Papers presented by Glenn Bugos since 2019

2024 Providence, Rhode Island

"The Bar Association of San Francisco: Legal professionalization in the public interest, 1872-2022"

Abstract:

The Bar Association of San Francisco (BASF) formed 150 years ago (1872), the third bar association among many formed in advance of the American Bar Association in 1878. This paper is based on archival and narrative work BASF commissioned to support their sesquicentennial events (https://www.sfbar.org/150th/). I will start with an overview of BASF goals for that project. This paper then presents an overview history of BASF, marking steps in professionalization prior to 1920 familiar from Paul Starrs’ The Social Transformation of American Medicine: a democratic association, asserting self-governance, a code of legal ethics, a library as canon, certifying education, awarding exemplary careers, disciplining members, continuing education, regularizing access to arenas of practice (the courts), and lobbying for self-regulation at higher levels of government. I then focus on three eras in BASF history that highlight how, while promoting the self-interests of attorneys, BASF also shaped the bar to serve the public interest. BASF started largely as a social club, offering a club house nearby the courts, then quickly asserted themselves in efforts to cure inefficiencies in the courts. In the 1930s, BASF gave up power to help create a unified bar better able to lobby the legislature for a uniform code and to better discipline their profession. In the 1970s and 1980s, through its soft power from respect within its communities, BASF moved to improve the diversity of the bar as well as create a venue for effective pro bono work.

Keywords:

2023 Detroit, MI, United States

"Reinventing the NUMMI Fremont plant for small trucks, 1992"

Abstract:

The automobile plant in Fremont, California was often reinvented for new approaches to manufacturing. It opened in 1964 as one plant in the General Motors Assembly Division, formed to redefine workplace practices and weaken the United Automobile Workers union. The UAW response at Fremont was intense and GM closed the plant. In 1984 GM formed a joint venture with Toyota and renamed the plant New United Motors Manufacturing Inc. NUMMI introduced the Toyota Production System (TPS) to the world, emphasizing teamwork and continual improvement, and there Toyota learned how to open plants in the American southeast. GM’s bankruptcy again closed the plant. Fremont meanwhile emerged as the town where Silicon Valley firms prototype manufacturing methods. In 2010 Tesla bought the plant and reshaped it, first to introduce vertical integration to modern automobile manufacture, then as heavily robotic. The plant made cars also reinvented: GM made big cars for a supposed California automobility, NUMMI made small cars for an oil-shocked America, Toyota fed America’s want for commuter trucks, then Tesla defined the electric vehicle. I am now writing a Historic American Engineering Record on this broader significance of this industrial site. In this paper, I address one lesser-known episode: Toyota’s shift into small trucks in 1992. In 1990, as an antitrust decree limiting NUMMI expired, Toyota invested $200m in NUMMI to build 100,000 small trucks annually. For the truck line, Toyota automated the plant, built an assembly line capable of flipping a frame, added stamping and plastic presses, expanded its network of part suppliers, enhanced environmental compliance and, most importantly, re-configured paints. Toyota’s truck line remained as the nucleus of Tesla’s S/X reinvention of the plant. The first decade of NUMMI displayed how TPS reshaped labor relations; the decade following the truck line displayed the more enduring feature of TPS: lean manufacture.

Keywords:

2021 Hopin Virtual Events Platform

"Bigness in Silicon Valley"

Abstract:

A paradox of Silicon Valley is the persistence of big firms in an ecosystem optimized for startups. Also, a question now central to antitrust is whether Big Tech helps or hinders innovation, especially in SV. Further, a question central to the history of capitalism is whether industrial districts end in oligopoly, with fixed capital prevailing over skilled labor. This paper attempts to define bigness in SV over time: Which firms counted as SV and when, geographically and culturally? When did firms, in any industry, reach measured bigness: by headcount, revenue, market share, market capitalization, profit or other measures of capital efficiency? Which firms enjoyed effective bigness (SV is rife with first movers) through patenting, network and distribution expanse, or brand recognition? Two conclusions: First, 1996 offers an inflection point. Steve Jobs returned to Apple, Google started, the Fortune 500 added service firms, and David Packard died leaving behind a model for big firms in an innovation ecosystem. Anna Lee Saxenian finished Regional Advantage, which established the still reigning definition of SV as an agglomeration of nimble startups. Historical literature then shifted toward agglomerations of technology-agnostic support firms that created an infrastructure to drive entrepreneurship across many industries. The literature now focuses on big firms that behave like monopolists with global reach (rather than local impact). Second, bigness that mattered in Silicon Valley came in three broad waves. In the 1960s and 1970s workforce bigness mattered (FMC, Lockheed, IBM, Hewlett Packard). In the 1980s and 1990s revenue and profit bigness matter most (HP, Varian, Intel, Nat Semi, Raychem, Sun, Cisco, Oracle). Since 2000, market cap, as a proxy of network and platform size, matters (Apple, Google, Facebook, Visa, Salesforce). Types of bigness shaped how these firms interacted with smaller firms in this industrial district.

Keywords: