Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-x5gtn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-23T03:36:00.763Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Structural Change and Competition in the United States Tire Industry, 1920–1937

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 June 2012

Michael French
Michael French
Affiliation:
Michael French is a lecturer in economic history atthe University of Glasgow.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In this case study, Dr. French examines the responses to overcapacity in a mass production industry and traces the development of oligopolistic competition. Previous studies have emphasized technology and the growth of “big business,” but here the author argues that the structure of the U.S. tire industry must be understood in terms of large, medium, and small firms. He finds, moreover, that the extent of competition and cooperation was significantly influenced by the nature of the tire market. Dr. French provides new evidence on the relationships between structural factors and the dynamics of business policy, and points to the need for a more comprehensive account of the evolution and nature of oligopolistic competition.

Type
Articles
Information
Business History Review , Volume 60 , Issue 1 , Spring 1986 , pp. 28 - 54
Copyright
Copyright © The President and Fellows of Harvard College 1986

Access options

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

References

1 Chandler, Alfred D. Jr, The Visible Hand: The Managerial Revolution in American Business (Cambridge, Mass., 1977)Google Scholar; Chandler, , “The Emergence of Managerial Capitalism,” Business History Review 58 (Winter 1984): 473–503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

2 Davis, Lance, “The Capital Markets and Industrial Concentration: The US and UK, a Comparative Study,” Economic History Review, 2d ser. 19 (1966): 255–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Nelson, Ralph L., Merger Movements in American Industry, 1895–1956 (Princeton, N.J., 1959).Google Scholar

3 Poulson, Barry, Economic History of the United States (New York, 1981)Google Scholar, chap. 24; Yeager, Mary, Competition and Regulation: The Development of Oligopoly in the Meat Packing Industry (Greenwich, Conn., 1981).Google Scholar

4 Sobel, Robert, The Age of Giant Corporations: A Microeconomic History of American Business, 1914–1970 (Westport, Conn., 1972)Google Scholar, chaps. 2 and 3.

5 Lamoreaux, Naomi R., The Great Merger Movement in American Business, 1895–1904 (Cambridge, Mass., 1985).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

6 For a survey of the issues involved, see Scherer, F. M., Industrial Market Structure and Economic Performance (Chicago, 1980), 81–150.Google Scholar

7 Vatter, H. G., “The Closure of Entry in the American Automobile Industry,” Oxford Economic Papers 4 (Oct. 1952): 213–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

8 Fricke, Ernest B., “The New Deal and the Modernization of Small Business: The McCreary Tire and Rubber Company, 1930–1940,” Business History Review 56 (Winter 1982): 559–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

9 Gaffey, John D., The Productivity of Labor in the Rubber Tire Manufacturing Industry (New York, 1940), 88, table 14.Google Scholar

10 Federal Trade Commission, Official Report of the Proceedings before the Federal Trade Commission, Docket Number 2116, In the Matter of the Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company, file 2116–1–95, box 380, Respondent's Exhibits, Record Group 122, Records of the Federal Trade Commission, Docketed Case Files, 1915–43, Washington National Records Center, Suitland, Md. (Hereafter cited by box and file numbers; all are RG 122.)

11 President's Annual Report to the Board of Directors, 1921, 17, Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company Archives, Akron, Ohio; “Returns Submitted by the Firestone Company to the National Industrial Conference Board,” Auditing File #1, B. F. 1920–32, Firestone Tire and Rubber Company, Akron, Ohio.

12 Epstein, Ralph C., Concentration and Price Trends in the Rubber Tire Industry, 1930–1947 (Akron, 1949), 36, table BJ.Google Scholar

13 W. H. Cross, “Rubber Tire Manufacturing Industry” (Oct. 1935), 5, Evidence Study no. 36, Division of Review in Record Group 9, National Recovery Administration E34, box 7047, National Archives, Washington, D.C.

