To effectively evaluate the historians that have long studied business history, one must first come to an understanding of what business history is and how it became a field of study unto itself. According to the Business History Review, there are many factors that come together to create the field of study known as business history, which have been formulated and speculated upon for most of the twentieth century. The Business Historians most likely to have been involved in this formulation are Thorstein Veblen, Wallace B. Donham, N.S.B. Gras, Henrietta Larson, Richard Overton, and Alfred D. Chandler. These respected theorists have been integral in defining the role of Business History as a discipline separate from economic history, while including aspects of Company History and, later, Technological History. Aspects looked at specifically by the Business History Review are the development of administrative methods, the growth of marketing and investment banking in business, histories and biographies of prominent businessmen and their firms, and the roles of management and labor in industry. These ideas are certainly present in business history, but business history is not only focused on the internal workings of the business world. The reaction of business to social changes has a direct influence on the outcome of many business decisions and occurrences. It is this relationship between the individual business and the society in which it resides that gives business history a direct link to societal change. Economic development is also a topic discussed in business history. Although the field of economic history is quite vast, the history of business cannot be discussed without looking also at the character of the economy at the same point in time. The point of business history is to effectively integrate the inner workings of business administration, social changes and economic developments. To evaluate and integrate these intricate details is the work of business historians and the focus must therefore be and essay on the historiography of business history.

      Economic systems have been studied in many different ways by many generations of philosophers and historians. Business history of the twentieth century is a new field used to evaluate economic systems and the business administration that is involved with these systems. To understand how administration functions, there must first be a clear understanding of economic history and how it differs from business history. Economic history began with the advent of the classical economists, the most famous from this genre being Adam Smith. The classical economists had an impact upon economic history by focusing on the distribution of wealth, although for the reason of theoretical study, not to work towards social welfare. While the classical economists did not benefit business history a great deal, it was Karl Marx, another classical economist, who gave the most to the field of business history. Marx later established a school which opposed the classical thinkers and propagated a new wave of economic thought. This new way of thinking emphasized the historical aspect of economic history, giving an evolutionary pattern to a field whose primary concern was essentially to describe the development of economic law. The way that historical thought was incorporated into economic theory created a breakthrough for economic history, and brought closer the offshoot of business history. It was the way that Marx developed his theory of labor, though, that excluded the discussion of capitalism and the individual business man, thus ending his association with the development of business history. It has been this continual dismissal of the individual businessman that overshadowed the advancements made in historical thought by Marx.

      A total dismissal of the classical economists was made in England. This dismissal was essentially a reform of social welfare as a reaction to the post industrial society. Robert Owen, an English businessman, was the first to effectively challenge the classical economists and speak out about the effects of industry on labor. While these English economists were essentially social reformers, the way that they focused on the administration in economic systems was truly the first evidence of a need for a separate business history, branching off of the already existing economic history. John Hobson, another English economist in the late nineteenth century, was following the ideas of Owen and integrating history into his theories. While Hobson was an originator of historical thought through economics, the first American thinker to acknowledge business administration as an important economic factor was Thorstein Veblen. Veblen created a new way of thinking that was adopted by other American thinkers and stimulated the creation of American Business History. The publication of The Theory of Business Enterprise in 1904, a book written by Thorstein Veblen, turned many economists attentions to issues of social welfare and reform, as well as the importance of business administration. Veblen did not make any new revelations about factual information pertaining to business administration or business enterprise, but did present a new point of view as to how business and economics could be examined by an economist. The ideas presented by Veblen stressed the importance of industry on the United States economy, and the relation it had to business administration. Also directly linked to the industry of America, according to Veblen, was the view that consumption is motivated by social survival which provokes envy and, ultimately, greed. The work of Veblen did not directly create the field known as Business History, but neither did his predecessors. It was a natural progression for economists to want to examine business administration, labor and industry, but for most of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries there was no need for a separate field of study.

      The first half of the twentieth century was a period of vast development and ascension for the field of business history. Business history was taught indirectly as a part of economic history and not considered a field of its own at the turn of the century. There was no specialty in the field, discounting the work of journalists, who were the informal originators of business history through their examination of business administration. The accounts of journalists were not credible, being biased and unreliable at a time when big business reigned. It is this unreliability that brought a need for a new system of record keeping in business. It was from an indirect relation to economic history that gave the formal examination of business history a start as an academic pursuit, in the vein of Veblen and Hobson. The founding of Business History as an individual, academic pursuit would be credited to Wallace B. Donham. Unlike those who studied Business History through economics, Donham was a banker with an academic background in law. He was the dean of the Harvard University Business School from 1919 to 1942 and developed a new plan for business education to be taking place at Harvard University. Donham came upon the name Business History by accident, his real pursuit simply being a curriculum for business education. While evaluating the present curriculum, Donham found a lack of real life situations integrated into the economic curriculum. What was needed was a curriculum that featured examples of real life business situations and cases. Business education was in need of a wider vision and Donham responded by actively pursuing his goals. Unlike law, business professionals were vastly unskilled in ethics and social issues. Donham established a viewpoint very much like that of Veblen and Hobson in that he felt that social welfare was just as important as formal economic operations. Only historical insight into past business dealings could give business students an idea of how to operate successfully in the business field, bypassing the many years of experience needed to gain that knowledge. Donham formally acknowledged his new curriculum with the advent of the Business Historical Society in 1925. It was at this point that the Society began collecting information on business that would be the building blocks of the profession for the rest of the century.

