Managerial practice is very much about human everyday behavior; economics tries to abstract working principles (laws) systemically and formally. Peter Drucker did a lot to integrate both perspectices by his eco-logical approach.

Managerial practice is very much about human everyday behavior; economics tries to abstract working principles (laws) systemically and formally. Peter Drucker did a lot to integrate both perspectices by his eco-logical approach.

Yes correct. But why did economists recognize management science only after 1937

Drucker also had a great influence in making management a "discipline" and a "practice". Something that can be taught, not just merely a natural endowment that is a "given". Drucker has the ability to "legitimize" activities through his historical, evolutionary perspective on the emergence of a discipline. It was also Drucker who made entrepreneurship a "practice". Even though Kirzner and Schumpeter were some of the few early theorist working in economics on the role of the entrepreneur and the economy. So an evolutionary, broad historical understanding of a phenomenon is vital to the development and maturity of a discipline. We see this even in economics with what has been referred to as the German Historical School.

Dear colleagues Stephen I. Ternyik, Shian-Loong Bernard Lew

Thank you for sharing this helpful opinion.

But I didn't get the answer I wanted. The economists did not recognize management until 1937.

Does their lack of recognition contributed to the administration's lag compared to economics?

You used two terms Scientific Theory in Management and Management Science. Namely, the latter was based on a shift to quantitative resource allocation models that came of age in the late 30's with Leontif's input-output models and the work of Kantorovich in Russia and Koopmans in the Netherlands and came into use during WW II. The latter (LP) was published in 1939, but probably had circulated in the invisible college earlier. The economists of that era, like Schumpeter, were anxious to develop models and probably saw Taylor as a mere engineering method.

Dear Curtis Mclaughlin

Thank you for this useful information.

Taher Alkhalaf Until the: Nature of the Firm (Coase, 1937), the shop floor was not considered worthy for abstract economic studies. The deeper understanding of the dynamic interplay between the different levels of the economy began after WW2; this value shift in economic thought may have to do with the emergence of the full employment policy in a capitalist society as opposed to the Soviet model of societal organization, thus the economic role of management was studied as universal social function of a market economy.

Stephen I. Ternyik

Thank you for your valuable answer.

Coase's answer was founded on Williamson's theory

In fact, Coase discovered that the production of goods may be within the enterprise, if the cost is less, and there is no need to go to overseas markets.

Here I acknowledge that these projects need to be managed by competent people. He was the first to realize the need for corporate and management.

Before Coase , the economists mistakenly assumed that the market was the only factor of convergence of factors of production and the convergence of offer and demand, upon which the investor or entrepreneur depends on the investment decision.

Taher Alkhalaf Excellent observations on costs and markets, concerning Coase.

Maybe, you know already about Malik:

https://www.malik-management.com/about-us/publications/books/the-right-corporate-governance/

https://www.malik-management.com/about-us/publications/books/corporate-policy-and-governance/