Retreating from Globalisation: the British empire ... - History
Retreating from Globalisation: the British empire ... - History
Retreating from Globalisation: the British empire ... - History
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
<strong>Retreating</strong> <strong>from</strong> <strong>Globalisation</strong>: <strong>the</strong> <strong>British</strong> <strong>empire</strong>/commonwealth experience<br />
between <strong>the</strong> wars<br />
Tim Rooth<br />
Department of Economics<br />
University of Portsmouth<br />
July 2010<br />
The 1920s<br />
The great economic and human disaster of <strong>the</strong> slump of <strong>the</strong> 1930s was associated with a sharp<br />
retreat <strong>from</strong> <strong>the</strong> internationalism of <strong>the</strong> pre-war years. The view of Ronald Findlay and Kevin<br />
O’Rourke that ‘[t]his first “golden age of globalization” was of course brought to a tragic and<br />
abrupt end by <strong>the</strong> outbreak of World War I’ is commonly accepted. 1 The complex system of<br />
multilateral payments that had evolved <strong>from</strong> <strong>the</strong> late 19 th century, and charted in studies by <strong>the</strong><br />
League of Nations and later by Berrick Saul, were disrupted by <strong>the</strong> war and proved difficult to<br />
reconstruct after 1918. 2 Unquestionably <strong>the</strong> war caused huge dislocation to production, trade<br />
and international finance. Yet very considerable efforts were subsequently made to rebuild <strong>the</strong><br />
international economy, and recently Robert Boyce has argued convincingly that <strong>the</strong> 1920s<br />
should be seen as a continuation of <strong>the</strong> process of globalisation: <strong>the</strong> United States, Great Britain<br />
and France pushed hard to recreate a globalised world although, fatally, <strong>the</strong>y failed to build <strong>the</strong><br />
conditions to manage <strong>the</strong> global system. 3<br />
Evidence of continued globalisation can be found in <strong>the</strong> re-linking of currencies to each o<strong>the</strong>r<br />
through a gold-exchange standard system which was essentially in place by 1926. By <strong>the</strong> second<br />
half of <strong>the</strong> 1920s financial flows were comparable to those before <strong>the</strong> war and international<br />
trade was outpacing national growth. By 1929 world trade was well above pre-war levels and<br />
merchandise exports represented 9 per cent of GDP as against 7.9 per cent in 1913. 4<br />
Yet by <strong>the</strong> late 1920s some of <strong>the</strong> impetus of expansion was being lost and distinct signs of<br />
weakness were beginning to appear: agricultural prices were weakening as world stocks<br />
accumulated, and long-term international investment began to decline <strong>from</strong> 1927. Significantly,<br />
1 R. Findlay and K. O’Rourke, Power and Plenty: Trade, War, and <strong>the</strong> World Economy in <strong>the</strong> Second Millennium<br />
(Princeton, 2007), xxiv.<br />
2 League of Nations, The Network of World Trade (Geneva, 1942); S.B. Saul, Studies in <strong>British</strong> Overseas Trade, 1870-<br />
1914 (Liverpool, 1960).<br />
3 R. Boyce, The Great Interwar Crisis and <strong>the</strong> Collapse of <strong>Globalisation</strong> (Basingstoke, 2009), 425-7.<br />
4 A. Maddison, The World Economy: A Millennial Perspective (Paris, 2001), Table F-5.
much of <strong>the</strong> momentum of international trade liberalisation also began to fade after 1927<br />
which Boyce attributes in good part to a lack of engagement by Britain. Currency stabilisation<br />
should have encouraged tariff liberalisation. Instead, international conferences met,<br />
unanimously agreed to lower tariffs and governments <strong>the</strong>n did nothing. 5 Meanwhile <strong>the</strong><br />
pressure of falling agricultural prices stimulated tariff increases in Germany in 1928 (by 1927<br />
German food tariffs were already higher than before 1914 and <strong>the</strong>y broadly quadrupled<br />
between 1927 and 1931), and in France in 1928 and 1929. By 1929 <strong>the</strong> threat of steep increases<br />
in <strong>the</strong> already high American tariff began to cast a shadow over <strong>the</strong> global economy and to<br />
fur<strong>the</strong>r discourage attempts to implement tariff truces.<br />
Taking <strong>the</strong> international option<br />
The <strong>British</strong> case<br />
Before <strong>the</strong> war Britain had been heavily and increasingly engaged in <strong>the</strong> international economy.<br />
Policy and institutions had played a central role in sustaining this internationalism, notably<br />
through continued adherence to <strong>the</strong> gold standard and to free trade. The emergence of major<br />
rivals and <strong>the</strong> intensification of international competition had stimulated a challenge to <strong>the</strong><br />
international orthodoxy but this had been repulsed. The war, however, gave a fur<strong>the</strong>r boost to<br />
a ‘modernisation’ movement which aimed to reorganise industry and <strong>the</strong> mechanism of<br />
government, to extend protection and to achieve closer economic integration with <strong>the</strong> <strong>empire</strong>.<br />
One legacy of <strong>the</strong> movement had been <strong>the</strong> introduction of some limited forms of protection,<br />
and in 1923 <strong>the</strong> Conservative party had gone as far as to fight an election on a protectionist<br />
platform. It was defeated, and when, late <strong>the</strong> following year, <strong>the</strong> Conservatives returned to<br />
power <strong>the</strong>y eschewed protection and, in effect, took <strong>the</strong> international option. This was<br />
symbolised by <strong>the</strong> decision in 1925 to return to <strong>the</strong> gold standard and to do so at <strong>the</strong> pre-war<br />
gold parity. This was <strong>the</strong> high point of <strong>the</strong> UK’s commitment to economic internationalism in<br />
<strong>the</strong> interwar period.<br />
If <strong>the</strong> international option had been intended to restore <strong>British</strong> prosperity and global position, it<br />
manifestly failed. By <strong>the</strong> end of <strong>the</strong> 1920s <strong>the</strong> UK had clearly lost <strong>the</strong> international leadership it<br />
had exercised before 1914. Although Britain had faced severe challenges at <strong>the</strong> end of <strong>the</strong><br />
nineteenth century and before World War One, it had remained a global power. <strong>British</strong><br />
international investments dwarfed those of o<strong>the</strong>r lenders and Britain remained <strong>the</strong> major world<br />
trader. Significantly its trade and finance transcended <strong>the</strong> bounds of formal <strong>empire</strong>. By <strong>the</strong><br />
1920s this was no longer <strong>the</strong> case. New York had overtaken London as <strong>the</strong> principal source of<br />
5 C.P. Kindleberger, ‘Commercial Policy between <strong>the</strong> wars’ P. Mathias and S. Pollard (eds.), Cambridge Economic<br />
<strong>History</strong> of Europe vol. VIII (Cambridge, 1989), pp.166-7. Boyce, Crisis, recounts this in detail.
international investment funds and America had overhauled Britain as an exporter of goods. By<br />
1930, in contrast to 1913 when less than half of <strong>British</strong> investment was in <strong>the</strong> <strong>empire</strong> countries,<br />
<strong>the</strong> proportion had risen to 59 per cent. The <strong>empire</strong>’s share of <strong>British</strong> exports had reached 43<br />
per cent by 1927 and was particularly marked for some of <strong>the</strong> newer and more expansive<br />
products in world trade. The imperial share of <strong>British</strong> imports was also higher than before <strong>the</strong><br />
war. But while Britain relied increasingly on <strong>the</strong> crutch of imperial markets, <strong>empire</strong> countries<br />
not only drew a diminishing part of <strong>the</strong>ir supplies <strong>from</strong> <strong>the</strong> UK but increasingly found new<br />
markets for <strong>the</strong>ir exports beyond <strong>British</strong> shores. So by <strong>the</strong> late 1920s Britain was more than<br />
ever reliant on <strong>the</strong> <strong>empire</strong> while <strong>the</strong> rest of <strong>the</strong> <strong>empire</strong> was increasingly looking beyond <strong>the</strong> UK<br />
for sales and supplies.<br />
<strong>British</strong> exports did badly notwithstanding <strong>the</strong> expansiveness of <strong>the</strong> international economy. By<br />
1929 <strong>British</strong> exports were well below <strong>the</strong> values of 1924. The contrast with before <strong>the</strong> war is<br />
even more dismal. Between 1913 and 1929 <strong>the</strong> volume of international trade in manufactures<br />
grew by 37.5 per cent, yet <strong>British</strong> exports did so badly that by 1929 <strong>the</strong>y had failed to regain<br />
<strong>the</strong>ir pre-war volume. This represented a dramatic retreat in world markets: <strong>the</strong> <strong>British</strong> share of<br />
manufactured goods fell <strong>from</strong> 30.2 per cent in 1913 to 20.4 per cent by 1929.<br />
This dreadful export record had profound consequences for o<strong>the</strong>r aspects of <strong>British</strong> economic<br />
performance and policy. Failure to compete internationally helped to keep more than a million<br />
out of work, put pressure on <strong>the</strong> government’s budgetary policy and ensured unprecedentedly<br />
stringent monetary policy: real interest rates were exceptionally high in <strong>the</strong> early 1920s, and<br />
<strong>the</strong>y remained at historically high levels throughout <strong>the</strong> period 1920-31. These rates have been<br />
blamed for suppressing investment, especially in <strong>the</strong> interest-sensitive sectors such as housing,<br />
and may indeed have led to a dip in output in <strong>the</strong> 1928. 6<br />
Lack of competiveness was manifested in <strong>the</strong> weakness of Britain’s overseas accounts, and<br />
<strong>the</strong>se formed an integral part of <strong>the</strong> unstable international financial system of <strong>the</strong> late 1920s.<br />
The visible import deficit had widened both absolutely and relatively since <strong>the</strong> 1900-13 years.<br />
The large overvaluation of 1920-2 encouraged foreign firms to penetrate <strong>the</strong> UK market on a<br />
permanent basis. 7 As early as 1924 <strong>the</strong> volume of imports was already above 1913 levels at a<br />
time when exports were still 25 percent below <strong>the</strong>ir pre-war figure. The merchandise deficit<br />
widened dramatically. To compound difficulties, <strong>the</strong> invisible surplus shrank: while in <strong>the</strong><br />
Edwardian era this had run at twice <strong>the</strong> level of <strong>the</strong> trade deficit, by 1925-9 it was a mere 17 per<br />
cent above <strong>the</strong> merchandise deficit. The current account was <strong>the</strong>refore in modest surplus but<br />
far too small to allow London to restore its pre-war international predominance. Despite <strong>the</strong><br />
6 S. Solomou, Themes in Macroeconomic <strong>History</strong>: The UK Economy, 1919-1939 (Cambridge 1996).45; S.Solomou,<br />
and M. Weale, ‘UK national income: <strong>the</strong> implications of balanced estimates’, Economic <strong>History</strong> Review (1996), 105.<br />
