Holm Arno Leonhardt (sometimes abbreviated to Holm A. Leonhardt; born October 12, 1952) is a
German scientist in the fields of
International Relations and
economic history, especially in the realm of
cartel history and theory.[1] He was born in
Manila (
Philippines) the son of Brigitte and Arno Leonhardt.[2] Arno became a German
expatriate since 1930, moving up the career ladder from
accountant to vice director in the branch office of an
American paper machine company in Manila. Brigitte came from a liberal merchant family in
Saxony (
Germany) holding critical distance to the
Nazi regime.[3]
From 2007 on, Leonhardt continued active research work shifting to the field of
economic history and economic
organization. Since the 1970s, he became interested in
cartels as a special phenomenon of
social organization.[1] For this comeback to research, Leonhardt has been advised by the Hildesheim historian
Michael Gehler from the Institute of History at Hildesheim University.[6] Since 2008, Leonhardt again published several subject related articles and in 2013 a comprehensive work on «
Cartel theory and International Relations» being «theory-historical studies».
Research profile and methodology
Leonhardt has worked
interdisciplinary combining social, economic, juridical and cultural sciences. He has applied a structural-functional method of analysis. In his recent studies he additionally used
ideology-critical and linguistic methods for the
deconstruction of scientific concepts and tenets.[7] In terms of rule and
power, he has applied
marxist argumentations of
class rule, political
hegemony and
imperialism.
Leonhardt has a favourite research perspective: the
competition or
rivalry between
social actors. Already in his study about the
European community, he used the inter-governmental rivalry about power potentials (economic, military and political factors) as leading concept.[8] Later. In his engagement for
cartel theory, he focused on the internal competition between the cartel members.[9] Particularly for international relations, he gave examples about relevant analytical gaps which other authors had left out of recognition.
Central results and theses
Cartels = a widespread social constellation - Social actors almost never have exactly the same interests, but more or less tensions among each other. Thus, the perspective of competition and (for an organized solution) of cartel building can be applied. The author stands for a wide definition of ‹cartel› in the sense of an ‹alliance of rivals›. To him, all coalitions to pursue special interests can be analyzed as cartels.[10] Typical for such associations, the economic as well as the non-economic ones, is their permanent management of conflicts and interests.
Not all so-called „cartels“ are cartels – An inflexible scientific understanding has led to difficulties in differentiation. Subsequently, complex structures like price fixing of the second level have been simplified to a „cartel“.[13] Similarly, state controlled formations have been named „cartels“, when they set prices and quantities, such as the „
compulsory cartels“ working for governmental targets.
"Cartel" stands unter ideological suppression - The subject ‘cartel’ underwent a defamation process or negative ideological turn since the end of WW II: “After World War II, cartels were – according to the American
antitrust norm of ‹trade restrictions› – criminalized rather soon and then were generally declared as obsolete. The word ‹cartel› became a formula for condemnation, used for instance for ‹
drug cartels› or for the assertion,
Auschwitz had been run by a cartel, namely the ‹
I.G. Farben Industries› (which actually was no cartel, but a corporate group).›.”[14] Because of this, an unbiased debate and scientific work on cartels is difficult to reach.
Cartel buildings are excluded from monument protection - The rejection of the subject ‘cartel’ has gone so far that the
historical heritage is in danger: there is almost no
monument protection of former cartel buildings as a historical heritage. Leonhardt complaints that occasionally such business facilities have been torn down without much thought. The former central-selling-
syndicates for commodities may have employed hundreds of
office workers for
marketing operations and
sales administration. So, these bodies often domiciled in large and representative premises which might be historically informative now. But: “On none of those former cartel headquarters there is a commemorative plaque telling: Here, in bygone times, there had been a sales cartel for
steel,
coal,
potash ...”[15]
A novel cartel theory? – Has Leonhardt set up a new cartel theory? - This is not really clear from the statements of the scholarly scene. - Leonhardt himself only claimed to have made some necessary adjustments to the self-contradictory corpus of classical cartel theory.[16] However, he did make profiled and original statements about the nature of intergovernmental organizations and international relations, but again he referred to older thinkers like
Karl Kautsky and others who had already outlined the vision of an
ultra-imperialism or a
cartel of mighty states in the early 20th century. Anyhow, interested scientists like Kleinschmidt, Roelevink, Schroeter and Berghahn actually understood Leonhardt's endeavor as a trial of a "new theory" or theoretical improvements.[17]
The directional dispute about Cartel History Studies
In his 2013 book about
cartel theory, Leonhardt had criticized the newer cartel history studies as affected by
neoliberal influence. In the broad average, the intellectual level of the formerly famous and brilliant German
cartel theory had not been maintained. Analytic and conceptual flaws were to be found in a number of post-war publications. The research perspectives often suffered from an uncritical attitude to the American
anti-cartel policy since Second World War.
This criticism became an issue in a counter-critical review by Eva Maria Roelevink, who vetoed strongly.[18] In a response to her utterances, Leonhardt attributed her to a “Bochum school” of
business history, which was to him the leading network, which stood for a more or less biased understanding of cartels and cartel history.[19] Causal for this, he contended, was an unreflected proximity to the doctrines of
neoliberalism and American scientific leadership.
This dispute led in 2016/17 to a series of five articles by Leonhardt, Roelevink and the three senior scholars
Volker Berghahn,
Harm Schröter and Martin Shanahan (Univ. of Australia). Several positions of the Leonhardt book were taken up in these articles.[20]
Die Bundesrepublik Deutschland in der EG. Der "dumme August" der Integration? in: Frankfurter Hefte, 1983, issue 10, pp. 17–25.
Legitimation und Zukunft des Europäischen Parlaments. In: Universitas, 1984, issue 3, pp. 247–256.
Deutsche Interessen und europäische Integration. In: Civis, 1984, issue 2, pp. 25–34.
Zur Europapolitik der Grünen. In: Zeitschrift für Politik, 1984, issue 2, pp. 192–204.
Was ist Bibliotheks-, was Archiv- und Museumsgut? Ein Beitrag zur Katalogisierung von Dokumentationsgut und -institutionen. In: Bibliotheksdienst 23 (1989), pp. 891–904.
Die Europäische Union im 21. Jahrhundert. Ein Staatenkartell auf dem Weg zum Bundesstaat? In:
Michael Gehler (ed.), From Common Market to European Union Building. 50 years of the Rome Treaties 1957–2007, Wien 2009, pp. 687–720.
Kartelltheorie und Internationale Beziehungen. Theoriegeschichtliche Studien. Hildesheim 2013, 861 pp.
Regionalwirtschaftliche Organisationskunst. Vorschlag zur Ergänzung des NRW-Antrags zum UNESCO-Welterbe. In: Forum Geschichtskultur Ruhr 2013, issue 2, pp. 41–42.
Deutsches Organisationstalent. Zu den wirtschaftshistorischen Wurzeln eines nationalen Stereotyps. In: Zeitschrift für Wirtschaftsgeographie 59 (2015), issue 1, pp. 51–64.
Die Europäische Wirtschafts- und Währungsgemeinschaft als Sanierungsgemeinschaft. In:
Michael Gehler et alii (ed.): Banken, Finanzen und Wirtschaft im Kontext europäischer und globaler Krisen. Hildesheim [u.a.] 2015, pp. 591–672.
Zum Richtungsstreit in der Kartellgeschichtsforschung (On the directional dispute in cartel history research). In: Zeitschrift für Unternehmensgeschichte 61 (2016), issue 1, pp. 107–115. DOI: 10.17104/0342-2852-2016-1-107.
Systematik „Ästhetische Kulturwissenschaft“ an der Universitätsbibliothek Hildesheim. Ein Innovationsbericht. In: o-bib. Das offene Bibliotheksjournal 5 (2018), issue 3, pp. 118–134.
Berghahn, Volker R. (2016): Einige weiterführende Gedanken zu Holm A. Leonhardts Kartelltheorie und Internationale Beziehungen (= Some further thoughts on Holm A. Leonhardt's [book] „Cartel theory and International Relations“). In: Zeitschrift für Unternehmensgeschichte/Journal of Business History, vol. 61, issue 1, p. 121-126.
