The different rates of technical progress in Western Europe and the United States, exemplified by the motor industry, created a problem of adjustment in international payments by the 1920s. American direct investment in manufacturing in Europe was a manifestation of technological superiority and a partial solution to the payments problem. The scale of their operations gave the American motor vehicle firms an advantage even in foreign production. An alternative way of closing the technological gap, the transfer of machine tools and trained men from America to Europe, allowed the European motor vehicle producers to compete without becoming entirely American-owned.

¹Svennilson,Ingvar,Growth and Stagnation in the European Economy, United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (Geneva,1954), pp.20–23.Google Scholar

²Vanek,Jaroslav,The Natural Resource Content of the United States Foreign Trade, 1870–1955 (Cambridge, Massachusetts,1963), pp.128–30.Google Scholar

³Falkus,Malcolm E., “United States Economic Policy and the Dollar Gap of the 1920's,”Economic History Review, 2nd ser.,24 (11.1971),599–623.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁴ United Nations,International Capital Movements during the Inter-War Period (Lake Success,New York,1949), pp.30–32.Google ScholarSvedberg,P., “The Portfolio-Direct Composition of Private Foreign Investment in 1914 Revisited,”Economic Journal,88 (12.1978),763–77, argues, however, that pre-1914 direct investment has been underestimated.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁵Southard,Frank A.Jr,American Industry in Europe (1931; reprint ed.,New York,1976), p.xiii.Google Scholar

⁶ See, for example,Rosenberg,Nathan,Perspectives on Technology (Cambridge,1976), p.157.CrossRefGoogle ScholarCasson,Mark,Alternatives to the Multinational Enterprise (New York,1979), chap. 3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁷Chandler,Alfred D., “The Growth of the Transnational Industrial Firm in the United States and the United Kingdom: A Comparative Analysis”,Economic History Review, 2nd ser.,33 (08.1980),396–410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁸Wilkins,Mira, “Modern European Economic History and the Multinationals,”Journal of European Economic History,6 (Winter1977),575–95.Google Scholar

⁹ An influential view of the danger for Europe of American multinationals in the 1960s wasServan-Schreiber's,Jean Jacques,The American Challenge (New York,1968).Google ScholarSouthard (American Industry, pp. 184–86) provides a sample of European objections in the 1920s.Google Scholar

¹⁰U.S., Department of Labor,Wages and Hours of Labor in the Motor Vehicle Industry, Bulletin no. 502 (1928);Google ScholarSeltzer,Lawrence H., “The Automobile Industry,” inEncyclopedia of Social Science, ed.Seligman,Edwin R. A. (New York,1930).Google Scholar

¹¹ The use of the term “revealed comparative advantage,” is due toBalassa,Bela A., “Trade Liberalization and ‘Revealed’ Comparative Advantage,”The Manchester School,3 (1965),99–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹²Pound,Arthur,The Turning Wheel. The Story of General Motors through Twenty-five Years: 1908–1933 (New York,1934), p.246.Google Scholar

¹³Britain,Great, Imperial Economic Committee,A Survey of Trade in Motor Vehicles, H.M.S.O. (1936), p. 45.Google Scholar

¹⁴Seltzer, “Automobile Industry.”Google Scholar

¹⁵U.S., Special Consular Report, Dept. of Commerce and Labor (Manufactures Bureau),Motor Machines (1908).Google Scholar The American tariff was 45 percent compared with a zero rate in Britain, 2–3 percent in Germany, 8–12 percent in France, and 12 percent in Belgium.Laux,James M.,In First Gear: The French Automobile Industry to 1914 (Liverpool,1976), p.101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹⁶Laux,In First Gear, p. 124.Google Scholar

¹⁷ For example,Temin,Peter, “Labor Scarcity and the Problem of American Industrial Efficiency in the 1850s,” in thisJOURNAL,26 (091966),277–98.Google ScholarMusson,Albert E., “The engineering Industry,” inThe Dynamics of Victorian Business, ed.Church,Roy A. (Boston,1980). Musson argues that Whitworth overstated American machine-tool superiority for his own ends.Google Scholar

¹⁸Epstein,Ralph C.,The Automobile Industry: Its Economic and Commercial Development (1928; reprint ed.New York,1972), p.44.Google Scholar

