| 摘要、提要註: |
The focus of this research is upon government-business relations during the Progressive Era. The contention is that Elbert H. Gary, Chairman of the Steel Corporation (1901-1927), thought of the trust question as involving practical business decisions as well as broader questions of legitimacy, legality and constitutive values of identity in society. While there is extensive historiography on the general issue, this study adds something new to the discussion: first because there is no systematic study of these issues with respect to the Steel Corporation; second because of the focus on Gary's leadership of the corporation, the rest of the industry, and his political economic vision; and third, because of its integration into the story of the legal literature, which is lacking in most studies. Because the modern corporation was seen as a pivotal institution that was fundamentally altering our principles of social organization at the time, the connections between political economy, consciousness, and legitimacy, merit close attention. Surprisingly, the question of corporate legitimacy remains underdeveloped in the historiography. Such a study is important in order to account for many of the perplexing policies pursued by the corporation, such as the emphasis upon price leadership, the drive towards internal as well as external regulation, the willingness to work with public authorities, and most critically the willingness to bear some of the burdens associated with such a project. Gary's answer to the conundrum of legitimacy was the affirmation, "morality looms as large as legality." Armed with structural principles garnered from law, business, and academia, Gary brought his considerable talents to bear upon problem of legitimacy as well as upon a second strategic priority, stabilizing the iron and steel industry, long known for its recurring feast or famine cycles. The findings of this research provide deeper recontextualization for the political, judicial, and economic obstacles to the corporation's proposed alteration of industrial competition policies and enactment of positive law, and also provide evidence that federal regulation during the Progressive Era was more complex than historians have traditionally assumed; it was to a large extent pro-business, pro-state, and also pro-democratic. |