1,721,435 research outputs found

    Invited Commentary

    Full text link

    Forms of Enterprise in the 20th Century Italy. Boundaries, Structures and Strategies

    No full text
    The volume that follows is the outcome of a multiunit project sponsored by the Italian Ministry of Universities that involved scholars from Bocconi University and the Universities of Milano (Bicocca), Bologna, Modena, Firenze, and Siena. The task of writing this short preface falls to me as coordinator of the project but the reality is that this book had two determined editors as well as excellent authors so my role is almost superfluous. I cannot help but remind readers that this is an important book as it represents a significant moment for reconciling the two “souls” of Italian business history. On one side there are those who, having studied in depth several cases of companies or sectors, thought that the story of Italy could be considered in a Chandlerian perspective in the sense that big business was absolutely critical to the nation’s development. On the other side are scholars with a strong quantitative inclination. Using an extensive database of Imita on Italian joint stock companies, these scholars seemed inclined to consider the role of large firms as of secondary importance and thought that for Italy there was a more realistic path to development with its emphasis on the weight of small businesses and non-heavy industrial sectors. I am known as belonging to the former group and once, having written that at the end of the 19th century the word “industrialization” in Italy was synonymous with “steel”, I was semi-seriously accused of not offering quantitative support nor archival evidence of my affirmation. Indeed, “Chandlerians” are not so naïve as to think that in its process of industrialization Italy embodied a model based on big business American-style. Instead, we are well aware that: - the actors of development were different, - the Gerschenkronian substitutive factors, especially the State, were very much present and, hence, politics ended up playing a different role than in the United States and in other advanced European nations; and, - that the weight of small business is by far greater than in the tale told by Chandler. Nonetheless, for Italy big business (in sectors such as metallurgy, engineering, chemicals, and electricity) was the engine of growth, especially in the phases of more intensive growth like in the glorious two decades starting in 1950 when it looked like it would be possible to catch up with the “first row” nations. “... the overall contribution of the large firms to the ‘Italian wealth’ has been extremely relevant under whichever points of view and... it has been growing at least in the course of the first three quarters of the century”. This sentence, which you can read in the editors’ introduction to this book, highlights (supported by the formidable quantitative work done by Giannetti and Vasta’s team that built up the Imita database) a merger between the esprit de geometrie and the esprit de finesse which characterized Italian historiography. Furthermore, all this is favored by the fact that both “currents” are well aware of the articulation and of the peculiarities of the economic fabric of Italy where big business is placed side-by-side with very dynamic small firms that either act alone or within industrial districts, with local municipalized companies or cooperatives that are politically oriented in some way, with niche or mid-size companies that now seem to be the most representative of the lively national economy. In closing, it is my firm conviction that this volume highlights an important step ahead for Italian business historiography with its innovative aspects (for example, the attention to the action of foreign multinationals, the attempt to measure the real boundaries of the State-owned enterprise system, and the effort to trace the history of the Italian “Mittelstand”) and it pursues a direction of research that invites further investigation so as to give an increasingly realistic portrait of the historical evolution of the Italian enterprise

    When PVL Appears After TAVR Pre-Existing Left Ventricle Volumetric Adaptation Makes the Difference

    No full text
    Letter to the editor referring to https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcin.2019.06.02

    “Learning curve and procedural volume in mitral valve disease”

    No full text
    The impact of procedural volume on outcome results is a widespread topic in surgery, The importance of referral centers and high-volume hospitals have reached the forefront, particularly in mitral valve surgery, impacting the recommendations of the latest European and American guidelines. In this issue, Wayne et al. presented an interesting analysis of the relationship between surgeon and hospital procedural volume, mitral valve repair rates, and 30-day mortality for degenerative mitral regurgitation (MR) in Australia. Based on the database of the Australian and New Zealand Society of Cardiac and Thoracic Surgeons, they have shown how the surgeon and hospital caseload are significantly associated with repair rates of degenerative MR. This study reaches the same results presented by Chikwe et al. and others and corroborates what guidelines reported about the need for referral centers for mitral valve disease. These results are the reasons why many surgeons, as Adams et al., published papers to highlight the importance of a minimum mitral valve surgery volume threshold to achieve optimum results and discourage at the same time low-volume centers. The concept of minimum thresholds in mitral surgery suggested by Wayne et al. and previously by Vassileva et al. is fundamental to guarantee periprocedural safety, accuracy, and a high rate of reparation. Moreover, not only hospital volume but also surgeon yearly number of mitral valve interventions are crucial in valve repair rate and the threshold of 20 mitral procedures per year, proposed by Wayne et al., seems absolutely consistent with the literature
    corecore