
The Vanishing Hand:
the Changing Dynamics
of Industrial Capitalism
The University of Connecticut
U63 Storrs, CT 06269-1063 USA
(860) 486-3472 (phone)
(860) 486-4463 (fax)
Industrial
and Corporate Change 12(2): 351-385 (April 2003)
In The Visible
Hand (1977) and subsequent works, Alfred Chandler focused the spotlight on
the large, vertically integrated corporation.
He did this not merely to chronicle the rise of that institution but
also to explain it and to give it a prominent place in American economic growth
during the last century and a half. The
force and originality of Chandler’s ideas coalesce in the book’s title, a provocation
in the direction of Adam Smith (1976).
Smith had predicted an increasingly fine division of labor as the
response to a growing extent of the market; and, although he was actually quite
vague on the organizational consequences of the division of labor, Smith was
clear in his insistence on the power of the invisible hand of markets to
coordinate economic activity.
Chandler’s account appears to challenge this prediction: internal
organization and managerial authority became necessary to coordinate the
industrial economy of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. The visible hand of managerial
coordination had replaced the invisible hand of the market.
On one reading, The Visible Hand is about the response of
business institutions to the conditions of a particular historical episode,
namely the dramatic increases in population and per capita income in the United
States after the Civil War, coupled with the equally dramatic fall in
transportation and transaction costs attendant on the railroad, the inland
water network, and the telegraph. On
another reading, however, the managerial revolution represents the emergence of
an institutional structure inherently superior for all times and places to that
of decentralized ownership and market exchange in all its forms. History is never kind to historicists,
however; and the facts of the last quarter century have made life uncomfortable
for those who would project the Chandlerian model into the present. It has become exceedingly clear that the late
twentieth (and now early twenty-first) centuries are witnessing a revolution at
least as important as, but quite different from, the one Chandler
described. Strikingly, the animating
principle of this new revolution is precisely an unmaking of Chandler’s
revolution. Rather than seeing the continued
dominance of multi-unit firms in which managerial control spans a large number
of vertical stages, we are seeing a dramatic increase in vertical
specialization — a thoroughgoing “de-verticalization” that is affecting the
traditional Chandlerian industries as much as the high-tech firms of the late
twentieth century. In this respect, the
visible hand — understood as managerial coordination of multiple stages of
production within a corporate framework — is fading into a ghostly
translucence.
We are left with the choice of abandoning Chandler or
reinterpreting him. This essay takes
the latter course. If we take the first
reading of The Visible Hand – that the managerial revolution was an
adaptation to particular historical circumstances – then we can explain the
organizational revolution of the new economy by embedding Chandler’s story
within a roomier account that admits of a range of possible historical
circumstances. As a byproduct, such a
reinterpretation can hope not only to explain the new economy but also to shed
light on the organizational changes of the original Chandlerian
revolution.
The basic argument — the vanishing-hand hypothesis — is as
follows. Driven by increases in
population and income and by the reduction of technological and legal barriers
to trade, the Smithian process of the division of labor always tends to lead to
finer specialization of function and increased coordination through markets,
much as Allyn Young (1928) claimed long ago.
But the components of that process — technology, organization, and
institutions — change at different rates.
The managerial revolution Chandler chronicles was the result of such an
imbalance, in this case between the coordination needs of high-throughput
technologies and the abilities of contemporary markets and contemporary
institutions to meet those needs. It
was an organizational solution appropriate to its time and place. But with further growth in the extent of the
market and the evolution of institutions to support exchange, the central
management of vertically integrated production stages is increasingly
succumbing to the forces of specialization.
|
|
|
|