Page 1 of 9

"THE DYNAMICS OF RETAIL INSTITUTIONS": MORE SUPPORT FOR THE

EMPIRICAL GENERALIZATION OF THE "WHEEL OF RETAILING"

Marko Grunhagen, University of Nebraska-Lincoln

Robert A. Mittelstaedt, University of Nebraska-Lincoln

ABSTRACT

In this paper, the status of the "Wheel of Retailing" as a

previously weak empirical generalization is strengthened through
the establishment of convergent validity. "The Dynamics of
Retail Institutions" (Die Dynamik der Betriebsformen im Handel)
by Nieschlag (1954) is a concept which originated and has found
widespread acclamation in the German speaking scholastic
institutions of Western Europe. Nieschlag's (1954) research
arrives at the same observable regularity as the "Wheel of
Retailing" pattern, yet provides additional causal explanations,
and appears to have been discovered independently from the
classic US research on the "Wheel of Retailing". The benefit of
a foreign research stream to provide operational replicability of
US research is emphasized.

INTRODUCTION

The notion of the "Wheel of Retailing" has captured marketing

scholars' attention since its first description by Malcolm P.
McNair (1931) for most of this century until today (e.g., Brown
1990). On the one hand, the wheel has been criticized for its
vagueness (Gripsrud 1986) and lack of clarity (Savitt 1988). On
the other hand, it has been acclaimed for its pedagogic value
(Dickinson 1988), its ability to unite Western and Oriental
philosophic perspectives (for an in-depth discussion see Brown
1990), and its symbolic value as one of the few
conceptualizations that marketing as a discipline has originated
by itself (Sheth, Gardner, and Garrett 1988). Its most profound
criticism, yet, has been the contention that it lacks the
criteria for a formal theory (e.g., Hirschman and Stampfl 1980,
Hunt 1991).

First this paper will reiterate, in a short literature review, a

variety of arguments depicting the "Wheel of Retailing" as a weak
empirical generalization. Then, an attempt will be made to
strengthen this status through the introduction of the notion of
"The Dynamics of Retail Institutions" (Nieschlag 1954). Over
decades, North American marketing researchers were hesitant to
incorporate particularly those foreign literature streams into
their body of scientific knowledge, which are not published in
English. Nieschlag's (1954) concept, which has achieved
widespread acclamation in the German speaking scholastic
institutions of Western Europe (e.g., Dichtl 1980, Moser 1974,
Muller-Hagedorn 1985, 1993, Tietz 1983), has remained virtually
unknown among North American marketing academicians. His
research not only arrives at the same observable regularity as
the "Wheel of Retailing" pattern, but even goes beyond McNair's
(1931, 1958) and Hollander's (1960) description by providing
causal explanations. The introduction of Nieschlag's (1954)
research is meant to provide a source of convergent validation of
the "Wheel of Retailing" notion, ultimately reinforcing its
status as an empirical generalization.

http://www.sbaer.uca.edu/research/1998/SMA/98sma119.txt 5/6/2004
 Page 2 of 9

LITERATURE REVIEW

McNair's (1931, 1958) notion of the wheel is considered the first

one of its kind to describe a frequently observed pattern of
retail institutions' development. Brown (1990) determines that
"a substantial number of retailing institutions in the United
States and other developed countries do appear to have evolved in
the manner described by the wheel." And Gist (1988) deems most
of the wheel's exceptions, such as vending machines or branch
department stores, to be insufficiently important to warrant
institutional status. These contentions support the one main
reason for which the wheel has been repeatedly acclaimed and
consistently utilized as a metaphor of retail institutions'
development -- its frequently and regularly observed empirical
content.

Further, the compatibility of the wheel notion with the evolution

of retail institutions over more than sixty years since its first
mentioning in 1931 appears to be justification enough to exclude
the possibility of "chance". McNair's (1931, 1958) careful
observation of the described development with chain store
retailers as well as with the emerging department store segment
at the same time supports the contention to abolish any suspicion
of an accidental or singular phenomenon.