Gehler, Michael: Vorwort des Herausgebers . In: Leonhardt: Kartelltheorie und Internationale Beziehungen. Theoriegeschichtliche Studien. Hildesheim 2013, pp. 17–25.
Roelevink, Eva-Maria (2016): Warum weniger eine neue Theorie als vielmehr eine neue empirische Kartellforschung notwendig ist (= Why less a new theory [by Leonhardt] than rather a new-empirical cartel research is necessary). In: Zeitschrift für Unternehmensgeschichte/Journal of Business History, vol. 61, issue 1, p. 116–120.
Schröter, Harm G. (2017): ‘'Quo vadis Kartelldiskurs?”. In: Zeitschrift für Unternehmensgeschichte/Journal of Business History, vol. 62, issue 2, p. 302-309.
Shanahan, Martin (2017): On Academic debate. A comment on the discussions between Leonhardt, Roelevink and Berghahn. In: Zeitschrift für Unternehmensgeschichte/Journal of Business History, vol. 62, issue 2, p. 299-301.
^Leonhardt: Die Europäische Wirtschafts- und Währungsgemeinschaft als Sanierungsgemeinschaft. In:
Michael Gehler et alii (ed.): Banken, Finanzen und Wirtschaft im Kontext europäischer und globaler Krisen. Hildesheim [u.a.] 2015, p. 689.
^Leonhardt: Die Europäische Wirtschafts- und Währungsgemeinschaft als Sanierungsgemeinschaft. In: Michael Gehler et alii (ed.): Banken, Finanzen und Wirtschaft im Kontext europäischer und globaler Krisen. Hildesheim [u.a.] 2015, p. 689.
^Leonhardt: Was ist Bibliotheks-, was Archiv- und Museumsgut? Ein Beitrag zur Katalogisierung von Dokumentationsgut und -institutionen. In: Bibliotheksdienst 23 (1989), pp. 891–904.
^Leonhardt: Systematik „Ästhetische Kulturwissenschaft “an der Universitätsbibliothek Hildesheim. Ein Innovationsbericht. In: o-bib. Das offene Bibliotheksjournal 5 (2018), issue 3, pp. 118–134
^Michael Gehler: Vorwort des Reihenherausgebers. In: Leonhardt: Kartelltheorie und Internationale Beziehungen. Theoriegeschichtliche Studien. Hildesheim 2013, pp. 17–25.
^e.g. Leonhardt: Kartelltheorie und Internationale Beziehungen. Theoriegeschichtliche Studien. Hildesheim 2013, pp. 743–758.
^Leonhardt: Europa konstitutionell. Politische Machtkämpfe in der EG 1950–1983. pp. 28–37.
^Leonhardt: Kartelltheorie und Internationale Beziehungen. Theoriegeschichtliche Studien. Hildesheim 2013, p. 115, 132, 137, 196, 428, 455, 749.
^Leonhardt: Kartelltheorie und Internationale Beziehungen. Theoriegeschichtliche Studien. Hildesheim 2013, pp. 193–199.
^Particularly on EU: Leonhardt: Die Europäische Union im 21. Jahrhundert. Ein Staatenkartell auf dem Weg zum Bundesstaat? . In:
Michael Gehler (ed.), From Common Market to European Union Building. 50 years of the Rome Treaties 1957–2007, Wien 2009, pp. 702–715.
^Leonhardt: Kartelltheorie und Internationale Beziehungen. Theoriegeschichtliche Studien. Hildesheim 2013, p. 197.
^Leonhardt: Kartelltheorie und Internationale Beziehungen. Theoriegeschichtliche Studien. Hildesheim 2013, p. 130.
^Leonhardt: The development of cartel+ theory between 1883 and the 1930s. Hildesheim 2018, p. 76.
^Leonhardt: The development of cartel+ theory between 1883 and the 1930s. Hildesheim 2018, p. 4.
^Leonhardt: Kartelltheorie und Internationale Beziehungen. Theoriegeschichtliche Studien. Hildesheim 2013, p. 140-205.
^Kleinschmidt, Harald.
