In of the family proprietors whose primary role

In the management
of businesses and companies, strategies and structure of operations are
essential for survival. Alfred Chandler, in his business book, “strategy
and structure” underlines that every succeeding organization should have
structures that match their strategies. There are ideas including scope, scale
and managerial capitalism that rise out of the book (Chandler, 1990). The way
of overseeing businesses and firms in a different part of the world prompted
the exploitation of economies of scale or scope. In Germany, cooperative
managerial capitalism had exploitation of the economies of scope by means of
huge productions in its industries while in the USA, economies of scale took
effect with competitive managerial capitalism. In Great Britain, the personal
managerial capitalism led to the fall and decline in production and
distributions (Parker, 1991). Neither the economies of scale or scope would fit
the ideas of the family proprietors whose primary role was profit making.


scope, managerial capitalism and their implication in the digital economy

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!

order now


Economies of
scale can be said to be a situation where the firm increases the extent of the
working unit to produce and distribute items at decreased costs. The American
organizations prominently the excellent consumer firms adopted the strategy in
the late 20th century. Then again, economies of scope “result from the use
of processes within a single operating unit to produce or distribute more than
one product.” It is said to be “economies of joint production or
distribution” (Chandler, 1990). The Great German firms including chemical
and steel rolling connected the economies of joint production with massive
output over Europe. In the capital-intensive manufacturing plants, the
economies of scale were essential and economies of scope in labor intensive companies.
As per Alfred Chandler, the economies of scope and scale “measured by rated
capacity are the physical characteristics of the production facilities”
(Chandler, 2003). The hierarchical structure depends on economies of scope and
scale that intensely relies on skills, teamwork, knowledge and experience that
empower one to exploit the technological advancements. The next hierarchical
organizations in the recent past are because of the need to utilize the
economies of scale or scope that come from communication and technological
advancements. Improvement in transport and communication prompted the creation
of opportunities that incited distribution and production. The distribution grew
because of the product specificity and stiff rivalry that was going on in the
realm of business.


According to
Alfred, managerial capitalism in his content, the Visible Hand features that another type of capitalism where
choices with respect to work, allocation of resources, existing operations, and
yield for future exercises are custom fitted by salaried directors who are not
part of the ownership (Chandler, 1993). In the investigation of managerial
capitalism, Alfred analyzed the American, British and German setting. The
United States of America has a competitive managerial capitalism that is
described by the oligopolistic competition between huge integrated firms producing
consumer goods. The Sherman anti-trust act of 1890 led to the finish of horizontal
cartel organizations that give rise to the development of individual
organizations that would lead to justification on components (Chandler, 2003). The
change of focus in controlling yield and costs was because of the maximizing strategies
of the organizations. In the court ruling on American Tobacco and Standard Oil
was continued by mergers and takeovers that limited large number of family
owned ventures. The business school and the engineering classes had led to the
supply of business managers and production in US, Britain, and Germany. With
the complexity of running numerous companies, the full-time managers, inside
executives as stated gained up control over the instruments at the expense of
the outside directors who spoke to the lenders and owners. In the old rich organizations
like steel, rubber and oil firms, vertical integration by means of acquisitions
and mergers led to the the development (Grant, 2016). An example is Standard
Oil that had the monopolistic philosophy in its distribution lines, yet after
dissolution, the channels increased, getting to be oligopolistic (Chandler,


In the chemical
and food processing ventures, expansion occurred through business diversification
to new products and markets. Some of the Du Pont items were explosives, yet
with business diversification, different products delivered were nylon, paints,
plastics, photo chemicals and rayon. In machinery, it seems confounded, however
with the geographical expansion and product diversification, the strategies
worked for the machinery firms (Chandler, 1998). In the transportation segment,
General Motors and Ford are great instances where product diversification
happens. In 1929, the autocratic management style of Henry Ford caused the collapse
of the business which prompted to salvation from Chrysler and Alfred Sloan.
General Motors applied research and development fittingly, moving from the
steam motors to diesel motors in locomotives.


The General
Electric (GE) turned into a dominant force in electric and electronic equipment
in addition to Westinghouse. It is important to note that GE was a merger of
organizations including Edison. The electrical and electronic firms were system
builders, in this way recruiting sales force to search for the market for their
products. The two organizations, GE and Westinghouse cross-licensed patents
that led to domination of the market (Chandler, 1990). The complicated nature
of the American machinery industry had the managers wind up to be persuasive,
rendering owners and financiers less vocal in the strategies and structures of
business administration. Their sources were felt in times of money related
challenges where they were called upon to direct millions of dollars to save
the business. Talking about organizational capabilities, distribution and
production in American firms gave birth to the multidivisional organizational
structure (Chandler, 2003).


In Great
Britain, family proprietorship dominated the society and individual capitalism favored
paying dividends and holding their popularity. The British directors and
managers supervised the juniors in a straightforward structure. Unlike the
American organizations, the salaried managers had no last say with respect to
managing the enterprises, yet entrepreneurs settled on issues affecting the
organization. The investors were worried about salaries and profits rather than
reinvestments. The collaboration among the rivals brought stability in the
market (Chandler, 1990). Cooperatives were powerless, and industrialists
concentrated on branding and packaging their consumer products mostly food. The
capital-intensive firms had the finances from retained earnings while the
family stayed responsible for operations. Their failures in their electrical,
hardware, chemicals and steel business were because of investment that was
lower than that of Americans and Germans. For mergers and acquisitions, market
control motivated the organizations, however discrete units of the board composed
the moves (Chandler, 1998).