Hunt (1991) points out, that "a simple empirical regularity (even
a well-confirmed one) is not a lawlike generalization. An
empirical regularity does not qualify as a lawlike statement
until it is systematically integrated into a coherent scientific
structure or framework" (Hunt 1991, p. 113). The "Wheel of
Retailing" describes the regular developmental pattern of retail
institutions, hence an empirical regularity. However, McNair
(1931, 1958) discovered the wheel pattern by simply observing the
retail industry evolution at his time. The wheel has not been
integrated into any systematic scientific framework beyond its
generalized observability. Brown (1990) points out that "despite
the wheel's heuristic significance and the voluminous literature
that it has generated, the concept still remains unproven" (Brown
1990, p. 146). He continues that "the supporting 'evidence' [for
the wheel], moreover, is often little more than casual
observation or idle speculation" (Brown 1990, p. 146). Hirschman
and Stampfl (1980) support this notion by stating that the wheel
lacks validation. They even contend that it has been useful as a
descriptor in the past, "but cannot serve as our conceptual
framework for the future" (Hirschman and Stampfl 1980, p. 72).

Hirschman and Stampfl (1980) point out that the "Wheel of

Retailing" is inadequately specified as to causal linkages, hence
failing to "meet the criteria for formal theory" (Hirschman and
Stampfl 1980, p. 72). Hunt (1991) postulates that theories
"contain systematically related sets of statements in order to
increase the scientific understanding of phenomena. To
scientifically understand the occurrence of a phenomenon requires
more than simply being able to explain and predict it using
isolated lawlike generalizations. Also, we must be able to show
how the statements used to explain and predict a phenomenon are
incorporated into the total body of scientific knowledge" (Hunt
1991, p. 152). Consequently, a variety of sources dealing with
the "Wheel of Retailing" over decades have concluded that it

http://www.sbaer.uca.edu/research/1998/SMA/98sma119.txt 5/6/2004
 Page 3 of 9

merely represents a weakly established empirical generalization,

yet by no means exhibits the corroborative empirical support or
the integration into a coherent stream of marketing research to
justify a status of law or even a theory.

REPLICABILITY

Bass (1995) defines an empirical generalization as "a pattern or

regularity that repeats over different circumstances and that can
be described simply by mathematical, graphic, or symbolic
methods." The metaphor of the wheel certainly fulfills the
requirement of a symbolic depiction. Yet, Barwise (1995) points
out that "we will give more credibility to an EG [empirical
generalization] which has been thoroughly and systematically
tested, preferably by different researchers and ideally using
different methods." As pointed out in the previous section, the
wheel gravely lacks empirical validation. Hence, contrary to
Barwise's (1995) postulate, it has not been exposed to a great
deal of empirical testing. Brown (1990) quotes Bucklin (1983),
Goldman (1975), Martenson (1981) and Savitt (1984) as "noteworthy
exceptions" of empirical tests of the wheel. Yet, Brown (1990)
also criticizes their marginal and "unstable foundations",
addressing "issues that are not central to the wheel theory"
(Brown 1990, p. 146).

Madden, Franz, and Mittelstaedt (1979) refer to the kind of

replication study which demonstrates "that a particular method
will produce similar results in altered circumstances" as
"operational replication". Accordingly, Mittelstaedt and Zorn
(1983) term the relationship between an "observation of the same
phenomena" and "different measures and methods of establishing
relationships" an "operational replication". They attribute the
merit of this form of generalization for the research community
to the fact that it shows the robustness of the original
researcher's results. Consequently, this is exactly what needs
to be shown for the "Wheel of Retailing" - its robustness based
on a different researcher's operational replication. The
following section will introduce "The Dynamics of Retail
Institutions" to pursue this purpose.

"THE DYNAMICS OF RETAIL INSTITUTIONS"

Since North American research findings in marketing represent to

a large extent the basis of marketing knowledge not just in the
U.S. but also globally, marketing research abroad is largely
dependent on the substantialization and manifestation of
marketing theory at U.S. scholastic institutions. The following
insight into a foreign research stream serves as an example on
how marketing academicians in the U.S. can also benefit from
research done and published in non-English speaking parts of the
world to find support for their own discoveries.

"The Dynamics of Retail Institutions" (Die Dynamik der

Betriebsformen im Handel) were discovered in 1954 by Robert
Nieschlag, a German marketing scholar who taught at the
University of Cologne during the time. Nieschlag was a student
of Julius Hirsch and Rudolf Seyffert between 1925 and 1929 in
Berlin and Cologne. He completed his dissertation in 1953 at the
University of Cologne after occupying a number of leading
positions in German corporations. After accepting appointments

http://www.sbaer.uca.edu/research/1998/SMA/98sma119.txt 5/6/2004
 Page 4 of 9

in Cologne and Munster, he became a full professor at the

University of Munich in 1957, where he taught until his
retirement in 1970 (Muller-Hagedorn 1985).

