(Un)principled Agents: Monitoring Loyalty after the End of the Royal African Company Monopoly

IF 1.3 2区 历史学 Q3 BUSINESS Business History Review Pub Date : 2023-01-01 DOI:10.1017/s0007680523000351
Anne Ruderman, Marlous van Waijenburg
{"title":"(Un)principled Agents: Monitoring Loyalty after the End of the Royal African Company Monopoly","authors":"Anne Ruderman, Marlous van Waijenburg","doi":"10.1017/s0007680523000351","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The revocation of the Royal African Company's (RAC) monopoly in 1698 inaugurated a transformation of the transatlantic slave trade. While the RAC's exit from the slave trade has received scholarly attention, little is known about the company's response to the loss of its trading privileges. Not only did the end of the company's monopoly increase competition, but the unprecedented numbers of private traders who entered the trade exacerbated the company's principal-agent problems on the West African coast. To analyze the company's behavior in the post-monopoly period, we exploit a series of 292 instruction letters that the RAC issued to its slave-ship captains between 1685 and 1706, coding each individual command in the letters. Our database reveals two new insights into the company's response to its upended competitive landscape. First, the RAC showed a remarkable degree of organizational flexibility, reacting to a heightened principal-agent problem. Second, its response was facilitated by the infrastructure of the transatlantic slave trade, which gave the company a monitoring mechanism by virtue of the slave-ship captains who continually sailed to the West African coast.","PeriodicalId":9503,"journal":{"name":"Business History Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Business History Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/s0007680523000351","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"BUSINESS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The revocation of the Royal African Company's (RAC) monopoly in 1698 inaugurated a transformation of the transatlantic slave trade. While the RAC's exit from the slave trade has received scholarly attention, little is known about the company's response to the loss of its trading privileges. Not only did the end of the company's monopoly increase competition, but the unprecedented numbers of private traders who entered the trade exacerbated the company's principal-agent problems on the West African coast. To analyze the company's behavior in the post-monopoly period, we exploit a series of 292 instruction letters that the RAC issued to its slave-ship captains between 1685 and 1706, coding each individual command in the letters. Our database reveals two new insights into the company's response to its upended competitive landscape. First, the RAC showed a remarkable degree of organizational flexibility, reacting to a heightened principal-agent problem. Second, its response was facilitated by the infrastructure of the transatlantic slave trade, which gave the company a monitoring mechanism by virtue of the slave-ship captains who continually sailed to the West African coast.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
(非)原则代理人:皇家非洲公司垄断结束后的忠诚监测
1698年皇家非洲公司(RAC)垄断地位的废除开启了跨大西洋奴隶贸易的转型。虽然RAC退出奴隶贸易受到了学术界的关注,但对于该公司对失去贸易特权的反应却知之甚少。该公司垄断地位的终结不仅加剧了竞争,而且空前数量的私人贸易商进入该行业,加剧了该公司在西非海岸的委托代理问题。为了分析该公司在后垄断时期的行为,我们利用了RAC在1685年至1706年间发给其奴隶船船长的292封指令信,并在信中对每条指令进行了编码。我们的数据库揭示了该公司应对其颠覆的竞争格局的两个新见解。首先,RAC表现出显著的组织灵活性,对委托代理问题作出反应。其次,跨大西洋奴隶贸易的基础设施为该公司的反应提供了便利,这使得该公司有了一个监督机制,因为奴隶船长不断航行到西非海岸。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
62
期刊介绍: The Business History Review is a quarterly publication of original research by historians, economists, sociologists, and scholars of business administration. BHR"s ongoing mission, from its 1926 inception as the Bulletin of the Business Historical Society, is to encourage and aid the study of the evolution of business in all periods and all countries. The Business History Review is published in the spring, summer, autumn, and winter by Harvard Business School and is printed at The Sheridan Press in Pennsylvania.
期刊最新文献
Unfreedom and Slavery Under Sail: Intercolonial Trade in the British Atlantic, 1698–1766 Configuring Cultural Emerging Industries: A Comparison of the French and Italian Fashion Industries The Sugar Revolution in New England: Barbados, Massachusetts Bay, and the Atlantic Sugar Economy, 1600–1700 Reflection: Firms, Rules, and Global Capitalism Governing Global Tax Dodgers: The “Group of Four” and the Taxation of Multinational Corporations, 1970s–1980s
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1