JCR impact factor for Business History

I can report that the Impact Factor for Business History has increased from 0.830 to 1.075 in 2017 JCR impact factor – a record high for the Journal, which makes it one of only a handful of history journals with an impact factor above 1.

Business History is currently 7/31 in the History of Social Sciences category and 115/140 in the Business category.

ABH 2018 is finally here!

Association of Business Historians Annual Conference 2018

Pluralistic perspectives of business history: gender, class, ethnicity, religion

The 2018 Association of Business Historians Annual Conference will be held on 29 – 30 June 2018 at The Open University Business School in Milton Keynes.

The role of different social groups and identities in business is an important, though under researched, topic in business history. However, there is, increasing recognition that, for example, women were not simply ‘angels in the home’, keeping their distance, when compared with men, from the grime of the industrial revolution and the financial transactions which that involved. Social class had an impact in the City, and Quakers, for example, were important in the banking sector.

This conference aims to explore the impact of gender, social class, ethnicity, and religion on business success, fraud, funding, financial markets, corporate governance, and corporate social responsibility.

Image of Dr Joel Greenberg

Keynote speaker: Dr Joel Greenberg

We are delighted to announce this year’s keynote will be given by author and historian Dr Joel Greenberg. His talk is entitled ‘The Business of Signals Intelligence’. Further details are available to download.

Coleman Prize for Best PhD Dissertation

Named in honour of the British business historian Donald Coleman (1920-1995), this prize is awarded annually by the Association of Business Historians to recognise excellence in new research in Britain. It is open to PhD dissertations in Business History (broadly defined) either having a British subject or completed at a British university.

 

For full details and the conference programme, click here.

CFP: New Histories of Business Schools and How They May Inspire New Futures

Academy of Management Learning and Education

New Histories of Business Schools and How They May Inspire New Futures

Initial submissions should be received by: March 31, 2020

Scheduled for Publication: June 2021

Guest Editors:

  • Patricia Genoe McLaren, Wilfrid Laurier University
  • JC Spender, Kozminski University
  • Stephen Cummings, Victoria University of Wellington
  • Todd Bridgman, Victoria University of Wellington
  • Ellen O’Connor, Dominican University of California
  • Christina Lubinski, Copenhagen Business School
  • Gabrielle Durepos, Mount Saint Vincent University (Canada)

 

We might do well to re-examine what we are doing and show the executive judgment and courage necessary to implement radical change (Khurana & Spender 2012: 636).