      Professor N.S.B. Gras, an economic historian, was the first to properly examine the field of business history. Gras was handpicked by Donham to head the new field of Business History. Gras was an economic historian, with no business background, but he had a strong desire to undertake the new position. He was prominent in this field as early as 1939 and came from Harvard University. Gras would be the foremost authority on Business History for the first half of the twentieth century. This came only after expressing a concern and dismay at the blandness of American economic history teachings, citing a lack of controversy in the writings. In 1925, the enthusiasm expressed by Gras resulted in the founding of the Business Historical Society, the new foundation for business history. Gras did not work alone when developing his theories on Business History. Edward Edleman, Kenneth W. Porter, Charles W. Moore, J. Owen Stalson, Charles Sterling Popple,and George Gibb were all names that were associated with Gras and his new endeavor. Shortly after this, Gras took the position of American Chair of Business History at Harvard University in 1927. Gras completed his goal of bringing business history to the consciousness of the historical community in 1928, with the initial publication of the Journal of Economic and Business History. Edwin S. Gay was named as the editor of the journal and Gras was the managing editor. The two Harvard Professors had a disagreement over editorial policy in 1931, though, and resolved the matter by removing Gay as editor and instituting Gras. Financial woes in 1932 soon gave the Journal a serious danger of ending publication, with support for the Journal wavering. The publication did end in 1932, soon after the problems began.

      The best way to show the attitudes of N.S.B. Gras would be to examine the two books that he published on Business History. The books are based exclusively in Business History, Business and Capitalism: An Introduction to Business History, published in 1939, and, co authored with Henrietta M. Larson, Casebook in American Business History, also published in 1939. These works were published simultaneously, in order to structure a comprehensive syllabus and sourcebook for the teaching of the subject of business history. At the time, Gras was a Professor of Business History and Larson was an Assistant Professor of Business History, both at the Harvard School of Business Administration. Gras keeps the focus narrow in the two books, never dealing directly with the economic history of business. His focus tends to stay with the administration of and the decisions made by those in business. This enabled those who first encountered the subject of Business History to have an uninterrupted view of the goals of Business History. Nevertheless, Gras presents capitalism as a major factor in understanding Business History. Private capitalism is stressed in Business and Capitalism, including sections on petty, mercantile, industrial, financial, and national capitalism. Gras frames the history of business around these five types of private capitalism.

      Ten years after Gras discussed capitalism in regards to business history, Henrietta Larson, his co author of Casebook in American Business History, was looking more directly at the individual businesses and businessmen that were prevalent in American business history. Capitalism was not as major a factor in the discussion of this topic in the works of Henrietta Larson. In 1947, Larson authored an article that summarized the current state of business history entitled “Business History: Retrospect and Prospect”. It was published in the Bulletin of the Business Historical Society, based at Harvard University. The Bulletin of the Business Historical Society was started in June of 1926, edited by Business Historical Society secretary Frank C. Ayers. This Bulletin eventually became the Business History Review, one of the seminal sources for information on business history, in March of 1954. It was an offshoot of the Business Historical Society that was founded by Wallace B. Donham, but was established as a separate entity from the Journal of Economic and Business History. The change of name came in 1954, and it was directly attributed to the work of the faculty of Harvard University and especially to their Business School faculty. N.S.B. Gras and Henrietta Larson were among those directly involved with the change.

      Henrietta Larson was a member of the Harvard University faculty as early as 1928 and became the first woman to attain the status of full professor at Harvard. Not only a boost for Business History, but a true landmark in the history of women’s rights, the appointment of Larson cemented the position of Business History at Harvard University and made Harvard the center for the world of Business History. Henrietta Larson enjoyed a diverse academic background, giving her a broad scope in her evaluation of Business History. After completing undergraduate work in English, History and Chemistry, Larson went on to receive an M.A. in Sociology and a Ph.D. in History. Henrietta Larson initially came to Harvard University at the request of N.S.B. Gras, when he was asked by Dean Wallace B. Donham to establish a course program in Business History. Accepting the position, Larson helped to create the premier Business History curriculum at the Harvard Business School. This was in 1927, thus being the year that could be attributed to the birth of Business History. The position of editor of the Bulletin of the Business Historical Society became open in 1938 when Frank C. Ayers stepped down. Larson accepted the position and stayed as editor until December of 1953. The key similarity that Larson and Gras shared was the viewpoint that the individual was the key to the history of the business world. The definition of business history articulated by Larson did echo what Gras established at Harvard University.

      By saying that Harvard University was the center of the Business History world in the first half of the twentieth century is an understatement. While economic historians had a lack of interest in the field of Business History, other historical disciplines did not contribute, either. Business history should give students an insight into the world of business and the methods of business world. The history should also focus on the changes and mistakes made in business, and what was done to rectify those mistakes and implement those changes. The ideas of Larson resonate in the many articles published in the Bulletin of the Business Historical Society in that they articulate what period of history is being looked at; more specifically, the recent history that could be examined through company records, as well as biographies of prominent and influential businessmen.