7 Solomou, Themes, 47.
intermittent imposition of controls on foreign (as opposed to <strong>empire</strong>) issues long-term lending<br />
was well above those warranted by <strong>the</strong> current account surplus and <strong>the</strong> difference <strong>the</strong>refore<br />
had to be financed by short-term borrowing. By 1929 London’s short-term international<br />
liabilities were well in excess of its equivalent assets.<br />
The political economy of protectionism<br />
Quite evidently <strong>the</strong> economic system was failing to generate prosperity or to reduce<br />
unemployment. Many businessmen came to regard <strong>the</strong> competitive economic system as<br />
synonymous with waste and inefficiency; by <strong>the</strong> eve of <strong>the</strong> slump deepening disillusion with <strong>the</strong><br />
efficacy of <strong>the</strong> market mechanism was apparent, not least through growing clamour for<br />
protection.<br />
Crumbling support for laisser-faire was increasingly apparent in <strong>the</strong> major industries. Within <strong>the</strong><br />
steel industry <strong>the</strong> realisation after 1926 that its workers were not going to be forced easily into<br />
accepting lower wages accelerated <strong>the</strong> erosion of free trade views. By <strong>the</strong> late 1920s opposition<br />
to protection had all but disappeared among major firms in <strong>the</strong> industry. The engineering<br />
industries had been equivocal in 1925, but, three years later, were prepared to support <strong>the</strong><br />
steel industry in its quest for protection. The woollen and worsted industry campaigned<br />
vigorously for Safeguarding duties, and by 1929 <strong>the</strong>re were clear signs of apostasy in that great<br />
bastion of liberal opinion, <strong>the</strong> Lancashire cotton industry.<br />
It is this steady erosion of support for free trade across a range of major industries by <strong>the</strong> late<br />
1920s that helps to explain <strong>the</strong> speed and completeness of its final collapse when <strong>the</strong><br />
depression hit <strong>from</strong> late in 1929. Within a year of <strong>the</strong> Wall Street crash much of <strong>British</strong><br />
manufacturing industry was firmly behind protection and it had support <strong>from</strong> major figures and<br />
institutions in <strong>the</strong> City of London. Intense import competition and rising unemployment spurred<br />
<strong>the</strong> campaign, but protectionists were also able to point to <strong>the</strong> failure of tariff liberalisation<br />
elsewhere in <strong>the</strong> world. Worse, tariffs were now rising, and, most notoriously of all, <strong>the</strong> Smoot-<br />
Hawley tariff, signed into law by Herbert Hoover in June 1930, raised tariffs on over 20,000 US<br />
imports.<br />
Despite mounting pressure for protection with <strong>the</strong> onset of <strong>the</strong> slump it was to be a fur<strong>the</strong>r two<br />
years before <strong>the</strong> protectionists got <strong>the</strong>ir way. The Labour government of Ramsay MacDonald<br />
was strongly opposed to tariffs, which were associated with food taxes and seen as an<br />
imposition on working class living standards. In particular <strong>the</strong> government had two convinced<br />
free traders with <strong>the</strong> key economic portfolios, Phillip Snowden at <strong>the</strong> Treasury and Willie<br />
Graham at <strong>the</strong> Board of Trade. Moreover, as a minority government, it was dependent on<br />
Liberal votes in <strong>the</strong> House of Commons, and, if united on little else, <strong>the</strong> Liberals were at least<br />
agreed on <strong>the</strong> virtues of avoiding protection. Nor at first was <strong>the</strong> opposition keen to push <strong>the</strong>
issue. Stanley Baldwin had been badly burned in his defeat in <strong>the</strong> election of December 1923.<br />
After returning to power he had been keen to honour his pledges made in <strong>the</strong> election of 1924<br />
that year not to impose fur<strong>the</strong>r tariffs. After 1929, now in opposition, he moved very cautiously.<br />
His party however moved towards a protectionist programme during 1930. There were close<br />
links between business and MPs, notably through organisations such as <strong>the</strong> Empire Industries<br />
Association and also Leopold Amery’s Empire Economic Union. But although rising demands<br />
<strong>from</strong> business were readily transmitted to parliamentarians <strong>the</strong>re was also strong pressure<br />
exerted on <strong>the</strong> leadership to adopt a protectionist policy. By <strong>the</strong> end of <strong>the</strong> year Baldwin had<br />
agreed to emergency tariffs and to various protectionist devices to help agriculture. This had<br />
<strong>the</strong> support of <strong>the</strong> Shadow Cabinet with <strong>the</strong> conspicuous exception of Churchill. 8 Neville<br />
Chamberlain, a major influence on <strong>the</strong> Tory Party, was highly active in advancing protectionism,<br />
moved fur<strong>the</strong>r during 1931, using <strong>the</strong> newly formed Conservative Research Department to<br />
produce much more detailed tariff proposals. By <strong>the</strong> summer <strong>the</strong> party had a fully developed<br />
programme: an emergency tariff to be followed by a more considered ‘scientific’ tariff under<br />
guidance <strong>from</strong> a Tariff Advisory Committee and, significantly, complete with imperial<br />
preferences.<br />
So much for <strong>the</strong> opposition. For <strong>the</strong> Labour government <strong>the</strong> debate about tariffs changed<br />
during 1931. Arguments about output and jobs were increasingly overshadowed as <strong>the</strong><br />
government became preoccupied with <strong>the</strong> dual crises of <strong>the</strong> fiscal and looming balance of<br />
payments deficits. Wrestling with <strong>the</strong>se problems also brought about a shift in expert opinion<br />
with <strong>the</strong> notable conversion of Keynes to <strong>the</strong> idea of a revenue tariff. 9 As <strong>the</strong> crisis unfolded<br />
during <strong>the</strong> summer of 1931 <strong>the</strong>re were shifts in Labour government views on <strong>the</strong> desirability of<br />
tariffs. One problem was <strong>the</strong> looming budgetary deficit. Inevitably <strong>the</strong> slump depressed<br />
government revenues and necessitated extra social expenditure, notably on unemployment<br />
insurance payments (‘<strong>the</strong> dole’). Hence <strong>the</strong> search for new sources of revenue as a more<br />
palatable alternative to large spending cuts.<br />
By July <strong>the</strong> budgetary problem had become intermeshed with an exploding European financial<br />
crisis. This had originated in Austria, spread rapidly to Hungary and <strong>the</strong>n to Germany where, in<br />
July, <strong>the</strong> monetary authorities froze credits. Attention <strong>the</strong>n switched to London where <strong>the</strong><br />
balance of payments was in trouble. Shipping income had been badly hit by <strong>the</strong> slump in world<br />
trade and income <strong>from</strong> overseas investments fell even more dramatically. The surplus on<br />
invisibles dropped <strong>from</strong> £319 million in 1930 to £219 million in 1931, and at that level was<br />
8 Churchill resigned <strong>from</strong> <strong>the</strong> Shadow Cabinet in January 1931 over Baldwin’s support for <strong>the</strong> government’s policy<br />
on India. R. Toye, Churchill’s Empire: The World That Made Him and <strong>the</strong> World He Made (Basingstoke, 2010), p.<br />
176. As a convinced free trader and surprise appointment as Chancellor of <strong>the</strong> Exchequer, he had been in a key<br />
position to ward off moves for great protection between 1924 and 1929.<br />
9 New Statesman and Nation, 7 March 1931. The well respected businessman and economist Sir Josiah Stamp also<br />
advocated protection.
insufficient to cover <strong>the</strong> widening deficit on merchandise trade. To compound matters, because<br />
in <strong>the</strong> late 1920s London had been lending long and borrowing short to finance capital<br />
outflows, reserves were slim and short-term liabilities rising.<br />
Failure to deal with <strong>the</strong>se problems led to <strong>the</strong> government’s downfall in August. The Chancellor,<br />
Snowden, was resolutely opposed to raising extra revenue by use of tariffs and <strong>the</strong> Cabinet was<br />
unable to agree sufficient cuts in spending that by <strong>the</strong>n had become <strong>the</strong> test of resolve that<br />
would have unlocked international financial assistance. A coalition government was formed, a<br />
National government headed by Ramsay MacDonald, and comprising some Labour and Liberal<br />
MPs but dominated by Conservatives. Although credits were quickly raised in New York and<br />
Paris <strong>the</strong>se were unable to save <strong>the</strong> pound and within a month Britain had been forced off <strong>the</strong><br />
gold standard.<br />
Thus fell one of <strong>the</strong> great symbols of Britain’s 19 th century economic ascendancy. The o<strong>the</strong>r<br />
symbol, free trade, or at least its remnants, quickly followed. Following an election in late<br />
October 1931 a National Government came to power. Although it included National Labour and<br />
National Liberal members and was headed by MacDonald, it was dominated by Conservatives.<br />
Tariffs were introduced with indecent haste, <strong>the</strong> first move to protection coming within days of<br />
<strong>the</strong> election. In November <strong>the</strong> Abnormal Importations Act was passed, ostensibly as a<br />
temporary measure, and imposing duties of up to 100 per cent. More considered legislation,<br />
<strong>the</strong> Import Duties Act, followed in March 1932. Although <strong>the</strong> new duties on most manufactured<br />
goods were initially set at only 10 per cent, <strong>the</strong>se were almost immediately doubled on <strong>the</strong><br />
recommendation of <strong>the</strong> Import Duties Advisory Committee, and fur<strong>the</strong>r duty increases<br />
followed. Imperial produce was provisionally exempted after intervention by RB Bennett, <strong>the</strong><br />
Canadian premier.<br />
The motivation behind protection has been debated. For some it was a response to Britain<br />
leaving <strong>the</strong> gold standard, necessitated because if <strong>the</strong> unpegged pound had suffered a sharp<br />
depreciation it might have led to uncontrolled inflation. 10 Arguments in <strong>the</strong> Treasury provide<br />
some support for this view but, as George Peden has observed, it is difficult to know when<br />
Treasury officials wrote <strong>from</strong> conviction and when to order. 11 What is not in doubt is that <strong>the</strong><br />
new chancellor, Neville Chamberlain, was a convinced protectionist, a powerful minister and<br />
energetically pursued tariffs <strong>from</strong> <strong>the</strong> moment he entered <strong>the</strong> Treasury. There was widespread<br />
pressure to introduce protection and imperial preference, and most of <strong>the</strong> Tories who<br />
dominated <strong>the</strong> backbenches of <strong>the</strong> new parliament were enthusiastic protectionists. I have<br />
argued elsewhere that <strong>the</strong> motivation was largely protectionist and that <strong>the</strong> legislation was<br />
10 B. Eichengreen, Sterling and <strong>the</strong> Tariff, 1929-32 (Princeton Studies in International Finance, No. 48, 1981), pp.7-<br />
