Éco L2S1 Ch1 VE 2024-2025 PDF

CPES – Économie – P. Larchet – Lycée International de Palaiseau Paris-Saclay Cycle Pluridisciplinaire d’Études Supérieures : Science des données Société Santé Cours d’Économie deuxième année (tronc commun) 1er Semestre 2024-2025 [email protected] Programme Économie (L2S1) Thème 1 : Firms, governance and organisations Chapitre 1 : The firm: evolutions since the early 19th century Chapitre 2 : Firm governance and changes in financial structures Thème 2 : Les politiques économiques Chapitre 3 : La modélisation de la politique keynésienne (IS/LM et AS/AD) Chapitre 4 : Le débat sur la nécessité de l’intervention publique Mode d’évaluation La note finale semestrielle prend en compte deux dimensions : - Une note de contrôle continu (moyenne) : 50% - La note du partiel : 50% Le contrôle continu est composé de deux notes : - Une note de « khôlle » (interrogation orale) - Le partiel de mi-semestre qui aura lieu mi-octobre L’ensemble des évaluations écrites sont faites en français. Certaines khôlles peuvent en revanche se dérouler en anglais. 1 CPES – Économie – P. Larchet – Lycée International de Palaiseau Paris-Saclay Thème 1 : Firms, governance and organisations Bibliographie indicative - Baudry Bernard et Chassagnon Virgile, 2014, Les théories économiques de l’entreprise, La Découverte. - Boutillier Sophie et Uzundis Dimitri, 2011, L’aventure des entrepreneurs, Studyrama perspectives. - Cahiers Français, mars-avril 2018, Quels entrepreneurs pour demain ? - Couppey-Soubeyran Jézabel et Renault Thomas, 2021, Monnaie, banques, finance, PUF. - Drancourt Michel, 2002, Leçon d’histoire sur l’entreprise de l’antiquité à nos jours, PUF. - INSEE Références, Les entreprises en France, Edition 2022. - Philippon Thomas, 2007, Le capitalisme d’héritiers, Seuil. - Plihon Dominique, 2022, La monnaie et ses mécanismes, La Découverte. - Revue d’économie financière, 2020, 40 ans de libéralisation financière. - Revue d’économie financière, 2021, L’avenir de l’intermédiation financière. - Scialom Laurence, 2013, Économie bancaire, La Découverte. - Wirtz Peter, 2019, Les meilleures pratiques de gouvernance des entreprises, La Découverte. Chapitre 1 : The firm: evolutions since the 19th century Introduction: What is a firm? I – The entrepreneur, central figure of the firm in the 19th century A. The innovative entrepreneur B. The capitalist entrepreneur II – The development of the large enterprise and its governance A. Generalised division of labour B. The key role of hierarchy III – Firms and entrepreneurs before and since 1970 A. The rise and end of the Trente Glorieuses in France B. A new division of tasks between small and large enterprises 2 CPES – Économie – P. Larchet – Lycée International de Palaiseau Paris-Saclay DOSSIER DOCUMENTAIRE Contenu du dossier : – Document 1: The diversity of firms. Office for National Statistics (ONS), published 22 November 2023, ONS website, statistical bulletin, Business demography, UK: 2022 – Document 2: Joseph A. Schumpeter. Schumpeter Joseph, 1911, The Theory of Economic Development. – Document 3: The nature of the firm. Coase Ronald, 1936, “The Nature of the Firm”, Economica. – Document 4: The development of management. Chandler Alfred, 1977, The Visible Hand. The Managerial Revolution in American Business. – Document 5: L’auto-entreprenariat remet-il l’entrepreneur au cœur de la dynamique de la firme ? Abdelnour Sarah, 2017, Moi, petite entreprise, « L’avenir entre libéralisation et résistance ». Document 1: The diversity of firms BUSINESS DEMOGRAPHY, UK: 2022 1.Main points - Between 2021 and 2022, the number of UK business births decreased from 364,000 to 337,000 leading to a fall in the birth rate from 12.4% to 11.5% over the two years. - The number of UK business deaths increased from 328,000 to 345,000 between 2021 and 2022 leading to an increase in the death rate from 11.2% to 11.8% over the two years. - This is the first time the business death rate has exceeded the business birth rate since 2010. - The transport and storage (including postal) industry had the highest business birth rate, at 21.2%, and the highest death rate, at 23.8%. - In 2022, there were 11,480 high-growth businesses in the UK, measured by employment, compared with 10,695 in 2021. 2.Business birth and death rates, 2017 to 2022 In 2022 the business death rate (11.8%) was higher than the business birth rate (11.5%). This is the first time this has happened since 2010. The birth rate in 2022, at 11.5%, is the same as the birth rate in 2020. The last time there was a birth rate lower than 11.5% was in 2012, when the birth rate was 11.4%. The death rate in 2022, at 11.8%, is the highest death rate since 2009, when the rate was also 11.8%. Figure 1: Birth and death rates of businesses UK, 2017 to 2022 Source: Inter-Departmental Business Register from the Office for National Statistics. 3 CPES – Économie – P. Larchet – Lycée International de Palaiseau Paris-Saclay There were approximately 2.9 million active businesses in the UK during 2022, a decrease of 15,000 on 2021 (Table 1). Estimates for 2022 are available in greater geographical and industrial detail in our Business demography, UK dataset. Table 1: Business birth and death rates UK, 2017 to 2022 Count to nearest thousand Active Births Deaths Count Count Rate (%) Count Rate (%) 2017 2,845 357 12.5 331 11.7 2018 2,841 349 12.3 297 10.4 2019 2,889 364 12.6 303 10.5 2020 2,897 333 11.5 300 10.4 2021 2,940 364 12.4 328 11.2 2022 2,925 337 11.5 345 11.8 Source: Inter-Departmental Business Register from the Office for National Statistics Note : The death counts provided in this table for 2021 and 2022 are provisional. 3.Industries with the highest business birth and death rates Of the 16 industry groups, 4 showed an increase in the birth rate compared with 2021. The transport and storage (including postal) industry had the highest business birth rate at 21.2%. This industry has had the highest business birth rate since 2017 but the birth rate decreased by 4.7 percentage points from 2021 into 2022. The transport and storage death rate is now higher than the birth rate for 2022. The industry saw increases in births in couriers in 2020 and 2021 and in freight transport by road in 2021. However, both industries show falls in births in 2022 and in the case of couriers, a significant rise in business deaths in 2021 has continued into 2022. Table 2: Birth and death rates by broad industry group UK, 2022 Counts to nearest thousand Active Births Deaths Count Count Rate (%) Count Rate (%) Production 169 15 9.1 16 9.6 Construction 420 49 11.7 43 10.2 Motor trades 89 8 8.6 8 8.8 Wholesale 119 11 9.0 13 10.9 Retail 252 29 11.7 32 12.8 Transport & storage (inc. postal) 172 36 21.2 41 23.8 Accommodation & food services 201 29 14.2 26 12.8 Information & communication 221 22 10.2 30 13.6 Finance & insurance 40 3 6.9 3 8.5 Property 123 12 9.6 9 7.1 Professional; scientific & technical 481 47 9.9 59 12.2 Business administration and support services 272 40 14.7 34 12.6 Education 48 5 10.4 4 9.3 Health 117 11 9.3 9 7.3 Arts; entertainment; recreation and other services 200 19 9.5 19 9.3 Total 2,925 337 11.5 345 11.8 Source: Inter-Departmental Business Register from the Office for National Statistics Note: The death counts provided in this table for 2022 are provisional. Births and deaths of businesses can also be measured by employer business demography. This measure shows both the number of new business births (with one or more employees) and also the existing businesses that have started to employ at least one person. Likewise, the deaths show both the 4 CPES – Économie – P. Larchet – Lycée International de Palaiseau Paris-Saclay number of businesses with employees that cease to trade and also the number of businesses that have stopped employing staff. Tables 3 and 4 show business births and deaths broken down by industry. They compare the total number of businesses, the businesses with at least one employee, and those businesses with two or more employees. Analysis of business births shows that most industries have a large proportion of births which were either sole proprietors or single employee businesses in 2022. For example, over 80% of births in the transport and storage industry in 2022 were in this category. Conversely, the accommodation and food services industry shows virtually the opposite to this, with over 70% of businesses having two or more employees. Table 3: Comparison of business births by industry and employee size bands UK, 2022 Business Employers 2 or more Demography Demography employees Production 15,325 13,060 4,420 Construction 49,390 44,295 13,355 Motor trades 7,570 7,025 2,095 Wholesale 10,765 9,800 2,160 Retail 29,420 27,700 8,410 Transport and storage (inc. postal) 36,460 20,760 6,955 Accommodation and food services 28,550 28,055 20,635 Information and communication 22,455 21,395 5,165 Finance and insurance (Excl 6420) 2,775 2,690 1,035 Property 11,825 11,350 3,270 Professional, scientific and technical 47,445 44,890 10,895 Business administration and support services 39,965 38,825 13,565 Education 5,000 4,785 1,795 Health 10,890 10,780 3,960 Arts, entertainment, recreation and other services 19,090 17,540 7,705 Total 336,925 302,950 105,420 Source: Inter-Departmental Business Register from the Office for National Statistics Note: Please note that figures are rounded. Table 4: Comparison of business deaths by industry and employee size bands UK, 2022 Business Employers 2 or more Demography Demography employees Production 16,270 14,270 4,690 Construction 42,730 36,560 10,560 Motor trades 7,790 6,370 2,245 Wholesale 12,970 11,500 3,465 Retail 32,305 27,755 9,115 Transport and storage (inc. postal) 40,995 22,275 6,275 Accommodation and food services 25,715 24,840 17,380 Information and communication 30,080 28,925 5,245 Finance and insurance (Excl 6420) 3,415 3,290 1,170 Property 8,680 7,235 2,095 Professional, scientific and technical 58,870 54,580 10,175 Business administration and support services 34,110 32,180 9,180 Education 4,475 4,150 1,490 Health 8,545 8,530 2,945 Arts, entertainment, recreation and other services 18,540 15,395 5,890 Total 345,490 297,855 91,920 Source: Inter-Departmental Business Register from the Office for National Statistics Note: Please note that figures are rounded. 