Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- List of tables
- List of contributors
- Preface
- I Government and industry 1920–50
- II Case studies of industry organisation, performance and nationalisation
- 3 The coal industry: images and realities on the road to nationalisation
- 4 The changing role of government in British civil air transport 1919–49
- 5 The motor vehicle industry
- 6 The railway companies and the nationalisation issue 1920–50
- 7 The motives for gas nationalisation: practicality or ideology?
- 8 Public ownership and the British arms industry 1920–50
- 9 The water industry 1900–51: a failure of public policy?
- 10 Debating the nationalisation of the cotton industry, 1918–50
- III Government and the process of industrial change in the 1940s
- IV Review and Conclusions
- Index
10 - Debating the nationalisation of the cotton industry, 1918–50
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 07 May 2010
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- List of tables
- List of contributors
- Preface
- I Government and industry 1920–50
- II Case studies of industry organisation, performance and nationalisation
- 3 The coal industry: images and realities on the road to nationalisation
- 4 The changing role of government in British civil air transport 1919–49
- 5 The motor vehicle industry
- 6 The railway companies and the nationalisation issue 1920–50
- 7 The motives for gas nationalisation: practicality or ideology?
- 8 Public ownership and the British arms industry 1920–50
- 9 The water industry 1900–51: a failure of public policy?
- 10 Debating the nationalisation of the cotton industry, 1918–50
- III Government and the process of industrial change in the 1940s
- IV Review and Conclusions
- Index
Summary
Introduction
Given the dire problems faced by the British cotton industry during the twentieth century, it is not surprising that nationalisation became a significant issue. Institutionalist economic historians have suggested that Lancashire was put at a disadvantage because it had no visible hand to remould the cotton industry and coordinate its production and marketing strategies (Lazonick 1981a, 1983, 1986, Mass and Lazonick 1991). The visible hand that Lazonick has in mind is the Chandlerian business corporation, with its long-term strategy and its sophisticated management structure. Advocates of the public ownership of the mills believed that the visible hand of a British Cotton Corporation would have been equally efficacious.
Nationalisation had considerable support among the cotton workers during the 1930s and 1940s and the Labour Party was not unsympathetic to their aims. Previous studies have dismissed the operatives' support for public ownership as a tactical ploy to chivvy the government and employers into drawing up a scheme for rationalising the industry (Barry 1965, p. 340, Edgerton 1986, p. 270). While the war cry of nationalisation was never as popular in the mills as it was in the pits, it is misleading to suggest that the issue was not taken seriously by the operatives. State ownership was one of a number of options under consideration in Lancashire during the 1930s and 1940s. When Labour came to power in 1945, dark threats were made by ministers about what might happen to the masters if they failed to toe the socialist line. The 1946 Board of Trade Working Party report on cotton acknowledged that many employers saw nationalisation as a ‘Sword of Damocles’ hanging over Lancashire (Board of Trade 1946, p. 157).
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- The Political Economy of Nationalisation in Britain, 1920–1950 , pp. 212 - 234Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 1995
- 2
- Cited by