Would it be better if the UK had enforced dirigism?

[Gukpard]

Many years ago I read a short article about the decline of the british economy from the Edwardian era onwards, and it seems that it has been 120 years of never ending decline, the end of industrialization and now the UK finds itself in a services industry. OTL the UK adopted dirigismè during WWII and it was only dismantled during Thatcher's government, but it was never enforced in the same level as France did and the british post WWII economy is seen as a mess.

OTL the Labour government was very strong after WWII, and I remember someone commenting that the further the war takes, the stronger Labour gonna be post war. Let's say that for some unspecified reason WWII ends only in 1946 in europe and Labour carries a supermajority and enforce dirigismè. Would the UK economy be stronger in the long therm with a firm and responsible economical doctrine?

 

[Anderman]

Was it realy not enforced at same level as in France ? Great Britain nationalized steel, coal, shipbuilding, some car companies, cable and wireless and i learned on this board that at time there were regulation about how much office space could be in Birmingham or were the Ford Motor Company could build a new factory and how large it could be.

Maybe it was the wrong dirigism but more of the otl one wouldn´t make the uk economy stronger,

 

[MickCz]

Britain had a number of problems post 1945. It still thought it had an Empire even though India was promised independence. The Empire was profitable until 1914 but after 1918 it certainly wasn't, and no profit/loss evaluation was done. The Empire should have been dumped in the 1920s with consequent savings.

Whilst there had been some consolidation of industry in WW1, there were still too many small inefficient companies to compete in world markets. That continued to an extent after WW2

WW1 had effectively bankrupted Britain so investment wasn't sufficiently available. The problem was worse after WW2.

The Cold War, especially the USA re--arming with Korea caused a rise in raw material prices. Prior to that the economy had been doing quite well.

The trade unions wouldn't allow efficiencies which caused job losses.

Management was amateurish. The much vaunted Mini car made a loss on every one sold.

Because Britain had "held out" in 1940 there was a view that the world owed it a living; the world thought otherwise. Along with that was a "we won the war" attitude that British is best; it wasn't. And being on the winning side isn't the same as actually winning.

So, in short, there wasn't the mindset among leaders or population to "get stuck in" and make dirigism work properly.

 

[Gukpard]

Was it realy not enforced at same level as in France ? Great Britain nationalized steel, coal, shipbuilding, some car companies, cable and wireless and i learned on this board that at time there were regulation about how much office space could be in Birmingham or were the Ford Motor Company could build a new factory and how large it could be.

Maybe it was the wrong dirigism but more of the otl one wouldn´t make the uk economy stronger,

Well, dirigisme is not specifically a nationalized economy, you can control the economy but leave it private

That being said the UK botched it, France was more destroyed by the far and didn't fare as bad as the UK did

Britain had a number of problems post 1945. It still thought it had an Empire even though India was promised independence. The Empire was profitable until 1914 but after 1918 it certainly wasn't, and no profit/loss evaluation was done. The Empire should have been dumped in the 1920s with consequent savings.

Whilst there had been some consolidation of industry in WW1, there were still too many small inefficient companies to compete in world markets. That continued to an extent after WW2

WW1 had effectively bankrupted Britain so investment wasn't sufficiently available. The problem was worse after WW2.

The Cold War, especially the USA re--arming with Korea caused a rise in raw material prices. Prior to that the economy had been doing quite well.

The trade unions wouldn't allow efficiencies which caused job losses.

Management was amateurish. The much vaunted Mini car made a loss on every one sold.

Because Britain had "held out" in 1940 there was a view that the world owed it a living; the world thought otherwise. Along with that was a "we won the war" attitude that British is best; it wasn't. And being on the winning side isn't the same as actually winning.

So, in short, there wasn't the mindset among leaders or population to "get stuck in" and make dirigism work properly.

What can we change to adopt the mindset to make them "change it"? We can delay the end of the war in this scenario

 

[pdf27]

Many years ago I read a short article about the decline of the British economy from the Edwardian era onwards, and it seems that it has been 120 years of never ending decline, the end of industrialization and now the UK finds itself in a services industry. OTL the UK adopted dirigismè during WWII and it was only dismantled during Thatcher's government, but it was never enforced in the same level as France did and the British post WWII economy is seen as a mess.

OTL the Labour government was very strong after WWII, and I remember someone commenting that the further the war takes, the stronger Labour gonna be post war. Let's say that for some unspecified reason WWII ends only in 1946 in Europe and Labour carries a supermajority and enforce dirigismè. Would the UK economy be stronger in the long term with a firm and responsible economical doctrine?

I think you're missing a critical point here, which undermines your entire premise. British decline has been relative not absolute, and you're comparing to a high point where the UK was for a time the world's only industrialised nation. Even in 1904 the relative decline had been precipitous, with the UK GDP being about half that of the US and only just ahead of Germany.

Preventing this decline from 9% to 2% of world GDP can't be done by tweaking UK economic policies - any policy that successful would be copied by everyone else and you're back where you started. Instead you're pretty much limited to scenarios where the rest of the world economies get badly trashed or simply remain agrarian post-1900. I'm very glad that I don't live in such a world.

