Thank you for asking! Industry concentration in the US, and its relationship to progressivism is a big topic, but the gist is that American industry became really concentrated after WWI and the Great Depression, leading to the "organizational man" and Mad Men era, led by GM, DuPont, IBM, etc. Progressives were ambivalent about this, as you note; they liked small firms, but didn't like competition and really believed in technocratic managers.
Towards the end of the 20th century, concentration shrank before increasing again with tech stocks. One key difference, however, is that in the past, really large firms also employed a ton of people, whereas today, a place like Google creates much larger revenue with many fewer employees. And, founders like Mark Zuckerberg have diluted shareholder rights a lot, giving him a lot more power than past CEOs.
Oh interesting. Thanks for jumping in. You bring a more nuanced perspective than I could have mustered. That makes sense about the reduction in employment as big tech takes over, but certainly changes the dynamic. What are your best sources for the philosophy and politics of p/Progressives in the 20th century vis a vis industry concentration? I can't get a handle on the tension between trying to protect workers, small firms, etc. and the reality of ever-growing big government, big technocracy, and increasing control by big industry players. I think the point I was trying to make (clumsily) in my post was that there's something internally contradictory about Progressivism (so-called).
At the risk of recommending another massive tome to you, Richard Langlois's "Corporation in the Twentieth Century" is my favorite source on this. He has a whole chapter on the Progressive era.
There are a couple tensions there, but the biggest one, in my opinion, is that more regulation tends to drive up market concentration and create larger firms. So there is a trade-off between their desire for regulation and their desire for smaller firms.
Thank you for asking! Industry concentration in the US, and its relationship to progressivism is a big topic, but the gist is that American industry became really concentrated after WWI and the Great Depression, leading to the "organizational man" and Mad Men era, led by GM, DuPont, IBM, etc. Progressives were ambivalent about this, as you note; they liked small firms, but didn't like competition and really believed in technocratic managers.
Towards the end of the 20th century, concentration shrank before increasing again with tech stocks. One key difference, however, is that in the past, really large firms also employed a ton of people, whereas today, a place like Google creates much larger revenue with many fewer employees. And, founders like Mark Zuckerberg have diluted shareholder rights a lot, giving him a lot more power than past CEOs.
Oh interesting. Thanks for jumping in. You bring a more nuanced perspective than I could have mustered. That makes sense about the reduction in employment as big tech takes over, but certainly changes the dynamic. What are your best sources for the philosophy and politics of p/Progressives in the 20th century vis a vis industry concentration? I can't get a handle on the tension between trying to protect workers, small firms, etc. and the reality of ever-growing big government, big technocracy, and increasing control by big industry players. I think the point I was trying to make (clumsily) in my post was that there's something internally contradictory about Progressivism (so-called).
At the risk of recommending another massive tome to you, Richard Langlois's "Corporation in the Twentieth Century" is my favorite source on this. He has a whole chapter on the Progressive era.
There are a couple tensions there, but the biggest one, in my opinion, is that more regulation tends to drive up market concentration and create larger firms. So there is a trade-off between their desire for regulation and their desire for smaller firms.