14 Testimony of William O'Neill, 9 Feb. 1934, box 281, file 2116–2–3: 2717.

15 For the brief histories see “Tire and Rubber Companies' Analyses,” file 504,01 in the Uniroyal Archives, Waterbury, Conn.

16 “Annual Crude Rubber Report, 1920–1932,” Goodyear Archives.

17 Stockholders' Minute Book, AGM, 3 Feb. 1926, Carolina Rubber Company, series 7, box 52, Justus Collins Papers, West Virginia and Regional History Collection, University of West Virginia, Morgantown, W. Va.

18 “Report by Coverdale and Colpitts on Seiberling Rubber Company,” 12, box 8, file 45, in J. Penfield Seiberling Papers, Ohio Historical Society, Columbus, Ohio.

19 F. A. Seiberling to Horace M. House, 17 Nov. 1933, box 71, F. A. Seiberling Papers.

20 Gaffey, Productivity of Labor, 54, table 6.

21 J. W. Thomas to H. S. Firestone, 24 Sept. 1926, and 10 Feb. 1927, Firestone Archives.

22 President's Annual Report to the Board of Directors, 1929 16, and W. D. Shilts, “A History of Goodyear, 1921–1927,” 21, Goodyear Archives; J. W. Thomas to H. S. Firestone, 15 Sept. 1926, Firestone Archives.

23 Babcock, Glenn D., History of the United States Rubber Company; A Case Study in Corporate Management (Bloomington, Ind., 1966), 306–7, 309.Google Scholar

24 Emmet, Boris and Jeuck, J. E., Catalogues and Counters: A History of Sears, Roebuck and Company (Chicago, 1950), 210, 224, 295, 340–47Google Scholar; testimony of Donald Marr Nelson, box 381, file 2116–2–2: 1531–32.

25 Testimony of Max Adler, box 377, file 2116–2–8. 8564–65, 8568.

26 Testimony of Fred L. Morgan, box 381, file 2116–2–2: 1412–15, 1418, and Respondent's Exhibits, 21916–21999 incl.; F. L. Morgan to J. K. Hough, 17 March 1926, file 2116–1–93; Commission's Exhibit, box 364, file 2116–1–2:185.

27 The negotiations are outlined in P. W. Litchfield to R. E. Wood, 28 May 1928, box 364, file 2116–1–1; testimony of Paul W. Litchfield, box 380, file 2116–2–1: 9279–80, 9304–5 and box 380, file 2116–2–1: 80, 536, 540–44, 559; testimony of Charles H. Brook, and testimony of Paul E. H. Leroy, box 380, file 2116–2–1: 415–16, 433–34, 442–43.

28 Commission's Exhibit, box 364, file 2116–1–2: 185, and testimony of John T. Clinton, box 377, file 2116–2–8.

29 Testimony of Charles Borland, box 381, file 2116–2–2: 2511.

30 Babcock, History of U.S. Rubber, 310; Allen, Hugh, The House of Goodyear: A Story of Rubber and of Modern Business (Cleveland, Ohio, 1943), 342Google Scholar; testimony of Joseph O'Shaughnessy, box 377, file 2116–2–7:7665, 7667–68.

31 Gaffey, Productivity of Labor, 60, table 7.

32 Based on the records of the Carolina Rubber Company in the Justus Collins Papers.

33 Testimony of Joseph O'Shaughnessy, box 377, file 2116–2–7: 7647, and testimony of John T. Clinton, box 377, file 2116–2–8: 8177.

34 Fricke, “The New Deal and the Modernization of Small Business,” 561; testimony of John W. Whitehead, box 377, file 2116–2–7: 7613.

35 Testimony of Bernie Harper, box 381, file 2116–2–4. 3946.

36 Testimony of James B. Williams, box 377, file 2116–2–6: 5849–52, and testimony of Robert S. Wilson, box 381, file 2116–2–2: 1242–43.

37 F. A. Seiberling to M. W. Harrison, 15 March 1933, box 71, F. A. Seiberling Papers.

38 Testimony of J. A. MacMillan, box 38, file 2116–2–5: 5643.

39 “Report on the Rubber Industry,” 84, Analysis BD, box 7, file 53, J. Penfield Seiberling Papers.

