Teddy Roosevelt tried to strengthen corporations through creation of regulatory reforms. According to Kolko, this is a conservatism Triumph of trying to create regime change, which did not bring change in corporation powers. Kolko feels that it only brought about transformation of institutions through hitching corporations to the regulatory reforms. My point of view is that Teddy Roosevelt was in a bid to launch a firm anti-corporate batter that Kolko has acknowledged it. However, the new progressive dictatorial state was a change of regime, which brought key anti-corporate reforms, and at the same time came to save capitalism from progressivism.
According to McCraw, market economies in the US rose to big businesses particularly due to strong governance. The government of the United States was the sole legislative enactor in opposition to big businesses at initial stages. This as argued by McCraw is because big businesses were seen as a risk to liberty. Hence, there was a creation of an adversarial bond between the state and the business. The government had much involvement with the businesses through subsidiaries and hence shared risks. However, in the nineteenth century, such deals with the government became more linked at federal levels. However, power control in the US became an inhibitory factor in Federal act and regulations were left to municipalities and states.
In my own point of view, this move was a challenge to the state as government’s mistrust and suspicion grew in the twentieth century. The disagreement came up due to the Anti-trust act that curtailed big businesses powers which I see being corrupt and bloated. In addition, the US government had strict business regulations and other formal processes as compared to Europe where there was promotion and encouragement of businesses through direct administration and public ownership.