¹ For the development of the organizational school of, history, see Galambos, Louis, “The Emerging Organizational Synthesis in Modern American History,” Business History Review, XLIV (Autumn 1970), 279–290CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and Cuff, Robert D., “American Historians and the ‘Organizational Factor’,” Canadian Review of American Studies, IV (Spring 1973), 19–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar A recent anthology that pulls together and comments on key articles is Perkins, Edwin J., Men and Organizations: The American Economy in the Twentieth Century (New York, 1977).Google Scholar

² Key works on the emergence and shape of this organizational sector include Hays, Samuel P., The Response to Industrialism, 1885–1914 (Chicago, 1957)Google Scholar; Wiebe, Robert, The Search for Order, 1877–1920 (New York, 1967)Google Scholar; Israel, Jerry, ed., Building the Organizational Society: Essays on Associational Activities in Modern America (New York, 1972)Google Scholar; Chandler, Alfred D. Jr, and Galambos, Louis, “The Development of Large-Scale Organizations in Modern America,” Journal of Economic History, XXX (March 1970), 201–217CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and McCormick, Thomas J., “The State of American Diplomatic History,” in Bass, Herbert J., The State of American History (Chicago, 1970), 119–141.Google Scholar For reconceptualizations of business-government relations in particular industries, see Galambos, Louis, Competition and Cooperation: The Emergence of a National Trade Association (Baltimore, 1966)Google Scholar and Nash, Gerald D., U.S. Oil Policy, 1890–1964: Business and Government in Twentieth Century America (Pittsburgh, 1968).Google Scholar

³ As used here, the term “corporative” signifies a particular kind of socio-political organization. A corporative system is one whose basic units consist of officially recognized, non-competitive, role-ordered occupational or functional groupings. It is also one with coordinating machinery designed to integrate these units into an interdependent whole and one where the state properly functions as coordinator, assistant, and midwife rather than director or regulator. In such a system there are deep interpenetrations between state and society, and enjoying a special status is an enlightened social elite, capable of perceiving social needs and imperatives and assisting social groups to meet them through enlightened concerts of interests. It is these features that distinguish corporative structures from other kinds, and it is the development of such a corporative component in a society's organization that I refer to as “corporatization.” On the forms that this has taken in liberal-capitalist societies, see Lowi, Theodore, The End of Liberalism (New York, 1969)Google Scholar; McConnell, Grant, Private Power and American Democracy (New York, 1966)Google Scholar; Shonfield, Andrew, Modern Capitalism: The Changing Balance of Public and Private Power (New York, 1965)Google Scholar; Harris, Nigel, Competition and the Corporate Society (London, 1972)Google Scholar; Beer, Samuel H., British Politics in the Collectivist Age (New York, 1965)Google Scholar; Schmitter, Philippe, “Still the Century of Corporatism,” Review of Politics, XXXVI (January 1974), 85–131CrossRefGoogle Scholar; “Collaboration between Public Authorities and Employers' and Workers' Organizations,” International Labour Review, LXXVI (August 1957), 167–187.

⁴ The story of the organizational revolution in business has been masterfully told in Chandler, Alfred D. Jr, The Visible Hand: The Managerial Revolution in American Business (Cambridge, Mass., 1977).Google Scholar For a survey and analysis of recent work on governmental regulation, see McCraw, Thomas K., “Regulation in America: A Review Article,” Business History Review, XLIX (Summer 1975), 159–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁵ Recent contributions to the subject include Pike, Frederick and Stritch, Thomas, eds., The New Corporatism (Notre Dame, 1974)Google Scholar; Himmelberg, Robert F., The Origins of the National Recovery Administration (New York, 1976)Google Scholar; Maier, Charles S., Recasting Bourgeois Europe (Princeton, 1975)Google Scholar; and Brandes, Stuart D., American Welfare Capitalism, 1800–1940 (Chicago, 1976).Google Scholar

⁶ See Gilbert, James, Designing the Industrial State (Chicago, 1972)Google Scholar; Noble, David, America by Design (New York, 1977)Google Scholar; Hawley, Ellis W., “Herbert Hoover, the Commerce Secretariat, and the Vision of an ‘Associative State’,” Journal of American History, LXI (June 1974), 116–140CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Wilson, Joan Hoff, Herbert Hoover: Forgotten Progressive (Boston, 1975)Google Scholar; Hurvitz, Haggai, “The Meaning of Industrial Conflict in Some Ideologies of the Early 1920's; The AFL, Organized Employers, and Herbert Hoover” (Ph.D. Dissertation, Columbia University, 1971)Google Scholar; McQuaid, Kim, “A Response to Industrialism: Liberal Businessmen and the Evolving Spectrum of Capitalist Reform, 1886–1960” (Ph.D. Dissertation, Northwestern University, 1975)Google Scholar; Radosh, Ronald, “Corporate Ideology of American Labor Leaders from Gompers to Hillman,” Studies on the Left, VI (1966), 66–68Google Scholar; and Hogan, Michael, Informal Entente (Columbia, Mo., 1977).Google Scholar

⁷ See Sklar, Martin J., “Woodrow Wilson and the Political Economy of Modern United States Liberalism,” Studies on the Left, I (1960), 17–47.Google Scholar See also Weinstein, James, The Corporate Ideal in the Liberal State, 1900–1918 (Boston, 1968).Google Scholar

⁸ For the debate on Wilsonianism and its corporate-liberal characteristics, see Seltzer, Alan L., “Woodrow Wilson as ‘Corporate-Liberal’: Toward a Reconsideration of Left Revisionist Historiography,” Western Political Quarterly, XXX (June 1977), 183–212.Google Scholar

⁹ See Mazgaj, Paul, “The Social Revolution or the King: The Initiatives of the Action Francaise toward the Revolutionary Left, 1906–1914” (Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Iowa, 1976).Google Scholar

¹⁰ See Harris, Competition and the Corporate Society; Elbow, Matthew H., French Corporate Theory, 1789–1948 (New York, 1953)Google Scholar; Kuisel, Richard F., Ernest Mercier: French Technocrat (Berkeley, 1967)Google Scholar; and Bowen, Ralph, German Theories of the Corporative State (New York, 1947).Google Scholar Also enlightening, especially for the British Liberal Party, is Jerry M. Calton, “Planning and Plotting: Lloyd George and the Politics of Economic Mobilization in Britain,” an unpublished manuscript.

¹¹ See especially Lodge, George C., The New American Ideology (New York, 1975)Google Scholar; Rostow, Walt W., Getting from Here to There (New York, 1978)Google Scholar; Mansen, R. Joseph, “Social Responsibility and the Corporation,” Journal of Economic Issues, VI (March 1972), 125–141CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Chamberlain, Neil W., Remaking American Values: Challenge to a Business Society (New York, 1977).Google Scholar