一九世紀イギリス鉄鋼企業ボルコゥ・ヴォーン社の技術戦略
-ヴィクトリア後期のイギリス企業家は果して「無罪」か-
1981 年 16 巻 3 号 p. 25-47,i
詳細
1981 年 16 巻 3 号 p. 25-47,i
Admittedly, there are two sharply contrasted views on the late Victorian entrepreneurial performance at the present time. One traditional opinion, for instance, maintained by D.L. Burn (1939) is that the British entrepreneurs performed badly from the 1870's and if they had done better, the decline of the British steel industry compared with the German and American steel industry could have been avoided.
Another opinion, recently asserted by D.N. McCloskey (1973) is that the relative decline was inevitable and from whatever perspective they are viewed, the British steel makers did well and their behavior was rational. According to him, the relative decline, i. e., slowing down of British steel production growth, was merely caused by maturity of the British economy.
By taking a biggest iron and steel company in Britain over that period, that is, the Bolckow Vaughan & Co., this study tries to give an important example to this controversy.
Bolckow Vaughan's were formed as a partnership in 1839 at Middlesbrough in the North-East of England and in 1865 they were transformed into a limited company. Throughout the late Victorian and Edwardian age they were a largest pig-iron producer. As a steelmaking company, they had four steel-making processes: acid converter, basic converter, acid open-hearth furnace, and basic open-hearth furnace. Although they were willing to adopt acid converter and basic converter processes in the 1870's and early 1880's respectively, they did not show a prompt response to basic open-hearth furnace process in the late 1880's and for the next 20 years. The basic open-hearth furnace process, from the technical point of view, became the most important steel-making process from that time on.
Consequently, they lagged in adoption of basic open-hearth for the reason that they were not innovative in research and development of technology by contemporary standards. Primary sources such as Directors Minutes, Annual Reports and so on of the company bear out the above conclusion. In spite of the fact that this is only one case, considering the influential position of Bolckow Vaughan's, this study throws doubt on the view of, so to speak, “rational school” regarding the British entrepreneurial performance during the late Victorian and Edwardian Age.
