Nehru speaking on first five-year plan in 1952, quoted in MoraesFrank, Jawaharlal Nehru: A Biography (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1956), p. 427.
2.
This point of view is held by what is commonly known as the “Process School.” The specific quotation is taken from MerrillHarwood F., “Listening Post,”Management News, XXXVI:1 (Jan. 1963).
3.
GonzalezRichard F.McMillanClaudeJr., “The Universality of American Management Philosophy,”Academy of Management Journal, IV:1 (April 1961), 39.
4.
ObergWinston, “Cross-Cultural Perspectives on Management Principles,”Academy of Management Journal, VI:2 (June 1963), 141–142.
5.
Ibid.
6.
FarmerRichardRichmanBarry, “A Model for Research in Comparative Management,”California Management Review, Winter 1964, p. 56.
7.
McCannEugene, “An Aspect of Management Philosophy in the United States and Latin America,”Academy of Management Journal, VII:2 (June 1964), 149–152.
8.
PrasadS. B., “Comment: Decision-making in Latin American Business: An Extension of McCann's Hypothesis,”Academy of Management Journal, VII:4 (Dec. 1965), 324.
9.
FrenchJohn R. P.IsraelJ., “An Experiment on Participation in a Norwegian Factory,”Human Relations, XIII:1, pp. 1–19.
10.
HarbisonF.BurgessE., “Modern Management in Western Europe,”American Journal of Sociology, LX:1 (July 1954).
11.
KerrC.DunlopJ. T., Industrialism and Industrial Man (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1960).
12.
DillW. R., “The Impact of Environment on Organizational Development,” in MailukS.Van NessE., eds., Readings in Administrative Behavior (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1961). Also see WhyteW. F., “Framework for the Analysis of Industrial Relations: Two Views,”Industrial and Labor Relations Review, III:3 (April 1950).
13.
BasuK. S., “Management Similarities and Differences Under Different Cultures,”Indian Management, Sept. 1965, p. 19.
14.
Ibid., p. 24.
15.
HarbisonFrederickMyersCharles, Management in the Industrial World (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1959), p. 117.
16.
See various case studies of National Planning Association, U.S.A., concerning United States business firms abroad.
17.
DillW. R., “Environment as an Influence on Managerial Autonomy,” in ThompsonJ. D., eds., Comparative Studies in Administration (Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1959), p. 131. One such conceptual scheme to determine the applicability of American management know-how in underdeveloped countries is contained in Negandhi and EstafenBernard D., “A Research Model to Determine the Applicability of American Management Know-How in Differing Cultures and/or Environments,”Academy of Management Journal, VIII:4 (Dec. 1965), 309–317.
18.
Monthly Bulletin of Statistics (New York: United Nations, Jan. 1967), pp. 160–169. India still is in a much better position than many of the other underdeveloped countries. For example, during the same period CPI in Brazil rose to 2048, in Chile to 515, and in Argentina to 771.
19.
Economic Times (Bombay), Sept. 4, 1964.
20.
In another research study, I found that the slow-moving machinery of the government of India was largely responsible for retarding greater private investment—both domestic and foreign—in industrial projects. Negandhi, Private Foreign Investment Climate in India (East Lansing: Institute for International Business Management Studies, Michigan State University, 1965), pp. 93–94.
21.
This is not typical of the theoretical model of a oligopolistic market in the sense that entry is not forbidden to marginal and inefficient enterprises, but entry is made difficult for reasons of capital funds and capital goods.
22.
This statement should not be interpreted to imply that family firms per se are inimical to industrial growth. While literature abounds to assert so, empirical evidence appears to lend no support to these assertions. For the interesting case of Lebanon, see KhalefSamirSchwayrieEmilie, “Family Firms and Industrial Development: The Lebanese Case,”Economic Development and Cultural Change, Oct. 1966, pp. 59–69.
23.
HarbisonMyers, Education, Manpower, and Economic Growth (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1964).
24.
MarchJ. A.SimonH. A., Organizations (New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1963), p. 83.
25.
UnwallaDarab B., Textile Technocracy: Human Relations in Factories (Bombay: Popular Book Depot, 1958), p. vi.
26.
HarbisonMyers, Management in the Industrial World, p. 141.
27.
The competitive forces in the U.S. after World War II increased business failure rate considerably. For example, in the years immediately following World War II the failure rate was about 20 to 30 per 10,000 firms, in later postwar years the rate increased to 60 per 10,000. See The Failure Record Through 1963 (New York: Dun and Bradstreet Inc., 1964), p. 3.
28.
See BryoonGeorge D., Profits from Abroad: A Reveille for American Business (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1964). For specific profit margins see Negandhi, op. cit., pp. 43–48.