40 Irenée du Pont to George T. Bishop, 25 Jan. 1928, Walter B. Mahony to F. A. Seiberling, 29 Oct. 1928, and F. A. Seiberling to F. R. Wahl, 31 March 1930, F. A. Seiberling Papers.

41 This account of the formation of the Institute draws on material from the J. Penfield Seiberling Papers, box 1, “The Rubber Institute, 1928–1929,” and in the Justus Collins Papers, series 7, box 54.

42 Testimony of Robert S. Wilson, box 383, file 2116–2–17: 20226; testimony of Irving Eisbrouch, and Forrest E. Terpening, box 377, file 2116–2–7: 7391 and 7535–36; J. Penfield Seiberling to branch managers, 2 July 1932, J. Penfield Seiberling Papers.

43 “Findings as to the Facts and Conclusions,” box 363, file 2116–1–1: 16–18.

44 India Rubber and Tire Review (Akron) 33 (Jan. 1933): 9–10.

45 Testimony of Irving Eisbrouch, box 377, file 2116–2–7: 7392–93.

46 The account of the NRA activity is based on the “History of the Code of Fair Competition for the Rubber Tire Manufacturing Industry,” by G. S. Earseman, in the Division of Review, Approved Code Histories, Records of the National Recovery Administration, RG 9, other NRA sources, and correspondence in the J. Penfield Seiberling Papers relating to code matters. See, for example, J. Penfield Seiberling to J. E. Mayl, 14 June 1933, and “Minutes of Meeting of Tire Code Committee,” 22 June 1933.

47 Records of the NRA, RG 9, E44, Transcripts of Hearings, 1933–35, vol. III: Code of Fair Practices and Competition for the Rubber Tire Manufacturing Industry, 20 Oct. 1933, 88–89, 104–5.

48 Ibid., 179–83.

49 History of the Code of Fair Competition for the Retail Rubber Tire and Battery Trade, Division of Review, E267, Approved Code Histories, Records of the NRA, RG 9.

50 Records of the NRA, RG 9, Transcripts of Hearings, 1933–35, box 7199: Retail Rubber and Battery Code, 14 Dec. 1933, 77.

51 J. Penfield Seiberling to F. A. Krusemark, 13 March 1934, and Norval P. Trimborn to A. L. Kress, 13 March 1934, in J. Penfield Seiberling Papers.

52 “History of the Code of Fair Competition for the Retail Tire and Battery Trade,” 22–26, Records of the NRA, RG 9.

53 J. W. Whitehead to J. Penfield Seiberling, 27 June 1934, J. Penfield Seiberling Papers.

54 J. Penfield Seiberling to J. W. Whitehead, 3 April 1934, J. Penfield Seiberling Papers; testimony of Martin J. Barry, box 377, file 2116–2–7: 7486–87.

55 Harvey S. Firestone to S. G. Carkhuff, 20 March 1935, Firestone Archives; “Minutes of Board of Directors of RMA,” 4 June 1935, box 4; and J. Penfield Seiberling to J. E. Mayl, 4 Feb. 1936, both in J. Penfield Seiberling Papers.

56 F. A. Seiberling to Gertrude A. Daley, 27 Feb. 1936, F. A. Seiberling Papers.

57 Babcock, History of U.S. Rubber, 364–68. For an assessment of the Robinson-Patman Act, see Elzinga, Kenneth L., “The Robinson-Patman Act: A New Deal for Small Business,” in Regulatory Change in an Atmosphere of Crisis: Current Implications of the Roosevelt Years, ed. Walton, Gary M. (New York, 1979), 63–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

58 Hunter, Helen M., “The Role of Business Liquidity during the Great Depression and Afterwards: Differences between Large and Small Firms,” Journal of Economic History 42 (Dec. 1982); 883–902.CrossRefGoogle Scholar