14. The spectre of <strong>the</strong> Weimar Republic was ever present in this debate.<br />
11 G. Peden, Treasury, p. 261.
dressed up as a technical necessity to make it more palatable to free trade Liberal and Labour<br />
members of <strong>the</strong> coalition government. 12<br />
Treaty making and imperial preference<br />
One effect of <strong>the</strong> slump was to intensify <strong>the</strong> importance of <strong>the</strong> <strong>British</strong> market for primary<br />
products. During <strong>the</strong> 1920s <strong>the</strong> dominions had come to rely less on <strong>the</strong> <strong>British</strong> market. The<br />
depression changed all that: Britain’s share of world imports rose <strong>from</strong> 14.9per cent in 1929 to<br />
17.0 per cent by 1931, a consequence of <strong>the</strong> relatively less severe impact of <strong>the</strong> world<br />
depression on <strong>the</strong> <strong>British</strong> market, and <strong>the</strong> maintenance of fairly open markets until late 1931.<br />
Increasing restrictions on livestock imports by France and Germany <strong>from</strong> 1927 served to<br />
intensify Britain’s dominance of <strong>the</strong> world livestock product imports: for example, <strong>the</strong><br />
proportion of world exports of butter taken by <strong>the</strong> UK rose <strong>from</strong> just over 60 per cent in 1928-<br />
30 to 75 per cent in 1930 and to over 80 percent in 1932. 13 By 1932 <strong>the</strong> UK accounted for fourfifths<br />
or more of world imports of pig-meat and beef and about 95 per cent of mutton and<br />
lamb. Britain also absorbed a growing proportion of world imports of wheat and wool as <strong>the</strong><br />
depression deepened.<br />
The obvious corollary to this was that many primary producers came to depend much more<br />
heavily on sales to Britain. Rivalry for <strong>the</strong> <strong>British</strong> market, including some strong contenders <strong>from</strong><br />
outside <strong>the</strong> <strong>empire</strong>, intensified as <strong>the</strong> slump deepened. Now tariffs, and <strong>the</strong> prospect of<br />
privileged entry to <strong>the</strong> <strong>British</strong> market, gave <strong>the</strong> dominions plenty to bargain over.<br />
It is <strong>the</strong>refore surprising that not all dominions were especially enthusiastic or carried high<br />
expectations. The South Africans, principally interested in gold, received preferences on<br />
products covering only a small area of <strong>the</strong> country and not <strong>the</strong> ones where <strong>the</strong> government was<br />
politically strong. The New Zealanders appeared complacent and <strong>the</strong> government spent little<br />
effort in preparations, leaving <strong>the</strong>se mostly to <strong>the</strong> primary producers <strong>the</strong>mselves. 14<br />
There was much greater interest in Australia and Canada. Canadian exports to <strong>the</strong> US had<br />
boomed during <strong>the</strong> 1920s, and so <strong>the</strong> passage of <strong>the</strong> Smoot-Hawley act in 1929-30 had been<br />
watched anxiously. This helped push <strong>the</strong> economic relationship to <strong>the</strong> centre of <strong>the</strong> national<br />
debate as RB Bennett began developing an election platform for his party. Bennett argued that<br />
<strong>the</strong> King government, committed to low tariffs and to close economic relations with <strong>the</strong> US,<br />
12 Rooth, <strong>British</strong> Protectionism, ch. 2. See S.H. Beer, Modern <strong>British</strong> Politics, (London, 1980), p. 288.<br />
13 Imperial Economic Committee, Dairy Produce Supplies 1933 (London, 1934), pp.66, 69,73,75,76.<br />
14 To <strong>the</strong> annoyance of <strong>the</strong> Australians. ‘The New Zealand Government was abominably prepared and had indeed<br />
left <strong>the</strong> preparation of <strong>the</strong> case for preferences on <strong>the</strong> things in which New Zealand was interested wholly in <strong>the</strong><br />
hands of <strong>the</strong> primary producers representatives. Murphy will have told you what serious embarrassment this<br />
caused – an embarrassment which in fact lasted until <strong>the</strong> very end of <strong>the</strong> Conference and rendered <strong>the</strong><br />
relationship between <strong>the</strong> Australian and New Zealand Delegations far <strong>from</strong> easy’. MacDougall to Hawker, 14<br />
September 1932, Hawker Papers, MS 4848, series 5, NLA.
would accentuate Canadian dependence on its sou<strong>the</strong>rn neighbour, strip <strong>the</strong> economy of raw<br />
materials and ultimately destroy local industries. Canada would <strong>the</strong>n be in danger of losing<br />
political independence. With King opting for an election in 1930, <strong>the</strong> American tariff was a<br />
godsend to Bennett. Although <strong>the</strong> Liberals raised duties in <strong>the</strong> budget of 1930, especially<br />
against US imports, Bennett promised to go much fur<strong>the</strong>r. In a vigorous campaign he pledged a<br />
future in which Canadians would no longer be ‘hewers of wood and drawers of water’. This of<br />
course was no answer to <strong>the</strong> great bulk of primary producers who were in <strong>the</strong> process of being<br />
ruined by <strong>the</strong> depression, and since it was also likely to have concentrated <strong>the</strong> benefits in<br />
central Canada, it was also potentially divisive. So <strong>the</strong> second line of action, apparently<br />
contradictory, was to seek wider markets through international action. In Bennett’s phrase,<br />
tariffs were to be made to ‘fight for you. I will use <strong>the</strong>m to blast a way into markets that have<br />
been closed’. 15 These were empty promises at <strong>the</strong> time <strong>the</strong>y were made, but <strong>the</strong> <strong>British</strong> move<br />
to protection dramatically changed <strong>the</strong> position and offered real prospects. Bennett himself<br />
had pressured <strong>the</strong> UK government to ensure that when <strong>the</strong> Import Duties Act was passed it<br />
excluded <strong>empire</strong> imports, although it did so only provisionally pending <strong>the</strong> Ottawa conference.<br />
Given <strong>the</strong> new potential it is surprising that <strong>the</strong> Canadians did not prepare for <strong>the</strong> conference<br />
more thoroughly. Canadian officials complained that with twelve days left before <strong>the</strong><br />
conference several matters still needed ministerial authority, including <strong>the</strong> appointment of <strong>the</strong><br />
Canadian delegation and a decision on which parts of <strong>the</strong> Commonwealth Canada was going to<br />
negotiate! 16 The UK High Commissioner attributed this lack of preparation to Bennett’s distrust<br />
of his own ministers and reluctance to delegate. 17 The Australians also were keen to extract<br />
what <strong>the</strong>y could <strong>from</strong> <strong>the</strong> Conference and prepared well, including <strong>the</strong> holding of preliminary<br />
discussions with Britain. They sent a strong delegation, headed by Stanley Bruce, ex-premier<br />
and by 1932 Resident Minister in London, Commerce Minister Charles Hawker and by Trade<br />
Minister Henry Gullett.<br />
The conference was protracted, lasting <strong>from</strong> 21 July to 20 August 1932. The <strong>British</strong> were<br />
exceptionally well represented, <strong>the</strong> delegation consisting of seven Cabinet ministers toge<strong>the</strong>r<br />
with scores of advisers, officials and secretarial staff. Yet, as Sir Keith Hancock pointed out long<br />
ago, while <strong>the</strong> imperial enthusiasts ‘had envisaged a ga<strong>the</strong>ring of flourishing nations<br />
triumphantly intent upon a task of imperial integration … instead it was a ga<strong>the</strong>ring of anxious<br />
and suffering nations, desperately intent upon a task of economic salvage’. 18 It was as well that<br />
15 Quoted by J.H. Thompson, Canada 1922-1939: Decades of Discord (Toronto, 1985), 202.<br />
16 Drummond, Imperial Economic Policy, 216-18.<br />
17 NA, FO371/16406, Clark to Harding, 17 March 1932. The major problem was in obtaining ministerial decisions. A<br />
study by Canadian officials of <strong>the</strong> administrative lessons to be learned <strong>from</strong> <strong>the</strong> conference concluded that<br />
effectiveness would have been far greater if members of <strong>the</strong> Cabinet Committee had made a detailed study of <strong>the</strong><br />
data prepared for <strong>the</strong>m. NAC, RG25, vol. 159-U.<br />
18 WK Hancock, Survey of <strong>British</strong> Commonwealth Affairs, vol. 2, Problems of Economic Policy 1918-1939 (London,<br />
1942), 215.
<strong>the</strong> Ottawa summer was cooler than usual, but tempers frayed anyway. Proceedings were<br />
dominated by Chamberlain and Lord Hailsham for <strong>the</strong> <strong>British</strong> delegation (nominally headed by<br />
Stanley Baldwin), by Bennett for Canada and Bruce for Australia. Eventually, after several near<br />
breakdowns, <strong>the</strong> conference resulted in a series of bilateral treaties, most importantly by<br />
agreements between each Dominion and Britain for free entry to <strong>the</strong> <strong>British</strong> market for specific<br />
foodstuffs and raw materials in exchange for larger margins of preference in Dominion markets<br />
for <strong>British</strong> manufactures.<br />
The <strong>British</strong> returned <strong>from</strong> Ottawa with a good deal less than <strong>the</strong> optimists might have expected.<br />
Part of <strong>the</strong> tensions had arisen <strong>from</strong> reluctance on <strong>the</strong> part of <strong>the</strong> <strong>British</strong> delegation to grant<br />
more in <strong>the</strong> way of concessions. They had arrived in Ottawa without a settled policy. The<br />
fundamental cause of indecision was <strong>the</strong> rifts in <strong>the</strong> delegation and in <strong>the</strong> Cabinet. It was, after<br />
all, a coalition government. The more ardent imperialists such as Chamberlain would happily<br />
have conceded more, and certainly would not have contemplated failure of <strong>the</strong> conference<br />
because of unwillingness to meet <strong>the</strong> more reasonable dominion requests. But ranged against<br />
<strong>the</strong>m were President of <strong>the</strong> Board of Trade Walter Runciman and J. H. Thomas, Secretary of<br />
State for <strong>the</strong> Dominions, representing a rump of free traders. They also wished to keep<br />
something in reserve for later negotiations with non-imperial suppliers (a particular concern of<br />
Runciman), so this inhibited <strong>the</strong>m in meeting dominion requests more fulsomely. Thus a<br />
lingering attachment to liberal principles was still in evidence in <strong>the</strong> <strong>British</strong> delegation of 1932<br />
and was certainly evident among officials. But by <strong>the</strong> time <strong>the</strong> delegation had arrived in Canada<br />
<strong>the</strong>re was an acute awareness that Britain was not going to get very much in <strong>the</strong> way of major<br />
concessions for its trade. 19 Dominion governments were in no position to roll back protection:<br />
in <strong>the</strong> midst of <strong>the</strong> slump manufacturing jobs were too precious, and <strong>the</strong> configuration of<br />
interest groups in sophisticated economic and political structures such as those in Australia and<br />
Canada, would not have permitted such a sacrifice of secondary industry for some uncertain<br />
benefits for primary industries. Ottawa was alive with industrial pressure groups during <strong>the</strong><br />
conference and <strong>the</strong> Canadian Manufacturers’ Association held its 1932 annual meeting in <strong>the</strong><br />
capital. 20 Moreover, precarious trade balances would have been fur<strong>the</strong>r jeopardised. <strong>British</strong><br />
exporters were struggling because of <strong>the</strong> collapse in purchasing power in primary producing<br />
countries as well <strong>from</strong> higher tariffs and import substitution. The most <strong>the</strong>y were likely to get<br />
was perhaps was some very modest scaling back of protection and a helping hand in trade<br />
diversion through wider margins of preference. But above and beyond this Britain was<br />
inhibited by <strong>the</strong> need to conclude agreements. Failure of <strong>the</strong> conference would have badly<br />
19 Neville Chamberlain’s diary entry for 23 July after discussions with officials recorded that ‘<strong>the</strong> result was very<br />
startling as it appeared that <strong>the</strong> value of increased trade to be expected <strong>from</strong> <strong>the</strong> concessions would amount to<br />
