Social Europe

politics, economy and employment & labour

  • Themes
    • European digital sphere
    • Recovery and resilience
  • Publications
    • Books
    • Dossiers
    • Occasional Papers
    • Research Essays
    • Brexit Paper Series
  • Podcast
  • Videos
  • Newsletter

Moving Beyond “Capitalism”

John Kay 21st March 2018

JohnKayround

John Kay

I wish we would stop using the word Capitalism.

It is a 19th-century term, derived from 19th-century economic philosophy. But today people who would run a mile from any suggestion that they had Marxist  sympathies freely use the terminology of that era. In the 19th century, business was normally organised by and around the owner-proprietor. Arkwright’s Mill was owned and controlled by Mr (in due course to be Sir Richard) Arkwright. Samuel and William Lloyd owned and controlled Lloyds iron and steel tube works, and another branch of the Lloyd family was in charge of Lloyds Bank. John and Benjamin Cadbury established Cadbury Bros  chocolate factory. And so on.

Towards the end of the nineteenth century, this style of capitalism would reach its zenith in the United States in the activities of the robber barons – Rockefeller’s Standard Oil, Carnegie steel, the Vanderbilt railroad empire, and lurking behind all these the financiers Henry Clay Frick and JP Morgan.

Joint-stock companies with multiple shareholders and the essential protection of limited liability had become legal in the midcentury. The mechanism was widely used for the capital-intensive expansion of railways and railroads, and was quickly adopted by some retail banks –  Lloyds Bank became a joint-stock company in 1865 – and then by resource companies. In 1901 Carnegie Steel merged with two other large US steel companies to become US Steel, by far the largest corporation in the world.

So 20th-century business would be different. The archetypal companies of that era are General Motors and du Pont in the United States, ICI in the United Kingdom. They were controlled by professional managers, and the recruitment and training of professional managers was central to their activities – and to their success. In the mid-50s the first Fortune 500 list included three automobile companies and three steel companies. Their shareholders were no longer the families whose names were on the factories, or the banks which supported them, but a diverse group of private individuals. One could still say, at a stretch, that the shareholders owned the plant, but control was exercised by professional managers. All these companies had large numbers of employees, most of them with moderate to low skill levels. There was no long-term contractual obligation between company and employee, but a realistic expectation of long-term employment if performance was satisfactory.

Our job is keeping you informed!


Subscribe to our free newsletter and stay up to date with the latest Social Europe content.


We will never send you spam and you can unsubscribe anytime.

Thank you!

Please check your inbox and click on the link in the confirmation email to complete your newsletter subscription.

.

In the course of the century, the private shareholder became less and less important. Pension funds, insurance companies, and in due course mutual funds became the vehicles of institutional share ownership. In the latter part of the 20th century, outsourcing of investment management became increasingly common, and the investment chain became dominated by specialist asset managers.

Hollow company

21st century business is different still. Look at the ten largest companies in the world today by market capitalisation. Apple, Alphabet, (the holding company for Google), Microsoft, Amazon, Facebook. The only manufacturing company to be found is Johnson & Johnson, a very different type of company to General Motors or Bethlehem Steel. These companies don’t have much capital employed, and most of the capital that is employed in the business is fungible. It doesn’t need to be owned by the company that uses it and typically isn’t. Apple’s flagship store in Regent Street is jointly owned by the Queen and the Norwegian sovereign wealth fund. The equivalent store in New York is in Grand Central Station. The station in turn long ago passed out of the ownership of the Vanderbilts. It is now the property of a private company controlled by a New York real estate developer – not the one whose name may jump into your mind.

If Sir Richard owned Arkwright’s Mill, and arguably the shareholders of Bethlehem Steel were the owners of its plants, what do the shareholders of Apple own? They own the shares of course, but what is meant when people say the shareholders own the company? What could owning such a company mean? What is Apple anyway?

In the 1970s and 1980s, when students of business started to take an interest in the performance of Japanese business, the phrase ‘hollow corporation’ came to be used to describe businesses such as Toyota which were at the centre of a web of related suppliers. This analysis rejected the sharp distinction between markets and hierarchies which had been the basis of the theory of the firm developed by in the 1930s by Ronald Coase. Looking back, Coase’s account is a thinly disguised description of General Motors.

