Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-qxdb6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-29T01:52:19.359Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Knowledge and Competitive Advantage in the Synthetic Dye Industry, 1850–1914: The Coevolution of Firms, Technology, and National Institutions in Great Britain, Germany, and the United States

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 February 2015

Johann Peter Murmann
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

It is London 1856. William Henry Perkin serendipitously invents the first synthetic dye while he is trying to synthesize quinine, a medicine for malaria. The nineteen-year-old Perkin leaves the Royal College of Chemistry and quickly commercializes his aniline purple dye, launching the synthetic dye industry. From that time on, the industry continues to dazzle the eye with ever new and appealing dye colors. Perkin, along with entrepreneurs from Britain and France, dominates the synthetic dye industry for the next eight years. During this period, British and French firms introduce most other innovative synthetic dyes onto the market, and they hold the largest global market share.

Type
Dissertation Summaries
Information
Enterprise & Society , Volume 1 , Issue 4 , December 2000 , pp. 699 - 704
Copyright
Copyright © Enterprise and Society 2000

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Adam, Smith,The Wealth of Nations (1776;New York,1937)Google Scholar; David, Ricardo,The Principles of Political Economy and Taxation (1817;London,1911)Google Scholar; Michael E., Porter,Competitive Advantage of Nations (New York,1990)Google Scholar; and Mowery, David C. andNelson, Richard R., eds.,Sources of Industrial Leadership: Studies of Seven Industries (New York,1999).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

2. Kogut, Bruce andZander, Udo, “What Firms Do? Coordination, Identity and Learning,”Organization Science 7, no. 5 (1996):502–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar and Landes, David S.,The Wealth and Poverty of Nations: Why Some Are So Rich and Some Are So Poor (New York,1998).Google Scholar

3. Kaufmann, Stuart A.,The Origins of Order: Self-Organization and Selection in Evolution (New York,1993)Google Scholar; Thompson, John N.,The Coevolutionary Process (Chicago,1994).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

4. Durham, William H.,Coevolution: Genes, Culture, and Human Diversity (Stanford, Calif.,1991)Google Scholar; Lumsden, Charles J. andEdward Osborne Wilson, ,Genes, Mind, and Culture: The Coevolutionary Process (Cambridge, Mass.,1981).Google Scholar

5. Nelson, Richard R., “Co-Evolution of Industry Structure, Technology and Supporting Institution, and the Making of Comparative Advantage,”International Journal of the Economics of Business 2 (1995):171–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

6. Mokyr, Joel,Neither Chance nor Necessity: Evolutionary Models and Economic History (Princeton, N.J., forthcoming).Google Scholar

7. Eisenhardt, Kathleen M. andGalunic, D. Charles, “Coevolving: At Last, a Way to Make Synergies Work,”Harvard Business Review 78 (2000):91–101Google Scholar; Lewin, Arie Y.,Long, Chris P., andCarroll, Timothy N., “The Coevolution of New Organizational Forms,”Organization Science 10 no. 5 (1999):535–50.Google Scholar

8. Veblen, Thorstein,Imperial Germany and the Industrial Revolution (1915;New Brunswick, N.J.,1990).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

9. Fruin, W. Mark,The Japanese Enterprise System: Competitive Strategies and Cooperative Structures (New York,1992)Google Scholar; Gerlach, Michael,Alliance Capitalism: The Social Organization of Japanese Business (Berkeley, Calif.,1992).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

10. North, Douglass,Institutions, Institutional Change, and Economic Performance (New York,1990).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

11. Chandler, Alfred D. Jr.,Strategy and Structure: Concepts in the History of American Industrial Enterprise (Cambridge, Mass.,1962)Google Scholar; The Visible Hand: The Managerial Revolution in American Business (Cambridge, Mass.,1977)Google Scholar; Scale and Scope: The Dynamics of Industrial Capitalism (Cambridge, Mass.,1990).Google Scholar

12. Fligstein, Neil,The Transformation of Corporate Control (Cambridge, Mass.,1990)Google Scholar; Roy, William,Socializing Capital: The Rise of the Large Industrial Corporation in America (Princeton, N.J.,1997).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

13. Chandler, ,Scale and Scope,474–81.Google Scholar

14. Galambos, Louis,Competition & Cooperation: The Emergence of a National Trade Association (Baltimore, Md.,1966)Google Scholar; Hirsch, Paul, “Organizational Effectiveness and the Institutional Environment,”Administrative Science Quarterly 20 (Sept.1975):327–44.Google Scholar

15. Pfeffer, Jeffrey andSalancik, Gerald R.,The External Control of Organizations (New York,1978).Google Scholar

16. Burt, Ronald,Structural Holes: The Social Structure of Competition (Cambridge,Mass.,1992).CrossRefGoogle Scholar