something very small’. NC 2/17.<br />
20 NAC, RG20, vol. 1423, F7-1.
damaged Britain’s international standing at a time of growing international tension, and this<br />
may have inhibited a more forceful deployment of bargaining power at Ottawa.<br />
<strong>British</strong> imports and <strong>the</strong> trade agreements<br />
Did <strong>the</strong> dominions gain much <strong>from</strong> Ottawa? Australian participants at <strong>the</strong> conference were<br />
pleased with <strong>the</strong> results. They felt that <strong>the</strong>y had obtained an advantage <strong>from</strong> being <strong>the</strong> best<br />
prepared of <strong>the</strong> Dominion delegations, and F.L MacDougall (Economic Adviser to <strong>the</strong> Australian<br />
High Commission in London) wrote to Charles Hawker that ‘as <strong>the</strong> weeks go by <strong>the</strong> agreements<br />
appear more and more satisfactory’; historians have given this view some support. 21<br />
The potential advantages <strong>from</strong> <strong>the</strong> agreements lay in two directions, first through tariff and<br />
o<strong>the</strong>r advantages gained at <strong>the</strong> expense of non-imperial competitors, and, secondly, against<br />
incipient <strong>British</strong> agricultural protectionism. The first was real enough, and sometimes gave<br />
unanticipated gains such as for Canadian west coast lumber producers against <strong>the</strong>ir American<br />
counterparts. But this was inhibited by London’s desire to make a series of trade treaties with<br />
o<strong>the</strong>r countries, notably with Argentina and <strong>the</strong> Nordic states. The first series of agreements<br />
were negotiated in <strong>the</strong> year or so following <strong>the</strong> Ottawa meetings, and, for <strong>the</strong> most part proved<br />
more beneficial for <strong>British</strong> exports than <strong>the</strong> imperial treaties. But <strong>the</strong>y also caused intense illfeeling<br />
not only in <strong>the</strong> dominions, notably Australia and New Zealand, but also among<br />
imperialists at home. The Daily Express castigated <strong>the</strong> treaties as <strong>the</strong> ‘Black Pacts’. The benefits<br />
accruing to Britain <strong>from</strong> <strong>the</strong>se pacts were ‘utterly inadequate or completely illusory’, while<br />
those conferred on Argentina and Denmark were ‘colossal and explicit’. 22 Leo Amery<br />
complained that <strong>the</strong> new accords were in derogation of <strong>the</strong> Ottawa spirit. While <strong>the</strong> letter of<br />
<strong>the</strong> treaties remained undisturbed, ‘<strong>the</strong> whole spirit of <strong>the</strong> Ottawa Agreements is …<br />
contradicted by <strong>the</strong> conclusion, and even by <strong>the</strong> language of <strong>the</strong>se agreements’. 23 Generally<br />
<strong>the</strong>se treaties fixed tariff levels on <strong>British</strong> imports for a three year term although <strong>the</strong>y<br />
sometimes incorporated quotas determining <strong>the</strong> quantity, for instance, of beef or bacon that<br />
<strong>the</strong> UK would take.<br />
The second major gain for <strong>the</strong> Dominions was <strong>the</strong> guarantees against <strong>British</strong> agricultural<br />
protection, and, paradoxically, <strong>the</strong>se guarantees were often streng<strong>the</strong>ned by <strong>the</strong> ‘Black Pacts’.<br />
The web of obligations set at Ottawa and in <strong>the</strong> later treaties seriously hampered <strong>the</strong> freedom<br />
of <strong>British</strong> policymakers when <strong>the</strong>y came to consider <strong>the</strong> worsening plight of <strong>British</strong> agriculture.<br />
At Ottawa <strong>the</strong> needs of <strong>the</strong> UK farmer had barely featured. If anything, <strong>the</strong> presence of free<br />
21 MacDougall to Hawker, 4 Sept. 1932, Hawker Papers, NLA, MS 4848, Series 5. J.B O’Brien, ‘Empire v. National<br />
Interests in Australia-<strong>British</strong> Relations during <strong>the</strong> 1930s’, Historical Studies, vol. 22 no 89, 1987, p.575, and K.<br />
Tsokhas, ‘Australia and <strong>the</strong> Ottawa Conference’, Australian Outlook, vol. 43, no. 3, 1989, pp.74-88.<br />
22 Daily Express, 11 May 1933.<br />
23 Hansard (Commons), vol. 277, no. 83, 10 May 1933, col. 1586.
traders in <strong>the</strong> delegation inhibited <strong>the</strong> <strong>British</strong> team <strong>from</strong> offering bigger preferences because<br />
<strong>the</strong>y did not wish to raise domestic food prices. Nor had <strong>the</strong> needs of <strong>British</strong> farmers featured<br />
much in <strong>the</strong> treaty making of 1933, although <strong>the</strong> Minister of Agriculture had had a measure of<br />
success in restraining <strong>the</strong> largesse of <strong>the</strong> Board of Trade. But over <strong>the</strong> course of 1933-4<br />
pressures to protect farmers <strong>from</strong> <strong>the</strong> worst of <strong>the</strong> price falls accumulated.<br />
Sufficient discriminatory restrictions and taxes were introduced between 1932-3 to alter<br />
substantially <strong>the</strong> structure and source of imports into Britain. Protection worked to <strong>the</strong> extent<br />
that in 1932 <strong>the</strong>re was a distinct break in <strong>the</strong> link between <strong>the</strong> volume of manufactured imports<br />
and of <strong>British</strong> industrial production, <strong>the</strong> result also of devaluation. Measured by volume, food<br />
imports in <strong>the</strong> late 1930s were above <strong>the</strong> level of 1929, and imports of manufactures about a<br />
quarter below. The differential movement in prices disguises much of this volume change. In<br />
broad terms primary producers might have expected to make some small relative gains because<br />
of <strong>the</strong> changing structure of imports, although most of <strong>the</strong>se would have accrued to oil<br />
suppliers.<br />
In fact <strong>the</strong> <strong>empire</strong> made major advances in <strong>the</strong> <strong>British</strong> market during <strong>the</strong> 1930s and appears to<br />
have done so entirely through increasing its share in <strong>the</strong> imports of individual commodities<br />
ra<strong>the</strong>r than through any shifts in <strong>the</strong> commodity composition of trade. In 1929 <strong>the</strong> UK’s<br />
retained imports <strong>from</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>empire</strong> amounted to £299 million, 26.9 per cent of <strong>the</strong> total. By 1937<br />
<strong>the</strong> corresponding figures are £365 million and 38.3 per cent. The potential benefits to <strong>the</strong><br />
various signatories <strong>from</strong> Ottawa varied considerably. India and South Africa got few preferences<br />
of real value to <strong>the</strong>m, while Canada (wheat, timber and bacon), Australia (wheat meat and<br />
butter) and New Zealand (meat and butter) stood to gain much more. Australia, Canada and<br />
New Zealand were particularly prominent, raising <strong>the</strong>ir collective share <strong>from</strong> 11.7 per cent to<br />
20.2 per cent of imports. The Australian and Canadian gains were huge. Between 1928 and<br />
1930 UK retained imports <strong>from</strong> Australia had averaged £42 million, four per cent of <strong>the</strong> <strong>British</strong><br />
total. Between 1936 and 1938 supplies <strong>from</strong> Australia, in <strong>the</strong> face of lower price levels,<br />
none<strong>the</strong>less averaged £62.5 million, and accounted for 7.2 per cent of total imports. These<br />
figures seriously understate <strong>the</strong> quantity of Australian produce sold to Britain: by 1938 <strong>the</strong>se<br />
sales were more than twice <strong>the</strong> 1929 volume. Measured by current prices <strong>the</strong> picture was one<br />
of widespread if unspectacular gains, but measured by volume <strong>the</strong> growth of sales was massive.
Table 1<br />
Total retained imports into UK and share of <strong>empire</strong> and selected dominions, 1929, 1932 and<br />
1937 (£000s and percentages)<br />
1929 % 1932 % 1937 %<br />
Empire 298,992 26.9 220,958 34.0 364,648 38.3<br />
South Africa 14,440 1.3 10,124 1.6 13,829 1.5<br />
Australia 45,253 4.1 40,920 6.3 65,044 6.8<br />
New Zealand 40,673 3.7 33,221 5.1 43,541 4.6<br />
Canada 43,684 3.9 40,431 6.2 83,568 8.8<br />
Total 1,111,193 650,648 952,691<br />
Source: UK Annual Statement of Trade (various years)<br />
Canadian sales to <strong>the</strong> UK expanded even more impressively. The Canadian achievement is <strong>the</strong><br />
more remarkable because of sectoral weaknesses: three of <strong>the</strong> most important exports in <strong>the</strong><br />
late 1920s recorded lower sales figures in <strong>the</strong> post-agreement period. Wheat was <strong>the</strong> most<br />
catastrophic failure, imperial preferences notwithstanding. In <strong>the</strong> late 1920s Canadian wheat<br />
sales to Britain had averaged $107 million, by far <strong>the</strong> largest single item, but in <strong>the</strong> late 1930s<br />
<strong>the</strong>y were worth only $57 million: marketing policies kept Canadian wheat off world markets in<br />
<strong>the</strong> early 1930s and, later in <strong>the</strong> decade, drought and disease devastated harvests. Preferences<br />
were of little help to Canadian dairy producers. They may have helped against Denmark but<br />
were of no assistance against <strong>the</strong> formidable competition of New Zealand. 24 Wheat had<br />
dominated Canadian sales to <strong>the</strong> UK during <strong>the</strong> 1920s. Yet despite its weak performance in <strong>the</strong><br />
1930s, <strong>the</strong> expansion of o<strong>the</strong>r sectors was so powerful that by <strong>the</strong> end of <strong>the</strong> 1930s Canadian<br />
exports to Britain were well above pre-depression levels even when measured in current prices.<br />
Gains were made on a wide front, most spectacularly for non-ferrous metals which, ironically,<br />
were virtually unaffected by <strong>the</strong> trade pact. 25 Despite <strong>the</strong> decline of wheat sales, Britain<br />
24 W.M. Drummond, ‘Problems of <strong>the</strong> Canadian Dairy Industry’ in H.A. Innis (ed.), The Dairy Industry in Canada<br />
(Toronto, 1937), especially pp. 144, 150-54, comparing production and transport conditions in Canada with<br />
Denmark and New Zealand. Canada also had to deal with an exchange rate handicap.<br />
25 A duty on copper was never implemented and one on nickel was removed in July 1933, yet Canadian nonferrous<br />
metal exports to <strong>the</strong> UK increased <strong>from</strong> $15.5 million 1928-30 to $71.3 million in 1937. E. Marcus attributes<br />
much of this to <strong>the</strong> competitive strength of <strong>the</strong> industry, E. Marcus, Canada and <strong>the</strong> International Business Cycle<br />
1927-1939 (New York, 1954), pp.133-140. But when in May 1932 <strong>the</strong> Americans imposed a ‘revenue’ duty on<br />
copper equivalent to 72% ad valorem, fabricators in <strong>the</strong> UK agreed to use Empire copper supplies, and <strong>the</strong> USA<br />
was largely displaced as a supplier.