      Gras has contended that economic historians, who had before this point handled business history exclusively, should not handle business history. The creation of the field of Business History eliminated the school of thought that concentrated solely on economic theory. Gras insisted that the dominance of economic historians would destroy the business history stance held by he and his colleagues. The administration, their decisions and the individual businessman would ultimately be ignored by economic historians, according to Gras. Whether this would have ultimately come true, it is not known. The work of the business historians made sure that a new focus, business archives, would ensure a safe combination of economics and individual decision making. Before the work of business historians, business archives had been ignored and unused. The work of business historians would bring about a new focus on business archives that would encourage the businesses of the present to keep better records and aid them in their work. An important use of the records kept by the firms and businesses was the implementing of cases in the teachings of the Business History Professors. The teaching of business history was originated by N.S.B. Gras, who used case histories to demonstrate the business world in development. The subject matter was of the real world, giving students a firmer grasp of what they were learning. It was this belief that kept Gras from integrating the history of economics wholly into the curriculum as well. Gras did observe at the beginning of his business history sojourn that economic historians did not observe business history as a discipline. By the late 1940’s, Gras acknowledged that economic historians were beginning to view business history as a credible discipline. The study of Business History at this point was split into two schools of thought: one that focused on business history as a discipline unto itself and another school that saw it as an offshoot of economic history. But, after the unfortunate death of N.S.B. Gras in the 1950’s, only Henrietta Larson was left to continue in his footsteps.

      It was in 1958 that the major players in Business History came together for the 1958 Business History Conference at Harvard University. It was at this meeting that a consensus was reached about the importance of Company History and the relevance it held in Business History. While no one could disagree that Company History played an important part in the history of business, it was felt that the business historians of the 1950’s were getting too far away from the original vision of Dean Wallace B. Donham and N.S.B. Gras. In 1961, at the 1961 Business History Conference at Harvard University, there was a feeling that the issues raised in 1958 had to be addressed. It was at the 1961 conference that the role of Business History was re established as a discipline meant to include many facets of the history of economic life. This was simply what was established as the definition of Business History in the 1930’s, but Business Historians drifted away from this definition. Instead, many found themselves simply documenting company histories and not intellectually evaluating the information.

      When looking at Company History, the multi volume series of books chronicling the history of Standard Oil Company of New Jersey stands out as being the most in depth and concise of this genre. This project was the result of an article written by Henrietta Larson entitled “Danger in Business History’, which appeared in the Harvard Business Review in the Spring of 1944. This article was the first hint that Company History should be expanded upon by the Business Historians of the day and that it had been previously ignored. Company History was not going to be ignored any longer, but would be expanded upon in such depth that Business History would nearly be overtaken by it, as proved by the 1961 Business History Conference. The Standard Oil Company of New Jersey contacted Larson after publication of this article and expressed interest in getting a multi volume history of their firm written by Larson and Gras. Larson and Gras obliged and work on this study began. This project began with Larson making a survey of all company records, which took eleven months to complete, as well as a survey of their affiliates records. To properly continue the project, the Business History Foundation, Inc. was formed. This was done in part to sponsor the Standard Oil project. This Foundation was put together by Larson and Gras, who were also the principal historians behind this Standard Oil project.

      While Henrietta Larson was elected a trustee and treasurer of the Business History Foundation, she picked the authors and researchers to help complete the Standard Oil history. The death of N.S.B. Gras left the majority of responsibility on Larson, and the development of the Standard Oil history extended well into the 1960’s, with the first volume appearing in 1955 and the second volume in 1956. The third volume was finished with the aid of Evelyn H. Knowlton and Sterling Popple, early allies of the Business History community. The completed, final version of the history of Standard Oil appeared in 1971 as “New Horizons 1927-1950: History of Standard Oil Company New Jersey”. This book influenced the shift in the direction of Business History towards Company History in the 1950’s, and influenced other Business Historians to undertake similar tasks.

      When Gras and Larson decided to undertake the task of writing the first history of a major corporation, they did not have any other works to fall back on to use as a template. There are two schools of thought that developed out of the Company History field which were established by Gras and Larson in their history of Standard Oil Company. These ideas were developed and popularized by Gras and Larsons followers in the 1950’s and dismissed in the early 1960’s. The first school of thought was known as sectionalism or regionalism. The ideas of these historians stressed the idea of the corporation as part of an urban center, or region of commerce. Many times, as a business evaluates its own feasibility, it will look exclusively at regional economic development. When writing a history of a corporation, a Business Historian should keep this viewpoint in mind, but many look at this exclusively as the definitive part of the business world. An example of this phenomena is the book by Richard C. Overton, entitled Burlington West: A Colonization History of the Burlington Road, published in 1941.

      Spatial integration is another way that Business Historians look at the documentation of Company History, by way of looking at the histories of local businesses. It is seen that in the 1950’s there was a great interest in the amateur arena, shown in the writings about the topic. At the time, though, there was no organization for local historians or local business record keepers to follow, and much information was lost this way. The best work in this specialized field which was geared to a local market, would be by Edward G. Kirkland. This book, Men, Cities, and Transportation, A Study in New England History, from 1948, is an intriguing look at the workings of local business machines. The lack of effort in most of these historical accounts would seem to be caused by a lack of financial capital, not a lack of ideas or intellect. There would be no real scholarly account of local history until late in the twentieth century. By looking at the spatial integration theory and the sectionalist theory, there is a better understanding of the success rate of some of these company histories, and the reasons behind the failures and successes of those histories.

      By 1961, the relationship between this Company History and Business History was beginning to be dealt with by the Business Historians. Thomas Cochran, Fritz Redlich and Arthur Cole were the foremost authorities on Business History at the 1961 Business History Conference, and the three of them reaffirmed the definition of Business History and how it was relevant to the other disciplines. They all seemed in agreement at this point that the term Business History was being used very informally, with the real implication being that to use the heading of Business History was to simply have business, administration, or the firm as the central focus of interest. Redlich suggests that the term History of Business may be more appropriate for what is happening in the field at the moment.