"Holm Arno LEONHARDT, Kartelltheorie und internationale Beziehungen"(PDF). uni-hildesheim.; Eva-Maria Roelevink (2016): Warum weniger eine neue Theorie als vielmehr eine neue empirische Kartellforschung notwendig ist. In: Zeitschrift für Unternehmensgeschichte/Journal of Business History, vol. 61, issue 1, p. 116–120; Harm G. Schroeter (2017): Quo vadis Kartelldiskurs?. In: Zeitschrift für Unternehmensgeschichte/Journal of Business History, vol. 62, issue 2, p. 302-309; Martin Shanahan (2017): On Academic debate. A comment on the discussions between Leonhardt, Roelevink and Berghahn. In: Zeitschrift für Unternehmensgeschichte/Journal of Business History, vol. 62, issue 2, p. 299-301.
^Roelevink, Eva-Maria (2015): [Review of] Holm A. Leonhardt: Kartelltheorie und Internationale Beziehungen. Hildesheim, Vol. 60, issue 1, p. 110-112.
^Holm Arno Leonhardt: Zum Richtungsstreit in der Kartellgeschichtsforschung (On the directional dispute in cartel history research). In: Zeitschrift für Unternehmensgeschichte 61 (2016), issue 1, p. 107-115. DOI: 10.17104/0342-2852-2016-1-107; Volker Berghahn (2016): Einige weiterführende Gedanken zu Holm A. Leonhardts Kartelltheorie und Internationale Beziehungen. In: Zeitschrift für Unternehmensgeschichte/Journal of Business History, vol. 61, issue 1, p. 121-126; Eva-Maria Roelevink (2016): Warum weniger eine neue Theorie als vielmehr eine neue empirische Kartellforschung notwendig ist. In: Zeitschrift für Unternehmensgeschichte/Journal of Business History, vol. 61, issue 1, p. 116–120; Harm G. Schroeter (2017): Quo vadis Kartelldiskurs?. In: Zeitschrift für Unternehmensgeschichte/Journal of Business History, vol. 62, issue 2, p. 302-309; Martin Shanahan (2017): On Academic debate. A comment on the discussions between Leonhardt, Roelevink and Berghahn. In: Zeitschrift für Unternehmensgeschichte/Journal of Business History, vol. 62, issue 2, p. 299-301.
Holm Arno Leonhardt (sometimes abbreviated to Holm A. Leonhardt; born October 12, 1952) is a
German scientist in the fields of
International Relations and
economic history, especially in the realm of
cartel history and theory.[1] He was born in
Manila (
Philippines) the son of Brigitte and Arno Leonhardt.[2] Arno became a German
expatriate since 1930, moving up the career ladder from
accountant to vice director in the branch office of an
American paper machine company in Manila. Brigitte came from a liberal merchant family in
Saxony (
Germany) holding critical distance to the
Nazi regime.[3]
From 2007 on, Leonhardt continued active research work shifting to the field of
economic history and economic
organization. Since the 1970s, he became interested in
cartels as a special phenomenon of
social organization.[1] For this comeback to research, Leonhardt has been advised by the Hildesheim historian
Michael Gehler from the Institute of History at Hildesheim University.[6] Since 2008, Leonhardt again published several subject related articles and in 2013 a comprehensive work on «
Cartel theory and International Relations» being «theory-historical studies».
Research profile and methodology
Leonhardt has worked
interdisciplinary combining social, economic, juridical and cultural sciences. He has applied a structural-functional method of analysis. In his recent studies he additionally used
ideology-critical and linguistic methods for the
deconstruction of scientific concepts and tenets.[7] In terms of rule and
power, he has applied
marxist argumentations of
class rule, political
hegemony and
imperialism.
Leonhardt has a favourite research perspective: the
competition or
rivalry between
social actors. Already in his study about the
European community, he used the inter-governmental rivalry about power potentials (economic, military and political factors) as leading concept.[8] Later. In his engagement for
cartel theory, he focused on the internal competition between the cartel members.[9] Particularly for international relations, he gave examples about relevant analytical gaps which other authors had left out of recognition.
Central results and theses
Cartels = a widespread social constellation - Social actors almost never have exactly the same interests, but more or less tensions among each other. Thus, the perspective of competition and (for an organized solution) of cartel building can be applied. The author stands for a wide definition of ‹cartel› in the sense of an ‹alliance of rivals›. To him, all coalitions to pursue special interests can be analyzed as cartels.[10] Typical for such associations, the economic as well as the non-economic ones, is their permanent management of conflicts and interests.
