From Social Control to Financial Economics: The Linked Ecologies of Economics and Business in Twentieth Century America
Executive Summary — No transformation looks more consequential for the history of American higher education than the extraordinary rise of business schools and business degrees in the twentieth century. Marion Fourcade (UC Berkeley) and Rakesh Khurana (HBS) analyze the changing place of economics in American business education as reflected in the teaching of three elite business schools over the course of the twentieth century: the Wharton School (1900-1930), the Carnegie Tech Graduate School of Industrial Administration (post World War II), and the Graduate School of Business at the University of Chicago (1960s-present). Key concepts include:
- Wharton is an illustration of the earliest trends and dilemmas, when business schools found themselves caught between their business connections and their striving for moral legitimacy in higher education.
- The Carnegie Tech Graduate School of Industrial Administration reflects a new vision, starting in the 1950s, of the contribution of business to society with the rise of "management science"-a new formation that broke from the existing disciplinary system and sought to legitimatize itself through its hard-core technical capabilities.
- The University of Chicago's Graduate School of Business marks the decisive ascendancy of economics, and particularly financial economics, in business education over the other behavioral disciplines. This transformation helped produce and sustain new understandings of the nature of the firm, with far-reaching consequences for business practices and economic relations in society.
- Theories from each period provided a new language, and new categories of understanding and action, that not only became naturalized in the teachings of American business schools but also came to sustain and even instigate profound alterations in the nature of American corporations and markets-at least until the next series of tools, concepts, and business recipes came along.
As the main producers of managerial elites, business schools represent strategic research sites for understanding the formation of economic practices and representations. This article draws on historical material to analyze the changing place of economics in American business education over the course of the twentieth century. We use the Wharton School as an illustration of the earliest trends and dilemmas (c. 1900-1930), when business schools found themselves caught between their business connections and their striving for moral legitimacy in higher education. We show how several of the school's leaders were closely involved in progressive reforms and presided over the development of the empirical social sciences to address questions of labor regulation and control within manufacturing industries. Next, we look at the creation of the Carnegie Tech Graduate School of Industrial Administration after World War II. This episode illustrates the increasingly successful claims of social scientists, backed by philanthropic foundations, on business education and the growing appeal of "scientific" approaches to decision making and management. We also show that these transformations were homologically related to changes in the prevailing mode of governance in the American economy: business schools became essential sites for the development of tools and methods (e.g., input-output approaches, linear programming, forecasting) for the management of the new large, diversified conglomerates. Finally, we argue that the rise of the Graduate School of Business at the University of Chicago from the 1960s onwards marks the decisive ascendancy of economics, and particularly financial economics, in business education over the other behavioral disciplines, as well as the decisive ascendancy of business schools as producers of economic knowledge. By following teacher-student networks, we also document the key role of business schools in diffusing "Chicago-style" economic approaches-offering support for anti-regulatory approaches and popularizing narrowly financial understandings of the firm (Fligstein 1990, 2002)-that sociologists have described as characteristic of the modern neo-liberal regime.