5 CPES – Économie – P. Larchet – Lycée International de Palaiseau Paris-Saclay 4.Regions with the highest business births and deaths At a regional level, London had the highest business birth rate at 12.7%. The main industry impacting births in the London was professional scientific and technical at 16.5%, with management consultancy contributing almost half of this increase. The East Midlands was the region with the highest business death rate at 13.2%. The biggest proportion of these deaths was in transport and storage at 15.8%. Freight transport by road and removal services contributed to almost half of this increase. Table 5: Birth and death rates by region UK, 2022 Counts given to the nearest thousand Active Births Deaths Count Count Rate (%) Count Rate (%) North East 78 10 12.4 9 12.1 North West 291 36 12.5 37 12.6 Yorkshire and The Humber 205 26 12.6 24 11.5 East Midlands 197 23 11.5 26 13.2 West Midlands 237 29 12.1 30 12.7 East 290 32 11.0 33 11.2 London 603 77 12.7 77 12.7 South East 442 44 10.0 49 11.1 South West 237 25 10.3 25 10.4 Wales 105 12 11.6 12 11.2 Scotland 174 19 10.8 20 11.3 Northern Ireland 65 5 8.3 5 8.2 Total 2,925 337 11.5 345 11.8 Source: Inter-Departmental Business Register from the Office for National Statistics Notes: 1. The death counts provided in this table for 2022 are provisional. 2. Please note that figures are rounded. 5.Business survival rates The region with the highest five-year survival rate was Northern Ireland at 49.0%. The survival rates show the percentage of businesses that survived into 2022. For the second year running, Northern Ireland has shown the highest five-year business survival rate. The largest proportion of these surviving businesses was in the construction industry. The region with the lowest five-year survival rate was the North West at 31.6%. Figure 2: The five-year survival rate for UK businesses born in 2017 is 39.6% Survival rates of UK businesses born between 2017 and 2022 Source: Inter-Departmental Business Register from the Office for National Statistics 6 CPES – Économie – P. Larchet – Lycée International de Palaiseau Paris-Saclay 6.High-growth businesses in the UK At the UK level, out of 291,000 businesses that had 10 or more employees in 2022, 11,480 businesses (3.9%) have been classed as being high growth. This is an increase of 0.1 percentage points compared with last year. Breakdown by region London was the region with the largest number of businesses showing high growth at 2,710 businesses, with a high-growth rate of 5.3%. Northern Ireland had the smallest high-growth rate at 2.9%. There were decreases in the high-growth rate in the North East and East Midlands, but the remaining regions stayed the same or had a slight increase. The regions with the largest increase in the high-growth rate were London and South East at 0.4 percentage points. Table 6: High-growth rates by region UK, 2022 High Growth Actives % Rate (10 or more employees) Count Count Rate (%) North East 340 9,075 3.7 North West 1,210 31,060 3.9 Yorkshire and The Humber 805 22,375 3.6 East Midlands 670 20,060 3.3 West Midlands 805 23,890 3.4 East 985 26,855 3.7 London 2,710 51,340 5.3 South East 1,680 41,450 4.1 South West 985 25,390 3.9 Wales 400 11,200 3.6 Scotland 670 20,770 3.2 Northern Ireland 225 7,650 2.9 Total 11,485 291,115 3.9 Source: Inter-Departmental Business Register from the Office for National Statistics Note: Please note that figures are rounded. Breakdown by broad industry group The industry with the highest percentage of businesses showing high growth was information and communication at 8.1%, followed by finance and insurance at 5.5%. The industry with the smallest percentage of high-growth businesses was property at 2.2%. Most industries show an increase in the proportion of high-growth businesses with only construction, motor trades, property and health showing a fall. The industry to show the largest increase in high-growth rate was accommodation and food services, moving from 2.6% in 2021 to 3.1% in 2022. Table 7: High growth rates by broad industry group UK, 2022 High Actives % Rate Growth (10 or more employees) Count Count Rate (%) Production 970 31,705 3.1 Construction 740 21,480 3.4 Motor trades 150 6,450 2.3 Wholesale 625 18,120 3.4 Retail 685 20,535 3.3 Transport & storage (inc. postal) 395 10,765 3.7 Accommodation & food services 1,335 43,010 3.1 7 CPES – Économie – P. Larchet – Lycée International de Palaiseau Paris-Saclay Information & communication 1,190 14,610 8.1 Finance & insurance 265 4,855 5.5 Property 145 6,565 2.2 Professional; scientific & technical 1,550 29,800 5.2 Business administration and support services 1,360 25,300 5.4 Education 330 8,370 3.9 Health 1,175 32,000 3.7 Arts; entertainment; recreation and other services 565 17,550 3.2 Total 11,480 291,115 3.9 Source: Inter-Departmental Business Register from the Office for National Statistics Note: Please note that figures are rounded. 7.Business demography, UK data Business demography, UK: 2022 Dataset | Released 22 November 2023 Annual data on births, deaths and survivals of businesses in the UK, by geographical area and Standard Industrial Classification 2007: SIC 2007 groups. 8.Glossary Active business The starting point for the calculation of business demography data is the concept of active businesses in a reference year. These are defined as businesses that had either turnover or employment at any time during the reference period. Business For the purpose of this release, "business" is used to represent an enterprise. An enterprise is an organisational unit producing goods or services that has a certain degree of autonomy in decision-making. Business birth New business registrations (identified through registration of the administrative units, that is, VAT and PAYE) are referred to as business births. The birth rate is calculated using the number of births as a proportion of the active businesses. Business death Businesses that have ceased to trade (identified through de-registration of the administrative units) are referred to as business deaths. The death rate is calculated using the number of deaths as a proportion of the active businesses. Employer business birth Employer business births include new businesses with at least one employee, as well as existing non- employer businesses that have become employer businesses. Employer business death Employer business deaths are businesses that ceased to trade with at least one employee, as well as businesses that ceased to employ staff. Employer business demography Employer business demography is an alternative measure of business demography based on businesses with at least one employee. 8 CPES – Économie – P. Larchet – Lycée International de Palaiseau Paris-Saclay High growth High growth, for the purpose of this publication, measures all businesses with an average growth in employment of greater than 20%, per annum, over a three-year period (between 2018 to 2021). The size threshold used to identify these businesses is that they have 10 or more employees. Inter-Departmental Business Register The Inter-Departmental Business Register (IDBR) is a database of all businesses in the UK registered for Value Added Tax (VAT) and/or Pay As You Earn (PAYE). There are approximately 2.9 million businesses on the IDBR. The IDBR is the register of UK businesses used as a sampling frame for Office of National Statistics (ONS) business surveys. Survivals A business is deemed to have survived if it was born in year t or has survived to year t, and it is active in terms of employment or turnover, or both, in any part of t+1. 9.Measuring the data Data sources Business demography is an annual publication produced from the Inter-Departmental Business Register (IDBR). The publication focuses on changes to the registered business population, that is, those businesses registered at HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) for Value Added Tax (VAT) and/or Pay As You Earn (PAYE), and at Companies House. Quality More quality and methodology information (QMI) on strengths, limitations, appropriate uses, and how the data were created is available in our Business demography QMI. 10.Strengths and limitations The starting point for the calculation of business demography data is the concept of active businesses in a reference year. These are defined as businesses that had either turnover or employment at any time during the reference period. New business registrations (identified through registration of the administrative units, that is, Value Added Tax, (VAT) and Pay as You Earn, (PAYE)) are referred to as business births. The birth rate is calculated using the number of births as a proportion of the active businesses. Businesses that have ceased to trade (identified through de-registration of the administrative units) are referred to as business deaths. The death rate is calculated using the number of deaths as a proportion of the active businesses. The Eurostat and Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) manual on business demography statistics recommends waiting for two years after the reference period to allow for reactivations before deaths figures are calculated. In this release, we estimated the number of reactivations and adjusted the data accordingly. This adjustment has been applied to all industries, by removing units from the death data. This can lead to different percentage adjustments at the lowest level of aggregation. Since the level of reactivations is subject to some uncertainty, the latest two years in the publication are considered to be provisional and subject to revision. Table 9 of our Business demography, UK dataset shows the adjustments made to the death data for reactivations. In recent years, the number of multiple business registrations at a single postcode on our Inter- Departmental Business Register (IDBR) have increased, affecting the number of births, deaths and survival rates. There are several reasons why these multiple registrations can occur, such as an increase in the use of management and personal service companies, virtual offices and foreign internet sellers. 