Why were so many industries nationalised in Britain in the years immediately following WWII?

(Clement Attlee, Prime Minister 1945-51)

Following the war and the Labour Party’s landslide victory in 1945 over ten powerful industries were nationalised in Britain. Clement Attlee’s Party was seen as the country’s best hope for a revival from the war, ending war austerity and an avoidance of the depression of the interwar years. This meant a change of leadership. In this essay I will argue that so many industries were nationalised in Britain in the years immediately following WWII for three main reasons; the financial legacy of the war in the form of an ominous British balance of payments deficit, the war illuminating industries which full free-market capitalism didn’t work for and which central planning did, and the ideology of the Labour Party which saw government intervention as the only way to save these industries. These three factors, whilst not exhaustive, explain the reasoning behind public ownership in the period between 1945 and 1951.

The inclusion of non‐economic institutions is ‘vital’ in analysing historical economies.

Historians often exclude non-economic institutions from their analysis of historical economies. A non-economic institution is defined here as internal or external organising and correcting factors that provide order to the market and other societal institutions so that they may function efficiently and effectively. In this essay, I argue that the inclusion of non-economic institutions is vital when analysing historical economies. Allocative and social organisations have a considerable affect on the workings of a society that are often missed by Marxian and neo-classical economics. I will use the examples of trust, reciprocity, household, gift-giving and ideology to illustrate the line of thinking that whilst current economic theory may suit many situations this is a simplification of the broader picture. It is thus important to take into account other factors, or it is possible that details and important explanations within an analysis will be missed.

Why has growth failed to touch Africa?

During the 19th Century Africa dramatically fell behind in income and life expectancy and moving on to the 20th Century, Africa fell further. Africa experienced a fleeting boom from 1950 to 1980 in terms of GDP per head, which was short lived when Africa slowly declined into the 1980s. Many factors must be analysed as to why growth has failed to sustain in Africa, the main points that I will be studying include fractionalisation which can be seen as the levels of difference between the many ethnic, cultural, linguistic and religious groups which are abundant throughout Africa. I will also study the foundation of African economics; Agriculture, and how it was affected by the implication of trade and economic policies such as import substitution industrialisation - a policy advocating replacement of foreign imports with domestic production. My final point will analyse how geography has affected growth and I will tie in the inefficient transport systems in place in Africa. Once analysing these factors it is clear that the reason growth has failed to touch Africa cannot be attributed to one factor but must be based on the accumulation of interlinking factors.