Nieschlag's publication (1954) exhibits his strong interest in

the history of marketing institutions and the development of new
forms of retailing. He researched the origin and development of
the French "grand magasin", the emergence of the
"Einheitspreisgeschaft" (uniform price store) in Germany, and the
history of mail order companies, cooperatives in food retailing,
voluntary chains and super markets in the U.S. Nieschlag contends
that the development of the German retailing industry immediately
following World War II could not serve as an appropriate basis to
characterize a generalizable pattern of evolution. He gives two
reasons for his conviction: First, the expansion of the (then
new) form of "uniform price stores" had been severely restricted
by the Nazi regime. They had feared it as the most radical form
of change in retailing, which was not in accordance with their
policy of forcing every part of society into line. Second,
Germany's political isolation after its defeat precluded the
country's immediate integration into a global retail environment.

Consequently, Nieschlag concludes that he mainly has to use

foreign countries' retail industry developments as the basis for
his generalization of an evolutionary pattern. For this purpose,
he states explicitly that he will focus foremost on the United
States (Nieschlag 1954, p. 5). He distinguishes two phases in
the development of retail institutions, (1) introduction and
growth, and (2) maturity and assimilation.

Introduction and Growth

The first phase of the development of a retail institution is

characterized through a pioneering effort, using an "active price
policy" (Nieschlag 1954). New retailers enter the market as low-
price competitors. This is triggered by the promising
perspective that their approach will render them a distinct
market position compared to existing higher-priced, service-
intensive store formats. Nieschlag states three reasons for the
pioneers' success with the new concept compared to higher priced
institutions, (a) they benefit from lower-cost sources/suppliers
than their competitors, (b) they provide very limited service
offerings, hence cutting costs, and (c) they focus on restricted
assortments and store facilities. Emphasizing a low-cost, no-
frills approach, the new retail format succeeds in the short run.

Maturity and Assimilation

Despite of the success which lets pioneer retailers thrive

throughout the early stage of their existence, an assimilation
trend towards the higher priced retail segment can be observed.
This second phase of "trading up" becomes a consequence of
increased competitive pressure in the initial low-price segment,
as well as of the pressure "from above" through higher priced,
yet more convenient, service oriented competitors. This
"sandwiched" position "forces" (Nieschlag 1954) the previous
pioneers toward the renewed search for a distinct market
position. Nieschlag (1954) names three reasons for the observed
change in the pioneers' strategy, (a) the pioneers fear to lose
their attractiveness due to a rather small target market that

http://www.sbaer.uca.edu/research/1998/SMA/98sma119.txt 5/6/2004
 Page 5 of 9

responds to the low-price approach, (b) new competition emerges

in the low-price segment based on the pioneers' observable and
imitable success, and (c) even a moderate desired expansion of
the pioneers' assortment might only be successful if they respond
to suppliers' demands for enhanced service offerings to accompany
their products. Hence, the initial thrust is a gradual upgrade
of facilities and services. The goal is to provide enhanced
amenities and services compared to the pioneer retailer's low-end
rivals, while offering these services at a lower cost than the
higher priced competitors. Yet as a result of these efforts
costs almost automatically increase. This, in return, results in
price increases, "the assimilation to existing higher priced
retailers" (Nieschlag 1954), and the opening of the low-price
market for new competitors (Nieschlag 1954, Muller-Hagedorn
1993).

A COMPARISON

Comparing McNair's (1931, 1958) and Hollander's (1960)