9 CPES – Économie – P. Larchet – Lycée International de Palaiseau Paris-Saclay To help users assess the effect of these registrations, our Multiple business registrations at a single postcode, UK methodology has been published to explain this issue in more detail. The Business demography, UK dataset gives rounded counts at district level for births of these businesses. An improvement was made last year to the data shown for all of the years covered in the release by removing businesses that have neither VAT nor PAYE but do have a live company number. They were removed from both annual and quarterly demography because they can misrepresent business birth and death figures. 11.Related links Multiple business registrations at a single postcode, UK: 2022 Article | Released 22 November 2023 Business demography explainer covering additional information on the impact of multiple registrations at a single postcode. Business demography, quarterly experimental statistics, UK Bulletin | Released 26 October 2023 Business births and deaths from the Inter-Departmental Business Register (IDBR) with high-level breakdowns by industry and region. Quarterly Experimental Statistics. UK business; activity, size and location: 2023 Bulletin | Released 27 September 2023 UK businesses broken down by legal status, industry, region, employment and turnover size bands. Business population estimates Bulletin | Last updated 5 October 2023 Annual business population estimates for the UK and regions in 2023. – Office for National Statistics (ONS), published 22 November 2023, ONS website, statistical bulletin, Business demography, UK: 2022 Guide de lecture sur le Document 1 : 1. What are the birth and death rates for “businesses”? 2. What is the most active industry group in the UK? 3. What is the sector that has the largest labour force growth? 4. Compare the totals of Table 4. What does this mean? 5. How the data from the analysis can show economic spatial inequalities in the UK? 6. How would you characterise the British economy regarding this study? Document 2: Joseph A. Schumpeter Economic development is so far simply the object of economic history, which in turn is merely a part of universal history, only separated from the rest for purposes of exposition. Because of this fundamental dependence of the economic aspect of things on everything else, it is not possible to explain economic change by previous economic conditions alone. For the economic state of a people does not emerge simply from the preceding economic conditions, but only from the preceding total situation. The expository and analytical difficulties which arise from this are very much diminished, practically if not in principle, by the facts which form the basis of economic interpretation of history; without being 10 CPES – Économie – P. Larchet – Lycée International de Palaiseau Paris-Saclay compelled to take a stand for or against this view, we can state that the economic world is relatively autonomous because it takes up such a great part of a nation's life, and forms or conditions a great part of the remainder; wherefore writing economic history by itself is obviously a different thing from writing, say, military history. To this must be added still another fact which facilitates the separate description of any of the divisions of the social process. Every sector of social life is, as it were, inhabited by a distinct set of people. The heteronomous elements generally do not affect the social process in any such sector directly as the bursting of a bomb “affects” all things which happen to be in the room in which it explodes, but only through its data and the conduct of its inhabitants; and even if an event occurs like the one suggested by our metaphor of a bursting bomb, the effects only occur in the particular garb with which those primarily concerned dress them. Therefore, just as describing the effects of the Counter Reformation upon Italian and Spanish painting always remains history of art, so describing the economic process remains economic history even where the true causation is largely non-economic. […] By “development,” therefore, we shall understand only such changes in economic life as are not forced upon it from without but arise by its own initiative, from within. Should it turn out that there are no such changes arising in the economic sphere itself, and that the phenomenon that we call economic development is in practice simply founded upon the fact that the data change and that the economy continuously adapts itself to them, then we should say that there is no economic development. By this we should mean that economic development is not a phenomenon to be explained economically, but that the economy, in itself without development, is dragged along by the changes in the surrounding world, that the causes and hence the explanation of the development must be sought outside the group of facts which are described by economic theory. […] These spontaneous and discontinuous changes in the channel of the circular flow and these disturbances of the centre of equilibrium appear in the sphere of industrial and commercial life, not in the sphere of the wants of the consumers of final products. Where spontaneous and discontinuous changes in consumers' tastes appear, it is a question of a sudden change in data with which the businessman must cope, hence possibly a question of a motive or an opportunity for other than gradual adaptations of his conduct, but not of such other conduct itself. Therefore this case does not offer any other problems than a change in natural data or require any new method of treatment; wherefore we shall neglect any spontaneity of consumers' needs that may actually exist, and assume tastes as “given.” This is made easy for us by the fact that the spontaneity of wants is in general small. To be sure, we must always start from the satisfaction of wants, since they are the end of all production, and the given economic situation at any time must be understood from this aspect. Yet innovations in the economic system do not as a rule take place in such a way that first new wants arise spontaneously in consumers and then the productive apparatus swings round through their pressure. We do not deny the presence of this nexus. It is, however, the producer who as a rule initiates economic change, and consumers are educated by him if necessary; they are, as it were, taught to want new things, or things which differ in some respect or other from those which they have been in the habit of using. Therefore, while it is permissible and even necessary to consider consumers' wants as an independent and indeed the fundamental force in a theory of the circular flow, we must take a different attitude as soon as we analyse change. To produce means to combine materials and forces within our reach. To produce other things, or the same things by a different method, means to combine these materials and forces differently. In so far as the “new combination” may in time grow out of the old by continuous adjustment in small steps, there is certainly change, possibly growth, but neither a new phenomenon nor development in our sense. In so far as this is not the case, and the new combinations appear discontinuously, then the phenomenon characterising development emerges. For reasons of expository convenience, henceforth, we shall only mean the latter case when we speak of new combinations of productive means. Development in our sense is then defined by the carrying out of new combinations. This concept covers the following five cases: (1) The introduction of a new good — that is one with which consumers are not yet familiar — or of a new quality of a good. (2) The introduction of a new method of production, that is one not yet tested by experience in the branch of manufacture concerned, 11 CPES – Économie – P. Larchet – Lycée International de Palaiseau Paris-Saclay which need by no means be founded upon a discovery scientifically new, and can also exist in a new way of handling a commodity commercially. (3) The opening of a new market, that is a market into which the particular branch of manufacture of the country in question has not previously entered, whether or not this market has existed before. (4) The conquest of a new source of supply of raw materials or half- manufactured goods, again irrespective of whether this source already exists or whether it has first to be created. (5) The carrying out of the new organisation of any industry, like the creation of a monopoly position (for example through trustification) or the breaking up of a monopoly position. Now two things are essential for the phenomena incident to the carrying out of such new combinations, and for the understanding of the problems involved. In the first place it is not essential to the matter — though it may happen — that the new combinations should be carried out by the same people who control the productive or commercial process which is to be displaced by the new. On the contrary, new combinations are, as a rule, embodied, as it were, in new firms which generally do not arise out of the old ones but start producing beside them; to keep to the example already chosen, in general it is not the owner of stage-coaches who builds railways. This fact not only puts the discontinuity which characterises the process we want to describe in a special light, and creates so to speak still another kind of discontinuity in addition to the one mentioned above, but it also explains important features of the course of events. Especially in a competitive economy, in which new combinations mean the competitive elimination of the old, it explains on the one hand the process by which