overtook <strong>the</strong> USA as Canada’s major export market. Retained imports <strong>from</strong> Canada rose <strong>from</strong><br />
£44.6 million in 1928-30 to £76 million in 1936-8, a rise of 70 per cent at a time of falling prices<br />
and in <strong>the</strong> face of an overall decline of imports into <strong>the</strong> UK. Canada more than doubled its share<br />
of <strong>the</strong> UK market <strong>from</strong> four to nine per cent of total imports. In league table terms Canada<br />
moved up <strong>from</strong> ninth place in <strong>the</strong> <strong>British</strong> market in <strong>the</strong> late 1920s to second place by <strong>the</strong> eve of<br />
World War 2.<br />
Table 2<br />
Imports into UK <strong>from</strong> selected foreign trade agreement countries, 1929, 1932 and 1937<br />
(£000s and percentages)<br />
1929 % 1932 % 1937 %<br />
Finland 14,945 1.2 11,733 1.7 22,437 2.2<br />
Sweden 25,709 2.1 13,424 1.9 26,191 2.6<br />
Norway 14,149 1.2 8,283 1.2 11,574 1.1<br />
Denmark 56,178 4.6 40,570 5.8 36,570 3.6<br />
Argentina 82,447 6.8 50,885 7.3 59,836 5.8<br />
Source: UK Annual Statement of Trade (various years)<br />
The major losers in <strong>the</strong> <strong>British</strong> market were <strong>the</strong> industrial countries. Trade agreement countries,<br />
supplying predominantly foodstuffs and raw materials, had widely varying experiences. It is<br />
<strong>the</strong>refore also obvious that countries’ prospects were influenced in large degree by <strong>the</strong><br />
composition of <strong>the</strong>ir exports. North Europeans, much more interested in timber and ores than<br />
bacon, and <strong>the</strong>refore relatively immune <strong>from</strong> protection or preference, had at least a potential<br />
chance of benefitting <strong>from</strong> <strong>the</strong> buoyancy of <strong>the</strong> <strong>British</strong> market in <strong>the</strong> 1930s. Major suppliers of<br />
bacon and butter – and Denmark was <strong>the</strong> prime instance, of course – were extremely<br />
vulnerable to <strong>British</strong> protection and imperial preferences. Beyond Europe, Argentina, heavily<br />
dependent on meat and wheat and with some interest in butter as well, was ano<strong>the</strong>r country<br />
whose export structure exposed it to <strong>the</strong> full force of <strong>British</strong> protection. For wheat growers<br />
<strong>the</strong>re was <strong>the</strong> prospect of compensation in supplying o<strong>the</strong>r markets – but for meat, including<br />
bacon, and to some extent butter also, <strong>the</strong> <strong>British</strong> market was completely dominant and<br />
prospects elsewhere slim. These factors are reflected in individual countries’ performances in<br />
<strong>the</strong> <strong>British</strong> market in <strong>the</strong> 1930s.
<strong>British</strong> exports to <strong>the</strong> trade agreement countries<br />
<strong>British</strong> exports to <strong>the</strong> north European trade agreement countries did much better than to <strong>the</strong><br />
dominions. They benefited <strong>from</strong> <strong>the</strong> relatively robust recoveries of <strong>the</strong> Nordic states and<br />
through trade diversion, much of which stemmed <strong>from</strong> <strong>the</strong> trade agreements. Estimates of GNP<br />
suggest that Denmark’s 18 per cent expansion was <strong>the</strong> most sluggish, while Sweden’s GNP rose<br />
26 per cent, Norway’s 31 per cent and that of Finland by 65 per cent. Except for Denmark all<br />
countries experienced some growth of imports (when measured in <strong>the</strong>ir own currencies). The<br />
<strong>British</strong> share of that import trade also increased. The trade agreements played a part toge<strong>the</strong>r<br />
with <strong>the</strong> depreciation of <strong>the</strong> pound and possibly <strong>the</strong> linking of Scandinavian currencies to <strong>the</strong><br />
pound as <strong>the</strong> sterling area developed. Britain’s bargaining hand was far stronger with Denmark<br />
and Finland than with Sweden and Norway and this is reflected in <strong>the</strong> degree of import<br />
diversion achieved.<br />
Table 3<br />
UK exports to North European trade agreement countries (averages, £000s, current)<br />
1928-1930 1936-8<br />
Denmark 10,226 15,875<br />
Finland 3,126 5,213<br />
Norway 10,239 7,883<br />
Sweden 10,109 11,709<br />
3 Baltic States 2,165 4,406<br />
Total 35,865 45,086<br />
Source: UK Annual Statement of Trade (various years)<br />
Table 4<br />
UK exports to selected dominions (averages, £000s, current)<br />
1928-1930 1936-8<br />
South Africa 30,167 39,479<br />
Australia 47,189 35,980<br />
New Zealand 19,516 18,913<br />
Canada 32,871 24,441<br />
Total 129,643 118,813<br />
Source: UK Annual Statement of Trade (various years)
<strong>British</strong> exports to <strong>the</strong> dominions mattered far more than those to Nor<strong>the</strong>rn Europe. In 1929<br />
Australia alone bought more <strong>British</strong> goods than all <strong>the</strong> trade agreement countries of Europe put<br />
toge<strong>the</strong>r. The Ottawa pacts should have been even more favourable to Britain than <strong>the</strong> foreign<br />
agreements. The dominions had been given privileged access to <strong>the</strong> <strong>British</strong> market in 1931 and<br />
1932, and <strong>the</strong>y could and did give explicit preferences ra<strong>the</strong>r than <strong>the</strong> more devious variety<br />
extracted by Britain <strong>from</strong> Nor<strong>the</strong>rn Europe. Moreover, <strong>the</strong> sou<strong>the</strong>rn dominions experienced<br />
economic expansion during <strong>the</strong> 1930s, South Africa in particular enjoying rapid recovery after<br />
<strong>the</strong> price of gold benefited <strong>from</strong> American devaluation in 1933. But Australia and New Zealand<br />
also experienced solid expansion during <strong>the</strong> 1930s. Canada was <strong>the</strong> exception, and its<br />
experience was truly disastrous (discusses below).As Table 4 above makes clear, none of this is<br />
reflected in <strong>the</strong> performance of <strong>British</strong> exports. The Ottawa agreements failed to deliver for UK<br />
exporters. Ironically <strong>the</strong> only growth that occurred was to South Africa, <strong>the</strong> country Britain<br />
conceded least to and received least <strong>from</strong> at Ottawa, and that reflects <strong>the</strong> strength of <strong>the</strong> South<br />
African economy after 1933. The o<strong>the</strong>rs were a great disappointment. Was this simply bad faith<br />
or were <strong>the</strong>re o<strong>the</strong>r explanations? There was some trade diversion in Britain’s favour, <strong>the</strong> UK<br />
share of imports rising quite sharply in <strong>the</strong> early 1930s, particularly to Canada, before tending<br />
to fall away again later in <strong>the</strong> decade. 26 But what is very striking is <strong>the</strong> degree of import<br />
replacement that took place during <strong>the</strong> 1930s. Tariffs and o<strong>the</strong>r forms of protection rose<br />
sharply as <strong>the</strong> slump deepened. In Australia for example, protection played a major part in<br />
streng<strong>the</strong>ning <strong>the</strong> competitive position of manufacturing vis-à-vis imports. Devaluation, an 80<br />
percent jump in <strong>the</strong> tariff and <strong>the</strong> difficulty importers experienced in obtaining sterling<br />
exchange, created this position. By 1937 <strong>the</strong> import content of supplies of manufactured goods<br />
had fallen sharply <strong>from</strong> <strong>the</strong> 1929 levels, particularly in Australia and Canada. 27<br />
A major driving force behind <strong>the</strong>se developments was <strong>the</strong> huge balance of payments problems<br />
faced by dominions during <strong>the</strong> slump. These were countries that habitually borrowed heavily<br />
<strong>from</strong> abroad and in <strong>the</strong> slump Canada and Australia especially struggled to maintain external<br />
solvency. The Australian current account had already been weak before <strong>the</strong> slump, <strong>the</strong> deficit<br />
averaging £52 million per year between 1925/6 and 1929/30, about 7 per cent of GDP. 28 By <strong>the</strong><br />
late 1920s international money markets were exhibiting growing unease about Australian<br />
indebtedness: continued heavy borrowing by Commonwealth (Federal) and State governments<br />
had raised doubts in <strong>the</strong> City of London, <strong>the</strong> main source of funds, about <strong>the</strong> wisdom of<br />
continued lending. 29 As international money markets deteriorated in 1929 Australia<br />
experienced funding difficulties and a sharp rise in short-term debt. This in itself would have<br />
26 This is discussed quite fully in Rooth, <strong>British</strong> Protectionism, pp.250-58.<br />
27 Maizels, Growth and Trade, p. 136.<br />
28 B. Dyster and D. Meredith, Australia in <strong>the</strong> international economy in <strong>the</strong> twentieth century (Cambridge, 1990),<br />
p.119.<br />
29 Bernard Attard ??
forced <strong>the</strong> government to act, but when wheat and wool prices plunged problems escalated.<br />
The cost of servicing overseas debt grew even faster than <strong>the</strong> debt itself: at <strong>the</strong> end of <strong>the</strong><br />
1920s this had absorbed approximately a quarter of export earnings, but as export prices<br />
plummeted <strong>the</strong> service burden rose even fur<strong>the</strong>r so that by 1930/31 it had reached 48 percent<br />
of reduced earnings.<br />
Canada’s balance of payments position was less precarious than Australia’s at <strong>the</strong> end of <strong>the</strong><br />
‘twenties. The investment boom of <strong>the</strong> late 1920s had involved borrowing and direct<br />
investment <strong>from</strong> abroad, mostly <strong>from</strong> <strong>the</strong> USA. Yet whereas Australia was finding capital<br />
markets wary of fur<strong>the</strong>r loans as early as 1928, Canada was able to continue raising funds in<br />
Wall Street during 1929 and 1930. Moreover, in response to new Canadian tariffs and exchange<br />
difficulties, US companies hurried to set up branch plants.<br />
By <strong>the</strong> eve of <strong>the</strong> depression Canada was running current account deficits with <strong>the</strong> USA and <strong>the</strong><br />
UK. These were paid for by current account surpluses with o<strong>the</strong>r countries and capital inflows<br />
<strong>from</strong> <strong>the</strong> USA. After 1928 export earnings fell sharply, hit by problems in world wheat markets<br />
and by <strong>the</strong> collapse of sales to <strong>the</strong> US. Although <strong>the</strong> ability to continue borrowing in 1930<br />
provided temporary relief not open to Australia, <strong>the</strong> external account was fast deteriorating.<br />
Payment of interest and dividends increased <strong>from</strong> $240 million in 1926 to $348 million at its<br />
peak in 1930. By <strong>the</strong>n <strong>the</strong> current account deficit was nearly six per cent of GDP. But while<br />
exports fell precipitously, <strong>the</strong> cost of servicing proved more intractable. In 1931 merchandise<br />
exports earned only $601 million, less than half <strong>the</strong>ir 1926-8 average, and servicing foreign debt<br />
swallowed up 47 per cent of this.<br />
The heavy burden of servicing was one reason it was so difficult to reduce invisible account<br />
deficits. Hence <strong>the</strong> main burden of adjustment fell on <strong>the</strong> merchandise trade account. In both<br />
countries <strong>the</strong> collapse of purchasing power, and especially in Canada <strong>the</strong> fall of investment<br />
levels, contributed to a sharp reduction in imports. But this was by no means sufficient to close<br />
<strong>the</strong> external deficit, and anxious also to boost manufacturing employment, governments in<br />
both countries resorted to major hikes in tariffs and <strong>the</strong> extension or introduction of o<strong>the</strong>r<br />
controls. Imports fell sharply: in Australia <strong>from</strong> £143 million in 1928/9 to £44 million three<br />
years later, and in Canada <strong>from</strong> $1,272 million in 1929 to $368 million by 1933.<br />
Both countries were highly successful in selling more to Britain, but <strong>the</strong> restoration of<br />
equilibrium demanded that not all <strong>the</strong> extra sterling earnings were frittered away on buying<br />
more <strong>from</strong> <strong>the</strong> UK. This is important in explaining why <strong>British</strong> export performance was so poor.<br />
But it is <strong>the</strong> behaviour of total imports ra<strong>the</strong>r than loss of market share that explains why<br />
<strong>British</strong> exporters did so badly.