      Another problem that arose at the 1961 Business History Conference was the fact that most historians located in a business school were isolated from other scholarly fields, giving the Business Historian a more narrow point of view. It seems that by the time Business History reached the 1960’s, there was a need to branch out and make ties with liberal arts curriculum and make a more direct relationships with businesses. Both Northwestern and Michigan State had taken steps to try and integrate the curriculum in the field of Business History with that of the liberal arts school and curriculum. The study of the interaction between business and society had become underdeveloped. This had become a problem in the years following Professor Gras’ initial inclusion of this theory into his definition of Business History. By bringing the liberal arts into the present Business History curriculum, a new wave of Business Historian could be created that would look equally at the administration of business and the social implications of decisions made by the administration.

      The field of Business History faced a realization in the early 1960’s that Business History might not be able to sustain itself as a separate field, apart from economic and labor history. With the dominance of Big Business and Company History at this time, there was a definite lack of new Business Historians that concentrated on the entire spectrum of ideas contained within the parameters of Business History. What was previously done when recruiting Business Historians was to take interested parties from other fields and have them integrate their previous knowledge into what was being discussed in the Business History field. This had been done early on with N.S.B. Gras and his recruitment from Economic History by Wallace B. Donham in 1927. The life of Business History since then had been made up of the work of many different kinds of intellects and businessmen. Sociology, History and Economics are all fields that have been helpful in developing Business History, as well as helping to sustain it. The help given by these fields is not received on a long term basis, so there are very few major players in the Business History world. By the time of the 1960 Business History convention, this problem was becoming more apparent as there were only three attendees who were specifically Business Historians by practice: Thomas Cochran, Fritz Redlich and Arthur Cole.

      The problem beginning to arise in Business History at this point was the lack of specialization in the field, which brought about an end to the collaborative process that had to take place between the disciplines. By having the schools of business and liberal arts collaborate, much more information could be added to Business History research. By the 1960’s, research was lacking and many reforms had to take place in order for the field to advance. The studies done in Business History needed refining and more specialized records had to be kept by firms and businesses. Another stumbling block in Business History was a lack of readable and understandable publications. While the Business History Review published many articles and book reviews that were understandable for the lay population, many books and research documents were unintelligible to the common man. These unreadable documents were of use only to those deeply involved in the Business History discipline. The lay audience was not being considered in the work of Business Historians, thus eliminating a large portion of interest and financial support for the field.

      The way that Business History was being taught at Harvard University, the foremost authority on the discipline, was lacking in variation and sufficient content at this point. By the 1960’s, the case study approach was becoming outdated, but professors were not interested in giving up their time tested methods of instructing. If Business History was to continue as a separate field after 1960, there had to be a new method of teaching implemented. A concern for professors interested in classroom reform was the lack of materials available in textbook format. The only previous text was Business and Capitalism: An Introduction to Business History by N.S.B. Gras. Although this text was thought to be the definitive work available in Business History, a new text was needed to broaden the case study approach to include more humanistic characteristics. Even without the updated text, the most troubling problem in Business History that became apparent at the 1960 Business History Conference was the lack of communication between Business Historians. Even though there was little communication between the liberal arts and business schools, the gap was widening between those in the profession itself. Business Historians were so out of touch with each other that at the conference, there was little knowledge about what the other historians were doing and what kind of research was happening. To effectively make Business History relevant again, there had to be reforms made in teaching, research and communication.

      The enthusiasm for Business History was prevalent throughout the 1960’s and continued into the 1970’s, as many books were published in the years 1965 to 1970. Many of the books published were based in Company History, or were biographies of famed businessmen and families. Out of the hundreds of books published, only a small number deal directly with Business History and add any historical insight to an overly exhausted genre. Many of the authors are not well known, only writing for the common reader. While there needs to be mention of Business History in the lay world, these types of books hold no scholarly merit upon further reading. Several prominent writers came out of this period, bringing about a new level of consistency in their research and writings. Those writers and researchers included James Baughman, Heather Gilbert, W.H. Hutchinson, E.C. Kirkland, Sheila Marriner, Francis Hyde, Alice Smith and Leonard Swann. These authors published books and articles that gave an in depth look at the lives of great businessmen, while also examining the effects that business had on the society and the region that they were based in. This viewpoint gave scholarly validation to the authors, setting them apart from the rest of the work coming out in the 1960’s and 1970’s. It also established a setting for a new generation of Business Historians. These new historians could then set up a system of teaching that would de emphasize the case study method and bring new texts to the classroom.

      Following the trailblazing book by Henrietta Larson, New Horizons 1927-1950: History of Standard Oil, there were no other company histories that tried to match that in terms of research and effort. In 1965, one history did emerge that rivaled the work of Larson and her associates. That work was entitled Burlington Route: A History of the Burlington Lines, and was written by Richard Overton. Overton was a famed Company Historian and Business Historian who also authored the book Burlington West: A Colonization History of Burlington Road in 1941. The work of Overton was very clear and readable, giving both the Business History expert and the common reader an understanding of the railways west of Chicago. This book was among the first to point the reader to other company histories and gives a good overview of many of the great rail companies, without compromising the main idea or detracting from any academic information. The Overton volume did a great service to the Business History profession by establishing an even greater standard of excellence in research and also in interdisciplinary discussion. Other conferences began to appear that would foster more discussion between Business Historians and promote the Business History discipline on a broader scale. There was now a Midwest Business History Conference and an Economic and Business History session of the Southwestern Social Science Association meeting. Now, a dialogue could be kept between those in the Business History field, giving Business Historians a better idea of what was going on in research and teaching methods.