But not of Apple. More so than Toyota was, Apple is a hollow corporation. Like Toyota it maintains tight control over specifications. But not of production.


We need your support


Social Europe is an independent publisher and we believe in freely available content. For this model to be sustainable, however, we depend on the solidarity of our readers. Become a Social Europe member for less than 5 Euro per month and help us produce more articles, podcasts and videos. Thank you very much for your support!

Become a Social Europe Member

Apple employs 120,000 people. General Motors at its peak had a workforce of over 1 million. The principal assembler of Apple products is Foxconn, the Taiwanese-headquartered company manufacturing in China, where it has one and a half million employees, the second largest private sector employer in the world, after Wal-Mart. If you pull out your iPhone, and compare it with the competing smartphone of the person sitting next to you, you may notice similarities. The principal supplier of components for the iPhone – Samsung – is also its principal rival.

Apple doesn’t need to be a retailer – most of its competitors, such as Samsung, are not – but Apple reinvented the concept of electronic retailing. As you can see if you visit these stores in Grand Central Station or Regent Street, with sales per square foot that make other retailers green with envy. Apple is, essentially, a structure of relationships, with assemblers, suppliers, customers, employees – Apple exemplifies the source of competitive advantage, based on architecture, which I described in my book Foundations of Corporate Success.

And what of Apple’s $800 billion market capitalisation? So wedded are we to the idea that capital is critical to business, so much in thrall to the word, that we have invented new concepts such as social and intellectual capital to try to explain phenomena that are perhaps more clearly and certainly more simply described in ordinary language. To say that the market capitalisation of Apple reflects its intellectual property, the value of the Apple brand, is to miss the point, and to misunderstand the nature of the company’s competitive advantage. If I were to buy the Apple brand from the corporation, which then renamed its products Pear, I have little doubt that it is the Pear Corporation, not John Kay’s reinvention of Apple, which would command the spectacular market value.

The value of relationships

A company like Facebook, all of whose content is generated by other people, is a hollower corporation still. And then we see businesses like Uber and AirBnB, which like eBay, are almost pure intermediaries. The only business they themselves undertake is facilitation. They represent nothing but structures of relationships. They epitomise architecture in its purest form.

So when we ask how we make 21st-century capitalism inclusive, we’re starting at the wrong place. The concept of capitalism is inherently confrontational. Capital and labour were struggling for larger shares of the same cake.

But 21st-century business – and I insist on talking about business rather than capitalism – is inclusive by its very nature. That nature necessarily entails partnership – partnership between employees and managers, customers and suppliers. The position of investors in that partnership is inherently peripheral and precarious. These businesses do not need to raise capital from equity markets and are unlikely ever to do so in future. They’re generally strongly cash generative and have no need of external capital at all. The purpose of the listing is to enable early-stage investors to make realisations and to persuade employees, many of whom will be shareholders in the company, that there is value in their holdings. The best external shareholder they can have is probably the sympathetic and supportive asset manager, and probably in the long run this is the one they’re likely to have. And inescapably, given the scale of market capitalisation, much of these equity of these companies will be held by index funds, or their successors.

Such businesses are inherently more fragile than businesses whose economic strength was based on plant which you can touch and kick, and a labour force of thousands which arrives every day, and which can survive years of weak management and were often obliged to.

Modern business is inclusive or it is nothing. The greatest challenge we face is to stop them being turned into nothing by people who suffer from misconceptions about their nature and who undertake rent-seeking activities either on their own behalf, which damage the internal cohesiveness of the business, or through their misuse of the political process, which ultimately damages the external legitimacy of these businesses.

Businesses are and always have been social organisations, embedded in communities, and that is not less true today than it was when Arkwright built a town around his mill in the Derwent Valley and the Cadburys set up their chocolate making business in Birmingham.

This article originally appeared on the author’s blog.

John Kay

John Kay is Visiting Professor of Economics at the London School of Economics and a regular columnist for the Financial Times.