individuals and families rise and fall economically and socially and which is peculiar to this form of organisation, as well as a whole series of other phenomena of the business cycle, of the mechanism of the formation of private fortunes, and so on. In a non-exchange economy, for example a socialist one, the new combinations would also frequently appear side by side with the old. But the economic consequences of this fact would be absent to some extent, and the social consequences would be wholly absent. And if the competitive economy is broken up by the growth of great combines, as is increasingly the case to-day in all countries, then this must become more and more true of real life, and the carrying out of new combinations must become in ever greater measure the internal concern of one and the same economic body. The difference so made is great enough to serve as the water-shed between two epochs in the social history of capitalism. […] The carrying out of new combinations we call “enterprise”; the individuals whose function it is to carry them out we call “entrepreneurs.” These concepts are at once broader and narrower than the usual. Broader, because in the first place we call entrepreneurs not only those “independent” businessmen in an exchange economy who are usually so designated, but all who actually fulfil the function by which we define the concept, even if they are, as is becoming the rule, “dependent” employees of a company, like managers, members of boards of directors, and so forth, or even if their actual power to perform the entrepreneurial function has any other foundations, such as the control of a majority of shares. As it is the carrying out of new combinations that constitutes the entrepreneur, it is not necessary that he should be permanently connected with an individual firm; many “financiers,” “promotors,” and so forth are not, and still they may be entrepreneurs in our sense. On the other hand, our concept is narrower than the traditional one in that it does not include all heads of firms or managers or industrialists who merely may operate an established business, but only those who actually perform that function. Nevertheless I maintain that the above definition does no more than formulate with greater precision what the traditional doctrine really means to convey. In the first place our definition agrees with the usual one on the fundamental point of distinguishing between “entrepreneurs” and “capitalists” — irrespective of whether the latter are regarded as owners of money, claims to money, or material goods. This distinction is common property to-day and has been so for a considerable time. It also settles the question whether the ordinary shareholder as such is an entrepreneur, and disposes of the conception of the entrepreneur as risk bearer. Furthermore, the ordinary characterisation of the entrepreneur type by such expressions as “initiative,” “authority,” or “foresight” points entirely in our direction. For there is little scope for such qualities within the routine of the circular flow, and if this had been sharply separated from the occurrence of changes in this routine itself, the emphasis in the definition of the function of entrepreneurs would have been shifted automatically to the latter. Finally there are definitions which we could simply accept. There is in particular the well known one that goes back to J. B. Say: the entrepreneur's function is to combine 12 CPES – Économie – P. Larchet – Lycée International de Palaiseau Paris-Saclay the productive factors, to bring them together. Since this is a performance of a special kind only when the factors are combined for the first time — while it is merely routine work if done in the course of running a business — this definition coincides with ours. When Mataja (in Unternehmergewinn) defines the entrepreneur as one who receives profit, we have only to add the conclusion of the first chapter, that there is no profit in the circular flow, in order to trace this formulation too back to ours. And this view is not foreign to traditional theory, as is shown by the construction of the entrepreneur faisant ni bénéfice ni perte, which has been worked out rigorously by Walras, but is the property of many other authors. The tendency is for the entrepreneur to make neither profit nor loss in the circular flow — that is he has no function of a special kind there, he simply does not exist; but in his stead, there are heads of firms or business managers of a different type which we had better not designate by the same term. […] Because being an entrepreneur is not a profession and as a rule not a lasting condition, entrepreneurs do not form a social class in the technical sense, as, for example, landowners or capitalists or workmen do. Of course the entrepreneurial function will lead to certain class positions for the successful entrepreneur and his family. It can also put its stamp on an epoch of social history, can form a style of life, or systems of moral and aesthetic values; but in itself it signifies a class position no more than it presupposes one. And the class position which may be attained is not as such an entrepreneurial position, but is characterised as landowning or capitalist, according to how the proceeds of the enterprise are used. Inheritance of the pecuniary result and of personal qualities may then both keep up this position for more than one generation and make further enterprise easier for descendants, but the function of the entrepreneur itself cannot be inherited, as is shown well enough by the history of manufacturing families. But now the decisive question arises: why then is the carrying out of new combinations a special process and the object of a special kind of “function”? Every individual carries on his economic affairs as well as he can. To be sure, his own intentions are never realised with ideal perfection, but ultimately his behavior is moulded by the influence on him of the results of his conduct, so as to fit circumstances which do not as a rule change suddenly. If a business can never be absolutely perfect in any sense, yet it in time approaches a relative perfection having regard to the surrounding world, the social conditions, the knowledge of the time, and the horizon of each individual or each group. New possibilities are continuously being offered by the surrounding world, in particular new discoveries are continuously being added to the existing store of knowledge. Why should not the individual make just as much use of the new possibilities as of the old, and, according to the market position as he understands it, keep pigs instead of cows, or even choose a new crop rotation, if this can be seen to be more advantageous? And what kind of special new phenomena or problems, not to be found in the established circular flow, can arise there? While in the accustomed circular flow every individual can act promptly and rationally because he is sure of his ground and is supported by the conduct, as adjusted to this circular flow, of all other individuals, who in turn expect the accustomed activity from him, he cannot simply do this when he is confronted by a new task. While in the accustomed channels his own ability and experience suffice for the normal individual, when confronted with innovations he needs guidance. While he swims with the stream in the circular flow which is familiar to him, he swims against the stream if he wishes to change its channel. What was formerly a help becomes a hindrance. What was a familiar datum becomes an unknown. Where the boundaries of routine stop, many people can go no further, and the rest can only do so in a highly variable manner. The assumption that conduct is prompt and rational is in all cases a fiction. But it proves to be sufficiently near to reality, if things have time to hammer logic into men. Where this has happened, and within the limits in which it has happened, one may rest content with this fiction and build theories upon it. It is then not true that habit or custom or non-economic ways of thinking cause a hopeless difference between the individuals of different classes, times, or cultures, and that, for example, the “economics of the stock exchange” would be inapplicable say to the peasants of to-day or to the craftsmen of the Middle Ages. – Schumpeter Joseph, 1911, The Theory of Economic Development. 13 CPES – Économie – P. Larchet – Lycée International de Palaiseau Paris-Saclay Guide de lecture sur le Document 2 : 1. What are the specificities of economic development for Schumpeter? 2. When changes happen in the social life, does it affects every part of it? 3. What is innovation and who is at the origin of this phenomenon? 4. What is the influence of an innovation on the previous equilibrium? 5. How does Schumpeter defines the “entrepreneur”, and how is the concept different than the “capitalist” one? Document 3: The nature of the firm Economic theory has suffered in the past from a failure to state clearly its assumptions. Economists in building up a theory have often omitted to examine the foundations on which it was erected. This examination is, however, essential not only to prevent the misunderstanding and needless controversy which arise from a lack of knowledge of the assumptions on which a theory is based, but also because of the extreme importance for economics of good judgment in choosing between rival sets of assumptions. For instance, it is suggested that the use of the word “firm” in economics may be different from the use of the term by the “plain man.” Since there is apparently a trend in economic theory towards starting analysis with the individual firm and not with the industry, it is all the more necessary not only that a clear definition of the word “firm” should be given but that its difference from a firm in the “real world,” if it exists, should be made clear. Mrs. Robinson has said that “the two questions to be asked of a set of assumptions in economics are: Are they tractable? and: Do they correspond with the real world?”1 Though, as Mrs. Robinson points out, “more often one set will be manageable and the other realistic,” yet there may well be branches of theory where assumptions may be both manageable and realistic. It is hoped to show in the following paper that a definition of a firm may be obtained which is not only realistic in that it corresponds to what is meant by a firm in the real world, but is tractable by two of the most powerful instruments of economic analysis developed by Marshall, the idea of the margin and that of substitution, together giving the idea of substitution at the margin.’ Our definition must, of course, “relate to formal relations which are capable of being conceived exactly.” […] II Our task is to attempt to discover why a firm emerges at all in a specialised exchange economy. The price mechanism (considered purely from the side of the direction of resources) might be superseded if the relationship which replaced it was desired for its own sake. This would be the case, for example, if some people preferred to work under the direction of some other person. Such individuals would accept less in order to work under someone, and firms would arise naturally from this. But it would appear that this cannot be a very important reason, for it would rather seem that the opposite tendency is operating if one judges from the stress normally laid on the advantage of “being one’s own master.” Of course, if the desire was not to be controlled but to control, to exercise power over others, then people might be willing to give up something in order to direct others ; that is, they would be willing to pay others more than they could get under the price mechanism in order to be able to direct them. But this implies that those who direct pay in order to be able to do this and are not paid to direct, which is clearly not true in the majority of cases. Firms might also exist if purchasers preferred commodities which are produced by firms to those not so produced; but even in spheres where one would expect such preferences (if they exist) to be of 1 Robinson Joan, 1932, Economics is a serious subject. 14 CPES – Économie – P. Larchet – Lycée International de Palaiseau Paris-Saclay negligible importance, firms are to be found in the real world. Therefore there must be other elements involved. The main reason why it is profitable to establish a firm would seem to be that there is a cost of using the price mechanism. The most obvious cost of “organising” production through the price mechanism is that of discovering what the relevant prices are. This cost may be reduced but it will not be eliminated by the emergence of specialists who will sell this information. The costs of negotiating and concluding a separate contract for each exchange transaction which takes place on a market must also be taken into account. Again, in certain markets, e.g., produce exchanges, a technique is devised for minimising these contract costs; but they are not eliminated. It is true that contracts are not eliminated when there is a firm but they are greatly reduced. A factor of production (or the owner thereof) does not have to make a series of contracts with the factors with whom he is co-operating within the firm, as would be necessary, of course, if this co-operation were as a direct result of the working of the price mechanism. For this series of contracts is substituted one. At this stage, it is important to note the character of the contract into which a factor enters that is employed within a firm. The contract is one whereby the factor, for a certain remuneration (which may be fixed or fluctuating), agrees to obey the directions of an entrepreneur within certain limits. The essence of the contract is that it should only state the limits to the powers of the entrepreneur. Within these limits, he can therefore direct the other factors of production. There are, however, other disadvantages – or costs – of using the price mechanism. It may be desired to make a long-term contract for the supply of some article or service. This may be due to the fact that if one contract is made for a longer period, instead of several shorter ones, then certain costs of making each contract will be avoided. Or, owing to the risk attitude of the people concerned, they may prefer to make a long rather than a short-term contract. Now, owing to the difficulty of forecasting, the longer the period of the contract is for the supply of the commodity or service, the less possible, and indeed, the less desirable it is for the person purchasing to specify what the other contracting party is expected to do. It may well be a matter of indifference to the person supplying the service or commodity which of several courses of action is taken, but not to the purchaser of that service or commodity. But the purchaser will not know which of these several courses he will want the supplier to take. Therefore, the service which is being provided is expressed in general terms, the exact details being left until a later date. All that is stated in the contract is the limits to what the persons supplying the commodity or service is expected to do. The details of what the supplier is expected to do is not stated in the contract but is decided later by the purchaser. When the direction of resources (within the limits of the contract) becomes dependent on the buyer in this way, that relationship which I term a "firm" may be obtained. A firm is likely therefore to emerge in those cases where a very short-term contract would be unsatisfactory. It is obviously of more importance in the case of services labour – than it is in the case of the buying of commodities. In the case of commodities, the main items can be stated in advance and the details which will be decided later will be of minor significance. We may sum up this section of the argument by saying that the operation of a market costs something and by forming an organisation and allowing some authority (an "entrepreneur") to direct the resources, certain marketing costs are saved. The entrepreneur has to carry out his function at less cost, taking into account the fact that he may get factors of production at a lower price than the market transactions which he supersedes, because it is always possible to revert to the open market if he fails to do this. The question of uncertainty is one which is often considered to be very relevant to the study of the equilibrium of the firm. It seems improbable that a firm would emerge without the existence of uncertainty. But those, for instance, Professor Knight, who make the mode of payment the distinguishing mark of the firm – fixed incomes being guaranteed to some of those engaged in production by a person who takes the residual, and fluctuating, income – would appear to be introducing a point which is irrelevant to the problem we are considering. One entrepreneur may sell his services to another for a certain sum of money, while the payment to his employees may be mainly or wholly a share in profits. The significant question would appear to be why the allocation of resources is not done directly by the price mechanism. 15 CPES – Économie – P. Larchet – Lycée International de Palaiseau Paris-Saclay Another factor that should be noted is that exchange transactions on a market and the same transactions organised within a firm are often treated differently by Governments or other bodies with regulatory powers. If we consider the operation of a sales tax, it is clear that it is a tax on market transactions and not on the same transactions organised within the firm. Now since these are alternative methods of "organisation" – by the price mechanism or by the entrepreneur-such a regulation would bring into existence firms which otherwise would have no raison d'être. It would furnish a reason for the emergence of a firm in a specialised exchange economy. Of course, to the extent that firms already exist, such a measure as a sales tax would merely tend to make them larger than they would otherwise be. Similarly, quota schemes, and methods of price control which imply that there is rationing, and which do not apply to firms producing such products for themselves, by allowing advantages to those who organise within the firm and not through the market, necessarily encourage the growth of firms. But it is difficult to believe that it is measures such as have been mentioned in this paragraph which have brought firms into existence. Such measures would, however, tend to have this result if they did not exist for other reasons. These, then, are the reasons why organisations such as firms exist in a specialised exchange economy in which it is generally assumed that the distribution of resources is "organised" by the price mechanism. A firm, therefore, consists of the system of relationships which comes into existence when the direction of resources is dependent on an entrepreneur. The approach which has just been sketched would appear to offer an advantage in that it is possible to give a scientific meaning to what is meant by saying that a firm gets 'larger or smaller. A firm becomes larger as additional transactions (which could be exchange transactions co-ordinated through the price mechanism) are organised by the entrepreneur and becomes smaller as he abandons the organisation of such transactions. The question which arises is whether it is possible to study the forces which determine the size of the firm. Why does the entrepreneur not organise one less transaction or one more? It is interesting to note that Professor Knight considers that: “the relation between efficiency and size is one of the most serious problems of theory, being, in contrast with the relation for a plant, largely a matter of personality and historical accident rather than of intelligible general principles. But the question is peculiarly vital because the possibility of monopoly gain offers a powerful incentive to continuous and unlimited expansion of the firm, which force must be offset by some equally powerful one making for