      By the time the year 1971 arose, the final volume of the Standard Oil history was completed by Henrietta Larson, aided by Evelyn Knowlton and Sterling Popple, and Overton had had his books out for a number of years. Amid these great research projects came The History of Unilever: Challenge and Response in the Post War Industrial Revolution. Authored by Charles Wilson, this book brought about another great accomplishment for Business History. To broaden the scope of Business History, some authors and researchers tackled topics that had not been discussed before in the field. Frontier businessmen and businesses had just begun to be looked at by historians during the late 1960’s and early 1970’s. This topic was often discussed in Urban History and Western History, but never before in Business History. Perhaps the most influential of the Business History authors dealing with the frontier was Richard Swierenga. The book by Swierenga, Pioneers and Profits: Land Speculation on the Iowa Frontier, showed a definite dramatic flair that could be introduced to a mass audience. In addition to Frontier History, corporate public relations also made an appearance in the literature of Business History. Although both were sub genres of Business History, they demonstrated the variety that was beginning to influence the Business Historians of the 1960’s.

      The influence of these books brought Business History a new assurance of survival that was unthinkable during the 1950’s, when mediocre Company History dominated the academic landscape. The 1970’s emerged as a fruitful time, giving Business History some of its finest quality academic literature and giving students a better foundation on which to learn upon. This was the main concern at the 1960 Business History Conference at Harvard University and it was solved by the great researchers, writers and teachers that emerged from that era

      Emerging from the golden era of Business History was Alfred Dupont Chandler, Jr., now a Professor at Harvard University. Chandler made a career out of publishing in depth and analytical books based in Business History, on a par with the work of N.S.B. Gras and Henrietta Larson. The first book by Chandler that caught the attention of the Business History world was Strategy and Structure: Chapters in the History of the Industrial Enterprise. In Strategy and Structure, Chandler looks at only large, multi division corporations that had been influential in American business enterprise. The four corporations that Chandler examined were Dupont, General Motors, Sears and Roebuck, and Standard Oil Company of New Jersey. These corporations formed the core of American big business in the twentieth century. By comparing the four company histories and strategies together in one large research project, Chandler brought new ideas and theories to the Business History community. This comparison brought about the idea that structure follows strategy, something that all Business Historians considered and integrated into their own work later in the twentieth century.

      Strategy and Structure was certainly not the last thing that Alfred Chandler contributed to Business History. While attaining the status of Isidor Straus Professor, Emirtus at Harvard Business School, Chandler wrote many more books and essays. Throughout the rest of the twentieth century, the work of Chandler consistently challenged and influenced other Business Historians to grow as researchers and writers. By the late 1970’s, Chandler had finished what was to become his finest Business History text, The Visible Hand: The Managerial Revolution in American Business History. This revolutionary work focused on two facets of American Business History, the years before 1850 and those after 1850. By examining such a large period of time, Chandler undertook a major challenge, forgoing Company History to create a text on a par with the N.S.B. Gras text from 1939, Business and Capitalism: An Introduction to Business History. The overall message that Alfred Chandler seems to express in The Visible Hand is that the Business History field is not a result of evolving management systems, but simply the creation of those systems. This first, all encompassing look at Business History was the definitive Business History text in the 1980’s. By being so broad in terms of content, Chandler wrote a book that could appeal to many different disciplines, thus making Business History more marketable and attractive to researchers and writers.

      A new aspect of Business History not examined before the 1970’s was the effect of technology on business. Most of the history dealing with technology before this time was researched in an isolated setting, not related to the other historical disciplines. The type of technology discussed in Business History before the 1970’s dealt mainly with the different modes of production and doing things in new ways, as was examined in the Arthur Cole book, Business Enterprise in Its Social Setting. The best representations of technology in modern business had been viewed, up to this point, in the works of Alfred Dupont Chandler and David Landes. Landes wrote The Unbound Prometheus: Technological Change and Industrial Development in Western Europe from 1750 to the Present. This was the first attempt to synthesize Business History and Technological History. While this book did not include American Business History in the ideas presented, it did set a precedent for the integration of technology into a Business History setting. Alfred Chandler dealt with the relationship between technology and American business earlier than Landes, incorporating these themes into his famed books The Visible Hand and Strategy and Structure. The perspective in the works of Chandler did not focus on technology as Landes did, but those who wrote about technology and business were ultimately influenced by both authors. Most of the books dealing with American Business History that came after Landes were basically Company Histories that dealt with a technologically advanced firm or company. An example of this is Images and Enterprise: Technology and the American Photographic Industry, 1839 to 1925, written by Reese V. Jenkins. Presenting research about technological changes that occurred in the photographic industry, it was among the best of the technologically based Company Histories.

      The important change in Business History methods came as a direct result of the work of Chandler and Landes. Instead of fixating on one particular activity or product, the focus became a decentralized firm or company, with many divisions, including technological departments. This decentralization occurred as a result of the dependence of the firm on a single industry or technology. The firms needed research that would help them form long term objectives, instead of aimlessly forging ahead with their technical advancements. Although technology had been an important facet of Business History in the past, Chandler became influential to other historians by directly confronting the issue. Chandler also succeeded in pointing out the dangers of letting businesses in the twentieth century integrate technology into previously existing structures without proper guidance.