Business schools are the institutional locus of management learning and education. In recent years, we have gained a greater understanding of how their structures, processes, and power dynamics influence pedagogy and curricula, management theory and research, faculty, students, graduates, and society more broadly. We are also witnessing growing research into, and discussion about, the relative lack of innovation in management theory development, research, pedagogy, and curricula (Alvesson & Sandberg, 2012). While there have been a small number of inspirational works that have sought to push us towards changing business schools and business education (Augier and March, 2011; Hassard, 2012; Khurana 2007; Spender, 2016), they have not yet spurred the change we might have hoped for.
One under-explored route to encourage innovation in this regard is examining how our historical understanding of all aspects of business schools – including curriculum, pedagogy, research, structure, processes, stakeholders, power, and politics – may be limiting change. Histories highlight particular characters and plots but what we do not include – what we write out of history – is just as important as what is written in (Jenkins, 2003). History is constitutive, in that our own interpretations of the past define and shape our present and our future (Wadhwani & Bucheli, 2014). Compared with other stochastic fields of study, histories of management and business are simplistically linear and mono-cultural. This constrains how we see business schools in the present, and can subsequently limit their future development (Cummings & Bridgman, 2016).
The conventional history of business education tends to follow the emergence of American business schools: from the founding of the Wharton School in 1881, to the rapid growth of business school enrollment within American universities leading up to the 1950s, to the standardization of the schools after the publication of the Gordon-Howell and Pierson reports in 1959 (Hommel & Thomas, 2014). This history has been crafted over many years and now goes largely unchallenged. But it begs the questions: why is this the story we tell, who gains and who loses from its telling, and what events and people are missing from a narrative that should be inspirational for a broad range of people?
North American business education has been studied at various points in a straightforward assessment style – what are business schools doing, how could they
“improve” (Bossard & Dewhurst, 1931; Gordon & Howell, 1959; Pierson, 1959; Porter & McKibbin, 1988), and also with a more complex analysis of context, history, power, and influence (Engwall, Kipping, Usdiken, 2016; Khurana, 2007; Pettigrew, Corneul, & Hommel, 2014). Work has been done on the history of European management education (cf. Engwall, 2004; Harker, Caemmerer, & Hynes, 2016; Kieser, 2004; Kipping, Usdiken, & Puig, 2004; Tiratsoo, 2004; Usdiken, 2004), and some have looked at the global South (Cooke & Alcadipani, 2015). We are beginning to see alternative histories of the development of management theory and education (Bridgman, Cummings, & McLaughlin, 2016; Dye, Mills, & Weatherbee, 2005; Hassard, 2012; Peltonen, 2015). However, what about histories of schools of business and commerce from other parts of the world (Asia, Africa, Australasia, South America) in more detail? Or from earlier centuries? Or different examples from North America or Europe that did not survive or later morphed toward the standard form?
This special issue seeks to move things forward by looking differently when we look back. It encourages submissions that explore emerging interests, historical barriers to change, and their interrelationships by focusing on the emergence and development of business schools as complex entities that are interwoven with universities, the business community, government, and civil society. It also seeks submissions that explore how these broader understandings may stimulate innovation in the way we configure business schools and, consequently, how we teach, conduct research, view our profession, and relate to our stakeholders.
In this call for papers, we – professors/educators, researchers/inquirers, sufferers/critics, and aspirational as well as actual change agents – are the organizational actors, and business schools are our reflective historical setting; more importantly, they are our actual environment. We have a unique opportunity to push management theory, research methods, and interdisciplinarity to better understand and, more importantly, to reinvent business school(s) in light of what is socially or personally meaningful. We have contextual richness, personal and professional stakes, and a sense of crisis. Being able to change our practices from within, we are uniquely situated to bring scholarship, formal positioning, and inhabited experience to bear.
Better historical scholarship could, therefore, help us to change ourselves. To engage historical sensibilities and methods, and empirical richness, to push theory and change institutions. As a call for spurring this process we welcome contributions that address the following questions:
  1. What people, events, curriculum, pedagogy, form, and research of business schools’ past have been overlooked by conventional historical narratives?
  2. What role could new histories play in debates about how business schools should develop? Can new understandings of the past inspire us to think differently for the future?
  3. How can we write reflexive or critical histories of business schools that expose the power and politics of business education and what we teach, or do not teach, students?
  4. Are histories being used within business schools or other organizations, such as accreditation bodies, academies and societies, to perpetuate traditional structures and/or norms? Why and to what effect?
  5. What are the ‘invented traditions’ that support any or all aspects of the institution of business schools and what purpose were they invented to serve?
  6. What are the stories of the development of business education outside of North America or prior to the late 19th century? Are these different or the same as the current narrative? How, why, and what can we learn from these alternative histories?
  7. How has history traditionally been taught in business schools? What are the positive and limiting effects of this pedagogy? How could we teach history differently?
  8. Why should business school students learn more (or less) history? Or learn it differently?
  9. How might management scholars using history in their research influence business education?
Call on AMLE Website

References
Alvesson, M,. & Sandberg, J. 2012. Has management studies lost its way? Ideas for more imaginative and innovative research. Journal of Management Studies, 50(1): 128-152.

Augier, M. and March, J. 2011. The roots, rituals, and rhetorics of change: North
American business schools after the second World War. Stanford University Press.