conceptualization of the "Wheel of Retailing" with Nieschlag's
(1954) observations on "The Dynamics of Retail Institutions"
indicates a very high degree of congruence between the two
models. While Nieschlag (1954) only distinguishes between two
phases in the development process, McNair (1931, 1958) and
Hollander (1960) describe three stages. Apart from this rather
arbitrary formal separation within a continuous development, both
sources depict the same general pattern of evolution. Nieschlag
(1954), however, appears to display a deeper analysis of why the
observed development actually takes place. While McNair (1931,
1954) and Hollander (1960) simply develop the evolutionary
pattern, various sources in the literature have criticized their
lack of reasoning or causal explanation (e.g., Hirschman and
Stampfl 1980; Hunt 1991) in the notion of the wheel. Hunt's
(1991) attempt in this regard to supplement the wheel through the
theory of differential advantage is to be commended. Nieschlag's
(1954) reasoning almost forty years earlier aims in the same
direction. At various points in his article he points out the
need for the pioneer retailer to appeal to the consumer by
setting himself apart from competitors on the same price level,
as well as by outperforming higher priced stores on a non-price
basis. Hence, we see an attempt to apply the principles of a
strategic advantage that Porter (1980) defined as cost-leadership
versus differentiation-leadership, and that have only very rarely
been successfully combined (for an in-depth review of Southwest
Airlines' success story see Smith and Kling 1996). Thus,
Nieschlag's (1954) analysis of the evolutionary pattern exhibits
causal characteristics that had not been considered by McNair
(1931, 1958) or Hollander (1960). This is even more surprising
when considering the fact that Nieschlag's (1954) paper was
published before McNair's (1958) second article and Hollander's
(1960) classic paper. Nieschlag apparently had never read
McNair's (1931) first article. Neither Nieschlag's (1954)
literature section nor the footnotes in his paper indicate any
knowledge of McNair's (1931) early notion. This is supported by
the fact that none of the leading marketing (Alexander, Surface,
and Alderson 1949, Beckman, Maynard, and Davidson 1952, Converse
and Huegy 1940, Phillips and Duncan 1948) and retailing textbooks
(Duncan and Phillips 1948) up to the year of Nieschlag's (1954)
discovery contain even a note on McNair's early (1931) article.
However, Nieschlag was very familiar with the American literature

http://www.sbaer.uca.edu/research/1998/SMA/98sma119.txt 5/6/2004
 Page 6 of 9

on retailing since the 1930s, which is indicated through

quotations in his 1954 paper:

Corbaley, Gordon C. (1936), Group Selling by 100,000 Retailers.

The Evolution of Food Distribution in Voluntaries and
Cooperatives. New York.

Filene, Edward A., Werner K. Gabler and Percy S. Brown (1937),

Next Steps forward in Retailing. New York.

In addition, Nieschlag himself authored a paper on December 4,

1952 in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, then as today
Germany's leading daily national newspaper, titled "What is a
Shopping Center? A New Form of American Retailing " (Was ist ein
Shopping Center? Eine neue Form des amerikanischen
Einzelhandels.).

The discrepancy between the structural systematizations into

different stages of the evolutionary process, and the lack of
reasoning in McNair's (1931) paper on the one side and the causal
linkage in Nieschlag's (1954) publication on the other side
provide additional indications of an independent discovery of the
same observable regularity in the United States' evolution of
retail institutions by Nieschlag, the marketing scholar and
historian in Germany.

It seems apparent that Nieschlag never came across McNair's

(1931) early description of the wheel pattern. This notion is
supported by Brown (1987), the only marketing academician
mentioning Nieschlag's (1954) discovery during the period between
1977 and 1996 according to the Social Science Citation Index, and
simultaneously classifying it in a mere side remark as an
"independently derived formulation" (Brown 1987, p. 10). This
certainly appears to be very likely, since it was McNair's second
(1958) article which actually coined the previous observed
regularity the "Wheel of Retailing", while his first Harvard
Business Review article in 1931 did not really receive a whole
lot of attention then, and does not either today. In fact, even
today most of the references that deal with the "Wheel of
Retailing" don't even mention the earlier (1931) original
reference (e.g., Brown 1990, Hirschman and Stampfl 1980).

Assuming no deliberate and intentional attempt by Nieschlag to

disguise actual knowledge of McNair's (1931) original observation
which led to the notion of the "Wheel of Retailing", his notion
of "The Dynamics of Retail Institutions" appears to have been
discovered independently. Hence, "operational replicability" as
postulated by Madden, Franz, and Mittelstaedt (1979) and
Mittelstaedt and Zorn (1983) has been established. We are
assuming methodological differences between Nieschlag's and
McNair's independent discoveries - either one lived on a
different continent was rooted in different educational and
research traditions, had studied retailing before a different
cultural and evolutionary background -- and yet, both still
observed the same phenomenon at the same time based on the same
statistical population (the retailing industry in the United
States). This congruence provides strong support for the
robustness of McNair's (1931, 1958) and Hollander's (1960) weakly
established empirical generalization.