Not all so-called „cartels“ are cartels – An inflexible scientific understanding has led to difficulties in differentiation. Subsequently, complex structures like price fixing of the second level have been simplified to a „cartel“.[13] Similarly, state controlled formations have been named „cartels“, when they set prices and quantities, such as the „
compulsory cartels“ working for governmental targets.
"Cartel" stands unter ideological suppression - The subject ‘cartel’ underwent a defamation process or negative ideological turn since the end of WW II: “After World War II, cartels were – according to the American
antitrust norm of ‹trade restrictions› – criminalized rather soon and then were generally declared as obsolete. The word ‹cartel› became a formula for condemnation, used for instance for ‹
drug cartels› or for the assertion,
Auschwitz had been run by a cartel, namely the ‹
I.G. Farben Industries› (which actually was no cartel, but a corporate group).›.”[14] Because of this, an unbiased debate and scientific work on cartels is difficult to reach.
Cartel buildings are excluded from monument protection - The rejection of the subject ‘cartel’ has gone so far that the
historical heritage is in danger: there is almost no
monument protection of former cartel buildings as a historical heritage. Leonhardt complaints that occasionally such business facilities have been torn down without much thought. The former central-selling-
syndicates for commodities may have employed hundreds of
office workers for
marketing operations and
sales administration. So, these bodies often domiciled in large and representative premises which might be historically informative now. But: “On none of those former cartel headquarters there is a commemorative plaque telling: Here, in bygone times, there had been a sales cartel for
steel,
coal,
potash ...”[15]
A novel cartel theory? – Has Leonhardt set up a new cartel theory? - This is not really clear from the statements of the scholarly scene. - Leonhardt himself only claimed to have made some necessary adjustments to the self-contradictory corpus of classical cartel theory.[16] However, he did make profiled and original statements about the nature of intergovernmental organizations and international relations, but again he referred to older thinkers like
Karl Kautsky and others who had already outlined the vision of an
ultra-imperialism or a
cartel of mighty states in the early 20th century. Anyhow, interested scientists like Kleinschmidt, Roelevink, Schroeter and Berghahn actually understood Leonhardt's endeavor as a trial of a "new theory" or theoretical improvements.[17]
The directional dispute about Cartel History Studies
In his 2013 book about
cartel theory, Leonhardt had criticized the newer cartel history studies as affected by
neoliberal influence. In the broad average, the intellectual level of the formerly famous and brilliant German
cartel theory had not been maintained. Analytic and conceptual flaws were to be found in a number of post-war publications. The research perspectives often suffered from an uncritical attitude to the American
anti-cartel policy since Second World War.
This criticism became an issue in a counter-critical review by Eva Maria Roelevink, who vetoed strongly.[18] In a response to her utterances, Leonhardt attributed her to a “Bochum school” of
business history, which was to him the leading network, which stood for a more or less biased understanding of cartels and cartel history.[19] Causal for this, he contended, was an unreflected proximity to the doctrines of
neoliberalism and American scientific leadership.
This dispute led in 2016/17 to a series of five articles by Leonhardt, Roelevink and the three senior scholars
Volker Berghahn,
Harm Schröter and Martin Shanahan (Univ. of Australia). Several positions of the Leonhardt book were taken up in these articles.[20]
Die Bundesrepublik Deutschland in der EG. Der "dumme August" der Integration? in: Frankfurter Hefte, 1983, issue 10, pp. 17–25.
Legitimation und Zukunft des Europäischen Parlaments. In: Universitas, 1984, issue 3, pp. 247–256.
Deutsche Interessen und europäische Integration. In: Civis, 1984, issue 2, pp. 25–34.
Zur Europapolitik der Grünen. In: Zeitschrift für Politik, 1984, issue 2, pp. 192–204.
Was ist Bibliotheks-, was Archiv- und Museumsgut? Ein Beitrag zur Katalogisierung von Dokumentationsgut und -institutionen. In: Bibliotheksdienst 23 (1989), pp. 891–904.
