A. Ways that new managerial techniques hastened the industrialization of American society in the nineteenth century.
B. Ways that the United States government tried to regulate business practices in the nineteenth century.
C. Reasons that business leaders gained political power in the late nineteenth-century United States.
D. A comparison of the management styles of Andrew Carnegie and John D. Rockefeller.
NARRATOR:Listen to part of a lecture in an American History class.
FEMALE PROFESSOR:We have been talking about the transformation...the industrialization of United States economy in 19th century.As the country shifted from an agricultural to an industrial base, political power shifted, too.Businesses became... a lot of power went...went...went...went from the government into the hands of business leaders.
So, why did this happen?How did an elite group, a few business giants, how did they end up dominating, controlling a number of important national industries in the last quarter of the 19th century?How did they get to be so dominant?How did they figure out?How did they take advantage of the new industrialization of American society?
Well, [slight pause] consider the example of Andrew Carnegie and the steel industry.
We have already discussed the development of a national network...a national system of railroads.Well, this growth created a tremendous demand for steel; a national railroad system needs a lot of railroad tracks, right?And Carnegie seized the opportunity. He built the world's most modern steel mill.And he came up with a system of business organization called vertical integration.
Vertical integration just means that...all...every single activity of a particular industry's processing is performed by a single company.In the case of the steel industry, this means [listing] the mining of iron ore, the transportation used to get ore from the mine to the mill, turning the ore into the steel, the manufacturing process, and sales.Carnegie controlled all of these, he practiced Vertical Integration on such a large scale that he practically owned the whole steel industry.This of course gave him a lot of political clout.Just a quick sketch, but you get the idea, right?
Here is another example—John D. Rockefeller. Rockefeller owned an oil refinery, but he wanted to expand his business.Since there was lots of competition in the industry, he thought the smart way to go about it would be to buy his competitors' businesses.But, at the time, it was illegal for one corporation to control another.So, what he did was, he created an organizational structure called a trust.A trust is... well I don't have to go into that now, what matters is that a trust created a single, central management team, and that team directed the activities of what otherwise still appeared to be independent companies.
This new...uh...legal entity worked so well that at one point Rockefeller controlled 90% of the country's oil refineries, which again gave him lots of political power.
So you've got two different approaches to expanding a business, and both were quite effective.Of course, these weren't the only two examples; a number of big businesses run by powerful individuals developed across a wide range of industries, like railroads, food processing, electricity, but what they all had in common was: the government let them operate pretty much how they wanted to.
So why did they do that?Why did the government keep such a low profile and allow individuals to gain so much control of the industries?Well, obviously, they had the wealth and the power to influence political leaders.
But also, the truth is that these industry leaders made a significant contribution.Their investments in technologies led to the development of many new production techniques, which strengthened the economy.And many of them gave lots of money to charity, andrew Carnegie was particularly admired for his generosity.
But there was one thing in particular that gave them power, and that's... they were beneficiaries, probably the biggest beneficiaries of a theory, a dominant political theory in the 19th century, something called laissez-faire doctrine.
Laissez-faire roughly means "let it alone" and that pretty much summarized the theory's philosophy.The idea was that government should leave business alone, allow it to operate unregulated.Legislators weren't supposed to pass a lot of laws, or worry about regulating business practices.When people did challenge a company's business conduct, I mean, I mean, in court cases, well, the few laws that did exist were usually interpreted in favor of business interests.
But over time, it started becoming increasingly obvious and troubling to the public that some of these big companies simply had too much control.There were criticisms that owners had too much opportunity to exploit workers, workers and consumers, because they could control prices and wages.And small business owners and small farmers couldn't compete.
So there was bad press, bad publicity, enough that the government eventually felt it had to do something.So it passed two key pieces of legislation.One law was designed to regulate the prices set by the railroads.Another made it illegal for trusts to be used to limit competition.Both were aimed squarely at reducing the exclusive control that existed in some industries.