http://www.sbaer.uca.edu/research/1998/SMA/98sma119.txt 5/6/2004
 Page 7 of 9

In addition, Nieschlag's (1954) article has only once before -

according to the Social Science Citation Index (SSCI) 1977-1996 -
been introduced to the American marketing literature. The only
reference to Nieschlag's (1954) article beyond Brown's (1987)
earlier cited publication was found to be in the "Urban Studies"
literature (SSCI 1992). Consequently, this paper does not only
provide support for the empirical generalizability of the "Wheel
of Retailing", but simultaneously introduces a previously
neglected, foreign research stream to the American marketing
community.

CONCLUDING REMARKS

In this paper, the status of the "Wheel of Retailing" as a

previously weak empirical generalization has been strengthened
through its operational replication in the form of "The Dynamics
of Retail Institutions" by Nieschlag (1954). Simultaneously, the
benefit of incorporating a foreign research stream into North
American marketing theory has been indicated.

The "Wheel of Retailing" is considered to be one of the few

original concepts that marketing as a discipline has originated,
and that has not been borrowed from other disciplines. Hence,
the value of the wheel for marketers goes back to the beginning
of its existence as an independent academic field. Savitt (1989)
even finds the wheel to be "the most popular topic area in the
entire marketing literature". D'Amico (1983) provocatively
concluded that it is "time for the wheel of retailing to roll off
into the sunset." The authors concur with Sheth and al. (1988)
that it "should be nurtured and developed." The current paper is
certainly a step to support its validity in the realm of
empirical generalizations in marketing. Yet, as Brown (1990)
puts it, the wheel "needs to be road-tested more often" in order
to achieve an even higher status in the marketing literature.
The next step in the agenda of the "road-testers" should be to
find corroborative empirical support, and to embed it into a
wider scientific body of knowledge in order to lift the wheel to
the status of a lawlike generalization or even a scientific law.

REFERENCES

Alexander, Ralph S., Frank M. Surface, and Wroe Alderson (1949),

Marketing. The Athenaeum Press, Ginn and Company.

Bass, Frank M. (1995), "Empirical Generalizations and Marketing

Science: A Personal View," Marketing Science, 14 (3), G6-G19.

Barwise, Patrick (1995), "Good Empirical Generalizations,"

Marketing Science, 14 (3), G29-G35.

Beckman, Theodore N., Harold H. Maynard, and William R. Davidson

(1952), Principles of Marketing. New York: The Ronald Press
Company.

Brown, Stephen (1987), "Institutional Change in Retailing: A

Review ans Synthesis," European Journal of Marketing, 21 (6), 5-
36.

Brown, Stephen (1990), "The Wheel of Retailing: Past and

Future," Journal of Retailing, 66 (2), 143-149.

http://www.sbaer.uca.edu/research/1998/SMA/98sma119.txt 5/6/2004
 Page 8 of 9

Bucklin, Louis P. (1983), "Patterns of Change in Retail

institutions in the United States with Special Attention to the
Traditional Department Store," International Journal of Physical
Distribution and Materials Management, 13 (5/6), 153-168.

Converse, Paul D. and Harvey W. Huegy (1940), The Elements of

Marketing. New York: Prentice Hall.

D'Amico, Michael (1983), "Discussants Comments," in Marketing:

Theories and Concepts of an Era of Change, J. Summey et al., eds.
Carbondale, IL: Southern Marketing Association.

Dichtl, Erwin (1980), "Marketing Eminenz," Absatzwirtschaft, 3,

6-7.

Dickinson, R. A. (1988), "Lessons from Retailers' Price

Experiences in the 1950s," in Historical Perspectives in
Marketing: Essays in Honor of Stanley C. Hollander, T. Nevett
and R. Fullerton, eds. Lexington, MA: D. C. Heath, 177-192.

Duncan, Delbert J. and Charles F. Phillips (1948), Retailing -

Principles and Methods. Chicago, IL: Irwin.

Gist, R. R. (1971), Marketing and Society: A Conceptual

Introduction. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

Goldman, A. (1975), "The Role of Trading Up in the Development of

the Retailing System," Journal of Marketing, 39 (January), 54-62.