Home ・ Economy ・ Moving Beyond “Capitalism”

Most Popular Posts

schools,Sweden,Swedish,voucher,choice Sweden’s schools: Milton Friedman’s wet dreamLisa Pelling
world order,Russia,China,Europe,United States,US The coming world orderMarc Saxer
south working,remote work ‘South working’: the future of remote workAntonio Aloisi and Luisa Corazza
Russia,Putin,assets,oligarchs Seizing the assets of Russian oligarchsBranko Milanovic
Russians,support,war,Ukraine Why do Russians support the war against Ukraine?Svetlana Erpyleva

Most Recent Posts

Gazprom,Putin,Nordstream,Putin,Schröder How the public loses out when politicians cash inKatharina Pistor
defence,europe,spending Ukraine and Europe’s defence spendingValerio Alfonso Bruno and Adriano Cozzolino
North Atlantic Treaty Organization,NATO,Ukraine The Ukraine war and NATO’s renewed credibilityPaul Rogers
transnational list,European constituency,European elections,European public sphere A European constituency for a European public sphereDomènec Ruiz Devesa
hydrogen,gas,LNG,REPowerEU EU hydrogen targets—a neo-colonial resource grabPascoe Sabido and Chloé Mikolajczak

Other Social Europe Publications

The transatlantic relationship
Women and the coronavirus crisis
RE No. 12: Why No Economic Democracy in Sweden?
US election 2020
Corporate taxation in a globalised era

ETUI advertisement

Bilan social / Social policy in the EU: state of play 2021 and perspectives

The new edition of the Bilan social 2021, co-produced by the European Social Observatory (OSE) and the European Trade Union Institute (ETUI), reveals that while EU social policy-making took a blow in 2020, 2021 was guided by the re-emerging social aspirations of the European Commission and the launch of several important initiatives. Against the background of Covid-19, climate change and the debate on the future of Europe, the French presidency of the Council of the EU and the von der Leyen commission must now be closely scrutinised by EU citizens and social stakeholders.


AVAILABLE HERE

Eurofound advertisement

Living and working in Europe 2021

The Covid-19 pandemic continued to be a defining force in 2021, and Eurofound continued its work of examining and recording the many and diverse impacts across the EU. Living and working in Europe 2021 provides a snapshot of the changes to employment, work and living conditions in Europe. It also summarises the agency’s findings on issues such as gender equality in employment, wealth inequality and labour shortages. These will have a significant bearing on recovery from the pandemic, resilience in the face of the war in Ukraine and a successful transition to a green and digital future.


AVAILABLE HERE

Foundation for European Progressive Studies Advertisement

EU Care Atlas: a new interactive data map showing how care deficits affect the gender earnings gap in the EU

Browse through the EU Care Atlas, a new interactive data map to help uncover what the statistics are often hiding: how care deficits directly feed into the gender earnings gap.

While attention is often focused on the gender pay gap (13%), the EU Care Atlas brings to light the more worrisome and complex picture of women’s economic inequalities. The pay gap is just one of three main elements that explain the overall earnings gap, which is estimated at 36.7%. The EU Care Atlas illustrates the urgent need to look beyond the pay gap and understand the interplay between the overall earnings gap and care imbalances.


BROWSE THROUGH THE MAP

Hans Böckler Stiftung Advertisement

Towards a new Minimum Wage Policy in Germany and Europe: WSI minimum wage report 2022

The past year has seen a much higher political profile for the issue of minimum wages, not only in Germany, which has seen fresh initiatives to tackle low pay, but also in those many other countries in Europe that have embarked on substantial and sustained increases in statutory minimum wages. One key benchmark in determining what should count as an adequate minimum wage is the threshold of 60 per cent of the median wage, a ratio that has also played a role in the European Commission's proposals for an EU-level policy on minimum wages. This year's WSI Minimum Wage Report highlights the feasibility of achieving minimum wages that meet this criterion, given the political will. And with an increase to 12 euro per hour planned for autumn 2022, Germany might now find itself promoted from laggard to minimum-wage trailblazer.


FREE DOWNLOAD

About Social Europe

Our Mission

Article Submission

Membership

Advertisements

Legal Disclosure

Privacy Policy

Copyright

Social Europe ISSN 2628-7641

Social Europe Archives

Search Social Europe

Themes Archive

Politics Archive

Economy Archive

Society Archive

Ecology Archive

Follow us on social media

Follow us on Facebook

Follow us on Twitter

Follow us on LinkedIn

Follow us on YouTube