      The Business History field had grown drastically in the years following the 1961 Business History Conference at Harvard University. After the assessment taken at that meeting, the profession began to broaden itself and gain more scholarly validity in the writings of more capable Business History Professors, Sociologists, Historians and Businessmen. This upswing continued through the 1970’s and 1980’s as the work of Alfred Chandler spawned many excellent texts, eventually helping to create a new form of Technological History in the late 1970’s. Business History had become a successful field of study, but the emphasis was still on big business and large corporations at the dawn of the 1990’s.

      The study of small business had long been overlooked by the Business History community and there was little interest in pursuing the field by Business Historians. As far back as 1970, when Business History was experiencing an upswing in scholarly validity, there was a need for better understanding of the changes that took place in small businesses. These small businesses accounted for a large part of the economic health of the country, and the study of small business would increase the validity of Business History theories and research. The attention paid to big business was well deserved, as big business did transform the American business systems. In response to big business, small businesses had more of a continuity that ebbed and flowed. After twenty years passed, and the 1990’s began to dawn, the interest of Business Historians in the study of small business slowly increased and the field began to be recognized as an important part of Business History. A problem with the study of small business seemed to be the problem Business Historians faced at the beginning of the twentieth century: there was no agreed upon definition of what a small business should be. The Small Business Association, which was set up in 1953, ruled that a small business is one that is run independently and is not a dominant force in the specified field. In the 1980’s, the Small Business Association defined a small business as a firm with five hundred employees or less. While the specifics were clear, the Business History field would be looking at small business in more general terms, giving credence to the 1953 definition of a small business.

      The first Business Historian to even hint at small business and the importance of the small business in American business systems was Alfred Dupont Chandler. Chandler included the small business, albeit in a general fashion, in his book The Visible Hand. While small business was not a direct concern in The Visible Hand, Chandler was the first Business Historian to include such ideas in a general overview of the history of business. Most of what Chandler discussed about small businesses was the fact that they were the dominant force in business before 1850. According to K. Austin Kerr, the twentieth century had been a bad time for the small business, giving way to the dominant big businesses. The decline of small businesses continued from 1950 to 1972, accounting for the lack of interest from Business Historians in this topic. The late 1970’s and 1980’s saw small business come back from its decline with a sharp upswing, giving Business Historians cause to take more interest in doing research on the subject in the 1990’s.

      By the 1990’s, the end of the twentieth century was near. To give Business History a final authoritative text, Alfred Dupont Chandler published Scale and Scope: The Dynamics of Industrial Capitalism. This book served as a closing statement for the Business History of the twentieth century. While Chandler continues to do research and publish books through the current year (Alfred Chandler has a book coming out in June of 2000 entitled A Nation Transformed by Information: How It Has Shaped The United States from Colonial Times to the Present), Scale and Scope served as a companion to Chandler’s other supreme text, The Visible Hand. Scale and Scope presented the history of the top manufacturing companies of the twentieth century, starting in 1880 and running up until 1940. It was the result of ten years of research and writing, a marvelous achievement for a man who had been writing on the subject for thirty years. This, like the other works of Chandler, dealt with many general ideas and theories, making it essential reading for Business Historians coming from any other discipline. Alfred Dupont Chandler was the most noted and respected Business Historian in the later part of the twentieth century. By publishing the definitive texts on the subject of Business History, he puts himself on a par with the other greats of Business History: Donham, Gras and Larson. At the turn of the century, the Harvard Professor most likely to carry on with Alfred Chandler’s work was Thomas K. McCraw, Isidor Straus Professor of Business History at Harvard Business School. McCraw had edited a collection of works by Alfred Chandler, entitled The Essential Alfred Chandler. This book has proven to be the ultimate source for the theories of Chandler, containing sixteen essays and introductions to the three major books that Chandler authored, in addition to a brief biography of Alfred Chander himself. The Pulitzer Prize was also bestowed on McCraw in 1985, for History. It seems that he will become the next great theorist in the Business History world.

      The end of the twentieth century also signals the end of the first century of Business History. Through the work of Thorstein Veblen, Dean Wallace B. Donham, N.S.B. Gras, Henrietta Larson and Alfred Dupont Chandler, Jr., the history of business has grown from an offshoot of Economic History to a fully recognized historical discipline. Though a fallow period in the 1950’s marked a low point for the profession, from the 1960’s onward there was a consistent rise in scholarly quality of research, teachings and writings. The Harvard Business School continues to foster Business History and the Business Historians that are currently working in the field. The Business History Review continues to be an invaluable resource in the Business History field, unwavering in its dedication to bringing the best research and articles to the Business History community. The Business History Review is still the best way for those within the Business History community to communicate and share ideas with one another. The current editor is Thomas K. McCraw, the noted author and Business Historian. The objective of the Business Historian has been, throughout the twentieth century, to evaluate and integrate the ideas of business administration, social changes and economic developments. This is an ongoing process that will continue to record the history of business as long as there is a business to record.

