Search results

This paper aims to expose the nature, pattern and mechanism of Roman private enterprise as the rudimentary form of capitalistic business. In the second part, it is shown why and how the directorship of slaves in private enterprise appeared and what shape it took.

By means of historical analysis and theoretical reconstruction, the author reveals the pattern and mechanism of business through slaves as the primordial form of private enterprise.

A comprehensive view of public and private entrepreneurship at the end of Republic and the beginning of Empire is presented. The origin and advantages of Roman public enterprise acknowledged by the state are brought to light. The way the benefits the corporate status affords were adjusted to a business framework allowed by law is demonstrated. It is just business through slaves that, combining peculium with free administration, secured limited liability for owners and turned the slaves to whom a business was entrusted into a kind of director. This construction enabled masters to become the proprietor of many formally separate enterprises at once, thereby expanding their business into something like a holding.

The results obtained allow historians to retrace the origins of modern private enterprise to classical antiquity, and economists and managers to better understand the nature of private enterprise and organizational status of those owning and managing it.

Leaders and executives can draw from the paper an object lesson of how to make, within the existing political system, legal regulation and economic traditions, a radical innovation whose true meaning and social potential are so immense and far-reaching that show up in full measure evident many centuries later. The findings and conclusions the author comes to may be used in educational courses on economics, entrepreneurship, management, business history and so on.

The paper provides an instructive model of conciliation of interests (social “compromise”). “Directors” – those organizing and managing a business but not owning it – were held subject to proprietors but within legally regulated relations with them. The state created incentives for initiative and competent businessmen in subjection to well-offs, to work hard, on one hand, and made their masters to use these incentives to public and their own profits. The benefits of all parties were taken into account, though, of course, not to the same degree.

The structure and “engine” of Roman private enterprise as well as the functions and organizational status of its “director” are demonstrated in relief for the first time.

This paper aims to retrace the genesis of private share company in Ancient Rome as one of the greatest innovation in the history of management.

Relying on a thorough and systematic analysis of the available historical material, and modern research, the author reconstructs the first known form of private share company and the way it came into being under late Republic and early Empire.

The scope of commercial partnerships and bounds preventing them from concentration of capitals are shown. The popular myth of private corporations allegedly existing in Ancient Rome is debunked. The author reveals how existing business elements (union of co-owners, the module “slave – peculium – free administration” from individual enterprise, and the principle of inseparability of joint ownership) had been combined to form private share company. Are demonstrated its chief differences from corporation, and the untenability of attempts to deny the real existence of private share companies in Ancient Rome. By way of summing up, the pattern of innovations is brought into relief.

The material opens new vistas for historians and allows them to draw an exacter and more comprehensive picture of Roman private entrepreneurship. Experts in management get an opportunity to retrace the background of modern forms of business organizing. A broader circle of researchers may see what the real path of radical novelties – from the need for them to their implementation – is. And altogether, the author’s conclusions provide scholars with a key to understanding breakthrough phenomena of history.

The results obtained may be used in many courses related to the history of economics, business, management, innovations, etc. Besides, they allow practitioners to discern plainly the origins of new business forms and learn how to make for them or facilitate their growth.

The author's conception of viable novelties sheds light on the processes of social development and modernization. It may serve as an effective instrument in planning reforms and managing them.

The framework of Roman private share company and many allied issues are investigated for the first time. This type of enterprise is presented as a response to the functional request from private entrepreneurs. That is why the new organizational form, despite its radical nature, proved to be quite efficient, and caught on in business. The author infers from his findings a generalized pattern of innovations able to get integrated into reality.

The purpose of this paper is to expose the pattern and mechanism of Roman private enterprise as the rudimentary form of capitalistic business.

By means of historical analysis and theoretical reconstruction, the author retraces the background and foundations of business through slave as the initial stage of private enterprise.

A comprehensive view of public and private entrepreneurship at the end of Republic and the beginning of Empire is presented. The riddle of “unnaturally” dear slaves in Rome (as compared with free labor and slaves in other countries of antiquity) is scrutinized. It is shown that “excessively” high demand for them was largely determined by their institutional worth: thanks to dominica potestas, they appeared to be the key organizational resource for expanding private industrial business. The framework of private enterprise securing limited liability for owner and turning “business slave” into a kind of director is brought to light.

The results of this research allow historians to retrace the origins of modern private enterprise to classical antiquity, while economists and managers get an opportunity to better understand its nature and organizational status of those owning and managing it.

Leaders and executives can draw from the paper an object lesson of how, remaining within the existing political system, legal regulation and economic traditions, to make a radical innovation whose true meaning and social potential are so immense and far-reaching that get evident only many centuries later. The findings and conclusions the author comes to may be used in educational courses on economics, entrepreneurship, management, business history and so on.

An instructive model of conciliation of interests is scrutinized. “Directors” – those organizing and managing a business but not owning it – were, as well as workers, recruited by coercion and legal regimentation of their relations with proprietors. The polarization of their institutional roles was at the bottom of private enterprise from the very outset. The state created incentives for initiative and competent business men in subjection to well-offs to work hard, on one hand, and made their masters to use these incentives to public and their own profits. The benefits of all parties were taken into account, though, of course, not to the same degree. Thereby, a kind of social compromise embodied in a novel institution was attained to.

This paper is the first to demonstrate in relief the background and framework of Roman private enterprise as well as the functions and organizational status of its “director.”

The purpose of this paper is to discuss the work of Bismarck in relation to social legislation.

Bismarck's points of views are sketched mainly through quotations from his speeches in Parliament. His position regarding social protection is discussed and a brief evaluation of his policy is presented.

Germany, through the work of Bismarck, was the first country where the state organised a modern social‐security system. Compulsory sickness, accident and old‐age insurances were passed in 1883, 1884 and 1889, respectively. However, the Chancellor's social policy was not the result of a comprehensive, global, “definitive” programme. It was an opportunist policy influenced more by political than by social motives.

The paper offers insights into Bismarck's social policy in the context of the social question.

This paper aims to discuss the questioning around the current suitability of ownership both for accessing to certain property (housing, to be more specific) and chattels (digital contents, animals and autonomous robots) that have recently flourished, favored by technological advances and the change in the values of the millennials’ in a context of crisis.

The process of substitution (e.g. through alternative housing tenures, such as intermediate tenures and collaborative housing, licensing digital contents) or erosion/elimination (e.g. owning animals and robots, tokenization through blockchain) of ownership through key types of property and chattels.

Ownership, both of land and goods, is again at the stake. Technological advances and/or new values of millennials in a context of crisis have led to questioning the suitability of ownership to favor universal access to housing, of holding music and other digital contents, have limited the faculties of animals’ and pets’ owners and are favoring the evolution of autonomous robots into subjects of law rather than mere objects.

Only key property (housing) and chattels are studied (digital contents, animals, robots). There is no broad study of the global current situation of ownership.

It is discussed how the changes of values and technological advances in a context of crisis have impacted in the strength and reliability of ownership to allow access to property and chattels.

These changes in ownership change how we can access to property (housing) and to chattels (digital media) and even to changes in what is considered “object” such as what is happening in Europe with animals and robots.

This is a new approach to consequences of the crisis in the field of housing (fractioning of ownership -temporal and shared ownership-, collaborative economy) and a change of values in the new millennial generation (animals) in this context and owing to the advance of the new technologies (robots). Is ownership again at the stake?