Bossard, J. H. S., & Dewhurst, J. F. 1931. University education for business: A study of
existing needs and practices. Philadelphia. PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.

Bridgman, T., Cummings, S., & McLaughlin, C. 2016. Restating the case: How revisiting the development of the case method can help us think differently about the future of the business school. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 15(4): 724-741.

Cooke, B., & Alcadipani, R. 2015. Toward a global history of management education: The case of the Ford Foundation and the São Paulo School of Business Administration, Brazil. Academy of Management Learning & Education,14(4): 482-499.

Cummings, S. & Bridgman, T. 2016. The limits and possibilities of history: How a wider,
deeper and more engaged understanding of business history can foster innovative thinking. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 15(2): 250-267.

Dye, K., Mills, A. J., & Weatherbee, T. 2005. Maslow: Man interrupted: Reading
management theory in context. Management Decision, 43(10): 1375-1395.

Engwall, L. 2004. The Americanization of Nordic management education. Journal of
Management Inquiry, 13(2): 109-117.

Engwall, L., Kipping, M., & Usdiken, B. 2016. Defining management: Business
schools, consultants, media. New York: Routledge.

Gordon, R. A., & Howell, J. E. 1959. Higher education for business. New York:
Columbia University Press.

Harker, M. J., Caemmerer, B., & Hynes, N. 2016. Management education by the French
Grandes Ecoles de Commerce: Past, present, and an uncertain future. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 15(3): 549-568.

Hassard, J. 2012. Rethinking the Hawthorne Studies: The Western Electric research in its
social, political and historical context. Human Relations, 65(11): 1431-1461.

Hommel, U., & Thomas, H. 2014. Research on business schools. In A. M. Pettigrew, E.
Corneul, & U. Hommel (Eds.), The institutional development of business
schools: 8-36. Oxford: Oxford University PRess.

Jenkins, K. 2003. Refiguring history: New thoughts on an old discipline. London, U.K.:
Routledge.

Khurana, R. 2007. From higher aims to hired hands: The social transformation of
American business schools and the unfulfilled promise of management as a profession. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Khurana, R., & Spender, J. C. 2012. Herbert A. Simon on What Ails Business Schools: More than ‘A Problem in Organizational Design’. Journal of Management Studies, 49: 619–639.

Kieser, A. 2004. The Americanization of academic management education in Germany.
Journal of Management Inquiry, 13(2): 90-97.

Kipping, M., Usdiken, B., & Puig, N. 2004. Imitation, tension, and hybridization:
Multiple “Americanizations” of management education in Mediterranean Europe. Journal of Management Inquiry, 13(2): 98-108.

Peltonen, T. 2015. History of management thought in context: The case of Elton Mayo in Australia. In P. G. McLaren, A. J. Mills, & T. G. Weatherbee (Eds.), The Routledge Companion to Management and Organizational History. Abindon, UK: Sage.

Pettigrew, A. M., Corneul, E., & Hommel, U. 2014. The institutional development of
business schools. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Pierson, F. C. 1959. The education of American business men: A study in university-
college programs in business administration. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Porter, L. W., & McKibbin, L. E. 1988. Management education and development: Drift
or thrust into the 21st century? New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company.

Spender, J.C. 2016. How management education’s past shapes its present. BizEd.

Tiratsoo, N. 2004. The “Americanization” of management education in Britain. Journal of Management Inquiry, 13(2): 118-126.

Usdiken, B. 2004. Americanization of European management education in historical and
comparative perspective. Journal of Management Inquiry, 13(2): 87-89.

Wadhwani, D., & Bucheli, M. 2014. The future of the past in management and organization studies. In D. Wadhwani, & M. Bucheli (Eds.), Organizations in Time: History, Theory, Methods. New York: Oxford University Press.