**************************Endnotes:***********************

“Journal Goals”, Business History Review, II (1954): last page R.R. Wohl, “The Significance of Business History,” Business History Review, II (1954): 128

Chester Whitney Wright, Economic History of the United States, (New York, 1949), 190

Henrietta Larson, “Business History: Retrospect and Prospect,” Bulletin of the Business Historical Society, XXI (1947): 175 Henrietta Larson, 175 Henrietta Larson, 175 Henrietta Larson, 176 Henrietta Larson, 177

Thorstein Veblen, The Theory of Business Enterprise, (New York, 1904), 3 Thorstein Veblen, 27

R.R. Wohl., 135 R.R. Wohl, 128 Henrietta Larson, 186 Henrietta Larson, 186 Henrietta Larson, 187 Henrietta Larson, 187

N.S.B. Gras, “The Rise and Development of Economic History,” Economic History Review, I (1927), 29

R.R. Wohl, 129 Henrietta Larson, 189 R.R. Wohl,, 129

Muriel E. Hidy and Ralph W. Hidy. “Henrietta Larson: An Appreciation”, Business History Review. XXXVI (1962), 6 Muriel E. Hidy, 6

N.S.B. Gras and Henrietta M. Larson, Casebook in American Business History, (New York, 1939), V N.S.B. Gras and Henrietta Larson, Title Page Henrietta Larson, 173 Muriel E. Hidy, 8

Muriel E. Hidy And Ralph W. Hidy. “Henrietta M. Larson: An Appreciation,” Business History Review, XXXVI (1962), 3 Muriel E. Hidy, 4-5 Muriel E. Hidy, 6 Muriel E. Hidy, 8 Muriel E. Hidy, 7 Henrietta Larson, 173 Henrietta Larson, 173-4 Henrietta Larson, 173

N.S.B. Gras, “Past, Present, and the Future of the Business Historical Society,” Bulletin of the Business Historical Society, XXIV (1950), 10

N.S.B. Gras “Past…”, 10 R.R. Wohl, 131 Henrietta Larson, 187 Henrietta Larson, 188 Henrietta Larson, 188 Muriel E. Hidy, 10

Arthur M. Johnson, “Conference on the History or American Business,” Business History Review, XXXIII (1959), 204-210 Arthur M. Johnson, 204-210 Arthur M. Johnson, “Where Does Business History Go From Here?,” Business History Review, XXXVI (1962), 12 Henrietta Larson. “Danger in Business History,” Harvard Business Review, XVIII (1944) Arthur M. Johnson, “Where Does…..,” 12 Muriel E. Hidy, 8 Muriel E. Hidy, 8 Muriel E. Hidy, 9 Muriel E. Hidy, 9 Muriel E. Hidy, 10 Henrietta Larson, et al. New Horizons 1927 - 1950: History of Standard Oil Company New Jersey. (1971) R.R. Wohl, 133 R.R. Wohl, 133 Richard C. Overton, Burlington West: A Colonization History of the Burlington Road (Cambridge, 1941) R.R. Wohl, 133 Edward C. Kirkland, Men, Cities and Transportation, A Study in New England History, Vol. 1 and 2 , (Cambridge, 1948) Arthur M. Johnson “Where Does Business….,” 14 Arthur M. Johnson “Where Does Business…,” 14-15 Arthur M. Johnson “Where Does Business….,” 16 Arthur M. Johnson “Where Does Business….,” 16 Arthur M. Johnson “Where Does Business….,” 17 Henrietta Larson, 187 Arthur M. Johnson, “ Where Does Business ….,” 14 Arthur M. Johnson , “Where Does Business….,” 18 Arthur M. Johnson , “Where Does Business…. ,” 18-19 Arthur M. Johnson , “Where Does Business….,” 19 N.S.B. Gras, Business and Capitalism: An Introduction to Business History, (New York, 1939) Arthur M. Johnson, “Where Does Business….,” 19 Ralph W. Hidy, “Business History: Present Status and Future Needs,” Business History Review XXXXIV (1970), 485 Ralph W. Hidy, 486 Henrietta Larson, et al. Richard Overton, Burington Route: A History of the Burlington Lines , (New York, 1965) Ralph W. Hidy, 488 Arthur M. Johnson, “Where Does Business….,” 20 Charles Wilson, The History of Unilever: Challenge and Response in the Post War Industrial Revolution, 1945-1965, (New York, 1968) Ralph W. Hidy, 490 Richard Swierenga, Pioneers and Profits: Land Speculation on the Iowa Frontier, (Iowa, 1968) Ralph W. Hidy, 490-491 Alfred Dupont Chandler Strategy and Structure: Chapters in the History of the Industrial Enterprise, (Cambridge, 1962) Ralph W. Hidy, 491 Alfred Dupont Chandler, The Visible Hand: The Managerial Revolution in American Business, (Cambridge, 1980) N.S.B. Gras, Business and Capitalism: An Introduction to Business History, (New York, 1939) Paul Uselding, “Business History and the History of Technology,” Business History Review XXXXXIV (1980) , 444 Paul Uselding, 451 Paul Uselding, 443 David Landes, The Unbound Prometheus: Technological Change and Industrial Development in Western Europe from 1750 to the Present, (Cambridge, 1969) Paul Uselding, 443, 445 Reese V. Jenkins, Images and Enterprise: Technology and the American Photographic Industry, 1839 to 1925, (Baltimore, 1975) Paul Uselding, 452 Paul Uselding, 452 Paul Uselding, 452 Mansel G. Blackford, “Small Business in America: A Historiographic Survey,” Business History Review XXXXXXV (1991), 2 Ralph W. Hidy, 494 Mansel G. Blackford, 10 Mansel G. Blackford, 2 Mansel G. Blackford, 2 Small Business Administration, Annual Report on Small Business and Competition 1988, (Washington, 1988), 19 Mansel G. Blackford, 4 Alfred Dupont Chandler, The Visible Hand , (Cambridge, 1980) Mansel G. Blackford, 4 K. Austin Kerr, “Small Business In the United States During the Twentieth Century.,” Unpublished speech given at Comparative Management Conference in Budapest, 13-15 June 1989, 2 K. Austin Kerr, 2 Mansel G. Blackford, 6-7 Alfred Dupont Chandler. Scale and Scope: The Dynamics of Industrial Capitalism. (Cambridge, 1994) Alfred Dupont Chandler. Scale and Scope: The Dynamics of Industrial Capitalism. (Cambridge, 1994) Alfred Dupont Chandler. Scale and Scope: The Dynamics of Industrial Capitalism. (Cambridge, 1994) preface. Biography of Thomas K. McCraw, Harvard Business School Biography. Harvard Business School Web Site. www.people.hbs.edu/ 1 of 1 Thomas K. McGraw ed., The Essential Alfred Chandler, (Cambridge, 1988)