¹⁹Woodbury,Robert S., “Machine Tools,” inA History of Technology: The Twentieth Century, ed.Williams,Trevor I. (New York,1978).Google Scholar

²⁰Koenigsberg,Frank, “Production Engineering”,Hiostory of Technology.Google Scholar

²¹ Sorensen asserts that no one at Ford Knew about Taylor's theories.Sorensen,Charles E.,My Forty Years with Ford (New York,1956), p.41.Google Scholar

²² Taylor' recommendation of time study and rule of thumb personnel measures were most popular in American industry. His innovation in production management were less widely used.Nelson,Daniel,Frederick W. Taylor and the Rise of Scientific Management (Madison, Wisconsin,1980), pp.199–200.Google Scholar

²³Taylor,Frederick W.,Principles of Scientific Management (New York,1967).Google Scholar

²⁴Great Britain, Department of Overseas Trade,Cahill,J. R.,Report on Industrial Conditions in France, H.M.S.O. (July1925), appendix.Google Scholar

²⁵Hicks,Carl, “Report of the Automobile Situation in the World and Europe in 1927”, bound typescript, Detroit Public Library, p. 10.Google Scholar

²⁶Park,William M.,The Automotive Industry and Trade of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (Washington, D. C.,1928).Google Scholar

²⁷“The AMO Automobile Factory”,The Automobile Engineer (July1931), 245–50; “The Krasny Putilovetz Tractor Works”,The Automobile Engineer (091930), 314–21.Google Scholar

²⁸Wilkins,Mira andHill,Frank Ernest,American Business Abroad: Ford on Six Continents (Detroit,1964), p.240.Google Scholar

²⁹Hicks, “Report of the Automobile Situation”, p. 24.Google Scholar Frank Woollard, Morris's production engineer, had been proud of his unusual machines and new methods, which achieved a degree of mechanization not attained in the United States.“Some Notes on British Methods of Continuous Production”,Proceedings of the Institution of Automobile Engineers,031925 (London,1925), pp.85–93.Google Scholar

³⁰“Machine Tool Obsolescence”,The Automobile Engineer (March1931), p. 115.Google Scholar

³¹Rolt,Lionel T. C.,Tools for the Job: A Short History of Machine Tools (London,1965), p.215.Google Scholar

³²Woollard,Frank, “Automobile Plant Depreciation and Replacement Problems”,Proceedings of the Institution of Automobile Engineers,011931 (London,1931), p.258.Google Scholar

³³Hicks, “Report of the Automobile Situation”, p. 11.Google Scholar

³⁴On Czech steel, see Hicks, “Report of the Automobile Situation.” On British steel, see Sorensen to Perry, 20 August.1934, Acc. 572, Box 18, #11.15, Ford Archives, Dearborn, Michigan.Google Scholar

³⁵Great Britain, PRO, BT 64/3187. A Board of Trade investigation, in the same file, broadly confirmed the S.M.M.T.'s costings.Google Scholar

³⁶Platet,Jean L.,L's industrie Automobile depuis la Guerre (Paris,1934), p.142.Google Scholar

³⁷ For the attitude of General Motors, seeSloan,Alfred Pritchard,My Years with General Motors, ed.McDonald,John (New York,1964), p.316.Google Scholar

³⁸“Percentage of Cost per Tudor Represented by American and Local Expenditure”, 28 June1932, Acc. 572, Box 18, #11.15, Ford Archives.Google Scholar

³⁹Hicks, “Report of the Automobile Situation”, pp. 3, 9.Google Scholar

⁴⁰Wilkins,American Business Abroad, pp. 238–41.Google Scholar

⁴¹Nevins,Allan andHill,Frank Ernest,Ford: Decline and Rebirth, 1933–62 (New York,1963), p.81.Google Scholar

⁴²Pound,The Turning Wheel, p. 248.Google Scholar

⁴³Swayne,A., “Report of European and South American Trip, fall 1927 to the Executive Committee”, Vice President, 12 Jan.1928, 3, 5, in C. S. Mott Papers, General Motors Institute Alumni Foundation's Collection of Industrial History, General Motors Institute, Flint, Michigan.Google Scholar

⁴⁴Phillips,Palmer to Perry, 5 Aug.1931, Acc. 572, Box 18, #11.15, Ford Archives.Google Scholar