Before 1914, in Kindleberger’s analysis, Britain had played a key role in stabilising <strong>the</strong><br />
international economy, in part through keeping an open market for distress goods in times of<br />
depression. 30 By <strong>the</strong> 1930s Britain no longer had <strong>the</strong> capacity to fulfil that role for <strong>the</strong> global<br />
economy. But it did continue doing so for a limited number of favoured primary producers,<br />
most conspicuously Australia and Canada. The main brunt of <strong>British</strong> protection fell on industrial<br />
imports while that on foodstuffs and raw materials was generally much lighter, <strong>the</strong> structuring<br />
of agricultural protectionism in <strong>the</strong> 1930s keeping <strong>the</strong> import market for food relatively open.<br />
<strong>British</strong> bondholders and <strong>the</strong> City of London gained, <strong>British</strong> exporters lost.<br />
International repercussions<br />
Did <strong>British</strong> protectionism accelerate or encourage <strong>the</strong> world to retreat fur<strong>the</strong>r behind trade<br />
restricting barriers? Britain was a latecomer to protectionism and it is doubtful whe<strong>the</strong>r <strong>the</strong><br />
introduction of protection per se by Britain in <strong>the</strong> winter of 1931-2 was an important direct<br />
influence in stimulating retaliation. The real damage was done by <strong>the</strong> abandonment of <strong>the</strong> gold<br />
standard and <strong>the</strong> devaluation of sterling in September 1931. This had worldwide repercussions,<br />
forcing countries ei<strong>the</strong>r to follow Britain in currency depreciation or, alternatively, to deflate<br />
through tightening fiscal and monetary policy and/or raising fur<strong>the</strong>r trade barriers to restrict<br />
imports directly.<br />
Both <strong>the</strong> imperial and subsequent trade pacts were clearly unhelpful because most signatories<br />
tended to widen preferences in Britain’s favour more by raising barriers against non-<strong>British</strong><br />
imports ra<strong>the</strong>r than reducing <strong>the</strong>m on <strong>British</strong> supplies. 31 Moreover, imperial preference was an<br />
explicit departure <strong>from</strong> <strong>the</strong> most-favoured-nation principles that had played such an important<br />
part in liberalising world trade in <strong>the</strong> third quarter of <strong>the</strong> nineteenth century. The various trade<br />
pacts made by Britain in <strong>the</strong> wake of <strong>the</strong> Ottawa Conference also involved breaches in <strong>the</strong><br />
m.f.n. principles, generally of a more opaque or devious nature.<br />
Fur<strong>the</strong>r, Britain’s unwavering adherence to protection in <strong>the</strong> mid- 1930s was an obstacle to any<br />
kind of trade liberalisation. <strong>British</strong> protectionism remained firmly intact through <strong>the</strong> course of<br />
preparations for <strong>the</strong> World Economic and Monetary Conference and <strong>the</strong> conference itself, held<br />
in London in 1933. The conference was a spectacular failure. 32 The proximate causes of failure<br />
lay in <strong>the</strong> devaluation of <strong>the</strong> dollar, announced on <strong>the</strong> eve of <strong>the</strong> conference, and Roosevelt’s<br />
subsequent refusal to contemplate anything that smacked of stabilisation. The Americans also<br />
30 C.P. Kindleberger, The World in Depression, 1929-1939 (London, 1973). Countercyclical lending was ano<strong>the</strong>r but<br />
<strong>the</strong>re was virtually none of this in <strong>the</strong> 1930s.<br />
31 Although both Canada and Australia did reduce some tariffs on UK supplies. Rooth, <strong>British</strong> protectionism, p. 252.<br />
32 P. Clavin, ‘The World Economic Conference 1933: <strong>the</strong> failure of <strong>British</strong> internationalism’, Journal of European<br />
Economic <strong>History</strong>, 20 (1991), and Rooth, <strong>British</strong> protectionism, pp. 159-73, provide brief accounts.
efused to discuss war debts. Yet <strong>the</strong>y were not alone in subordinating international to national<br />
interests. In preparatory discussions <strong>the</strong> <strong>British</strong> steadfastly refused to give undertakings about<br />
stabilising sterling, only to discover an interest in exchange rate stability after <strong>the</strong> United States<br />
devalued. Yet even if it had been possible to reach some currency accord <strong>the</strong>re was no<br />
guarantee that anything else of much value could have been achieved. Although Britain joined<br />
in a weak tariff truce it o<strong>the</strong>rwise treated <strong>the</strong> conference as a forum for self-justificatory<br />
pronouncements on <strong>the</strong> virtues of <strong>the</strong> <strong>British</strong> route to trade liberalisation. Failure of <strong>the</strong><br />
conference confirmed countries in seeking to achieve recovery principally through domestic<br />
action. Britain raised tariffs on 50 items during <strong>the</strong> conference (claiming that <strong>the</strong> applications<br />
had been made before <strong>the</strong> cut-off date in May preceding <strong>the</strong> meetings) and also continued<br />
negotiations with Finland. It later concluded a series of trade agreements with <strong>the</strong> Baltic States<br />
and Poland. Whitehall became increasingly solicitous of <strong>the</strong> needs of <strong>British</strong> farmers, although,<br />
as discussed earlier, it was hampered in its efforts by earlier treaty obligations.<br />
The re-orientation of <strong>British</strong> trade, particularly of imports towards <strong>the</strong> <strong>empire</strong>, fur<strong>the</strong>r<br />
undermined <strong>the</strong> delicate balance of <strong>the</strong> multilateral settlement system. 33 The combination of<br />
<strong>the</strong> sterling devaluation and industrial protection cut <strong>the</strong> import surpluses <strong>from</strong> Europe. West<br />
European countries had customarily used <strong>the</strong>se sterling earnings to import food and raw<br />
materials <strong>from</strong> elsewhere. Unable to earn as much as before countries increasingly resorted to<br />
direct purchases <strong>from</strong> <strong>the</strong>ir <strong>empire</strong>s or spheres of influence. The Ne<strong>the</strong>rlands and France<br />
tightened links with <strong>the</strong>ir <strong>empire</strong>s and, most notably, German penetration of Eastern Europe<br />
and Latin America intensifies. <strong>British</strong> policy thus gave a powerful impetus to greater<br />
bilateralism.<br />
Trade liberalisation in <strong>the</strong> late 1930s?<br />
The passage of <strong>the</strong> Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act (RTAA) in 1934 marks a turning point in US<br />
trade policy <strong>from</strong> <strong>the</strong> ultra-protectionism of Smoot-Hawley and <strong>the</strong> 1932 Revenue Act, and at<br />
least a hint that more liberal policies might start to influence <strong>the</strong> world economy. It was<br />
followed by <strong>the</strong> Tripartite Stabilisation Agreement of 1936, essentially concerned with<br />
monetary arrangements following <strong>the</strong> belated devaluation of <strong>the</strong> franc that year. These steps<br />
seemed to signify major steps towards much greater international co-operation in <strong>the</strong><br />
economic field.<br />
Andreas Dür has argued recently that <strong>the</strong> mainspring of American trade liberalisation has been<br />
<strong>the</strong> mobilisation of export interests in <strong>the</strong> face of losses in foreign markets. He cites <strong>the</strong> Ottawa<br />
agreements as a major spur to threatened export interests to organise and lobby for<br />
33 League of Nations, Network, especially pp. 89-95. The drying-up of capital flows was an also an important agent<br />
in <strong>the</strong>se changes.
ealignment in US policy. 34 Secretary of State Cordell Hull had been a tireless advocate of freer<br />
trade. Once armed with <strong>the</strong> RTAA, and especially after <strong>the</strong> resignation in July 1935 of George<br />
Peek, director of <strong>the</strong> Agricultural Adjustment Administration and a strong opponent, Hull could<br />
launch an assault on <strong>the</strong> Ottawa system.<br />
There is no question about Hull’s commitment to free trade and <strong>the</strong> link in his mind between<br />
economic liberalism and international peace. A series of agreements followed passage of <strong>the</strong><br />
Act, <strong>the</strong> most important of <strong>the</strong>m with <strong>the</strong> UK, although that had to wait until 1938. Yet it does<br />
not follow that <strong>the</strong>se agreements represented widespread disillusion with protection or any<br />
determined effort to dismantle trade barriers late in <strong>the</strong> decade. Clearly <strong>the</strong>re was some<br />
meeting of minds between Hull and Canadian premier Mackenzie King, and <strong>the</strong> Canada-US<br />
agreement of 1935 does mark a move towards greater liberalisation. Early approaches had<br />
been made by <strong>the</strong> Bennett government. The Americans, however, having taken soundings <strong>from</strong><br />
King, and reckoning <strong>the</strong>y would achieve a better deal if he returned to power, had held off<br />
concluding an agreement until after <strong>the</strong> election of 1935. Although <strong>the</strong> US won some<br />
concessions, <strong>the</strong> Canadians corralled off <strong>the</strong> <strong>British</strong> preferential rates and <strong>the</strong> Ottawa<br />
agreements restricted <strong>the</strong> concessions that could be won.<br />
Washington had brushed off approaches <strong>from</strong> Canberra and by 1936 found itself embroiled in a<br />
trade war with Australia. 35 The Australian trade diversion measures of 1936, which were part of<br />
<strong>the</strong> cause of this rift with <strong>the</strong> Americans, certainly represented an intensification of<br />
protectionism. It involved steep tariff hikes on foreign textile imports, notably <strong>from</strong> Japan, and<br />
restrictions on imports <strong>from</strong> <strong>the</strong> USA, mainly on motor chassis. 36 Two years later, as part of <strong>the</strong><br />
Anglo-American trade pact, Canberra acquiesced in some reductions in <strong>the</strong> preferences it<br />
enjoyed in <strong>the</strong> <strong>British</strong> market but <strong>the</strong> Australians, unlike <strong>the</strong>ir Canadian counterparts, received<br />
nothing in return <strong>from</strong> <strong>the</strong> USA.<br />
The New Zealanders also tightened restrictions. The Labour government that came to power<br />
late in 1935 favoured greater self-sufficiency in manufactures. But it was balance of payments<br />
problems that followed an expansion of domestic credit in 1938 that led to <strong>the</strong> introduction of<br />
trade restricting exchange controls late that year. Walter Nash, <strong>the</strong> new finance minister, was<br />
34 A. Dür, Protection for Exporters. Power and Discrimination in Transatlantic Trade Relations, (Ithaca, 2010), pp.<br />
55-76.<br />
35 M.R. Megaw, ‘Australia and <strong>the</strong> Anglo-American Trade Agreement of 1938’, Journal of Imperial and<br />
Commonwealth <strong>History</strong>, 3 (1975), pp. 191-211.<br />
36 See <strong>the</strong> excellent account by R.T. Ross, ‘Australian Overseas Trade and National Development policy 1932-1939:<br />
a story of colonial larrikins or Australian statesmen’ Australian Journal of Politics and <strong>History</strong>, vol. 36, 3, (1990), and<br />
for a discussion of <strong>the</strong> debate, T. Rooth, ‘Ottawa and After’ in Carl Bridge and Bernard Attard (eds.), Between<br />
Empire and Nation: Australia’s External Relations <strong>from</strong> federation to <strong>the</strong> Second World War, (Melbourne, 2000),<br />
pp. 133-57.