Die Europäische Union im 21. Jahrhundert. Ein Staatenkartell auf dem Weg zum Bundesstaat? In:
Michael Gehler (ed.), From Common Market to European Union Building. 50 years of the Rome Treaties 1957–2007, Wien 2009, pp. 687–720.
Kartelltheorie und Internationale Beziehungen. Theoriegeschichtliche Studien. Hildesheim 2013, 861 pp.
Regionalwirtschaftliche Organisationskunst. Vorschlag zur Ergänzung des NRW-Antrags zum UNESCO-Welterbe. In: Forum Geschichtskultur Ruhr 2013, issue 2, pp. 41–42.
Deutsches Organisationstalent. Zu den wirtschaftshistorischen Wurzeln eines nationalen Stereotyps. In: Zeitschrift für Wirtschaftsgeographie 59 (2015), issue 1, pp. 51–64.
Die Europäische Wirtschafts- und Währungsgemeinschaft als Sanierungsgemeinschaft. In:
Michael Gehler et alii (ed.): Banken, Finanzen und Wirtschaft im Kontext europäischer und globaler Krisen. Hildesheim [u.a.] 2015, pp. 591–672.
Zum Richtungsstreit in der Kartellgeschichtsforschung (On the directional dispute in cartel history research). In: Zeitschrift für Unternehmensgeschichte 61 (2016), issue 1, pp. 107–115. DOI: 10.17104/0342-2852-2016-1-107.
Systematik „Ästhetische Kulturwissenschaft“ an der Universitätsbibliothek Hildesheim. Ein Innovationsbericht. In: o-bib. Das offene Bibliotheksjournal 5 (2018), issue 3, pp. 118–134.
Berghahn, Volker R. (2016): Einige weiterführende Gedanken zu Holm A. Leonhardts Kartelltheorie und Internationale Beziehungen (= Some further thoughts on Holm A. Leonhardt's [book] „Cartel theory and International Relations“). In: Zeitschrift für Unternehmensgeschichte/Journal of Business History, vol. 61, issue 1, p. 121-126.
Gehler, Michael: Vorwort des Herausgebers . In: Leonhardt: Kartelltheorie und Internationale Beziehungen. Theoriegeschichtliche Studien. Hildesheim 2013, pp. 17–25.
Roelevink, Eva-Maria (2016): Warum weniger eine neue Theorie als vielmehr eine neue empirische Kartellforschung notwendig ist (= Why less a new theory [by Leonhardt] than rather a new-empirical cartel research is necessary). In: Zeitschrift für Unternehmensgeschichte/Journal of Business History, vol. 61, issue 1, p. 116–120.
Schröter, Harm G. (2017): ‘'Quo vadis Kartelldiskurs?”. In: Zeitschrift für Unternehmensgeschichte/Journal of Business History, vol. 62, issue 2, p. 302-309.
Shanahan, Martin (2017): On Academic debate. A comment on the discussions between Leonhardt, Roelevink and Berghahn. In: Zeitschrift für Unternehmensgeschichte/Journal of Business History, vol. 62, issue 2, p. 299-301.
^Leonhardt: Die Europäische Wirtschafts- und Währungsgemeinschaft als Sanierungsgemeinschaft. In:
Michael Gehler et alii (ed.): Banken, Finanzen und Wirtschaft im Kontext europäischer und globaler Krisen. Hildesheim [u.a.] 2015, p. 689.
^Leonhardt: Die Europäische Wirtschafts- und Währungsgemeinschaft als Sanierungsgemeinschaft. In: Michael Gehler et alii (ed.): Banken, Finanzen und Wirtschaft im Kontext europäischer und globaler Krisen. Hildesheim [u.a.] 2015, p. 689.
^Leonhardt: Was ist Bibliotheks-, was Archiv- und Museumsgut? Ein Beitrag zur Katalogisierung von Dokumentationsgut und -institutionen. In: Bibliotheksdienst 23 (1989), pp. 891–904.
^Leonhardt: Systematik „Ästhetische Kulturwissenschaft “an der Universitätsbibliothek Hildesheim. Ein Innovationsbericht. In: o-bib. Das offene Bibliotheksjournal 5 (2018), issue 3, pp. 118–134
^Michael Gehler: Vorwort des Reihenherausgebers. In: Leonhardt: Kartelltheorie und Internationale Beziehungen. Theoriegeschichtliche Studien. Hildesheim 2013, pp. 17–25.
