It also contains hyperlinks to selected references.
Robber baron industrialist Even before academic studies began, Americans were enthralled by the Robber baron debate.
As the United States industrialized very rapidly after the Civil War, a few hundred prominent men made large fortunes by building and controlling major industries, such as railroads, shipping, steel, mining and banking.
Yet the newer who gathered the most attention was railroader Cornelius Vanderbilt.
Historian Stephen Frazier argues that probably most Americans admired Vanderbilt; they agreed with biographer William Augustus Croffut who wrote in It is now known that the desire to own property is the chief difference between the Savage in the enlightened man; that aggregations of money in the hands of individuals are in inestimable blessing to Society, for without them there could be no public improvements or private enterprises, no railroads or steamships, or telegraphs; no cities, the leisure class, no schools, colleges, literature, art — in short, no civilization.
The one man to whom the community owes most is the capitalist, that the menu gives, but the man who saves and invests, so that his property reproduces and multiplies itself instead of being consumed.
A minority were irate and excoriated the titans of finance and industry as 'robber barons' and worse.
Godkinfounder of The Nationlaunched a volley of invective at the new plutocracy: Biographies of Mellon, Carnegie and Rockefeller were often laced with moral censure, warning that 'tories of industry' were a threat to democracy and that parasitism, aristocratic pretension and tyranny have always trailed in the wake of concentrated wealth, whether accumulated dynastically or more impersonally by the faceless corporation.
This scholarship, and the cultural persuasion of which it was an expression, drew on a deeply rooted sensibility—partly religious, partly egalitarian and democratic—that stretched back to William Jennings Bryan, Andrew Jackson and Tom Paine.
Business historian Allan Nevins challenged this view of big businessmen by advocating the "Industrial Statesman" thesis. Nevins, in his John D. The Heroic Age of American Enterprise 2 vols.
He argued that while Rockefeller may have engaged in some unethical and illegal business practices, this should not overshadow his bringing order to industrial chaos of the day. Gilded Age capitalists, according to Nevins, sought to impose order and stability on competitive business, and that their work made the United States the foremost economy by the 20th century.
Nevins argued that economic development in the United States caused relatively little human suffering, while raising the general standard of living and making the United States the great industrial power capable of defeating Germany in both world wars.
The great capitalists of that period should, he argued, be viewed, not as 'robber barons', but as men whose economic self-interest had played an essentially positive role in American history, and who had done nothing criminal by the standards of their time. Stiles, chronicling the lives and careers of such dominant figures as J.
Pierpont MorganJohn D.
RockefellerAndrew Carnegieand Cornelius Vanderbilt. Though these later biographers did not confer heroic status on their subjects, they used historical and biographical investigations to establish a more complex understanding of the American past, and the history of American economic development in particular.
In historian Hal Bridges finds that "The most vehement and persistent controversy in business history has been that waged by the critics and defenders of the 'robber baron' concept of the American businessman. Richard Whitehistorian of the transcontinental railroads, stated in he has no use for the concept, because it had been killed off by historians Robert Wiebe and Alfred Chandler.
He notes that "Much of the modern history of corporations is a reaction against the Robber Barons and fictions. He defined the field's subject matter and approach, wrote the first general treatise in the field, and helped Harvard build a tradition of scholarship as well as the leading library in the field.
He edited a series of monographs, the Harvard Studies in Business History. He also served as editor of the Bulletin of the Business Historical Society —a journal which later became the Business History Review date.
Grass and Henrietta M. Larson, Casebook in American business history defined the field for a generation. Scholars worked to develop theoretical explanations of the growth of business enterprise, the study of strategy and structure by Alfred Chandler being a prime example.
The relationship between business and the federal government became a focal point of study. On the whole, the s affirmed the conclusions of the earlier decades regarding the close interrelationship between government and business enterprise.
Chandler[ edit ] After the most influential scholar was Alfred D. Chandler at the Harvard Business School. In a career that spanned over sixty years, Chandler produced numerous groundbreaking monographs, articles, and reviews.
Intensely focused on only a few areas of the discipline, Chandler nonetheless succeeded in establishing and developing an entirely new realm of business history. The Managerial Revolution in American Business His first two chapters looked at traditional owner-operated small business operations in commerce and production, including the largest among them, the slave plantations in the South.
Chapters summarize the history of railroad management, with stress on innovations not just in technology but also in accounting, finance and statistics. He then turned to the new business operations made possible by the rail system in mass distribution, such as jobbers, department stores and mail order.
A quick survey ch 8 review mass innovation in mass production. The integration of mass distribution and mass production ch led to many mergers and the emergence of giant industrial corporations by Management for Chandler was much more than the CEO, it was the whole system of techniques and included middle management ch 11 as well as the corporate structure of the biggest firms, Standard Oil, General Electric, US Steel, and DuPont ch International business is defined as the transactions that are carried out across national borders to fulfill the objectives of individuals, companies and organizations.
The different modes by which international business is being done are import-export trade, foreign direct investment, licensing. Research Paper on Franchising. By Lauren Bradshaw. March 22, Sample Research Papers. Tags: business research papers, Decision Making Process research papers, essay on Franchising, Franchising term paper ← A Loss for Words Book Review Essay on Health and Social Care.
Province of the EASTERN CAPE EDUCATION NATIONAL SENIOR CERTIFICATE GRADE 11 NOVEMBER BUSINESS STUDIES MARKS: TIME: 3 . The marketing mix definition is simple. It is about putting the right product or a combination thereof in the place, at the right time, and at the right price.
The difficult part is doing this well, as you need to know every aspect of your business plan. What is the Purpose of Franchising?
Print Reference this. Disclaimer: This work has been submitted by a student. This is not an example of the work written by our professional academic writers. Business Essay Writing Service Free Essays More Business Essays Examples of Our Work Business Dissertation Examples.
Essays; We can help with your. Franchising Not all business ideas have to be original and instead you can use existing ideas to start a business. In order for this to happen the franchisor (the owner of the business providing the product and service) would need to provide a license to the franchisee (the individual in which these services and products are assigned to).