Gripsrud, G. (1986), "Market Structure, Perceived Competition,

and Expected Competitor Reactions in Retailing," in: L. P.
Bucklin and J. M. Carman (eds.), Research in Marketing, Volume 8,
Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, 251-271.

Hirschman, Elizabeth C. and R. W. Stampfl (1980), "Retail

Research: Problems, Potentials and Priorities," in Competitive
Structure in Retail Markets. The Department Store Perspective,
R. Stampfl and E. Hirschman, eds. Chicago, IL: American
Marketing Association, 68-77.

Hollander, Stanley C. (1960), "The Wheel of Retailing," Journal

of Marketing, 25 (7), 37-42.

Hunt, Shelby, D. (1991), Modern Marketing Theory. Critical

Issues in the Philosophy of Marketing Science. Cincinnati, OH:
South-Western Publishing.

Madden, Charles Stanley, Lori Sharp Franz, and Robert A.

Mittelstaedt (1979), "The Replicability of Research in Marketing:
Reported Content and Author Cooperation," in Conceptual and
Theoretical Developments in Marketing, 0. C. Ferrell, S. Brown,
and C. Lamb, eds. Chicago, IL: American Marketing Association.

Martenson, R. (1981), Innovations in Multi-national Retailing:

Ikea on the Swedish, Swiss, German and Austrian Furniture
Markets. Gothenburg, Germany: University of Gothenburg,
Department of Business.

McNair, Malcolm P. (1931), "Trends in Large-Scale Retailing,"

http://www.sbaer.uca.edu/research/1998/SMA/98sma119.txt 5/6/2004
 Page 9 of 9

Harvard Business Review, 10 (1), 30-39.

McNair, Malcolm P. (1958), "Significant Trends and Developments

in the Post-War Period," in Competitive Distribution in a Free
High-Level Economy and Its Implications for the University, A.
Smith, ed. Pittsburg, PA: University of Pittsburg Press.

Mittelstaedt, Robert A. and Thomas S. Zorn (1983), "Econometric

Replication: Lessons from the Experimental Sciences," Quarterly
Journal of Business and Economics, 23 (Winter), 9-14.

Moser, Dieter (1974), Neue Betriebsformen im Einzelhandel, Eine

Untersuchung der Entstehungsursachen und
Entwicklungsdeterminanten. Frankfurt a. M., Zurich.

Muller-Hagedorn, Lothar (1985), "Die Dynamik der Betriebsformen.

Zum 80. Geburtstag von Prof. Dr. Robert Nieschlag," Marketing
ZFP, 21-26.

Muller-Hagedorn, Lothar (1993), "Handels marketing," Kohlhammer

Edition Marketing, 2. Auflage, Stuttgart-Berlin-Koln, 72-80.

Nieschlag, Robert (1954), "Die Dynamik der Betriebsformen im

Handel," Rheinisch-Westfalisches Institut fur
Wirtschaftsforschung, Essen, Schriftenreihe Nr. 7 (February).

Phillips, Charles F. and Delbert J. Duncan (1948), Marketing -

Principles and Methods. Homewood, IL: Irwin.

Porter, Michael E. (1985), Competitive Advantage. New York: The

Free Press.

Savitt, R. (1984), "The 'Wheel of Retailing' and Retail Product

Management" European Journal of Marketing, 18 (6/7), 43-54.

Savitt, R. (1988), "Comment: 'The Wheel' of the Wheel of

Retailing," International Journal of Retailing, 3 (1), 38-40.

Savitt, R. (1989), "Looking Back To See Ahead: Writing the

History of American Retailing," Journal of Retailing, 65 (3),
326-355.

Social Science Citation Index (1977-1996), Philadelphia, PA:

Institute for Scientific Information.

Sheth, Jagdish. N., David M. Gardner, and Dennis E. Garrett

(1988), Marketing Theory: Evolution and Evaluation. New York:
John Wiley & Sons.

Smith, Ken A. and James A. Kling (1996), "Building Sustainable

Competitive Advantage: The Southwest Story," Working Paper,
School of Management, Syracuse University.

Tietz, B. (1983), Konsument und Einzelhandel. Strukturwandlungen

in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland von 1970-1995. Frankfurt a. M.

http://www.sbaer.uca.edu/research/1998/SMA/98sma119.txt 5/6/2004