^e.g. Leonhardt: Kartelltheorie und Internationale Beziehungen. Theoriegeschichtliche Studien. Hildesheim 2013, pp. 743–758.
^Leonhardt: Europa konstitutionell. Politische Machtkämpfe in der EG 1950–1983. pp. 28–37.
^Leonhardt: Kartelltheorie und Internationale Beziehungen. Theoriegeschichtliche Studien. Hildesheim 2013, p. 115, 132, 137, 196, 428, 455, 749.
^Leonhardt: Kartelltheorie und Internationale Beziehungen. Theoriegeschichtliche Studien. Hildesheim 2013, pp. 193–199.
^Particularly on EU: Leonhardt: Die Europäische Union im 21. Jahrhundert. Ein Staatenkartell auf dem Weg zum Bundesstaat? . In:
Michael Gehler (ed.), From Common Market to European Union Building. 50 years of the Rome Treaties 1957–2007, Wien 2009, pp. 702–715.
^Leonhardt: Kartelltheorie und Internationale Beziehungen. Theoriegeschichtliche Studien. Hildesheim 2013, p. 197.
^Leonhardt: Kartelltheorie und Internationale Beziehungen. Theoriegeschichtliche Studien. Hildesheim 2013, p. 130.
^Leonhardt: The development of cartel+ theory between 1883 and the 1930s. Hildesheim 2018, p. 76.
^Leonhardt: The development of cartel+ theory between 1883 and the 1930s. Hildesheim 2018, p. 4.
^Leonhardt: Kartelltheorie und Internationale Beziehungen. Theoriegeschichtliche Studien. Hildesheim 2013, p. 140-205.
^Kleinschmidt, Harald.
"Holm Arno LEONHARDT, Kartelltheorie und internationale Beziehungen"(PDF). uni-hildesheim.; Eva-Maria Roelevink (2016): Warum weniger eine neue Theorie als vielmehr eine neue empirische Kartellforschung notwendig ist. In: Zeitschrift für Unternehmensgeschichte/Journal of Business History, vol. 61, issue 1, p. 116–120; Harm G. Schroeter (2017): Quo vadis Kartelldiskurs?. In: Zeitschrift für Unternehmensgeschichte/Journal of Business History, vol. 62, issue 2, p. 302-309; Martin Shanahan (2017): On Academic debate. A comment on the discussions between Leonhardt, Roelevink and Berghahn. In: Zeitschrift für Unternehmensgeschichte/Journal of Business History, vol. 62, issue 2, p. 299-301.
^Roelevink, Eva-Maria (2015): [Review of] Holm A. Leonhardt: Kartelltheorie und Internationale Beziehungen. Hildesheim, Vol. 60, issue 1, p. 110-112.
^Holm Arno Leonhardt: Zum Richtungsstreit in der Kartellgeschichtsforschung (On the directional dispute in cartel history research). In: Zeitschrift für Unternehmensgeschichte 61 (2016), issue 1, p. 107-115. DOI: 10.17104/0342-2852-2016-1-107; Volker Berghahn (2016): Einige weiterführende Gedanken zu Holm A. Leonhardts Kartelltheorie und Internationale Beziehungen. In: Zeitschrift für Unternehmensgeschichte/Journal of Business History, vol. 61, issue 1, p. 121-126; Eva-Maria Roelevink (2016): Warum weniger eine neue Theorie als vielmehr eine neue empirische Kartellforschung notwendig ist. In: Zeitschrift für Unternehmensgeschichte/Journal of Business History, vol. 61, issue 1, p. 116–120; Harm G. Schroeter (2017): Quo vadis Kartelldiskurs?. In: Zeitschrift für Unternehmensgeschichte/Journal of Business History, vol. 62, issue 2, p. 302-309; Martin Shanahan (2017): On Academic debate. A comment on the discussions between Leonhardt, Roelevink and Berghahn. In: Zeitschrift für Unternehmensgeschichte/Journal of Business History, vol. 62, issue 2, p. 299-301.