| In the Preface to Progressive Business, business historian Christian Olaf Christiansen enlightens the reader on the purpose of his treatise: to fnd out whether there is an historical basis for two contradictory (and popular) characterizations of business: that is, whether businesses are motivated for the profts—or they are in it to achieve various social purposes. Christiansen stays true to exploring and digging throughout his work, focusing on “progressive business,” its moral selfgovernance, and its critics in the history of the American experiment. Christiansen defnes “market reformism” (his self-conceived description of progressive business) as an internal—and not external—reform. That is, as one having ambivalence toward the proft motive and self-interest, and critical of free market economics, while preferring voluntary social responsibility in lieu of government regulation. In his study, Christiansen identifes three eras in American history: paternalistic market reformism, i.e., the First Great Transformation; managerial market reformism, i.e., the New Deal era; and entrepreneurial market reformism, i.e., the Second Great Transformation. The First Great Transformation, an era of paternalistic market reformism taking place in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, focuses on ideas of proft sharing, company unions and towns, private philanthropy, and reforming the workplace from within (rather than through government edict). During this era, the emerging concept of “social responsibility” went beyond simply wages, reports Christiansen, with Christianity (and self-interest as a superior moral doctrine) trumping classical liberal political economy. At its essence, this worker-centric approach is based on the benevolent factory owner who offers his employees higher wages and improved working conditions than those of his competitors. According to Christiansen, criticism from the radical and reformist left during this era recognized issues of inequality, poverty, lack of worker autonomy and self-rule, and intolerable working conditions. Classical liberals also criticized the First Great Transformation’s misuse of state power and the interference in the “natural” system of liberty. In contrast to this era of market reformism, says Christiansen, solutions ofered by the radical and reform left included stronger unionism, reduced length of the workday, the establishment of child labor and factory safety legislation, and a more active role for the state. Classical liberals’ solutions to this era included free trade, no tarifs, reduced taxes, the sanctity of private property, and a reliance on economic self-interest leading to the best aggregate social welfare. |