Job advert: The rise of corporate titans

Queen’s University Centre for Economic History is looking for a highly-skilled Postdoctoral Research Fellow to work on a Leverhulme Trust-funded project (Title: “The Rise of Corporate Titans: CEOs in the UK, 1900-2016”) together with Professor John Turner and Dr Michael Aldous. This is a full-time, fixed-term post for 24 months only, starting 1st September 2018 (or as soon as possible thereafter).

 

The main objectives of the project are to:

  1. Discover the characteristics and career paths of UK CEOs from 1900 to 2016.
  2. Identify changes in the role of the CEO over time.
  3. Examine the effects that changes in legal and political institutions, economic environment and industrial organization have on CEO characteristics.
  4. Analyse the relationship between CEO characteristics and firm performance in the long run.

Candidates should hold or be about to obtain a PhD in a discipline with a strong methodological focus in Economic or Business History, or related Management fields.

Informal enquiries may be directed to Dr Michael Aldous, email: m.aldous@qub.ac.uk.

How to apply and further details can be found here.

Event at the HBS Business History Initiative

Understanding and Overcoming the Roadblocks to Sustainability

Over the past several decades, a vibrant scholarly community has generated thousands of empirical and conceptual studies on the complex relationship between business and the natural environment. At the same time, many large corporations have created positions of Corporate Sustainability Officer with the goal of achieving steady improvements in their sustainability performance. Despite substantial academic research and management attention, complex ecological challenges continue to grow. This unfortunate disconnect between aspirations and reality has begun to provoke some self-reflection in the business and natural environment literature concerning its impact and relevance.

A significant body of research on corporate sustainability has examined win-win outcomes, where firms have reduced their environmental and other impacts while reaping economic benefits. Less attention has been devoted to tensions inherent in corporate sustainability, where moving in the direction of sustainability has required managers to change their business models, form risky partnerships, and otherwise incur net costs. Recent empirical business history research appears to show that profits and sustainability have been hard to reconcile throughout history. These tensions and conflicts merit careful examination from a variety of scholarly and practitioner perspectives.

This conference will focus on the roadblocks to sustainability since the 1960s and develop a research agenda for scholars seeking to overcome those roadblocks. In addition to offering a retrospective analysis of where corporate sustainability has fallen short, the conference will explore the incentives, organizational designs, and institutional systems that would allow sustainability to take hold.

Registration details can be found on the conference registration page.

 

ToC: BH 60,5 SI on Institutional Change

Special issue in: Historical research on institutional change

Special issue introduction: Historical research on institutional change
Stephanie Decker, Behlül Üsdiken, Lars Engwall & Michael Rowlinson
Pages: 613-627 | DOI: 10.1080/00076791.2018.1427736

Interfield Dynamics: Law and the creation of new organisational fields in the nineteenth-century United States
R. Daniel Wadhwani
Pages: 628-654 | DOI: 10.1080/00076791.2017.1346610

Moral dividends: Freemasonry and finance capitalism in early-nineteenth-century America
Pamela A. Popielarz
Pages: 655-676 | DOI: 10.1080/00076791.2016.1248946

Hey DJ, don’t stop the music: Institutional work and record pooling practices in the United States’ music industry |
Neil Thompson
Pages: 677-698 | DOI: 10.1080/00076791.2017.1308485

Managing the paradox of unwanted efficiency: The symbolic legitimation of the hypermarket format in Finland, 1960–1975
Jarmo Seppälä
Pages: 699-727 | DOI: 10.1080/00076791.2017.1304540

Change dynamics in institutional discontinuities: Do formal or informal institutions change first? Lessons from rule changes in professional American baseball
Aya S. Chacar, Sokol Celo & William Hesterly
Pages: 728-753 | DOI: 10.1080/00076791.2017.1342811

From data problems to questions about sources: elements towards an institutional analysis of population-level organisational change. The case of British building societies, 1845–1980
Olivier Butzbach
Pages: 754-777 | DOI: 10.1080/00076791.2016.1274304
Corrigendum

Correction to: Interfield Dynamics: Law and the creation of new organisational fields in the nineteenth-century United States
Pages: x-x | DOI: 10.1080/00076791.2018.1432458

BH change of citation style

Business History has changed its referencing style to author-date (APA). If you are unclear how to cite your archival sources in the new format, please see our editorial on the topic:

http://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/aAkRQtUsNehh5xACgcGq/full

If your manuscript is already under review, you can keep the old style footnotes. All new submissions from January 2018 onwards should be in the new format, and we plan to publish manuscripts in the new style from the first issue of 2019.