As per Alfred
Chandler, the British businesses can be sorted as stable and dynamic
organizations. The rubber, textile, oil, and industrial materials formed the
stable firms while the machinery, branded, chemical and packaged food built
dynamic enterprises. The British Petroleum made a massive departmental
structure that had seven sisters up to 1970s. Dunlop ruled in the business of
rubber throughout the world for Canada and USA (Chandler, 2003). Industrial
materials came from Stewart and Lloyds, Pilkington Brothers that remained family
businesses for decades. Dynamism with machinery occurred because of the
American subsidiaries including Austin and Morris. The justification was
because of the borrowing from the GE and Ford organizations. The packaged and
branded foodstuff had the multidivisional structure that had its unique way for
getting things done from their rivals.


The British industries
failed because of the adoption of the personal managerial structures. The
neglected use of scale as a rivalry weapon characterized by lack of
administrative organization prompted slipping from the second position to third
in the production (Chandler, 1998). America and Germany had reinvestments and
directing more funds to extending their domains while in Britain, re-investment
came from retained earnings. The British situation is an indicator that competitive
capabilities are fundamental to manage profitability and productivity.


Germany had
oligopolistic market dubbed cooperative managerial capitalism. Negotiation was
a part of the oligopolistic market in Germany. There was more consideration on
the workforce and the formation of organized capitalism. The exchange of knowledge
and regulating in the German colleges and schools had bankers to have top-level
basic leadership. There were no legal hurdles to trade in Germany. Alfred
Chandler bunches German enterprises as the lesser and the great. The lesser
firms include explosives, rayon, rubber and light machinery while great firms include
dyes, copper, machinery, iron and steel, fibers and fertilizers (Chandler,
1990). Amid the two world wars, the German economy was viewed as a command
economy. There were fewer entrepreneurs in packaged and branded goods without
any connections between the maker and the purchaser. Continental turned into a
primary rubber player, Deutsche Erdol and Deutsche Petroleum in oils, and Pfaff
in sewing machines.


The great firms
included metal, chemicals, and heavy machinery. The economies of scope for
machinery were exploited. For instance, in vehicles, Hanomag extended to
trucks, BEMAG extended into typesetting machines (Chandler, 1992). In the
electrical engineering firms, for example, AEG and Siemens, there was fixation
on huge production and enrolling world sales partners. The two German companies
shared the world market with American developers, Westinghouse and General
Electric. In chemical producing, three undertakings Bayer, Hoechst, and BASF exploited
the economies of scope enhancing their business portfolio from dyes to chemical
processing. The Ruhr area led in the steel rolling in Europe (Chandler, 1990).


Like previously,
present day organizations in the digital economy are reliant on economies of
scale or scope for survival. The hierarchical organization is set along the
functional line of marketing and production after research and development of
products. Transportation and distribution are happening in a network that
empowers worldwide supply through shipping. The product specificity has led to
keeping up of the brand value (Friesl and Kwon, 2017). Worldwide driving brands
like Google, Apple, Coca-Cola, Samsung, and IBM have grasped the economies of
scale with competitive managerial capitalism. In their organizations, there is
the minimization of the cost of production and distribution of units. At times,
there are an assortment of products created by the same company, therefore,
economies of scope. Apple Inc. is the maker of iPhones, iPod, tablets and digital
watches that allows it to apply the economies of scope.


The first movers
have a competitive edge over other brands. Microsoft and Google are first
movers in the production and distribution of software and search engines respectively
(Brinkkemper, 2017). Drawing in clients from early movers is getting challenging
because of the economies of scale and scope they have in contrast with the rivals.
The digital economy has firms that are capital-intensive and substantial investment
contrasted with the opponents. Siemens Company crumbled in the business of
manufacturing cell phones with the rise of Sony, Ericsson, Nokia and other cell
phone producers. The oligopolistic market nature of digital economy had Apple
Inc. bring down the cost of iPhone 4 in 2007 after the arrival of Samsung series.
The competing for profits and market shares amongst Samsung and Apple have rate
serving as the competitive weapon with strategic and functional efficiency (Chan,
Pun, and Selden, 2013). Both products are one of a kind and rank in top ten
worldwide brands; subsequently, the price is the only competitive weapon.


oligopolistic market in the digital economy has mergers and acquisitions that
are occurring horizontally or vertically. Horizontal combinations are rising
with mergers of competitors like Starwood Hotels acquisition by Marriot Hotels
to limit the local rivalry (Richard and Richard, 2017). The vertical combination
takes shape with downstream and upstream unit securing. Geographic development
is occurring with heavy investment in the present business, for example, Toyota
Corporation exercises outside its borders and Wal-Mart stores in North America
(Dholakia, Dholakia and Chattopadhyay, 2017). Product diversification and
differentiation are occurring in the digital economy with technological and
communication firms broadening their portfolio. All the more significantly, managerial
capitalism and leadership has grasped competitive managerial capitalism that
has prompted the improvement of services and products delivery. Re-investment,
watchful planning, and sound decision making is possible with salaried
directors that are influencing organizations to dominate in their production
and distribution.




In outline,
Alfred Chandler had the idea of economies of scale or scope in production and
distribution. With various ways to deal with administration in USA, Germany and
Great Britain, the world has acquired more on managerial capitalism. Capital intensive
firms utilize economies of scale in their activities. The American culture had competitive
managerial capitalism; Germans had cooperative managerial capitalism while
England had personal managerial capitalism. In the digital economy, economies
of scope, scale, and managerial capitalism are fundamental concepts to
understand. Application of such ideas decides the destiny of the business in
the contemporary society.