Thirty years have passed since World War II and Japanese capitalism at present has had to make a dramatic shift from a rapid growth period to a stagnation period. During the rapid growth period big business invested heavily on equipment to meet demand. At the same time monopolistic industries ran wild and today, when Japan is facing its most serious depression large firms are under fire and are faced with a need to re-examine their social responsibility. Which it may be said that the present crisis was brought about by the abnormal growth of big industry under the recent government and political guidance, on the other hand the causes can also be seen in the business activities since the Meiji Era. Some of the harmful practices continue to this day. The evidence of this can be seen in the recent Lockeed scandal in which individual influence peddlars spanning politics and business played a regretful part. This is a continuation from the Meiji Era. Also, the recent industrial pollution can be traced to business practices initiated in the Meiji Era and continued at present. Thus, big business at present is facing a trial and faces a historical test for it present social evils which had roots in the Meiji Era. I will therefore try to look into the government business ties in this article.
This paper aims to explain the role of the House of Morgan in the development of American capitalism in the late nineteenth and twentieth century. 1. Problems discussed in this paper 2. The House of Morgan and the American capitalism a. The Morgans and the industrial organization in New England b. Historical background of the Morgans and their business activities c. Junius Spencer Morgand and his raw cotton business 3. Summary and a proposal
In U. S. A., the big business organization is the most prominent and powerful institution. In fact, big business is so strong that every American feels its influence in everyday life. Also big business itself knows quite well its behavior is observed by public. Accordingly, it has become fashionable for many business leaders to advocate “the social responsibility of business”. However, there is no agreement on a definition or concept of corporate social responsibilities. No one argues that management does not have a direct responsibility to stockholders, or that the corporation is not interested in profits. Debate arises over priorities of obligation to stockholders, workers, and consumers. Should a corporation concern itself with things such as racial porblems, unemployment, city problems (slum or urban ugliness), pollution of water and air, cultural deserts, political life and so on ? For example, Milton Freedman argues that the single task of managers is to employ the capital of their stockholders in the most profitable manner for the benefit of stockholders and not in the service of some public interest ; his main point of view is based on the classical allocation theory that price and marginal cost will tend to be roughly equal, rewards to the factors of production will relate to their respective marginal contribution to production, and resources will be used in the most efficient manner. For him, retaining the competitive market system. insisting on the importance of the profit motive, and giving the generous rein to supply and demand mean greater production. On the other hand, G. K. Galbraith points out that the assumption of classical price theory has lost most of its validity in mid-twentieth century since the modern American capitalist system depends on and revolves around the operations of a relatively few large corporations. That is to say, competition within the system of corporate concentrates produces results quite different from the balanced economy expounded by Adam Smith. However, if we look at historical movements of corporate social responsibilities in U. S. A., we will realize that there has been a great diversity of reactions from business toward them. Eventually, we recognize that any of these arguments on the above discusses only about one aspect of the corporate social responsibility and gives us no definite answer. But if we consider the corporate organization as an open system and also the society as a total open system including a production subsystem, political subsystem, and so on, we will possibly get better explanations on the debate and why American corporations have been extending their range of social responsibilities in a historical process of the growth of the American industry. In this paper, I will discuss why using the open system theory approach can be useful for analysing historical movements of the corporate social responsibility and show an applicability of the theory by analysing three cases in each different phase of the American business history.