Stephanie Decker

on behalf of the Business History editorial team

 

CfP BH extended deadline

Bank-Industry versus Stock Market-Industry Relationships: A Business History Approach

Business History Call for Papers: Special Issue

Extended Deadline: 31 May 2018

http://explore.tandfonline.com/cfp/bes/fbsh-bank-vs-stock-market-industry/

During the Golden Age of the western economies (1950s-1960s) became clear that each country had to follow its own way to industrialization. For the full understanding of these processes, there was a growing interest for the use of an historical perspective. In this line of research, the book that Alexander Gerschenkron, professor at Harvard University, published in 1962 entitled Economic Backwardness in Historical Perspective had much impact. In this seminal book, which proposed the concept of the “conditional convergence”, Gerschenkron proposed that financial institutions (not financial markets), by acting as “substitutive factor”, play a fundamental role in industrialization, as the German case had proved.

Gerschenkron’s thesis was challenged by Raymond Goldsmith, the author of Financial Structure and Development (1969), who proposed not to leave financial markets out of the analysis, because they were also part of the financial system and could contribute to economic development, understood as something broader than industrialization. Goldsmith’s approach was also influential, although Gerschenkron’s book fit better with the spirit of Golden Age governments, which were willing to put the banks (both public and private) at the service of the industrial policies (see Tortella & García-Ruiz 2013, Chapter 8, for the emblematic Spanish case).

From the Gerschenkron-Goldsmith debate, a line of research was developed by focusing on identifying the financial systems of countries as either bank-oriented or market-oriented (Bordo & Sylla 1995; Allen & Gale 2000), stressing the differences between them. Later on, Caroline Fohlin (2007, 2012, 2016) believed that this was a false polemic and gave historical arguments for a skeptical view of the issue. Nevertheless, she presents a new taxonomy, a “rough classification”, of the different financial systems based on the prevalence of different type of banks.

At the time, the economist Ross Levine and his associates (e.g. Levine & Zervos 1998) wanted to approach the problem from a quantitative perspective, trying to answer a very simple question: which system contributes most to economic development? Levine managed to involve the World Bank in his research and promoted the creation of the Global Financial Development Database (Beck, Demirgüç-Kunt & Levine 2000), whose recent exploitation is allowing a better exploration in the long run of the complexity of the relationships proposed in the 1960s by Gerschenkron and Goldsmith.

At the beginning of the 21st century, the deregulation of financial systems led to an approximation between institutions and financial markets that paved the way to the belief that the old divide had become obsolete (Rajan & Zingales 2003). However, the latest analyses detect the persistence of significant differences between national financial systems (Gambacorta, Yang & Tsatsaronis 2014).

It seems clear that much can be learned about the bank-industry and stock market-industry relationships if they are addressed from a Business History perspective, which until now has been almost completely neglected. For this reason it is proposed the launching of a special issue of Business History, based on a Call for Papers, aiming to obtain fresh articles that address the classical issues on the subject with a new Business History approach:

– Evidence of the advantages of the bank-industry relationship over the stock market-industry relationship or vice versa;

– The banking-industry relationship in the networks of large national banks and the networks of small local banks (Vasta et al. 2017);

– Persistence of the differences between financial systems based on Varieties of Capitalism (VoC) and/or Law & Finance (common law versus civil law countries) approaches;

– Access to finance by business size: large, medium and small companies facing markets and financial institutions;

– The role of managers in fostering the stock market performance of the firms;

– The best way to innovate: is the stock market the most appropriate way to finance and promote the innovative capabilities of the firm?;

– The problem of “financialisation”: too much money in the economy breaks the direct relationship between financing and economic development as proposed (Law & Sing, 2014)?