also keen to implement bilateral balancing measures but found <strong>the</strong> <strong>British</strong> government<br />
hostile. 37<br />
The Anglo-American accord has sometimes been seen as a belated recognition among<br />
policymakers of <strong>the</strong> errors of <strong>the</strong>ir ways and as a move away <strong>from</strong> <strong>the</strong> extreme protectionism<br />
earlier in <strong>the</strong> decade. Tariffs were reduced, but a close examination of <strong>the</strong> negotiations reveals<br />
little evidence of a liberal spirit or of a generous opening out of <strong>the</strong> trade channels. Dür<br />
suggests that <strong>the</strong>re was a feeling in <strong>the</strong> UK that major concessions could be won: “With its<br />
increased bargaining strength due to imperial preference, <strong>the</strong> United Kingdom could expect<br />
substantial concessions for its industrial exports while giving minor concessions with regard to<br />
agricultural products”. 38 There is little evidence of this in <strong>the</strong> <strong>British</strong> records. 39 On <strong>the</strong> contrary,<br />
<strong>the</strong> economic case was judged as poor: an agreement was likely to widen <strong>the</strong> balance of<br />
payments deficit, already causing considerable anxiety by 1936, reduce customs revenue and,<br />
in effect, involve double payment for any concessions won because if <strong>the</strong> dominions were to<br />
lose some of <strong>the</strong>ir privileges in <strong>the</strong> <strong>British</strong> market to American competitors <strong>the</strong>y would require<br />
compensation. Not only was <strong>the</strong> American market for <strong>British</strong> exports small, dwarfed by <strong>the</strong> size<br />
of those of <strong>the</strong> dominions, but <strong>the</strong> prospects of worthwhile concessions were poor. However,<br />
<strong>the</strong> fast deteriorating international political situation provided a powerful impetus. When, after<br />
much prevarication, a <strong>British</strong> delegation was drawn reluctantly across <strong>the</strong> Atlantic, it was<br />
political necessity that impelled its journey. Nor were <strong>the</strong> negotiations infused with a revived<br />
Cobdenite spirit. The Americans obtained some modest concessions for exports in <strong>the</strong><br />
dominions and o<strong>the</strong>r markets but <strong>the</strong> web of obligations Britain had incurred during six years of<br />
treaty making hampered its own concessions; <strong>the</strong> willingness of Canada to give up privileges in<br />
<strong>the</strong> <strong>British</strong> market for wheat, timber and apples helped to widen <strong>the</strong> accord. But both<br />
negotiating teams were careful to frame concessions to each o<strong>the</strong>r in such a way that <strong>the</strong><br />
benefits did not accrue to third countries. It was a limited and unspectacular treaty produced<br />
by difficult and protracted negotiations, although it is should be recognised that US tariff levels<br />
by 1939 were well below those of 1930 and even <strong>the</strong> 1923 level following <strong>the</strong> protectionist<br />
Fordney-McCumber legislation of that year.<br />
There was some recognition in <strong>the</strong> UK that <strong>the</strong> breakdown of <strong>the</strong> multilateral payments system,<br />
and Britain’s role in that process, had imposed pressures on o<strong>the</strong>r European countries,<br />
especially Germany. Some in <strong>the</strong> UK saw this as a good reason to liberalise trade and payments,<br />
but <strong>the</strong>y were in a small minority. There were fears about renewed German export<br />
37 I. Drummond, The floating pound and <strong>the</strong> sterling area 1931-1939 (Cambridge, 1981), pp. 100-115.<br />
38 Dür, Protection for Exporters, p.76.<br />
39 Rooth, <strong>British</strong> protectionism, pp. 283-305; see, inter alia, I.M. Drummond and N.Hillmer, Negotiating Freer<br />
Trade: <strong>the</strong> United Kingdom, <strong>the</strong> United States, Canada and <strong>the</strong> Trade Agreements of 1938 (Waterloo, 1989) for a<br />
fuller account.
competition. The response was significant: talks between <strong>British</strong> and German industrialists to<br />
restrict competition by cartel agreements. Industry greatly treasured <strong>the</strong> protection it had won<br />
itself in <strong>the</strong> 1930s and resisted fiercely any moves that might weaken it.<br />
It would be a mistake <strong>the</strong>refore to assume that <strong>the</strong>re was a widespread international move<br />
towards trade liberalisation at <strong>the</strong> end of <strong>the</strong> 1930s, and one effect of <strong>the</strong> sharp international<br />
contraction of 1937/8 was to see tariff levels and o<strong>the</strong>r restrictions on trade increased.<br />
Protection was as firmly embedded as ever as war approached.<br />
A paradox of economic performance and postwar policy<br />
Notwithstanding high unemployment, devastatingly low prices for many primary products and<br />
widespread social deprivation, a number of countries made strong recoveries <strong>from</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
depression. Generally <strong>the</strong>se were <strong>the</strong> countries which had depreciated <strong>the</strong>ir currencies during<br />
<strong>the</strong> first two or three years of <strong>the</strong> slump ra<strong>the</strong>r than hang on to old gold parities, as Barry<br />
Eichengreen among o<strong>the</strong>rs has forcibly argued. 40 All <strong>the</strong>se countries also tightened protection.<br />
Long ago Arthur Lewis had suggested that <strong>the</strong>se were useful devices for isolating economies<br />
<strong>from</strong> <strong>the</strong> worst of <strong>the</strong> deflationary forces emanating <strong>from</strong> <strong>the</strong> global economy after 1929. 41 The<br />
mistake, he argued, was <strong>the</strong> failure to liberalise trade once international recovery was<br />
underway again.<br />
Britain fits this pattern. <strong>British</strong> economic expansion in <strong>the</strong> recovery rested heavily on import<br />
substitution for industrialisation, and on a set of industries that by UK standards depended little<br />
on export markets. 42 Britain became markedly disengaged <strong>from</strong> <strong>the</strong> international economy in<br />
<strong>the</strong> 1930s, exports plus imports of goods and services falling <strong>from</strong> 47.6 percent of GNP in 1929<br />
to 35.3 percent by 1937. In <strong>the</strong> opinion of several authorities, recovery owed a great deal to <strong>the</strong><br />
measures taken in 1931/2, notably <strong>the</strong> suspension of <strong>the</strong> gold standard and, more<br />
contentiously, tariff protection. Suspending <strong>the</strong> gold standard shifted <strong>the</strong> priorities in economic<br />
policy making. Preservation of <strong>the</strong> standard was no longer <strong>the</strong> overriding objective of <strong>the</strong><br />
monetary authorities. The Treasury saw controlled depreciation of sterling as a desirable step.<br />
Once tariffs were in place, capital exports restricted, and <strong>the</strong> Exchange Equalisation Account<br />
established to intervene in currency markets, <strong>the</strong> authorities felt confident that sterling was<br />
safe. The easing of <strong>British</strong> monetary policy helped create favourable conditions for expansion.<br />
Currency depreciation toge<strong>the</strong>r with tariffs led to s sharp contraction of manufactured imports:<br />
between 1924 and 1931 <strong>the</strong> manufacturing sector’s propensity to import had risen <strong>from</strong> 9.9<br />
40 Inter alia, B. Eichengreen, Golden Fetters: The Gold Standard and <strong>the</strong> Great Depression, 1919-1939 (New York,<br />
1992).<br />
41 W.A. Lewis, Economic Survey 1919-1939 (London, 1949).<br />
42 This is not to suggest that <strong>the</strong> <strong>British</strong> economy achieved a satisfactory recovery; even by 1937 heavy<br />
unemployment persisted in areas dependent on <strong>the</strong> older industries.
percent to 12 per cent, but in 1932 it dropped to 8 percent and stayed around that level for <strong>the</strong><br />
remainder of <strong>the</strong> decade. 43 Earlier critical assessments of protection have tended in more<br />
recent years to become offset by a more favourable view of its impact on economic recovery.<br />
Available evidence now suggests that in <strong>the</strong> distorted and highly protectionist world trading<br />
system of <strong>the</strong> 1930s, protection in Britain may have been a suitable second best strategy.<br />
Studies by Foreman-Peck, Hatton and by Kitson and Solomou indicate that protection had a<br />
favourable macroeconomic impact. 44 Figure 1<br />
GDP per capita, selected countries 1929, 1932, and 1937 (Geary-Khamis 1990 US$)<br />
7000<br />
6000<br />
5000<br />
4000<br />
3000<br />
2000<br />
1929<br />
1932<br />
1937<br />
1000<br />
0<br />
Australia Canada New Zealand UK<br />
Source: Maddison, The World Economy: Historical Statistics (Paris, 2003).<br />
The contrasting experience of some of <strong>the</strong> major participants is shown in Figure 1. Australia and<br />
New Zealand broadly match <strong>the</strong> UK in experiencing a strong recovery <strong>from</strong> <strong>the</strong> slump while <strong>the</strong><br />
depth and persistence of <strong>the</strong> Canadian depression is all too apparent (<strong>the</strong> trough year was 1933<br />
for Canada).<br />
43 M. Kitson and S. Solomou, Protectionism and Economic Revival: The <strong>British</strong> Inter-War Economy Cambridge,<br />
1990), p. 43.<br />
44 J. Foreman-Peck, ‘The <strong>British</strong> tariff and industrial protection in <strong>the</strong> 1930s: an alternative model’, Economic<br />
<strong>History</strong> Review, 34, (1981); T.J. Hatton, ‘Perspectives on <strong>the</strong> economic recovery of <strong>the</strong> 1930s’ Royal Bank of<br />
Scotland Review 158, (1988); Kitson and Solomou, Protectionism.
