INDUSTRIAL COMBINATION AND THE STANDARDIZA

TION OF PRODUCTION

I. INTRODUCTION

A profusion of styles and brands of goods was one of the characteristics of pre-war individualism. The American manufacturer did not force American consumers to lie in an iron bed of Procrustes of standard dimension, but he furnished them with iron, brass, and wooden beds of manifold sizes and designs. American producers did not prescribe an unvarying color scheme, for the American householder could choose among more than one hundred shades of house paint. The variety of design in ordinary articles gave full opportunity for the satisfaction of the most fastidious tastes; the discriminating judge of chairs had 518 patterns of piano stools and a countless legion of ordinary chairs from which to make his choice; the connoisseur of plows and cultivators could undoubtedly find the style dictated by his own individualistic notions from the varied assortment displayed by the agricultural implement dealers; and anyone who was particular about the appearance of the interior of his house could spend his lifetime in examining samples of wall paper. From the cradle to the grave, from the many varieties of cribs and baby carriages to the profusion of styles in burial shrouds and coffins, the American consumer has been unrestricted in his choice.

Lack of standardization is found chiefly in manufactured products, where variety can be introduced at the whim of the manufacturer. Definite grades have been established for the basic raw materials like wheat, cotton, wool, lumber, coal, and iron, where style and appearance are not important, and where the commodity is evaluated by physical and mechanical tests. As the raw material emerges into the field of finished products, however, it breaks up into many brands differentiated from each other by the intangible and aesthetic qualities of shape, color, and design, which cannot often be reduced to a single mechanical standard. It is true that standard bolts and screws are used in the manufacture

of all automobiles, that the Ford car is a complete, standardized, finished product, and that there are many cases of interchangeable mechanisms and standardization in minor details, but these examples make a small showing compared with the motley array of brands, trade-marks, and styles that characterize most industries in the United States. We are yet far from that "millennium" where the consumer can buy a standard limousine, standard suits of clothing graded according to wool content and durability, standard furniture, and standard canned foods of guaranteed purity, weight, and quality. To satisfy the eccentricities and individualistic notions of consumers we still present a constant succession of new styles in our national window display.

The responsibility for this medley of patterns, however, is to be charged not mainly to the individualistic tastes of consumers but rather to the individualism in business enterprise. While the psychic satisfaction derived by the consumer in the enjoyment of something different from the ordinary staple has contributed to create and support the multiplication of brands, the chief driving power has been excessive competition among manufacturers. To avoid the cutthroat competitive struggle that ensues when each of several rival producers of standard articles lowers his price in order to absorb the market of the others and thereby finally to attain the goal of maximum output and minimum overhead charges, each producer seeks to introduce his own special brand, which cannot be readily compared with the products of other manufacturers, and which can therefore be sold at a different price. Competition is thus transferred from the plane of price to that of quality, and the poor consumer, who obtained the chief pecuniary benefits while the cutthroat price competition lasted, is thrown off the scent of low prices and induced to pay more for a staple product disguised by ornamental features. The evolution of brands is the buffer that prevents excessive price competition from leading to monopoly, but, like other buffers, it is by nature a temporary device whose value we may well question.

II.

ADVANTAGES OF STANDARDIZATION DURING PEACE

In fact, these hardships imposed on the consumer, as well as the higher costs inflicted on the manufacturer and the waste of

national resources involved in supporting this extravagant pleasure display, raise the question as to whether our long-cherished liberty— of having so much to choose from that we cannot make an intelligent choice is worth clinging to. Even in times of peace it is perhaps self-evident that an extreme individualism in style results in an uneconomical application of the nation's resources, because unnecessary material and capital are tied up in large dealers' stocks, because the multiplicity of styles lessens the degree of specialization with its attendant social advantages, and because the making of useless frills requires more material, more labor, and more shipping space than the unadorned article. It is equally plain that the costs are increased to the manufacturer, and that prices are correspondingly raised to the consumer. The extra materials and labor required by the ornaments, the risk of these specialties going out of style, and the luxury of handmade and small-scale production must be paid by the producer and passed on to the consumer. Consequently unlimited freedom of choice costs the consumer money as well as the time spent in choosing between similar brands.