Submission instructions

This special issue welcomes contributions on the history of the bank-industry and stock market-industry relationships, especially if they use interdisciplinary and new methodologies and cross-country comparisons.

Articles should be based on original research and should not be under consideration by other journal. All articles should be submitted by 31 March 2018 via ScholarOne (https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/fbsh? utm_source=CPB&utm_medium=cms&utm_campaign=JMO03712) , using the drop down to select submission to the Special Issue on Bank-Industry versus Stock Market-Industry Relationships: A Business History Approach. All the articles will be peer reviewed and, therefore, some may be rejected. Authors should ensure that their manuscripts comply with the Business History formatting standards, which can be found on the ‘Instructions for Authors’ (http://tandfonline.com/action/authorSubmission?journalCode=fbsh20&page=instructions&utm_source=CPB&utm_medium=cms&utm_campaign=JMO03712) page. Authors who are not English native speakers are responsible for having a native English-speaking copyeditor check and correct their texts before final acceptance.

The articles initially selected for the Special Issue will be presented in a workshop that will take place in Madrid in June 2018, sponsored by available public funds. The final version of the papers should be the result of this workshop.

References

Allen, F. & Gale, D. (2000), Comparing Financial Systems, Cambridge (Mass.), MIT Press.

Beck, T., Demirgüç-Kunt, A. & Levine, R. (2000), “A New Database on Financial Development and Structure,” World Bank Economic Review, 14, 597-605.

Bordo, M. & Sylla, R. (eds) (1995), Anglo-American Financial Systems: Institutions and Markets in the Twentieth Century, New York, Irwin.

Fohlin, C. (2007), Finance Capitalism and Germany’s Rise to Industrial Power, Cambridge & New York, Cambridge University Press.

Fohlin, C. (2012), Mobilizing Money: How the World’s Richest Nations Financed Industrial Growth, Cambridge & New York, Cambridge University Press.

Fohlin, C. (2016), “Financial Systems and Economic Development in Historical Perspective,” in C. Diebolt & M. Haupert (eds), The Handbook of Cliometrics, Berlin, Springer Verlag, 393-430.

Gambacorta, L., Yang, J. & Tsatsaronis, K. (2014), “Financial Structure and Growth,” BIS Quarterly Review, March, 21-35.

Gerschenkron, A. (1962), Economic Backwardness in Historical Perspective: A Book of Essays, Cambridge (Mass.), The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.

Goldsmith, R.W. (1969), Financial Structure and Development, New Haven, Yale University.

Law, S.H. & Singh, N. (2014), “Does Too Much Finance Harm Economic Growth?,” Journal of Banking and Finance, 41, 36-44.

Levine, R. & Zervos, S. (1998), “Stock Markets, Banks and Economic Growth,” American Economic Review, 88, 537-558.

Rajan, R. & Zingales, L. (2003), Banks and Markets: The Changing Character of European Finance, Cambridge (Mass.), NBER Working Paper 9595.

Tortella, G. & García-Ruiz, J.L. (2013), Spanish Money and Banking. A History, Basingstoke & New York, Palgrave Macmillan.

Vasta, M., Drago, C., Ricciuti, R. & Rinaldi, A. (2017), “Reassessing the Bank-Industry Relationship in Italy, 1913-1936: A Counterfactual Analysis,” Cliometrica, 11, 183-216.

Editorial information

Guest Editor: José L. García-Ruiz, Complutense University of Madrid, Spain (jlgarciaruiz@ccee.ucm.es)

Guest Editor: Michelangelo Vasta, University of Siena, Italy (michelangelo.vasta@unisi.it)

TOC: BH 60,2 (2018)

The new issue of Business History is out! It features the first Perspectives article, a topical review article mapping emerging and established research themes.

