Were There Good Economic Reasons for the Nationalization of so Many Firms Immediately After World War Two?

1471 Words6 Pages
It is often thought that in times of utmost need, nationalization is portrayed as the government acting as ‘owner of last resort’. Immediately after World War Two, it is fair to say that Attlee’s Government become shareholders of many firms, mainly across three industries; transport, utilities and intermediate industries (e.g. coal and steel). Some reasons behind the nationalization within these industries can be seen as economic, but to take into full perspective, one must look at the ideological and political interests involved as well. This tripartite method helps show that while normative economic reasons played a crucial role in the push towards nationalism, they only did so in parallel with ideological and political reasons. This essay will aim to explore the reasoning behind these three fundamental government interests, within the three economic sectors mentioned above. Looking first and foremost at the economic interests of nationalization, we can begin with the advantages that were perceived to accrue from economies of scale. The supply and generation of the power utilities (electricity and gas) were nationalized in 1947 and 1949 with the principle aim of reducing cost of power through exploiting the economies of scale that exist within capital-intensive and network-based businesses. In the 1936 McGowan Report on Electricity, the government recognized that a centralized management capable of signing long term contracts along with access to cheap capital would be strategically placed to take full advantage of economies of scale. However, it is important to point out at this point that, whilst Baldwin’s Conservative government adopted McGowan’s recommendation of nationalization, the government of Chamberlin that followed two months later significantly moved away from such steps, prompting one to draw the conclusion that economic reasons alone were not the
Open Document