Directions for Future Research

  • William P. Kennedy
  • Peter L. Payne


The papers presented at the Management History Conference in June 1975, and their discussion, provoke a number of thoughts concerning the possible direction of future research in this general field. Some of them have already been adequately considered either in the editorial introduction or in the observations by Dr Alford and therefore require no repetition here; others deserve further emphasis, and several additional issues — the nature of which doubtless reflect our own particular interests — are most appropriately dealt with in these concluding remarks. For clarity, they have been roughly divided into three groups. The first is concerned with the organisation and performance of the individual firm; the second with the relationships between firms and how such relationships affect innovation, competitiveness, and other aspects of the behaviour of the firm; and the third with the way in which firms’ activities are influenced by general economic factors, in particular, capital markets, macroeconomic policies and conditions, legal practices, and the social environment.


Capital Market Business School Diversify Firm Interwar Period Core Firm 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 2.
    The following discussion is heavily based on Alfred D. Chandler, Strategy and Structure: Chapters in the Industrial Enterprise ( MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass., 1962 ) pp. 130–62.Google Scholar
  2. 8.
    See O. E. Williamson, ‘The Vertical Integration of Production: Market Failure Considerations’, American Economic Review: Papers and Proceedings, lxi (1971) 112–23Google Scholar
  3. 8a.
    K. J. Arrow, ‘Vertical Integration and Communication’, The Bell Journal of Economics, vi (1975) 173–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 9.
    K. A. Tucker, ‘Business History: Some Proposals for Aims and Methodology’, Business History, xiv (1972) 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 10.
    P. N. Davies and A. M. Bourn, ‘Lord Kylsant and The Royal Mail’, Business History, xiv (1972) 121.Google Scholar
  6. 11.
    Leslie Hannah, ‘Takeover Bids in Britain before 1950: An Exercise in Business “Pre-History” ’, Business History xvi (1974) 69.Google Scholar
  7. 13.
    T. A. Lee, ‘Accounting for and Disclosure of Business Combinations’, Journal of Business Finance and Accounting, i (1974) 1–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 15.
    See, for example, the studies by G. D. Newbold, ‘Implications of Financial Analyses of Takeovers’, in J. M. Samuels (ed.), Readings on Mergers and Takeovers ( London: Elek, 1972 ) pp. 12–24;Google Scholar
  9. 15b.
    John Kitching, ‘Why Acquisitions are Abortive’, Management Today (November 1974) pp. 82–7, 148;Google Scholar
  10. 15c.
    M. A. Utton, ‘On Measuring the Effects of Industrial Mergers’, Scottish Journal of Political Economy, xxi (1974) 13–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 16.
    M. I. Kamien and N. L. Schwartz, ‘Market Structure and Innovation: A Survey’, Journal of Economic Literature, xxiii (1975) 15–24.Google Scholar
  12. 17.
    S. G. Checkland, review of Donald Coleman’s Courtaulds in Economic History Review, 2nd Series, xxiii (1970) 559–60.Google Scholar
  13. 21.
    C. H. Berry, ‘Corporate Diversification and Market Structure’, Bell Journal of Economics, v (1974) 196–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 23.
    See G. N. Von Tunzelmann, ‘The New Economic History: an econometric appraisal’, Explorations in Economic History, 2nd Series, v (1968).Google Scholar
  15. 24.
    C. Freeman, The Economics of Industrial Innovation ( Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1974 ) pp. 33–7.Google Scholar
  16. 26.
    G. W. Brock, The U.S. Computer Industry (Ballinger, 1975).Google Scholar
  17. 33.
    R. A. Church, Kenricks in Hardware. A Family Business,1791–1966 (Newton Abbot, 1969 ) pp. 206–7.Google Scholar
  18. 35.
    See also John Vaizey, The History of British Steel (London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1974) passim;Google Scholar
  19. 35a.
    Sir Henry Clay, Lord Norman ( London: Macmillan, 1957 ) pp. 318–59.Google Scholar
  20. 36.
    See K. Midgley, ‘How Much Control do Shareholders Exercise?’, Lloyds Bank Review, No. 114 (October 1974) 28, 26; The Guardian, 6 October 1975;Google Scholar
  21. 36a.
    Richard Spiegelberg, The City. Power Without Responsibility ( London: Quartet, 1973 ) pp. 47–60.Google Scholar
  22. 37.
    Investors Chronicle 18 December 1970, quoted by H. McRae and Frances Cairn-cross, Capital City. London as a Financial Centre (London: Eyre Methuen, revised edition, 1974) pp. 165–6.Google Scholar
  23. 41.
    Substantial work on this has already been done. See Charlotte Erickson, British Industrialists: Steel and Hosiery,1850–1950 (Cambridge, 1959); Political and Economic Planning, Attitudes in British Management (1955).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 44.
    See the articles by Spence and Boorman in the ‘Symposium on the Economics of Internal Organisation’, Bell Journal of Economics vi (1975) 163–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 45.
    Derek F. Channon, The Strategy and Structure of British Enterprise ( London: Macmillan, 1973 ) p. 248.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Palgrave Macmillan, a division of Macmillan Publishers Limited 1976

Authors and Affiliations

  • William P. Kennedy
  • Peter L. Payne

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations