By BSD –
Curated by Business Science Daily — peer-reviewed sources, human-verified.
Learn more
About Our Curation Process
Business Science Daily curates academic research in business and economics. Each featured study is selected from reputable, peer-reviewed journals, institutional repositories, or working papers (e.g., Elsevier, Sage, NBER, SSRN).
Articles are carefully summarized to ensure clarity and accuracy, with direct citations or links to original sources. Our process emphasizes transparency, academic integrity, and accessibility for a broader audience.
Learn more in our Editorial Standards & AI Policy.
In an age of AI, platforms, and intangible assets, where does true economic power reside?
Of course not in the invisible hand of the market, but in the increasingly visible algorithms of corporate planning machines.
A recently published article authored by Hannah Bensussan, Cédric Durand, and Cecilia Rikap: Hundred Years of Corporate Planning: From Industrial Capitalism to Intellectual Monopoly Capitalism published on Socio-Economic Review reveals that today’s tech giants and intellectual monopolists are the inheritors of a century-long evolution in corporate planning.
These Giant firms have extended their reach beyond traditional boundaries to shape suppliers, consumers, and even competitors.
The article also offers a crucial correction to prevailing economic narrative. While we’ve been debating markets versus states, a third force—corporate planning—has been quietly reshaping the global economy.
The findings suggest we are living not in the age of perfect competition, but in the age of planned ecosystems, with profound implications for democracy, inequality, and the future of economic coordination.
For a detailed exploration of this research, navigate the interactive tabs below.
Hundred Years of Corporate Planning: From Industrial Capitalism to Intellectual Monopoly Capitalism
How corporate planning evolved through three distinct periods (1922-2021) as revealed by text mining 100 years of Harvard Business Review articles.
Bensussan, Durand, & Rikap (2025) analyze 100 years of Harvard Business Review articles using text mining and network analysis to trace the transformation of corporate planning. They identify three distinct periods (1922-1949, 1950-1985, 1986-2021) showing how planning evolved from production-oriented control to knowledge-oriented strategies that extend beyond firm boundaries.
Summary
This paper reopens the study of corporate planning (CP) by examining its evolution over 100 years through the lens of Harvard Business Review articles. The research counters the narrative that planning diminished with neoliberal reforms, showing instead that CP has transformed qualitatively while remaining essential to capital accumulation.
The Core Argument: Corporate planning has not disappeared but has transformed across three periods, evolving from direct production control to knowledge-oriented strategies that extend beyond firm boundaries in the age of intellectual monopoly capitalism.
Key Transformations: The study identifies qualitative shifts in four dimensions:
- Purpose: From controlling production and labor to monopolizing knowledge and shaping markets
- Means: From separate information collection and implementation to integrated digital planning systems
- Knowledge Type: From managerial to expert/scientific knowledge dominance
- Temporality: From linear, discrete planning cycles to continuous, accelerated feedback loops
The Critical Insight: Leading corporations have become “planning machines” whose reach extends beyond their proprietary assets, creating a new form of capitalist coordination that challenges traditional market-state binaries.
Theoretical Framework: Four Dimensions of Corporate Planning
The study synthesizes two complementary approaches to corporate planning: as business practices and as a form of control over labor and markets. From this synthesis, they develop a four-dimensional framework:
1. Purpose of Corporate Planning
- Control of Labor Process: Organizing production and subsuming labor under profit motives
- Control of Markets: Reducing market uncertainties and shaping demand
2. Means of Planning
- MIKA (Means of Information and Knowledge Appropriation): Techniques for gathering and assessing information
- MSF (Means of Shaping the Future): Tools for implementing and controlling plans
3. Type of Knowledge Mobilized
- Forms: Tacit vs. codified knowledge
- Location: Dispersed vs. centralized
- Content: Organizational (managerial) vs. expert (scientific/engineering)
4. Temporality
- Timespans: Short, medium, and long-run planning
- Feedback Loops: Intensity of information cycles between planning and execution
This framework allows for analyzing how corporate planning evolves across different historical periods of capitalism.
Methodology & Data
Research Design & Corpus
The study uses text mining and network analysis on the complete set of Harvard Business Review articles from 1922-2021:
- Corpus: All HBR articles (1922-2021), chosen for its longevity, managerial authority, and hybrid academic-practical nature
- Rationale: HBR reflects both actual managerial practices and prescriptive ideals, offering insight into how corporate planning is conceptualized
Analytical Techniques
- Text Mining: Extraction of top 2,000 multi-terms (1-5 words) from titles and abstracts
- Period Detection: Automated identification of content shifts using cosine distance matrices (Tibshirani et al., 2001)
- Network Analysis: Co-occurrence networks of top 150 multi-terms per period using chi-square measures
- Clustering: Louvain community detection algorithm to identify thematic clusters
Periodization
Three distinct periods emerged from the analysis:
- Period 1: 1922-1949 (Industrial capitalism, integrated corporations)
- Period 2: 1950-1985 (Transitional period, rising labor conflicts)
- Period 3: 1986-2021 (Intellectual monopoly capitalism, digital planning)
Validation: The researchers complemented automated analysis with close reading of representative papers from each cluster to ensure interpretive validity.
Key Findings
1. Three Historical Periods of Corporate Planning
- 1922-1949: Focus on production control, information management, and mass marketing (radio advertising). Clusters: “tax & revenue,” “utility & public utility,” “stores & chains,” “food & advertisements”
- 1950-1985: Transitional period with emphasis on labor conflicts and early computerization. Clusters: “plant & computers,” “products & advertisements,” “employees and workers” (only period with “conflict” appearing)
- 1986-2021: Knowledge-oriented planning with integrated digital systems. Clusters: “customer & consumers,” “creativity & innovation,” “plant & manufacturers,” “supplies & chains”
2. Evolution Across Four Dimensions
- Purpose Shift: From production control to knowledge monopolization and ecosystem control
- Means Integration: MIKA and MSF become blurred through digital platforms (e.g., smart products, IoT)
- Knowledge Transition: Managerial knowledge supplemented then supplanted by expert/scientific knowledge
- Temporal Acceleration: Planning loops shorten from discrete cycles to continuous real-time adjustment
3. Rise of Intellectual Monopoly Capitalism
- Leading firms increasingly monopolize intangible assets (knowledge, data, algorithms)
- Planning extends beyond firm boundaries to control suppliers, complements, and consumers
- Platforms and digital technologies enable granular control of entire value chains
4. The Planning-Market Paradox
While neoliberal rhetoric celebrates markets, corporate planning has intensified and extended its reach, creating a paradox: market ideologies coexist with increasingly planned corporate ecosystems.
Implications & Future Research
Theoretical Contributions
- Revives Corporate Planning: Counters the neglect of planning in recent economic scholarship
- Identifies Intellectual Monopoly Capitalism: Documents a new phase where knowledge monopolization enables extended planning reach
- Integrates Micro-Macro: Connects firm-level planning practices to macroeconomic accumulation dynamics
Practical Implications
For Policymakers:
- Recognize the planning capabilities concentrated in leading corporations
- Consider how public planning might leverage or regulate private planning tools
- Address the democratic deficit created by private control of planning infrastructures
For Business Strategy:
- Understand planning as extending beyond organizational boundaries
- Develop capabilities for ecosystem coordination and knowledge monopolization
- Balance short-term algorithmic optimization with long-term strategic planning
Limitations & Future Research Directions
- Corpus Limitations: HBR reflects managerial discourse, not necessarily actual practices
- Geographic Focus: Primarily U.S./Western corporations; future research needed on China and Global South
- Consultancy Role: The growing influence of consulting firms (McKinsey, etc.) in shaping planning practices
- Public-Private Dynamics: How state planning capabilities have evolved relative to corporate planning
- Ecological Planning: Integrating environmental constraints into corporate planning frameworks
The research opens crucial questions about democratic control of planning in an age where corporations possess unprecedented coordination capabilities. As crises multiply, understanding and potentially repurposing corporate planning tools for public ends becomes increasingly urgent.
References
Bensussan, H., Durand, C., & Rikap, C. (2025). Hundred years of corporate planning: From industrial capitalism to intellectual monopoly capitalism through the lenses of the Harvard Business Review (1922–2021). Socio-Economic Review, 00(0), 1–33. https://doi.org/10.1093/ser/mwaf019
Key Theoretical References: Chandler (1977) on modern corporation, Pagano (2014) & Rikap (2021) on intellectual monopoly capitalism, Mandel (1986) on socialist planning debates.