Espen Storli

Confronting market power: Norway and international cartels and trusts, 1919–39

Abstract The article examines the relationship between the Norwegian State and international cartels and trusts in the interwar years. In this period, Norway was at the forefront with regard to implementing legislation regulating cartels, yet the legislation was not an antitrust legislation in the modern sense. It was aimed not only at protecting consumer interests, but more importantly at defending domestic businesses against foreign monopolies and cartels. In the article we examine how the Norwegian authorities interacted with international cartels and trusts in seven different cases in the interwar period. The study shows that although there was a deep seated scepticism towards concentration of market power in Norway, cartels received support from the Norwegian government when they were deemed to be beneficial to Norwegian economic interests. The legislation was used to foster the development of domestic cartels, while at the same time it was employed as a tool to limit the operations of foreign cartels and trusts.

Cartel Theory and Cartel Practice: The Case of the International Aluminum Cartels, 1901–1940

The study of cartels is important to economists as well as business historians, but, on the whole, there has been little cross cultivation between the two academic fields. This article examines cartel theory developed by economists in the context of the historical case of international aluminum cartels in existence before 1940. By analyzing three basic theoretical questions—when cartels appear, when they break down, and when they are successful—in light of the empirical evidence of the aluminum industry, the article argues that economics and history, although they have very different approaches, can profit from using each others methods when studying cartels.

Big Business and Small States: Unilever and Norway in the Interwar Years

In 1930, Unilever tried to take control of Lilleborg, Norways most important producer of soap and vegetable oil, with the aim of wiping out most of Norways independent margarine and soap industry. However, as the purchase was dependent on government concession, Unilever became embroiled in a power struggle with the Norwegian political authorities. The company was strongly criticized by Norwegian nationalists. The question of whether or not to let Unilever go forward became one of the most contested questions in Norwegian politics in the period. In the end, Unilever was allowed to go ahead with the purchase, but in return the company was forced to make substantial concessions. Expanding on Joness framework for understanding the balance of power between multinationals and host governments, in this article it is argued that we must look beyond firm specific assets and a cost‐benefit oriented analysis of the relationship between multinationals and host countries to understand the end result. In this case, nationalism had a decisive impact. Unilevers acquisition of Lilleborg and the Norwegian response thus contributes to our understanding of the nature of multinational enterprise in the interwar period and of the political economy of foreign direct investment in general.

The Ups and Downs of Family Life: Det Norske Nitridaktieselskap, 1912–1976

The current literature on international joint ventures pays considerable attention to why joint ventures are established or why they are dissolved, but we lack studies that give insight into their dynamic development. The aim of this article is to investigate the evolution of an international joint venture over time. We confront some of the theoretical insights developed during the last decades with the dramatic history of the aluminum producer Det Norske Nitridaktieselskap (DNN). The company was established shortly before World War I and was finally disbanded over seventy years later. For most of this time, DNN was an international joint venture with shifting ownership configurations. This gives us the possibility not only to discuss the motivation for why the company was established or why it was dissolved, but also to study the mid-life of the company. What was DNN’s role within the general corporate strategies of the owners? Did this role change over time?