This article traces the economic factors in the decline of the railroad commuter business and examines the recent public-policy issues. The author is extremely skeptical of the rebirth of railroad commutation under any institutional arrangements and predicts further decline and possibly eventual extinction.

The purpose of this study is to trace the disposition of stockholder securities and to estimate the losses incurred by investors as a result of the collapse of Samuel Insull's utility complex.

This article establishes the contributions of a pioneer American thinker to the theory of administration, scientific management, and the theory (and practice) of human relations. Barksdale did not publish his ideas widely, and his contributions are best known through the men he trained and his own managerial success at Du Pont and General Motors.

The Zurich Association for study in Economic History was founded in 1950 by various trade associations, businessmen, and historians. At the time, Swiss postwar prosperity stimulated considerable discussion of the distribution of wealth and many responsible groups felt further government interference in this matter was probable but unwelcome. Founders of the Association hoped to “regain territory for the idea of private enterprise,” by giving an historical dimension to economic affairs.

In the late 1840's, under the leadership of the Boston and Maine management, the seven steam railroads in Boston promoted the development of suburbs by lowering fares and providing frequent commuter trains. By 1855 the volume of commuter traffic was of sufficient magnitude and the fares so low as to depress the earning power of the seven roads. When the managements attempted to offset increases in wages and material costs with higher commuter fares, the commuters on one line dramatically and successfully staged a revolt. The policy of deliberately developing commuter service as a by-product not only stimulated the urban development of Greater Boston but also influenced the philosophy of railroad management itself.

Substantial gains made within the past score years in clarifying the nature and scope of business history afford ample grounds for confidence that this academic youngster will assuredly develop into a vigorous adult. Such high optimism can be sustained, however, only if this small guild of practitioners develops and administers appropriate intellectual booster shots necessary for its continued health. At the moment it does appear that business history is vulnerable to a large number of afflictions. To put the matter more specifically, business historians as a group give the impression of being sharply divided on issues where agreement might reasonably be expected at this stage of the field's development. Signs of a recent shift from emphasis on decision-making, innovation, and administration to a stress on a vaguely defined “general environment” fueled concern.