IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/oxford/v37y2021i2p259-275..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The origin and development of firm management

Author

Listed:
  • Michela Giorcelli

Abstract

This paper examines the historical origin and diffusion of management practices. Despite their centrality in modern world, the concepts of ‘management’ developed fairly recently. Only with the Industrial Revolution, due to the increased firm size, owners needed a management structure to coordinate activities across different plants. Management soon became the subject of numerous studies in economics, sociology, and psychology to maximize firm productivity. The first large-scale programme of management practices diffusion was developed in the US during the Second World War: offering such training to US firms involved in war production boosted their performance for at least 10 years. After the Second World War, the US exported its management principles to Europe, where they have large and persistent effects on small firm productivity, and to Japan, where they interacted with the local economic conditions and originated the ‘kaizen Japanese management’, which aims at ‘continuous improvement’ in firm performance.

Suggested Citation

  • Michela Giorcelli, 2021. "The origin and development of firm management," Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Oxford University Press and Oxford Review of Economic Policy Limited, vol. 37(2), pages 259-275.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:oxford:v:37:y:2021:i:2:p:259-275.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/oxrep/grab001
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Alex Bryson & Paul Willman, 2024. "How should we think about employers’ associations?," British Journal of Industrial Relations, London School of Economics, vol. 62(2), pages 193-205, June.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:oxford:v:37:y:2021:i:2:p:259-275.. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/oxrep .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.