Keiei Shigaku (Japan Business History Review)

CHANGING THE MANAGEMENT POLICY BY THE JAPANESE SHIPBUILDING INDUSTRY DURING WORLD WAR I

The Case of the Yokohama Dock Company

Takeaki Teratani

1971 Volume 6 Issue 2 Pages 1-24
Published: November 10, 1971
Released on J-STAGE: October 14, 2009

DOIhttps://doi.org/10.5029/bhsj.6.2_1

JOURNAL FREE ACCESS

Show abstractHide abstract

The activities of the Japanese shipbuilding firms in the formative years of the industry were much diversified like “general shops” in engineering just to overcome the difficulties in their main lines. But during world war I the industry was favoured with a great deal of orders from abroad and at home, and most of the firms could be specialized into shipbuilding perse, cutting off the other engineering departments.
This paper investigated the case of Yokohama Dock Company, one of the oldest dock yards in Japan. This firm was noted for their early adoption of the form of joint stock company, but they quited the form in spite of its merit, and excluding foreign stockholders, they developed themselves into an independent, specialized shipbuilder.

View full abstract

Download PDF (3094K)
DIVERSIFICATION OF COURTAULDS AND ITS PROBLEM

Kaoru Watanabe

1971 Volume 6 Issue 2 Pages 25-46
Published: November 10, 1971
Released on J-STAGE: October 14, 2009

DOIhttps://doi.org/10.5029/bhsj.6.2_25

JOURNAL FREE ACCESS

Show abstractHide abstract

After the World War II, especially in 1960's, Courtaulds' first problem of diversification was to shake itself from rayon fibre maker and to become non-cellulosic fibre producer. Thus Courtaulds began to produce acrylic fibre and thereafter nylon, polyester etc.
Before the first half of 1960's, ICI had occupied monopolistic position in producing nylon and polyester, and Courtaulds in acrylic. But in response to the intrusion into domestic market by Du Pont, Monsanto, Hoechst, AKZO as non-cellulosic fibre producers, Courtaulds had to choose either to become the producer of raw material of fibre by backward integration, or to become textile manufacturer by forward integration. Courtaulds chose the latter alternative, and has come to share large in textile manufacturing field.
As a fibre producer, such diversification of Courtaulds was questionable, because of low efficiency of investiment. But the fact that ICI also was afterward compelled to go into the textile manufacturing, the writer concludes that the behavour of Courtaulds toward diversification was not a mistake.

View full abstract

Download PDF (2685K)
METAMORPHOSIS OF MODERN ENTREPRENEUR IN GERMANY

Jiichi Kitamura

1971 Volume 6 Issue 2 Pages 47-70
Published: November 10, 1971
Released on J-STAGE: October 14, 2009

DOIhttps://doi.org/10.5029/bhsj.6.2_47

JOURNAL FREE ACCESS

Show abstractHide abstract

The main purpose of the article is to analize the last stage of developments in the modern entrepreneurship in Germany. After the foundation of the Reich, crisis in 1873 marked the gradual transformation of the lasses-faire economy of free competition into the monopolistic capitalism. Concentration movement was the main feature of the age. The writer describes the two instances. The one is Vereinigte Maschinenfabrik Augsburg und Maschinenbaugesellschaft Nürnberg A.G., a case of a<offene Fusion>of two mashine companies in Bavaria in 1898. The another case of merger between Hegenscheidt and Caro was more complicated. The two groups which had been highly competitive, were, through a trasitional form agreed in 1887, finally fused into Oberschlesische Eisenindustrie A.G. für Bergbau und Hüttenbetrieb in 1889. A typical metamorphosing entrepreneur was Einil Kirdorf, who was at the same time general manager of Gelsenkirchener Bergwerk-A. G., succeeded in joing the greatest coal cartel, Rheinisch-westfälisches Kohlensyndikat in 1893 and took up his post as chairman.
The writer concludes that in the eighteen-nineties, with the advance of concentration into large scale enterprise (cartelisation, trustification), a new type of entrepreneurs began to be originated. A leading personalily, seating on the Pupervisory Board (Aufsichtsrat) or becoming a top (or a member) of Managing Board (Vorstand), fulfiled his entrepreneural tasks through cartel, trust or “Konzern”.

View full abstract

Download PDF (2774K)
[title in Japanese]

[in Japanese]

1971 Volume 6 Issue 2 Pages 71-84
Published: November 10, 1971
Released on J-STAGE: October 14, 2009

DOIhttps://doi.org/10.5029/bhsj.6.2_71

JOURNAL FREE ACCESS

Download PDF (1702K)

Register with J-STAGE for free!