British business history: a review of the periodical literature for 2002.

Past authors of this review of the periodical literature in British business history have adopted a range of approaches to structuring their surveys, but the most common has been to segment along broad sectoral lines. However, given a number of recent developments in business history, it is no longer clear that this is the best way in which to make sense of the continuing evolution of the discipline. A concern for developing cross-sectoral studies, and comparative and inter-disciplinary approaches, in combination with an ever-expanding pool of thematic pre-occupations, means that very often the apparent sectoral focus of an article is little more than a convenient anchor with which to 'ground' the core issues.

In writing this review, and, in particular, in deciding the system of categorisation to be employed, I have sought as far as possible to be guided by the literature itself. There is no doubt, though, that other systems of categorisation--including a sectoral one--could have been used; this, then, is just one 'route-map' through the increasingly rich periodical literature in British business history. A further issue is where to draw the boundaries of the literature to be surveyed. Again it is possible that some of the developments in the discipline outlined above are making this a more complex question--business history now seems to be engaging with both many more varieties of history and a wider range of social sciences beyond economics. Gaining in prominence, for example, are the management sciences; a reflection perhaps of the increasing extent to which British business historians are making their homes in schools of business and management. It is apparent, then, that business historians read (and write) in increasingly diverse ways that overlap only very imperfectly. The solution taken here is an essentially empirical or inductive one; the subject of a paper must impinge on the study of British business from an historical perspective. This definition will necessary exclude much of interest to many historians of British business. Finally, in terms of temporal focus, British business history seems to be becoming more contemporary, with relatively little exploration of the early and pre-modern roots of business.

In sum, we deal in turn with: governance, structure and organisation; public policy and government/business relationships; information, knowledge and learning; business and society; agriculture and the pre-industrial and theoretical developments and new agendas.

II

GOVERNANCE, STRUCTURE AND ORGANISATION

in his review of the periodical literature for 2001, the American historian Mansel G. Blackford issued a plea to British business historians that they 'stop beating the dead horse of Chandlerism'. (1) His hope shows little sign of being realised. The work of Alfred D. Chandler, Jr. remains a powerful spur to scholars working on many different aspects of British business history. (2) However, increasingly, the focus is not simply on refuting Chandlerian interpretations of British business history but on finding ways forward from a potential impasse. At the same time, responses to Chandlerism form one element in a growing concentration on issues of corporate governance and organisation. Indeed, it might be claimed that exploring the origins, evolution and influence of forms of corporate governance is now the dominant preoccupation of British business history.

Furthering the linkages between governance, structure and performance first systematically explored by Chandler, Quail and Fitzgerald engaged in a debate on the attributes and impacts of British holding companies, though with outcomes which are ultimately inconclusive. (3) Elsewhere, Quail followed up his 'proprietorial theory of the firm' with an examination of the delayed, almost accidental, yet 'continuing and profound' managerial revolution in Britain. (4) Drawing on Foucault, Quail argues that the managerial model could only replace the preceding proprietorial model after a 'general shift in social power relations' casting a flesh perspective on this essentially Chandlerian transformation. (5)