The study of organizational structures from the historical perspective has fallen out of favor in the academic world. In Japan, historical studies of organizations seem to be neglected, except with regard to control of management. This is because historians so far have been inclined to describe industrialization or economic modernization exclusively in terms of capitalist development. However, in view of the importance of the organizational structure in any discussion of economic development, we should address ourselves here to the same problem and ask why Japanese businesses evolved the characteristic and elaborate organization for which they are well known. In my opinion, Japanese top management has had unique organizational traits, summarized in the following three aspects: combination or fusion of managing and control positions, hierachical rank order, and restriction of membership to those with middle-level managerial experience. In this paper I will analyze in detail how this kind of organization had been devised and developed on a trial and error basis in the Meiji Era.
Zaibatsu firms had several characteristic features; diversified business, close ownership by family (Ie) and so on. Corresponding to these features, their top management organization was, differently from other non-Zaibatsu firms in Japan, functionally similar to those of divisional type of organization in United States which had a general head office with automonous divisions. It is, however, after 1910s that each Zaibatsu firms had formed such a common decentralized type of organization, and they differed from each other during Meiji era. This article traces on the formation process of the top management organization of Mitsubishi during Meiji era as a case study of the Zaibatsu firms.
Banking in England and Scotland developed along quite different lines from 1694 and 1695 when the Banks of England and Scotland were established. The Union of the Parliaments in 1707 left Scotland bereft of its own Parliament and the removal of the law-giving body to London had important repercussions on many aspects of life including Scottish Banking. During the 18th century while banking in England was constrained by laws designed to protect and aggrandize the Bank of England, Scottish Banking was free to develop along lines best suited to an emerging industrializing society. The Scots claimed that their banking system was far more stable than the English, when they had the government interferes under the English bankers pressure with their banking performance. In the 1870's the matter flared up again. With the improvement of communications during mid-19th century the regional money markets (Glasgow, Edinburgh, Liverpool, Manchester) gradually lost their standing to London as it became the money center of the World. It became increasingly frustrating to Scottish Banks to deal through agents in the premier money market over the boundary. The Clydesdale Banking Company opened its three north of England branches at Carlisle, Whitehaven and Workington in Cumberland in January 1874. And then They had discussed over the bank's invasion into England from both interests of Bankers in England and Scotland. They also had a series of disputes on this problem at the Parliament for some years. I wish to consider and compare the Scottish bankings at that time with that of England along with the Clydesdale Banking Company's behaviour.