decreased efficiency (in the production of money income) with growth in size, if even boundary competition is to exist.”1 Professor Knight would appear to consider that it is impossible to treat scientifically the determinants of the size of the firm. On the basis of the concept of the firm developed above, this task will now be attempted. It was suggested that the introduction of the firm was due primarily to the existence of marketing costs. A pertinent question to ask would appear to be (quite apart from the monopoly considerations raised by Professor Knight), why, if by organising one can eliminate certain costs and in fact reduce the cost of production, are there any market transactions at all? Why is not all production carried on by one big firm? There would appear to be certain possible explanations. First, as a firm gets larger, there may be decreasing returns to the entrepreneur function, that is, the costs of organising additional transactions within the firm may rise. Naturally, a point must be reached where the costs of organising an extra transaction within the firm are equal to the costs involved in carrying out the transaction in the open market, or, to the costs of organising by another entrepreneur. Secondly, it may be that as the transactions which are organised increase, the entrepreneur fails to place the factors of production in the uses where their value is greatest, that is, fails to make the best use of the factors of production. Again, a point must be reached where the loss through the waste of resources is equal to the marketing costs of the exchange transaction in the open market or to the loss if the transaction was organised by- another entrepreneur. Finally, the supply price of one or more of the factors of production may rise, because the "other advantages" of a small firm are greater than those of a large firm. Of course, the actual point where the expansion of the firm ceases might be determined by a combination 1 Knight Frank, 1921, Risk, Uncertainty and Profit. 16 CPES – Économie – P. Larchet – Lycée International de Palaiseau Paris-Saclay of the factors mentioned above. The first two reasons given most probably correspond to the economists' phrase of " diminishing returns to management." The point has been made in the previous paragraph that a firm will tend to expand until the costs of organising an extra transaction within the firm become equal to the costs of carrying out the same transaction by means of an exchange on the open market or the costs of organising in another firm. But if the firm stops its expansion at a point below the costs of marketing in the open market and at a point equal to the costs of organising in another firm, in most cases (excluding the case of "combination"), this will imply that there is a market transaction between these two producers, each of whom could organise it at less than the actual marketing costs. How is the paradox to be resolved? If we consider an example the reason for this will become clear. Suppose A is buying a product from B and that both A and B could organise this marketing transaction at less than its present cost. B, we can assume, is not organising one process or stage of production, but several. If A therefore wishes to avoid a market transaction, he will have to take over all the processes of production controlled by B. Unless A takes over all the processes of production, a market transaction will still remain, although it is a different product that is bought. But we have previously assumed that as each producer expands he becomes less efficient; the additional costs of organising extra transactions increase. It is probable that A’s cost of organising the transactions previously organised by B will be greater than B’s cost of doing the same thing. A therefore will take over the whole of B’s organisation only if his cost of organising B’s work is not greater than B’s cost by an amount equal to the costs of carrying out an exchange transaction on the open market. But once it becomes economical to have a market transaction, it also pays to divide production in such a way that the cost of organising an extra transaction in each firm is the same. Up to now it has been assumed that the exchange transactions which take place through the price mechanism are homogeneous. In fact, nothing could be more diverse than the actual transactions which take place in our modern world. This would seem to imply that the costs of carrying out exchange transactions through the price mechanism will vary considerably as will also the costs of organising these transactions within the firm. It seems therefore possible that quite apart from the question of diminishing returns the costs of organising certain transactions within the firm may be greater than the costs of carrying out the exchange transactions in the open market. This would necessarily imply that there were exchange transactions carried out through the price mechanism, but would it mean that there would have to be more than one firm? Clearly not, for all those areas in the economic system where the direction of resources was not dependent directly on the price mechanism could be organised within one firm. The factors which were discussed earlier would seem to be the important ones, though it is difficult to say whether “diminishing returns to management” or the rising supply price of factors is likely to be the more important. Other things being equal, therefore, a firm will tend to be larger: (a) the less the costs of organising and the slower these costs rise with an increase in the transactions organised. (b) the less likely the entrepreneur is to make mistakes and the smaller the increase in mistakes with an increase in the transactions organised. (c) the greater the lowering (or the less the rise) in the supply price of factors of production to firms of larger size. Apart from variations in the supply price of factors of production to firms of different sizes, it would appear that the costs of organising and the losses through mistakes will increase with an increase in the spatial distribution of the transactions organised, in the dissimilarity of the transactions, and in the probability of changes in the relevant prices. As more transactions are organised by an entrepreneur, it would appear that the transactions would tend to be either different in kind or in different places. This furnishes an additional reason why efficiency will tend to decrease as the firm gets larger. Inventions which tend to bring factors of production nearer together, by lessening spatial distribution, tend to increase the size of the firm. Changes like the telephone and the telegraph which tend to reduce the cost of organising spatially will tend to increase the size of the firm. All changes which improve managerial technique will tend to increase the size of the firm. It should be noted that the definition of a firm which was given above can be used to give more precise meanings to the terms “combination” and “integration.” There is a combination when transactions 17 CPES – Économie – P. Larchet – Lycée International de Palaiseau Paris-Saclay which were previously organised by two or more entrepreneurs become organised by one. This becomes integration when it involves the organisation of transactions which were previously carried out between the entrepreneurs on a market. A firm can expand in either or both of these two ways. The whole of the “structure of competitive industry” becomes tractable by the ordinary technique of economic analysis. […] – Coase Ronald, 1936, “The Nature of the Firm”, Economica. Guide de lecture sur le Document 3 : 1. What is the critique that Ronald Coase addresses to economists in the introduction of his article? 2. What are the two possibilities of agents when they want to make any kind of economical exchange? 3. What assumption of the “perfect competition” model is discussed by Ronal Coase here? 4. What is the response of agents regarding the absence of the effectiveness of this assumption? 5. What are the different costs that Coase is discussing? 6. What is the “force” determining the size of the firm? 7. What is eventually the nature of the firm? Document 4: The development of management CONCLUSION: THE MANAGERIAL REVOLUTION IN AMERICAN BUSINESS This study does more than trace the history of an institution. It describes the beginnings of a new economic function – that of administrative coordination and allocation – and the coming of a new subspecies of economic man – the salaried manager – to carry out this function. Technological innovation, the rapid growth and spread of population, and expanding per capita income, made the processes of production and distribution more complex and increased the speed and volume of the flow of materials through them. Existing market mechanisms were often no longer able to coordinate these flows effectively. The new technologies and expanding markets thus created for the first time a need for administrative coordination. To carry out this function entrepreneurs built multiunit business enterprises and hired the managers needed to administer them. Where the new enterprises were able to coordinate current flows of materials profitably, their managers also allocated resources for future production and distribution. As technology became bath more complex and more productive, and as markets continued to expand, these managers assumed command in the central sectors of the American economy. […] The first modern enterprises were those created to administer the operation of the new railroad and telegraph companies. Administrative coordination of the movement of trains and the flow of traffic was essential for the safety of the passengers and the efficient movement of a wide variety of freight across the nation's rails. Such coordination was also necessary to transmit thousands of messages across its telegraph wires. In other forms of transportation and communication, where the volume of traffic was less varied or moved at slower speeds, coordination