 

[Gukpard]

I think you're missing a critical point here, which undermines your entire premise. British decline has been relative not absolute, and you're comparing to a high point where the UK was for a time the world's only industrialised nation. Even in 1904 the relative decline had been precipitous, with the UK GDP being about half that of the US and only just ahead of Germany.
View attachment 918424
Preventing this decline from 9% to 2% of world GDP can't be done by tweaking UK economic policies - any policy that successful would be copied by everyone else and you're back where you started. Instead you're pretty much limited to scenarios where the rest of the world economies get badly trashed or simply remain agrarian post-1900. I'm very glad that I don't live in such a world.

Wait wait, so the UK industry didn't collapse? It just lost its monopoly? I see, thanks, I understand your point.

 

[Garrison]

Many years ago I read a short article about the decline of the british economy from the Edwardian era onwards, and it seems that it has been 120 years of never ending decline, the end of industrialization and now the UK finds itself in a services industry. OTL the UK adopted dirigismè during WWII and it was only dismantled during Thatcher's government, but it was never enforced in the same level as France did and the british post WWII economy is seen as a mess.

OTL the Labour government was very strong after WWII, and I remember someone commenting that the further the war takes, the stronger Labour gonna be post war. Let's say that for some unspecified reason WWII ends only in 1946 in europe and Labour carries a supermajority and enforce dirigismè. Would the UK economy be stronger in the long therm with a firm and responsible economical doctrine?

To be clear Thatcher didn't just end nationalization, which is not dirigism, she sold off strategic assets and critical infrastructure in the belief that private companies would be more efficient in providing rail services, energy supplies and water and sewerage services. The decades since have suggested that was spectacularly wrong. Now when you extend the principle of nationalization to manufacturing, especially of consumer goods it may be a very bad idea, but it really isn't an either or scenario.

 

[Simon]

Many years ago I read a short article about the decline of the british economy from the Edwardian era onwards, and it seems that it has been 120 years of never ending decline, the end of industrialization and now the UK finds itself in a services industry.

Sounds like something owing heavily to Correlli Barnett's work which supported the declinism school of thought that was popular in the 1980s and '90s. I don't have much time for either the idea or the man himself.

… [Thatcher] sold off strategic assets and critical infrastructure in the belief that private companies would be more efficient in providing rail services…

She never touched the railways IIRC.

 

[Garrison]

Sounds like something owing heavily to Correlli Barnett's work which supported the declinism school of thought that was popular in the 1980s and '90s. I don't have much time for either the idea or the man himself.



She never touched the railways IIRC.

They were privatized by the Conservative government.

 

[Cydonius]

They were privatized by the Conservative government.

But not Thatcher's government.

Much as it pains me to speak even tangentially in favour of Thatcher Thatcher Milk Snatcher, her reign did definitely see the start of selling off various BR assets, but not what ordinary people would call the Railway itself. That was done under Major.

Her reign saw the sectorisation of BR, which you could easily argue was actually completing nationalisation as it did away with the bickering remnants of "the interwar Big Four masquerading in BR clothing", and was actually a big improvement to the way BR ran. At the same time it was clearly a move intended to prepare the railways for sale, and I dare say that had she not been forced out by her own party in 1990 then she would have privatised BR. But privatisation itself only began in 1994.

 

[pdf27]

Wait wait, so the UK industry didn't collapse? It just lost its monopoly? I see, thanks, I understand your point.

I've spent my whole career working in UK manufacturing industry. There's some phenomenally good stuff out there, but it's almost all high value-added meaning that there are relatively few but highly paid employees. My income for instance puts me in about the 95th percentile for UK jobs.
The low value jobs that were the backbone of it 100 years ago have all either gone to China or been replaced by machines. When people talk about collapse these are the jobs that have gone, and bluntly this is not a bad thing at all. If you look at what used to happen, and work out what sort of standard of living that gets you and even the level of quality output, it's clear that that isn't what we want today.

 

[MickCz]

But not Thatcher's government.

Much as it pains me to speak even tangentially in favour of Thatcher Thatcher Milk Snatcher, her reign did definitely see the start of selling off various BR assets, but not what ordinary people would call the Railway itself. That was done under Major.

Her reign saw the sectorisation of BR, which you could easily argue was actually completing nationalisation as it did away with the bickering remnants of "the interwar Big Four masquerading in BR clothing", and was actually a big improvement to the way BR ran. At the same time it was clearly a move intended to prepare the railways for sale, and I dare say that had she not been forced out by her own party in 1990 then she would have privatised BR. But privatisation itself only began in 1994.

I think Thatcher was specifically AGAINST privatisation of the railways. In my experience BR was pretty good during the late Thatcher era, and I think cost less in subsidy than now.

 

[MickCz]

They were privatized by the Conservative government.

What Barnett wanted, I think, was something along the lines of West Germany ie large firms with State support (not subsidies) to compete internationally, and a healthy Mittelstand supplying them.
Britain just didn't produce goods to compete that way, and British Embassies didn't consider themselves to be marketing departments.

 

[Seandineen]

So the goal was Mercantilism not autarky