English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

approved: Thesis· Advisor The lumber industry today is ~)oth similar to and different from the nation's other major industries. The similarity stems from the fact that all of these industries have had a definite, well-defined transition period from an era dominated bymanys~lall, independent entrepreneurs to an era dominated by a 5mB.ll number of large corporations. The dissimilaritybetween the lumber industry and the other industries is that with the lumber industry the domination by the few large firms has never been \ as total in scope as that domination by the giants of such industries as oil and transportation. This dissimilarity has been the cause of no srna.ll amount of discussion and tension between various individuals and groups interested in the continued well-being of the lumber industry. The opponents of the large corporations claim that the trend i9 the lumber industr~r toward domination by a few firms has been just as complete as that experienced in other industries. Not only has it been complete, they claim, but the extensiveness of this domination has had a negative effect on the whole lumber industry, stifling competition and. driving the small, independent operator from the scene. Those.who support the theory that this domination of the lumber industry by the few large firms has never been completed on a basis cornparable to other industries can offer·much factual proof to support their argument, and in doing so much evidence can also be offered to refute the theory that this rise to positions of seeming dominance by a few lumber producers has had a bad effect on the industry~ These advocates of the cause for "Big I,wIlber II argue that if i.t h2_d not been for the emergence of a few strong leaders in thE' lumber industry, giving to the industry the direction and guidancE it so badly needed, corrrrnercial lumbering on a large scale ma.y· have been doomed in the United States. The purpose of this thGS'lS is to open this argument once again with the intention of' provinE tha.t certain 1UJ11:)e1' producers did emerge to dominate the industr:;T although that c~omination was never complet,€. Also,. the attempt is made to present a ~30und case in favor of these large lumber firms as being the instruments which were actually to sa.ve the lumber industry and to guarantee its permanent future existence. The method used to prove this position l,alillbe that of a detailed historical study of the ea.rly lumber industr~/ in the United States from colonial times until shor·tly a.fter the turn of the present century. Such a study is definite~y needed for it reveals the complete story of why it was possible for a feli firms to gain a high degree of control over the entire industry and yet still allow for the existence of a vast number of smaller, independent competitors. Also, such a study reveals how the transition was accomplished. Finally, through the examination of' the lumber industry's early history, one is able to see quite clear-:ly the significance of this movement to the mouern lwnber industry. The evidence unveiled by this study goes far in support of a major theme of this thesis, namely that the positive industrial leadership and influence_ generated by these few Targe lumber producers more than offset any ill effects their grmvth had on the lumber industry.

The emergence of the large lumber producers and their significance to the lumber industry