Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-c47g7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-24T20:22:58.560Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Role of the British Government in the Spread of Scientific Management and Fordism in the Interwar Years

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 March 2009

Wayne A. Lewchuk
Wayne A. Lewchuk
Affiliation:
Assistant Professor of Economics and Labour Studies at McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario L8S 4M4, Canada
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The slowness with which British firms adopted Scientific Management and Fordism has often been noted.The paper argues that in Britain, management had difficulty controlling labor effort norms after 1870. The state intervened to resolve the issue and in the process became a major proponent of industrial democracy. It is argued that the early interest in industrial democracy retarded the adoption of American methods that assumed a greater degree of managerial control over factory organization.

Type
Papers Presented at the Forty-Third Annual Meeting of the Economic History Association
Information
The Journal of Economic History , Volume 44 , Issue 2 , June 1984 , pp. 355 - 361
Copyright
Copyright © The Economic History Association 1984

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 For early relations between capital and labor see Leeson, R. A., Travelling Brothers (London, 1979).Google Scholar

2 Meacham, S., “The Sense of an Impending Clash; English Working Class Unrest before the First World War,” American Historical Review, 77 (12. 1972), 1351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar On American events see Rodgers, D. T., The Work Ethic in Industrial America: 1850–1920 (Chicago, 1974).Google Scholar

3 On new unionism see Hobsbawm, E. J., Labouring Men (London, 1968);Google Scholar and Duffy, A. E. P., “New Unionism in Britain, 1889–1890: A Reappraisal,” Economic History Review, 2nd ser., 14, no. 2 (1961/1962), 306–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

4 Brown, G., Sabotage (Nottingham, 1977), p. 117.Google Scholar

5 For a similar argument, see Hobsbawm, E. J., “Custom, Wages and Work Load,” in Essays in Labour History, ed. Briggs, A. and Saville, J. (London, 1960).Google Scholar On engineering, see Weekes, B., “The ASE 1880–1914” (Ph.D. diss., Warwick, 1970), p. 86;Google Scholar and Wigham, E., The Power to Manage (London, 1973).CrossRefGoogle Scholar On piecework, see Zeitlin, J., “Craft Regulation and the Division of Labour: Engineers and Compositors in Britain, 1890–1914” (Ph.D. diss., Warwick, 1981), p.518;Google Scholar and the Engineering Employers Federation Archives [henceforth EEF Archives], EEF Surveys, Sept. 30, 1913 and July 31, 1914 (London).Google Scholar

6 Brown, E. H. Phelps and Browne, M. H., A Century of Pay (London, 1968), pp. 185, 144, 175–82.Google Scholar

7 Charles, R., The Development of Industrial Relations in Britain: 1911–1939 (London, 1973), p. 27.Google Scholar

8 EEF Archives, W(4)3, Special Conference, Dec. 10, 1914; W(4)3, letter J. H. Richmond, Feb. 2, 1915; W(4)3, Special Conference, Jan. 13, 1915; W(4)3, Smith to Lawson, Dec. 22, 1914.Google Scholar

9 History of the Ministry of Munitions (confidential British government report, 1919–1921), (republished by Harvester Press, London, 1976), vol. 1, part 2, pp. 51–52, 87, and vol. 1, part 4, pp. 1–18.Google Scholar

10 EEF Archives, P(4)6, Ministry of Labour to EEF, Mar. 10, 1917. See also Public Record Office, Lab 2 257, correspondence (London) [henceforth, P.R.O.].Google Scholar

11 SeeLewchuk, W., “The Economics of Technical Change: A Case Study of the British Motor Vehicle Industry, 1896–1932” (Ph.D. diss., Cambridge, 1982).Google Scholar For details on individual firms, see Lewchuk, W., “Fordism and the British Motor Car Employer, 1896–1932,” in Managerial Strategies and Industrial Relations, ed. Gospel, H. and Littler, C. (London, 1983).Google Scholar

12 SeeHinton, J., The First Shop Stewards Movement (London, 1973);Google Scholar and Goodrich, C., The Frontier of Control (London, 1975), for a discussion of the wartime movement for workers control. P.R.O., CAB/24/14 GT/897, Ministry of Labour Report to the War Cabinet on the Rise of Shop Stewards; P.R.O., CAB/24/24 GT/1849; P.R.O., CAB/24/26 GT/2073.Google Scholar

13 Charles, Development, p. 85.Google Scholar

14 EEF Archives, First Report of the Committee of the Ministry of Reconstruction on Relations Between Employers and Employed, paragraph 14.Google Scholar

15 EEF Archives, I(1)9, Birmingham EEA to EEF, July 23, 1917.Google Scholar

16 Charles, Development, p. 216. See also EEF Archives, 1(1)10, National Guild League to the Trade Unions, July 14, 1917.Google Scholar

17 See Charles, Development, for details on this.Google Scholar

18 EEF Archives, EEF report on the NCEO and the FBI, May 1934.Google Scholar

19 EEF Archives, Emergency Committee, EEF, Oct. 27, 1916; EEF Management Committee, Dec. 12, 1906.Google Scholar

20 Federation of British Industries, FBI/c/10/ vol. 21, Special Committee, July 13, 1917 (Coventry) [henceforth, FBI Archives]; EEF Archives, I(1)19, FBI to Whitley Committee, Aug. 3, 1917.Google Scholar

21 FBI Archives, FBI/c/84, Post-War Industrial Policy; FBI/c/84, vol. 178, Labour Committee, Nov. 10–13, 1917.Google Scholar

22 EEF Archives, I(1)12, EEF reply to FBI, Jan. 21, 1918. FBI Archives, FBI/c/81, vol. 174, Conference EEF and FBI, Oct. 11, 1918, and vol.178, Conference FBI and EEF, Mar. 15, 1918.Google Scholar

23 EEF Archives, I(1)7, Emergency Committee to Local Association, Sept. 19, 1916, and I(1)7, Draft on Postwar Industrial problems, Nov. 23, 1917, and I(1)7, Postwar Industrial Problems, July 29, 1918.Google Scholar

24 EEF Archives, EEF Special Conference, EEF and Amalgamated Engineering Union, Oct. 27, 1920, pp. 508, 519.Google Scholar

25 EEF Archives, W(3)129, Piece Work in the Toolroom, Feb. 1, 1934, pp. 26–28.Google Scholar

26 Lewchuk, “Economics”; Lewchuk, “Fordism.”Google Scholar

27 On British and American technological history, see Habakkuk, H. J., American and British Technology in the Nineteenth Century (Cambridge, 1962).Google Scholar See also Harley, C. K., “Skilled Labor and the Choice of Technique in Edwardian Industry,” Explorations in Economic History, 11, no. 4 (1974);CrossRefGoogle Scholar and Brito, D. L. and Williamson, J. C., “Skilled Labor and Nineteenth Century Anglo-British Managerial Behavior,” Explorations in Economic History, 10, no. 3 (1973), 235–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar On the social basis of technical change see Sawyer, J. F., “The Social Basis of the American System of Manufacturing,” this Journal, 14 (12. 1954), 361–79,Google Scholar and Ferguson, E. S., “The Americanness of American Technology,” Technology and Culture, 20 (01. 1979), 3–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar