Search

The purpose of this paper is to explain the research that the author has done with regard to the financial performance of mergers in the U.S. between 1948 and 1964. The period 1965 to present was excluded from the study because it is marked by excessive inflation that could distort the results, also, the effectiveness of the mergers that took place in the period 1965-1970 would be difficult to judge because of the length of time required to integrate the knowledge and resources of both the acquired and acquiring companies. From the standpoint of management, a business merger represents an effort on the part of two companies to benefit from the combination of their resources. In some cases, companies merge so that they can lessen their business risk, for example, a company that is heavily dependent on government contracts can attempt to lessen its business risk by combining with a company that has little or no dependency on government work. In other cases, the merger is an attempt to gain the knowledge possessed by another firm in an effort to speed-up the state of technology of the acquiring company.

One of the most important and provocative domestic issues of today, which is likely to continue to expand sharply rather than subside, is the "Quality of Life." Although the focus in this article on the U.S., the American case also contains significant implications for other countries generally, and the more advanced economies in particular. Central to the Quality of Life issue is the role of the modern corporation or business firm. Most Americans have recently become increasingly concerned about improving the quality of life. However, there is still a wide spectrum of opinion regarding the extent to which corporations should assume greater social responsibilities, and the instruments or approaches that should or could be used to deal with critical quality-of-life problems. This paper focuses on the following six major quality of life or social problems: pollution abatement, urban renewal and development, consumerism, the quality of working life, employment of the underprivileged and minorities, and unemployment generally.

The main purpose of this paper is to report the findings of the study concerning the management practices of the U.S. subsidiaries and comparable local firms in five developing countries. The study was undertaken in Argentina, Brazil, India, the Philip- pines, and Uruguay. The recent efforts to study management in international perspective have been directed mainly toward the investigation of interaction between environment-cum-culture and management practices. Although this, by itself, is a very useful approach, many so-called comparative management theorists have focused solely on environment, and in so doing have forgotten management baby. The study of management practices and effectiveness of the U.S. subsidiaries abroad can serve many useful purposes and provide needed theoretical insights for building organization theory. It will provide guidelines to the newer companies of the U.S. going overseas It can also furnished the benchmark or upper limit to the transferability of the U.S. management know-how and practices in foreign countries, particularly developing nations.

It is the aim of this paper to present a comparative analysis of the reasons for and the outcomes of structural changes at two chemical firms, Dupont, and Farbwerke Hoechst AG of worldwide reputation. Although the headquarters of the two companies are located in different countries, the United States and Western Germany and the structural change took place at quite different times, 1921 and 1969, the two cases show astonishing similarities. In both cases a new structure followed a strategy of rapid growth, vertical integration, and diversification. This comparison suggests that there is no one best way to organize. Although the reasons that induced the process of organizational change seem to be similar the final outcomes of the reorganizations are quite different. Differences in the technical, economic, and cultural conditions facing the organizations as well as differences in the educational background, tradition, and philosophy of the top management group will result in different answers to similar organizational problems.