**Bibliography*******************************************************

Articles*************************************************************

Blackford, Mansel G., “Small Business in America: A Historiographic Survey”, Business History Review XXXXXXV (1991) 1 – 16.

Gras, N.S.B., “Past, Present, and the Future of the Business Historical Society”, Bulletin of the Business Historical Society XXIV (1950) 10.

Gras, N.S.B., “The First American Businessman”, Bulletin of the Business Historical Society IX (1935) 69 – 70.

Gras, N.S.B., “The Rise and Development of Economic History”, Economic History Review I (1927) 29.

Hidy, Muriel E. and Ralph W. Hidy, “Henrietta M. Larson: An Appreciation”, Business History Review XXXVI (1962) 3 – 10.

Hidy, Ralph W., “Business History: Present Status and Future Needs”, Business History Review XXXXIV (1970) 483 – 497.

Johnson, Arthur M., “Conference on the History of American Business”, Business History Review, XXXIII (1959) 204 – 210.

Johnson, Arthur M., “Where Does Business History Go From Here?”, Business History Review XXXVI (1962) 11 – 20.

Kerr, K. Austin, “Small Business in the United States During the Twentieth Century” Speech from Comparative Management Conference in Budapest (13 – 15 June 1989) 2

Larson, Henrietta, “Business History: Retrospect and Prospect”, Bulletin of the Business Historical Society XXI (1947) 173 - 199.

Rochlin, Helen Frey, “A List of Books on Technological and Business History Reviewed in the Business History Review, 1976 – 1980”, Business History Review XXXXXIV (1980) 453 – 457.

Uselding, Paul, “Business History and the History of Technology” Business History Review XXXXXIV (1980) 443 – 452.

Walton, Clarence C., “Business History: Some Major Challenges”, Business History Review XXXVI (1962) 21 – 25.

Wohl, R.R., “The Significance of Business History”, Business History Review II (1954) 128 – 140.

**********Books******************************************************

Blicksilver, Jack, ed., Views on US Economic and Business History (Atlanta, 1985).

Chandler, Alfred Dupont and Louis Galambos, eds., The Papers of Dwight David Eisenhower: The War Years (Volumes 1 – 5) (Johns Hopkins University Press, 1979).

Chandler, Alfred Dupont, Scale and Scope: The Dynamics of Industrial Capitalism (Cambridge, 1994).

Chandler, Alfred Dupont, Strategy and Structure: Chapters in the History of the Industrial Enterprise (Cambridge, 1962).

Chandler, Alfred Dupont, The Visible Hand: The Managerial Revolution in American Business (Cambridge, 1980).

Cochran, Thomas C., Business in American Life: A History (New York, 1972).

Cochran, Thomas C., Railroad Leaders 1845 – 1890: The Business Mind in Action (New York, 1965).

Gras, N.S.B., Business and Capitalism: An Introduction to Business History (New York, 1939).

Gras, N.S.B. and Henrietta M. Larson, Casebook in American Business History (New York, 1939).

Jenkins, Reese V., Images and Enterprises: Technology and the American Photographic Industry: 1839 to 1925 (Baltimore, 1975).

Kirkland, Edward C., Men, Cities, and Transportation, A Study in New England History, Vol. 1 and 2 (Cambridge, 1948).

Landes, David, The Undbound Prometheus: Technological Change and Industrial Development in Western Europe from 1750 to the Present (Cambridge, 1969).

Larson, Henrietta, et al, New Horizons 1927 to 1950 (History of Standard Oil Company – New Jersey) (1971).

Lilienthal, David E., Big Business: A New Era (New York, 1952).

McCraw, Thomas K., ed., The Essential Alfred Chandler (Cambridge, 1988).

Overton, Richard C., Burlington Route: A History of the Burlington Lines (New York, 1965).

Overton, Richard C., Burlington West: A Colonization History of the Burlington Road (Cambridge, 1941).

Small Business Administration, Annual Report on Small Business and Competition 1988 (Washington, 1988).

Swierenga, Richard, Pioneers and Profits: Land of Speculation on the Iowa Frontier (Iowa, 1968).

Tuttle, Frank W. and Joseph M. Perry, An Economic History of the United States (Cincinnati, 1970).

Veblen, Thorstein, The Theory of Business Enterprise (New York, 1904).

Williamson, Harold F., ed., The Growth of the American Economy (New York, 1951).

Wilson, Charles, The History of Unilever: Challenge and Response in the Post War Industrial Revolution, 1945 to 1965. (New York, 1968).

Wright, Chester Whitney, Economic History of the United States (New York, 1949).

*************************Web Sites**********************************

Harvard Business School, Faculty Biography: Thomas K. McCraw (1998) www.people.hbs.edu/