, 'Manufacturing and the Convergence Hypothesis: What the Long-Run Data Show', Journal of Economic History, Vol.53 (1993), pp.34-60.
70. N.F.R. Crafts, 'Patterns of Development in Nineteenth Century Europe', Oxford Economic Papers, Vol.36 (1984), pp.438-58; S.N. Broadberry and R. Fremdling, 'Comparative Productivity in British and German Industry, 1907-37', Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, Vol.52 (1990), pp.403-21; S.N. Broadberry, 'Manufacturing and the Convergence Hypothesis: What the Long-Run Data Show', Journal of Economic History, Vol.53 (1993), pp.34-60.
71. For example, see the exchange between C. More, 'Reskilling and Labour Markets in Britain, c.1890-1940: Questions and Hypotheses', Historical Studies in Industrial Relations, Vol.2 (Sept. 1996), pp.93-110; and H. Gospel, 'Labour Markets and Skill Formation in Theory and Practice: A Reply to Charles More', Historical Studies in Industrial Relations, Vol.4 (Sept. 1997), pp.113-29.
72. For example, see the exchange between C. More, 'Reskilling and Labour Markets in Britain, c.1890-1940: Questions and Hypotheses', Historical Studies in Industrial Relations, Vol.2 (Sept. 1996), pp.93-110; and H. Gospel, 'Labour Markets and Skill Formation in Theory and Practice: A Reply to Charles More', Historical Studies in Industrial Relations, Vol.4 (Sept. 1997), pp.113-29.
73. Wardley, 'The Anatomy of Big Business', pp.287-8.