Marglin 2008, pp. 153–4. The Dismal Science: How Thinking Like an Economist Undermines Community. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. 2008.
doi.org
Tunzelmann 2001, p. 10. "[The] debate, in regard to the First Industrial Revolution, [...] between Stephen Marglin and David Landes [was] over which was the more potent symbol of that revolution—the factory, interpreted as a governance mechanism, or the machinery? Landes' original survey (Landes 1969), drawn on his background in entrepreneurial history, had suggested a combination of technological and cultural factors explaining why Britain came first and why it later dropped behind. Marglin (1974), from a background in radical economics, instead took a strong labour-process view, in a paper entitled "What Do Bosses Do?" For him it was the control entrusted to the 'bosses' through the factory system that crucially defined that Industrial Revolution. Landes (1986) replied with a restatement more strongly favouring the technology as the sine qua non of early industrialisation. Both sides could accept some interdependence between governance changes and technological changes, but remained committed to their respective views about priority". Tunzelmann, Nick von (2001). Historical Coevolution of Governance and Technology. Eindhoven Centre for Innovation Studies. CiteSeerX10.1.1.133.3157. Landes, David S. (1969). The Unbound Prometheus: Technological Change and Industrial Development in Western Europe from 1750 to the Present. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press. ISBN0-521-09418-6. ——— (1986). "What do bosses really do?". The Journal of Economic History. 46 (3): 585–623. doi:10.1017/S0022050700046799. JSTOR2121476. S2CID154524555.
Tunzelmann 2001, p. 10. "[The] debate, in regard to the First Industrial Revolution, [...] between Stephen Marglin and David Landes [was] over which was the more potent symbol of that revolution—the factory, interpreted as a governance mechanism, or the machinery? Landes' original survey (Landes 1969), drawn on his background in entrepreneurial history, had suggested a combination of technological and cultural factors explaining why Britain came first and why it later dropped behind. Marglin (1974), from a background in radical economics, instead took a strong labour-process view, in a paper entitled "What Do Bosses Do?" For him it was the control entrusted to the 'bosses' through the factory system that crucially defined that Industrial Revolution. Landes (1986) replied with a restatement more strongly favouring the technology as the sine qua non of early industrialisation. Both sides could accept some interdependence between governance changes and technological changes, but remained committed to their respective views about priority". Tunzelmann, Nick von (2001). Historical Coevolution of Governance and Technology. Eindhoven Centre for Innovation Studies. CiteSeerX10.1.1.133.3157. Landes, David S. (1969). The Unbound Prometheus: Technological Change and Industrial Development in Western Europe from 1750 to the Present. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press. ISBN0-521-09418-6. ——— (1986). "What do bosses really do?". The Journal of Economic History. 46 (3): 585–623. doi:10.1017/S0022050700046799. JSTOR2121476. S2CID154524555.
Marglin 1975 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFMarglin1975 (help); Marglin 1979 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFMarglin1979 (help); Marglin 1984b harvnb error: no target: CITEREFMarglin1984b (help); Chapter 7 in Marglin 1990b; Marglin 1991 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFMarglin1991 (help). Dominating Knowledge: Development, Culture, and Resistance. Oxford: Clarendon Press. 1990b. (Co-editor with Apffel-Marglin).
psu.edu
citeseerx.ist.psu.edu
Willy Gianinazzi, André Gorz. Une vie, Paris, La Découverte, 2016, p. 160; Bryer 2002, p. 17. Bryer, R. A. (2002). "Towards a Marxist accounting history of the British Industrial Revolution: a review of evidence and suggestions for research". University of Warwick. CiteSeerX10.1.1.484.8757. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
Tunzelmann 2001, p. 10. "[The] debate, in regard to the First Industrial Revolution, [...] between Stephen Marglin and David Landes [was] over which was the more potent symbol of that revolution—the factory, interpreted as a governance mechanism, or the machinery? Landes' original survey (Landes 1969), drawn on his background in entrepreneurial history, had suggested a combination of technological and cultural factors explaining why Britain came first and why it later dropped behind. Marglin (1974), from a background in radical economics, instead took a strong labour-process view, in a paper entitled "What Do Bosses Do?" For him it was the control entrusted to the 'bosses' through the factory system that crucially defined that Industrial Revolution. Landes (1986) replied with a restatement more strongly favouring the technology as the sine qua non of early industrialisation. Both sides could accept some interdependence between governance changes and technological changes, but remained committed to their respective views about priority". Tunzelmann, Nick von (2001). Historical Coevolution of Governance and Technology. Eindhoven Centre for Innovation Studies. CiteSeerX10.1.1.133.3157. Landes, David S. (1969). The Unbound Prometheus: Technological Change and Industrial Development in Western Europe from 1750 to the Present. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press. ISBN0-521-09418-6. ——— (1986). "What do bosses really do?". The Journal of Economic History. 46 (3): 585–623. doi:10.1017/S0022050700046799. JSTOR2121476. S2CID154524555.
semanticscholar.org
api.semanticscholar.org
Tunzelmann 2001, p. 10. "[The] debate, in regard to the First Industrial Revolution, [...] between Stephen Marglin and David Landes [was] over which was the more potent symbol of that revolution—the factory, interpreted as a governance mechanism, or the machinery? Landes' original survey (Landes 1969), drawn on his background in entrepreneurial history, had suggested a combination of technological and cultural factors explaining why Britain came first and why it later dropped behind. Marglin (1974), from a background in radical economics, instead took a strong labour-process view, in a paper entitled "What Do Bosses Do?" For him it was the control entrusted to the 'bosses' through the factory system that crucially defined that Industrial Revolution. Landes (1986) replied with a restatement more strongly favouring the technology as the sine qua non of early industrialisation. Both sides could accept some interdependence between governance changes and technological changes, but remained committed to their respective views about priority". Tunzelmann, Nick von (2001). Historical Coevolution of Governance and Technology. Eindhoven Centre for Innovation Studies. CiteSeerX10.1.1.133.3157. Landes, David S. (1969). The Unbound Prometheus: Technological Change and Industrial Development in Western Europe from 1750 to the Present. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press. ISBN0-521-09418-6. ——— (1986). "What do bosses really do?". The Journal of Economic History. 46 (3): 585–623. doi:10.1017/S0022050700046799. JSTOR2121476. S2CID154524555.
