Adolf Berle and Gardiner Means famously declared in 1932 that a separation of ownership and control was a hallmark of large U.S. corporations, and their characterization of matters quickly became received wisdom. A series of recent papers has called the Berle–Means orthodoxy into question. This survey of the relevant historical literature acknowledges that the pattern of ownership and control in U.S. public companies is not monolithic. Nevertheless, a separation between ownership and control remains an appropriate reference point for analysis of U.S. corporate governance.

This paper offers a detailed case study of the emergence, organization, and development of research and development at E. Merck. During the 1890s, revolutionary changes in the scientific knowledge base, especially the rise of bacteriological research and the entry of dyestuff producers into the pharmaceuticals market, combined with the financial distress Merck was undergoing to force the firm to reorganize pharmaceutical research as a corporate strategy. Consequently, between 1895 and 1898, Merck restructured its in-house research, forming closer ties with universities and other outside inven- tors. Merck depended on these sources to generate new products, while relying on in-house scientists to improve productive efficiency. A spate of new products was launched between the late 1890s and 1905, but, in the following years, resource constraints restricted Merck's innovative capacity.

International capital flows are strongly influenced by countryspecific patterns that can be best understood in historical and comparative perspective. A long-term empirical analysis of French and German investment in Spain reveals that the core capabilities of foreign fi rms and their relations with local partners have spurred the rise and development of two national models of international investment, characterized here as “political” and “technical.” The research identifies the main actors and the ownership advantages of the two models that have proved to be so resilient over time.

Between 1890 and 1930, Argentina's manufacturers invested in imported machinery. Although they aligned with political allies to advance and protect their companies, their dependence on imported machinery, raw materials, fuel, and expensive skilled labor were obstacles to their success. Two factors slowed the progress of these entrepreneurs: their lack of technological capabilities and the absence of government policies to address the problems entailed in importing foreign machinery. Several political factions supported industry's efforts to reduce dependence on imported products and to diversify the economy. While these supporters hoped to promote industry through the passage of legislation to raise the tariff rate, their strategy represented a compromise that stifled the drive to innovate that is so necessary for long-run economic growth and industrial development.

An expanding economy, new technologies, and changing consumer preferences provided growth opportunities for firms in interwar Australia. This period saw an increase in the number of large-scale firms in mining, manufacturing, and a wide range of service industries. Firms unable to rely solely on retained earnings to fund expansion turned to the domestic stock exchanges. A new data set of capital raisings constructed from reports of prospectuses published in the financial press forms the basis for the conclusion that many firms used substantial injections of equity finance to augment internally generated sources of funds. That they were able to do so indicates a strong increase in the capacity of local stock exchanges and a greater willingness of individuals to hold part of their wealthin transferable securities.