Some of this individuality of style is worth its social cost. A society in which everyone rode in Ford cars and lived in uniform cement houses would be monotonous, even though it were the most economical. It is also true that some differences in size and style are required by the exigencies of industry and natural individual differences. Beyond this necessary minimum, freedom of individual expression and personal preference count for more in some branches of production than in others, and any unnecessary indulgence of individual eccentricities in those lines where it is least important merely lessens the surplus capital that might be used for the cultural expression of a people along lines where fine differences count for the most in artistic effect.

III.

ADVANTAGES OF STANDARDIZATION. IN WAR

Standardization during peace bears its fruits of lowered costs and increased efficiency that finally communicate themselves by devious paths to the consumer's pocketbook, but standardization during war immediately converts itself into the vital purpose that is in everyone's heart and mind. Mass production is the keynote of war preparation; to span the ocean with ships, to deluge the

enemy

with steel, to overwhelm him by the weight of numbers, are the paramount necessities of war. The cry is constantly "more and more" and "faster and faster," and there is no thought of style or brand as we seek to manufacture quantities of shells sufficient to protect the lives of our soldiers by a curtain of fire.

The very extent to which we succeeded in the war just ended was indicated by the progress of standardization. The faults in our early airplane program consisted of our experimentation with many types of airplanes and the delay in devising a standard motor; its eventual success consisted in the adoption of the standard Liberty motor and the quantity production of the De Haviland 4 type of airplane. The criticism of our early shipbuilding program was laid at the door of the controversy as to what kind of ships to build; its crowning success lay in the standardization of the style of ship so that the shipyards became merely assemblingplaces for steel plates. To be sure there was necessity for variety in the military program-for heavy artillery and light artillery, for bombing airplanes and observation airplanes-but when specialization in fundamentals was achieved further specialization merely retarded the advance of the military program.

The same standardization which characterized our war preparation affected and entered into the life of the soldier. The standardization of the soldier's uniform, food, equipment, lodging, etc., not only cheapened the cost of his support and made possible the equipment of more soldiers in a shorter time but also contributed to create the very morale which makes a soldier out of a civilian. Plain food and regular hours were the basis of physical fitness and physical courage; equality of living conditions contributed to the scheme of discipline which the standardized drill instilled. In short, a war machine is made by standardization, so that each gun, each ship, each man, fits into the proper groove and moves as a part of the entire mechanism when the commander in chief presses the button.

If standardization is thus so essential to the war machine proper, it can hardly be less essential to the rest of the industrial organization of the nation, which is so intimately related to the war machine that it is really a part of it. While the enforcement of commands over industry is far more difficult than the enforcement of discipline

in the army or the establishment of uniform specifications for plants with government contracts, it is none the less imperative to standardize all the industries of a nation in time of war, whether these industries be called essential or nonessential. Standardization even among normal industries spells economy and conservation.

Economy in the use of steel during peace translates itself into lower costs; economy in the use of steel during war spells more ships, more shells, and more guns, which means life to thousands of soldiers and victory to the nation. Economy in shipping space during peace may signify lessened cost to the consumer or even possibly turn the scales between a profitable and a bankrupt railroad, but economy in shipping space during war widens the neck of the bottle through which our supplies are pouring to the battle front. When it becomes, in the language of the Conservation Section of the War Industries Board, "of primary importance that the country's resources be used to full advantage, and that we husband our supplies of materials, equipment, and capital in order that they may be applied to essential war needs," then saving becomes the handmaid of the production of the sinews of war. An ounce of steel saved from nonessential uses is an ounce of steel made for the winning of the war.

IV. METHODS OF STANDARDIZATION DURING THE WAR

To realize these economies during the war a combination of the members of an industry into an effective unit was essential. The adoption of any plan for standardization presumes a uniform practice within a whole industry, and when no combination already exists that uniformity must be attained by agreement of the individual firms, either arrived at of their own volition or by government coercion.

In Germany combination among industries was brought about by government compulsion, but in this country the necessary degree of combination was attained by the industries themselves through their War Service committees under the aid and encouragement of the War Industries Board. The War Service committees in the United States were organized along trade lines under the leadership of the United States Chamber of Commerce and with the consent and co-operation of the War Industries Board. These