was less necessary. There the large enterprise was slower in coming. When steamship and urban traction lines did increase in size, they had little difficulty in adapting procedures perfected by the railroads. And when the development of long-distance technology permitted the creation of a national telephone system, the enterprise that managed it became organized along the lines of Western Union. The new speed and volume of distribution brought a revolution in marketing. Multiunit enterprises began to coordinate the greatly expanded flows of goods from producers ta consumers. The commodity 18 CPES – Économie – P. Larchet – Lycée International de Palaiseau Paris-Saclay dealers, the large full-line wholesalers, and the new mass retailers (department stores, mail-order houses, and chains) pushed aside the existing commission merchants. The administrative coordination they provided permitted them to lower prices and still make profits higher than those of the merchants they replaced. As time passed, the mass retailers supplanted the wholesalers because they internalized one more set of transactions and so coordinated flows more directly and efficiently. In production, the first modern managers came in those industries and enterprises where technology permitted several processes of production to be carried on within a single factory or works (that is, internalized). In those industries, output soared as energy was used more intensively and as machinery, plant design, and administrative procedures were improved. As the number of workers required for a given unit of output declined, the number of managers needed to supervise these flows increased. Mass production factories became manager-intensive. Nevertheless, as long as the output of these factories was distributed efficiently by the new mass marketers, the manufacturing enterprise remained small. Only a score of managers were needed to manage even the largest of the new factories. On the other hand, where the mass marketers were unable to provide the services needed to distribute the goods in the volume in which they could be produced, the enterprise became large. The modern industrial enterprise began when manufacturers built their own sales and distribution networks, and then their own extensive purchasing organizations. By integrating mass production with mass distribution, they came to coordinate administratively the flow of a high volume of goods from the suppliers of the raw materials through the processes of production and distribution to the retailer or ultimate consumer. In all these new enterprises – the railroads, the telegraph, the mass marketers, and the mass producers – a managerial hierarchy had to be created to supervise several operating units and to coordinate and monitor their activities. The railroads, in managing their huge regional systems, and Western Union, in administering its national one, had to recruit large managerial staffs that included several levels of middle managers. On the other hand, in the marketing and the non-integrated mass- producing enterprises and in all but the largest steamship, traction, and utilities companies, the managerial hierarchy remained relatively small. But when an enterprise integrated mass production with mass distribution, its management became even larger than those in transportation and communication. Once such a hierarchy had successfully taken over the function of coordinating flows, the desire of the managers to assure the success of their enterprise as a profit-making institution created strong pressures for its continuing growth. Such growth normally resulted from two quite different strategies of expansion. One was defensive or negative and stemmed from a desire for security. Its purpose was to prevent sources of supplies or outlets for goods and services from being cut off or to limit entry of new competitors into the trade. The other strategy was more positive. Its aim was to add new units, permitting by means of administrative coordination a more intensive use of existing facilities and personnel. Such positive growth might be considered as productive expansion and negative or defensive growth as non-productive expansion. One increased productivity by lowering unit costs, the other rarely did. […] The ascendancy of the Manager Historians as well as economists have failed to consider the implications of the rise of modern business enterprise. They have studied the entrepreneurs who created modern business enterprise, but more in moral than in analytical terms. Their concern has been more whether they were exploiters (robber barons) or creators (industrial statesmen). Historians have also been fascinated by the financiers who for brief periods allocated funds to transportation, communication, and some industrial enterprises and so appeared to have control of major sectors of the economy. But they have paid almost no notice at all to the managers who, because they carried out a basic new economic function, continued to play a far more central role in the operations of the American economy than did the robber barons, industrial statesmen, or financiers. When they have looked at the development of the American economic system, historians have 19 CPES – Économie – P. Larchet – Lycée International de Palaiseau Paris-Saclay been more concerned about the continuing of family (that is, entrepreneurial) capitalism or of financial capitalism than about the spread of managerial capitalism. At the beginning of this century the American economic system still included elements of financial and family capitalism. Managerial capitalism was not yet fully dominant. Where the initial cost of facilities was high, as was the case with the railroad, the telegraph, urban traction lines, and other utilities, investment bankers and other financial intermediaries who had played a major role in raising funds for the enterprise continued to participate in decisions on the allocation of resources for the future. Where, as was the case with the mass marketers, initial capital costs were low and high-volume output generated funds for expansion, the entrepreneurs who created the firm and their families continued to have a say in top management decisions. But by 1917 representatives of an entrepreneurial family or a banking house almost never took part in middle management decisions on prices, output, deliveries, wages, and employment required in the coordinating of current flows. Even in top management decisions concerning the allocation of resources, their power remained essentially negative. They could say no, but unless they themselves were trained managers with long experience in the same industry and even the same company, they had neither the information nor the experience to propose positive alternative courses of action. The relationship between ownership and management within the integrated industrial firm reflected the way in which it became large. The experience of those that expanded initially by building an extensive marketing and purchasing organization paralleled that of the mass marketers. Because internally generated funds paid for the facilities and financed continued growth, the founder and his family retained control. Even when the enterprise went to the money markets for funds to supplement retained earnings for expansion, the family continued to own a large minority and nearly always controlling share of its stock. Nevertheless, members of the entrepreneurial family rarely became active in top management unless they themselves were trained as professional managers. Since the profits of the family enterprise usually assured them of a large personal income, they had little financial incentive to spend years working up the managerial ladder. Therefore, in only a few of the large American business enterprises did family members continue to participate for more than two generations in the management of the companies they owned. […] The United States: seed-bed of Managerial capitalism Modern business enterprise has appeared in all technologically advanced market economies. Comparable protests, even stronger ideological and political opposition, has not prevented its emergence and spread in western Europe and Japan. In recent years the same type of multiunit enterprises, using comparable administrative procedures and organizational structures, have come to dominate much the same type of industries as in the United States. In these industries a new managerial class has become responsible for coordinating current flows of goods and services and allocating resources for future production and distribution. The study of the past history and present operations of modern business enterprise in Europe and Japan provides as significant a challenge to economists and historians as the analysis of the American story. In Europe and Japan, however, the new institution appeared in smaller numbers and, at least until after World War II, spread more slowly than it did in the United States. Because it came slower and later, its builders and administrators have often looked to the American experience for models and precedents. Therefore one of the most significant questions for economists and historians studying modern business enterprise in its international setting is to explain why the institution appeared so quickly and in such profusion in the United States. An obvious, though still untested, reason why the United States became the seed-bed for managerial capitalism was the size and nature of its domestic market. In the second part of the nineteenth century the American domestic market was the largest and, what is more important, the fastest growing market in the world. In 1880, the nation's national income and its population were one and a half times 20 CPES – Économie – P. Larchet – Lycée International de Palaiseau Paris-Saclay those of Great Britain. By 1900, they were twice the size of Britain's and, by 1920, three times the size. As Simon Kuznets's carefully drawn data reveal, the rate of growth of the American population and national product was consistently much higher than that of other technologically advanced nations – France and Germany, as well as Britain during the years between the American Civil War and World War I. The American market was not only larger and faster growing than in these other nations; it was also more homogeneous. Income distribution appears to have been less skewed than in other nations. Markets were less defined by class lines than they were in Europe. The newness of the American market – much of which had been unsettled wilderness a few decades earlier – also meant that business enterprises were new and business arrangements had not had time to become routinized and rigid. – Chandler Alfred, 1977, The Visible Hand. The Managerial Revolution in American Business. Guide de lecture sur le Document 4: 1. What is the subject of the study of Alfred Chandler? 