⁴⁵Sloan,My Years with General Motors, pp. 316–20; Pound,The Turning Wheel, pp. 248, 250, 258.Google Scholar

⁴⁶The Export Organisation of General Motors (1929), p. 18, Eleutherian Mills Historical Library, Wilmington, Delaware.Google Scholar

⁴⁷Sloan,My Years with General Motors, pp. 325–28.Google Scholar

⁴⁸Sedgwick,Michael,Cars of the Nineteen Thirties (London,1970), pp.176–286.Google Scholar

⁴⁹The Export Organisation of General Motors, p. 127.Google Scholar

⁵⁰Wilkins, “Modern European Economic History”, pp. 238–42.Google Scholar

⁵¹Ibid.;Nevins,Allan andHill,Frank Ernest,Ford: Expansion and Challenge, 1915–1933 (New York,1957), chaps.14, 21.Google Scholar

⁵²Maxcy,George andSilberston,Aubrey,The Motor Industry (London,1959), p.107.Google Scholar

⁵³Jacobson,D., “The Political Economy of Industrial Location: The Ford Motor Company at Cork 1912–1926”,Irish Economic and Social History,4 (1977),36–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁵⁴Wilkins,American Business Abroad, pp. 237–40.Google Scholar

⁵⁵Casson,Alternatives to Multinational Enterprise, p. 45.Google Scholar

⁵⁶ For some instances of the transfer of American methods in the motor industry to Britain after the First World War, seeForeman-Peck,James, “The Effect of Market Failure on the British Motor Industry before 1939”,Explorations in Economic History,18 (071981),271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁵⁷ On the checkered history of the Rover Company in the 1920s and 1930s, seeForeman-Peck,James, “Exit, Voice and Loyalty as Responses to Decline: The Rover Company in the Inter-war Period”,Business History,23 (071981), pp.191–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁵⁸PRO, DSIR 16/93.Google Scholar

⁵⁹PRO, DSIR 16/32, DSIR 16/94.Google Scholar

⁶⁰“Report on Time and Motion Study and Fieldwork”, 6 Feb1933, Acc. 572, Box 18, #11.15, Ford Archives.Google Scholar

⁶¹Cowling to Perry, 17 Feb1932, Acc. 572, Box 18, #11.15, Ford Archives.Google Scholar

⁶²Regional Director's Office, July1927, C. S. Mott Papers, General Motors Institute.Google Scholar

⁶³“Comparison of Dearborn and Dagenham Estimated Cost of Model Y Tudor”, Acc. 572, Box 18, #11.15, Ford Archives.Google Scholar

⁶⁴Sarensen to Perry, 20 Aug.1934.Google Scholaribid.

⁶⁵Sloan,My Years with General Motors, pp. 316, 318–19. GM did not regard all European management as inferior. They thought Mathis would make a good GM division head.Report on Mathis Co., 15, C. S. Mott Papers, General Motors Institute.Google Scholar

⁶⁶Perry to Sorensen, 19 Oct.1929, sheet 3, Acc. 572, Box 18, #11.15, Ford Archives.Google Scholar

⁶⁷Klann and Kanzler, 15 Dec.1923, 31 Dec.1923, 7 Feb.1924, 3 March1924, Acc. 38, Box 12, Ford Archives.Google Scholar

⁶⁸Shimokawa,Koichi, “Marketing History in the Automobile Industry: The United States and Japan”, pp. 18–19; andChurch,Roy, “The Marketing of Automobiles in Britain and the United States before 1939,” pp. 70–71,Google Scholar both inDevelopment of Mass Marketing: The Automobile and Retailing Industries, eds.Okochi,Akio andShimokawa,Koichi (Tokyo,1981).Google Scholar

⁶⁹Quoted in Great Britain, Imperial Economic Committee,Survey of Trade, p. 44.Google Scholar

⁷⁰Ibid., pp. 13–14.

⁷¹Nevins and Hill,Expansion and Challenge, appendix I.Google Scholar

⁷²Rhys,D. G., “Concentration in the Interwar Motor Industry”,Journal of Transport History, n.s.,3 (09.1976),241–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁷³ Robert Rowthorn shows that European multinationals were investing in the United States in the 1960s at a rate comparable to American investment in Europe.International Big Business 1957–1967: A Study of Comparative Growth (Cambridge,1971), pp.62–65.Google Scholar