Perspectives

Thinking about industry decline: A qualitative meta-analysis and future research directions
Juha-Antti Lamberg, Jari Ojala & Mirva Peltoniemi
Pages: 127-156 | DOI: 10.1080/00076791.2017.1340943

Original Articles

The drivers of firm longevity: Age, size, profitability and survivorship of Australian corporations, 1901–1930
Laura Panza, Simon Ville & David Merrett
Pages: 157-177 | DOI: 10.1080/00076791.2017.1293041

Longevity challenges and leadership interventions: Strategy journeys of two Indian banks
Kamal R. Sharma & Mukund R. Dixit
Pages: 178-201 | DOI: 10.1080/00076791.2017.1363735

A European role in intra-Asian commercial development: The Maclaine Watson network and the Java sugar trade c.1840–1942
Alexander Claver & G. Roger Knight
Pages: 202-230 | DOI: 10.1080/00076791.2017.1295955

Accessing capital markets: Aristocrats and new share issues in the British bicycle boom of the 1890s
Shima Amini & Steven Toms
Pages: 231-256 | DOI: 10.1080/00076791.2017.1310196

Trading forward: The Paris Bourse in the nineteenth century
Paul Lagneau-Ymonet & Angelo Riva
Pages: 257-280 | DOI: 10.1080/00076791.2017.1316487

Book Reviews

Jean Monnet, banquier, 1914–1945. Intérêts privés et intérêt général
Hubert Bonin
Pages: 281-282 | DOI: 10.1080/00076791.2016.1156220

On the origins of self-service
Emanuela Scarpellini
Pages: 282-283 | DOI: 10.1080/00076791.2017.1334347

Regulating competition. Cartel registers in the twentieth-century world
Mária Hidvégi
Pages: 283-286 | DOI: 10.1080/00076791.2017.1338870

Les banques et les mutations des entreprises. Le cas de Lille-Roubaix-Tourcoing aux XIXe et XXe siècles
Carlo Brambilla
Pages: 286-288 | DOI: 10.1080/00076791.2017.1339960

 

ToC BH: Change in Referencing Style and SI on the Business of War

Editorial

Change of referencing style
Stephanie Decker , Ray Stokes, Andrea Colli, Abe de Jong, Paloma Fernandez Perez & Neil Rollings
Pages: 1-3 | DOI: 10.1080/00076791.2017.1386762
Special issue on: Business of war

War and economy. Rediscovering the eighteenth-century military entrepreneur |
Rafael Torres-Sánchez, Pepijn Brandon & Marjolein ‘t Hart
Pages: 4-22 | DOI: 10.1080/00076791.2017.1379507

 

The impact of war: New business networks and small-scale contractors in Britain, 1739–1770
Gordon Bannerman
Pages: 23-40 | DOI: 10.1080/00076791.2017.1312687

 

The French navy and war entrepreneurs: Identity, business relations, conflicts, and cooperation in the eighteenth century
David Plouviez
Pages: 41-56 | DOI: 10.1080/00076791.2017.1366986

 

Military entrepreneurs and the development of the French economy in the eighteenth century
Pierrick Pourchasse
Pages: 57-71 | DOI: 10.1080/00076791.2017.1351952

 

The Spanish monarchy as a contractor state in the eighteenth century: Interaction of political power with the market
Sergio Solbes Ferri
Pages: 72-86 | DOI: 10.1080/00076791.2017.1349107

 

War contracting and artillery production in Spain
Agustín González Enciso
Pages: 87-104 | DOI: 10.1080/00076791.2017.1379508

 

Shipbuilding administration under the Spanish Habsburg and Bourbon regimes (1590‒1834): A comparative perspective
Ivan Valdez-Bubnov
Pages: 105-125 | DOI: 10.1080/00076791.2017.1391219