2. What seems to have been his methodology? 3. When did the manager appeared and why? 4. How did his role evolved through time? 5. What are the three states of capitalism described by Chandler? 6. Why does this system initially developed in the US? 7. Analyse the title of the book: what does it refer to? And what does it mean? Document 5: L’auto-entreprenariat remet-il l’entrepreneur au cœur de la dynamique de la firme ? Afin de décrypter le « phénomène » de l’auto-entrepreneur, nous avons opéré en deux temps, en mettant d’abord en lumière les intentions politiques qui ont guidé sa naissance avant de passer ensuite du côté des travailleurs. La fabrication politique du dispositif fait clairement apparaître son origine au sein de la droite libérale française. Les promoteurs de l’auto-entrepreneur mettent en œuvre un discours de la libération des forces de travail, qui se teinte progressivement d’une justification sociale. Le dispositif serait au service du pouvoir d’achat des Français, et notamment à destination des exclus du salariat. Il constituerait alors une réponse au chômage, mais aussi un espoir d’ascension sociale pour l’ensemble des précaires et fragiles. Et c’est bien ce discours qui permet de rassembler un consensus politique large autour de la mesure. Mais cela ne doit pas rendre invisibles les fondements politiques du régime de l’auto- entrepreneur. Le modèle est celui d’une société où la réussite sociale est individuelle, mais aussi où le marché est dérégulé, la protection sociale privatisée, et la solidarité ramenée à la sphère privée. À bien des égards, même si l’innovation est dans toutes les bouches, on assisterait plutôt au retour à un modèle ancien. Celui où les travailleurs se vendent directement sur le marché, en étant payés à la tâche et sans être couverts par le droit du travail. Et celui où les donneurs d’ordre ont tous les droits, et seulement très peu de devoirs. À bas donc les univers plus régulés, qu’il s’agisse du salariat mais aussi de l’artisanat. Et à chacun d’augmenter ses revenus en vendant sa force de travail sur le marché, à tout prix. En période de chômage de masse et de stagnation du pouvoir d’achat, la recette fonctionne. Mais à quel prix ? L’enquête auprès des auto-entrepreneurs nous a emmenés de l’autre côté du miroir, pour regarder les parcours et le quotidien de ces travailleurs d’un nouveau genre. On a bien sûr d’abord vu de la diversité au sein d’une population très hétérogène. Mais on y a surtout vu de la débrouille, plus ou moins heureuse. Si les sondages se focalisent sur les motivations des entrepreneurs, l’enquête a révélé à l’inverse que le dispositif était largement au service des employeurs, qui y ont vu une modalité d’embauche, ou simplement de rémunération, sans formalités ni cotisations. Plus largement, le dispositif fonctionne comme parade individuelle aux difficultés d’insertion professionnelle, au chômage, aux emplois précaires que l’on complète, ou comme supplément de la retraite. Pour certains, les plus stables et qualifiés et 21 CPES – Économie – P. Larchet – Lycée International de Palaiseau Paris-Saclay souvent les plus âgés, c’est un bonus. Mais pour la majorité, c’est du bricolage, une manière d’adoucir la rigueur, au prix souvent de longues heures de travail. Et quand on n’a plus que ça, c’est aussi synonyme de réduction de sa protection sociale. On a alors vu que le dispositif reposait largement sur des soutiens extérieurs, ancrés dans le système salarial. Mais qu’en même temps, le dispositif sapait les fondements mêmes de notre système social : en incitant à sortir du salariat, mais aussi en déséquilibrant les comptes sociaux, en promouvant une idéologie de l’individu atomisé et ultra-responsable, en transformant chacun de nous en micro-entrepreneur de sa vie, plongé dans un univers permanent de calcul économique, de travail, de discipline, mais aussi de solitude et d’incertitudes. L’avenir est-il alors tout tracé dans le sens d’une libéralisation par le haut et par le bas de la société ? Rien n’est moins sûr, et de nombreux possibles sont en gestation. Le dispositif a d’abord connu un certain succès, il est vrai. Au niveau politique, le dispositif, pourtant issu d’une famille politique étroite, a été validé dans une sphère élargie, comprenant une partie de la gauche de gouvernement mais aussi du monde associatif. Ici, la présentation de l’auto-entrepreneuriat comme étant au service des exclus a fait mouche. Et l’argument est à nouveau mobilisé aujourd’hui concernant les chauffeurs de VTC, volontiers présentés comme des jeunes de banlieue en ascension sociale. Cette ambivalence a donc participé à la pérennisation du dispositif au-delà des alternances politiques. Et le régime s’est dès lors massivement diffusé dans la société, transformant les pratiques de travail mais aussi l’horizon de notre modèle social. Un million d’inscrits depuis plusieurs années maintenant, avec un renouvellement régulier au fil des cessations et des inscriptions : le dispositif a rencontré un certain succès. D’abord auprès des employeurs, privés et publics. Mais aussi en partie des auto-entrepreneurs eux-mêmes. Nous l’avons vu, les auto-entrepreneurs investissent souvent positivement leur situation. Ils y voient une passerelle vers du travail et des revenus, affichent une fierté quant à leurs capacités à être actifs et autonomes, et parfois une réelle satisfaction à quitter un salariat dégradé et malheureux. Mais l’objectivation met aussi en lumière l’absence d’alternatives, les revenus faibles, l’autonomie limitée. Et elle pose la question de la pérennité de ces situations. Car les accidents de la vie de ces nouveaux travailleurs ne manqueront pas de mettre en lumière les fragilités liées à l’instabilité des revenus, à une protection sociale amputée et à la sortie des structures collectives. Les contestations qui s’organisent depuis quelques mois parmi les chauffeurs de VTC et les livreurs à vélo annoncent d’ailleurs peut-être un retournement de tendance. On voit en effet resurgir des formes d’organisation et de régulation. Qu’il s’agisse de régulations politiques (l’interdiction du service Uberpop par exemple), juridiques (les nombreux procès en cours contre les dirigeants d’Uber en France et en Europe) ou encore de modes d’organisation collective initiés par ces prolétaires 2.0 (manifestations, constitution de syndicats, etc.). Au vu de ces éléments, quel pourrait être l’horizon souhaitable pour notre société de travail ? Le salariat, tant décrié dernièrement, est-il réellement dépassé ? Et quel bilan tirer de l’expérience de l’indépendance faite par les auto-entrepreneurs ? Pour répondre, il faut parvenir à déconnecter, pour ensuite mieux penser ensemble, la relation de travail concrète, et le statut qui l’encadre et la protège. Le salariat est souvent décrié pour ce qui reste du modèle de l’usine : division du travail, subordination hiérarchique, contrôle et sanction. Il serait associé à un modèle rigide, assignant horaires et missions. Pourtant, c’est bien au sein du salariat que les cadres sont passés au forfait, système censé accroître leur autonomie dans la gestion de leur mission. Et c’est également en étant fonctionnaires que les chercheurs jouissent d’une grande liberté dans leurs horaires et le contenu de leur travail. La liberté dans le travail peut donc fort bien trouver sa place aux côtés d’un statut régulé, et par là également protecteur. C’est peut-être même justement à la condition d’un cadre apportant stabilité et capacité de projection dans l’avenir que le travail sera plus autonome et les travailleurs libérés. À l’issue de cette enquête, nous conclurons donc sur la gageure que représente l’indépendance statutaire dans la quête de progrès social et d’autonomie. Le salariat ne doit pas être abandonné pour un mirage libéral de surtravail atomisé. La relation salariale peut et doit se réformer dans un sens plus démocratique et émancipateur. Mais la recherche d’autonomie ne doit pas conduire à sacrifier un modèle de droits et de solidarité qui a mis plus d’un siècle à se construire. Le travail gagnera à être repensé avec pour horizon un modèle solidaire de 22 CPES – Économie – P. Larchet – Lycée International de Palaiseau Paris-Saclay protection, mais aussi un horizon social d’émancipation et de réduction générale de la place du travail au profit de toutes les activités nécessaires au bien-être individuel et collectif1. – Abdelnour Sarah, 2017, Moi, petite entreprise, « L’avenir entre libéralisation et résistance ». Guide de lecture sur le document 5 : 1. Qu’entend Sarah Abdelnour lorsqu’elle explique que les auto-entrepreneurs sont « payés à la tâche sans être couverts par le droit du travail » ? 2. En quoi les travailleurs de plateforme (de type Uber ou Deliveroo par exemple) semblent-ils ressembler davantage à des salariés qu’à des entrepreneurs ? 3. En quoi ce changement dans l’organisation du travail constitue-t-il un défi pour notre système de protection sociale ? 1 Sur cet horizon d’émancipation, je renvoie notamment aux travaux de Dominique Méda (1995 et 2013). 23

Éco L2S1 Ch1 VE 2024-2025 PDF

Document Details

Tags

Related

Summary

Full Transcript

Upgrade to continue