Australian output also proved resilient: real GDP rose by 26 per cent between 1932 and 1937,<br />
and by <strong>the</strong> latter year was about 9 per cent above 1929 levels. Overseas sales rose sufficiently<br />
impressively for 1937 exports to reach 20.7 per cent of GDP, higher than before <strong>the</strong> slump. The<br />
huge expansion in <strong>the</strong> volume of exports to <strong>the</strong> UK had much to do with this: Eichengreen<br />
reports that Australian export volume increased far more than would have been predicted by<br />
<strong>the</strong> extent of currency devaluation, a performance that he suggests had much to do with <strong>the</strong><br />
prospects and policies of its main trading partner. 45 This export growth helped to maintain<br />
output and employment, but failed to translate fully into incomes because prices were low and<br />
<strong>the</strong> terms of trade unfavourable. Manufacturing output also expanded during <strong>the</strong> 1930s, <strong>the</strong><br />
sharply reduced import content of manufactures providing space for this expansion. 46 As<br />
argued above, <strong>the</strong> suppression of imports was necessary for external solvency. Did Australia<br />
need to make such efforts to honour <strong>the</strong>se commitments? Schedvin has suggested that<br />
‘Australia’s slavish adherence to <strong>the</strong> principle of sanctity of overseas contracts’ led to a high<br />
price in unemployment. 47 Dyster and Meredith have argued that in retrospect Australia ‘might<br />
have got away with calling <strong>the</strong> creditors’ bluff’, and subsequent international experience lends<br />
some support for such a view. 48<br />
New Zealand, having experienced a troubled post-war decade, witnessed strong economic<br />
growth during <strong>the</strong> 1930s. GDP per capita rose by 41 per cent between 1932 and 1937, and by<br />
some measurements, taking account of purchasing power differences, had <strong>the</strong> highest incomes<br />
in <strong>the</strong> world by 1938. 49 Strong export performance during <strong>the</strong> recovery of <strong>the</strong> 1930s, which<br />
benefited <strong>the</strong> high productivity dairy and meat processing industries, contributed to this<br />
impressive growth.<br />
South African economic growth, not covered in <strong>the</strong> figures quoted, was also strong after 1933.<br />
But this had little to do with <strong>the</strong> <strong>British</strong> market or Ottawa agreements and was largely based on<br />
<strong>the</strong> gold industry which benefited <strong>from</strong> <strong>the</strong> devaluation of <strong>the</strong> U.S. dollar. High gold prices<br />
stimulated a rapid recovery.<br />
45 B. Eichengreen, ‘The Australian Recovery of <strong>the</strong> 1930s in Comparative Perspective’, in Gregory and Butlin, (eds.)<br />
Recovery <strong>from</strong> <strong>the</strong> Depression pp. 47-50.<br />
46 Maizels, Growth and Trade, p. 136 shows import content falling <strong>from</strong> 37 per cent to 25 per cent between 1929<br />
and 1937. Boris Schedvin puts considerable weight on <strong>the</strong> role of <strong>the</strong> manufacturing expansion in Australia’s<br />
recovery: B. Schedvin, Australia and <strong>the</strong> Great Depression: a study of economic development and policy in <strong>the</strong><br />
1920s and 1930s, (Sydney, 1970). <strong>British</strong> exporters were <strong>the</strong> major sufferers.<br />
47 Ibid. p. 254<br />
48 Dyster and Meredith, Australia and <strong>the</strong> international economy, p. 142.; B. Eichengreen and P. Lindhert,<br />
‘Overview’, in Eichengreen and Lindhert (eds) The International Debt Crisis in Historical Perspective (Cambridge,<br />
Mass. 1989), p.5.<br />
49 D. Greasley and L. Oxley, ‘The pastoral boom, <strong>the</strong> rural land market, and long swings in New Zealand economic<br />
growth, 1873-1939’, Ec. Hist. Rev. 62, 2, (2009), pp.324-349. By 1938 N.Z. income p.c. was 5.5% above U.S. levels.
It is Canada that stands out by reason of its appalling experience in <strong>the</strong> 1930s. By <strong>the</strong> best year<br />
of <strong>the</strong> recovery, 1937, Canadian per capita incomes were still nearly 19 per cent below <strong>the</strong>ir<br />
1929 level. The Canadian economy had boomed during <strong>the</strong> late 1920s, strong exports to <strong>the</strong><br />
USA and good wheat harvests playing a prominent role that saw Canada far more heavily<br />
engaged in <strong>the</strong> international economy by <strong>the</strong> late 1920s than before <strong>the</strong> war. High levels of<br />
investment, linked to exports, reinforced <strong>the</strong> boom. 50 The slump was so severe in large part<br />
because of <strong>the</strong> collapse of exports: at <strong>the</strong> end of <strong>the</strong> 1920s <strong>the</strong>se had been at record levels, and<br />
<strong>the</strong>ir size, direction and composition all played a role in deepening <strong>the</strong> slump. The buoyancy of<br />
US demand had boosted sales in <strong>the</strong> 1920s especially of lumber, pulp and paper and of nonferrous<br />
metals. By 1932 sales of sawmill products to <strong>the</strong> USA had sunk back to <strong>the</strong> levels of <strong>the</strong><br />
1890s and production fell to <strong>the</strong> lowest level for 75 years. A combination of <strong>the</strong> collapse of<br />
American incomes and Smoot-Hawley and o<strong>the</strong>r protectionist measures would in itself have<br />
been cause for a major slump. The misfortunes of <strong>the</strong> wheat industry greatly compounded<br />
matters. Caught up in a global problem of overproduction, total wheat exports fell by 45<br />
percent in volume between 1928 and 1932, and prices collapsed too. That was bad enough but<br />
prairie farmers were <strong>the</strong>n to endure a series of drought and disease hit harvests: for several<br />
years during <strong>the</strong> 1930s net farm income was negative. The second major and linked aspect of<br />
<strong>the</strong> Canadian slump was <strong>the</strong> huge decline of investment, depressed by massive overcapacity<br />
across much of Canadian industry. Although <strong>the</strong> UK market could provide some compensation<br />
it could not replace that of <strong>the</strong> USA or offer prairie farmers much help. By 1933 non-farm<br />
unemployment was probably in excess of 27 per cent of <strong>the</strong> workforce. Recovery to 1937 was<br />
quite fast but <strong>from</strong> a low base and not very apparent in <strong>the</strong> prairies. The slump was<br />
exceptionally deep and protracted.<br />
The paradox lies in <strong>the</strong> complete contrast between <strong>the</strong> economic experience of countries in <strong>the</strong><br />
1930s and <strong>the</strong>ir subsequent attitudes towards <strong>the</strong> international economy. In <strong>the</strong> war and<br />
immediate postwar discussions about <strong>the</strong> future shape of international institutions <strong>the</strong><br />
Canadians on <strong>the</strong> one hand and <strong>the</strong> Australasians on <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r took diametrically opposed<br />
positions. The New Zealanders took this to <strong>the</strong> extreme. The international economy was widely<br />
perceived, both in Australia and New Zealand as a source of dislocation and instability. It has<br />
recently been argued that in <strong>the</strong> case of New Zealand this may have been a misreading of <strong>the</strong><br />
causes of instability, especially of <strong>the</strong> long depression of <strong>the</strong> 1920s, which owed more to<br />
domestically induced land market volatility. 51 Be that as it may, it was contemporary<br />
perceptions that count, and by 1945 in both Canberra and Wellington <strong>the</strong>re was deep suspicion<br />
50 E. Safarian, The Canadian Economy in <strong>the</strong> Great Depression (Toronto, 1959) provides a detailed account that<br />
emphasises <strong>the</strong> collapse of exports and domestic investment.<br />
51 Greasley and Oxley, ‘Pastoral boom’.
about American plans for <strong>the</strong> postwar world. 52 Both countries had Labo(u)r administrations<br />
with a tradition of suspicion about <strong>the</strong> efficacy of markets. Although Australia, after much<br />
hesitation, reluctantly signed up for Bretton Woods, such was <strong>the</strong> depth of antagonism in New<br />
Zealand that it did not join until <strong>the</strong> 1960s. Yet Canada, even worse hit by <strong>the</strong> slump, proved<br />
much more enthusiastic about restoring an open international economy and was heavily<br />
engaged in <strong>the</strong> planning of <strong>the</strong> postwar monetary order. 53<br />
Patterns of integration and disintegration<br />
Conclusions<br />
As Keith Hancock concluded in his magisterial wartime survey of commonwealth economic<br />
relations, <strong>the</strong> 1930s had starkly revealed ‘imperial self-insufficiency’. 54 This should not have<br />
come as a surprise to o<strong>the</strong>r than <strong>the</strong> most determined and ill-informed of <strong>the</strong> ‘imperial<br />
visionaries’. None<strong>the</strong>less, <strong>the</strong> economic linkages between commonwealth countries had<br />
tightened during <strong>the</strong> depression decade, a centripetal movement replacing <strong>the</strong> centrifugal<br />
forces of <strong>the</strong> 1920s. Sterling Area arrangements reinforced <strong>the</strong>se (with Canada staying well<br />
away). This was an important part of <strong>the</strong> headlong retreat <strong>from</strong> globalisation that had set in<br />
<strong>from</strong> around 1927. Trade exposure fell for most countries, and trade balances were increasingly<br />
settled bilaterally. Price spreads, a key feature of a globalised economy, appear to have<br />
increased. O<strong>the</strong>r features of a globalised world were also deeply affected by <strong>the</strong> slump.<br />
International capital flows dried up, enforcing painful adjustments, especially when debt<br />
payments continued to be made. Migration slowed to a trickle.<br />
In one sense <strong>the</strong> forging of closer commonwealth integration was part of a movement that<br />
persisted and deepened well beyond <strong>the</strong> depression decade, continuing into <strong>the</strong> war and<br />
immediate post-war years. Several Commonwealth countries were prepared to sign exclusive<br />
food contracts with <strong>the</strong> <strong>British</strong> government in 1945-6, although with varying degrees of<br />
enthusiasm: in a period of acute food scarcity <strong>the</strong>y pledged to send specified quantities or<br />
proportions of exports to Britain. The events of 1947 were also particularly significant. In <strong>the</strong><br />
wake of <strong>the</strong> sterling crisis of 1947 Australia, New Zealand and eventually a reluctant South<br />
Africa tightened economic links still fur<strong>the</strong>r with <strong>the</strong> UK. 55<br />
52 D. Lee, Search for Security: <strong>the</strong> Political Economy of Australian Foreign and Defence Policy (Canberra, 1995); A.<br />
Capling, ‘”The Enfant Terrible”: Australia and <strong>the</strong> Reconstruction of <strong>the</strong> Multilateral Trade System, 1946-8’,<br />
Australian Economic <strong>History</strong> Review, 40 (2000), 1-21; T. Rooth, ‘Economic Tensions and Conflict in <strong>the</strong><br />
Commonwealth, 1945-c.1951’, Twentieth Century <strong>British</strong> <strong>History</strong>, 13, (2002), 121-143.<br />
53 With a Liberal administration in power markedly more pro-capitalist than <strong>the</strong> immediate postwar Australasian<br />
governments. But Canadian industry cherished its protection.<br />
54 Hancock, Survey.<br />
55 Canada looked to <strong>the</strong> USA. It must be emphasised that this was perfectly compatible with import substitution<br />
industrialisation. For some discussion see B. Muirhead, The Development of Postwar Canadian Trade Policy; The
By <strong>the</strong> mid-1950s <strong>the</strong> <strong>British</strong> market had proved disappointing in <strong>the</strong> face of slow growing<br />
demand for food and of determined <strong>British</strong> agricultural protectionism, <strong>British</strong> capital supplies<br />
were insufficient for ambitious development plans, and <strong>the</strong> capacity of UK industry to supply<br />
dominion requirements had been found wanting. 56 ‘Imperial self-insufficiency’ (<strong>the</strong> term was<br />
anachronistic by now) was rediscovered. The sou<strong>the</strong>rn dominions became increasingly aware of<br />
<strong>the</strong> benefits of a multilateral economy, and Britain, more than ever conscious of <strong>the</strong> limited<br />
economic potential of <strong>the</strong> commonwealth, was looking to Europe.<br />
These developments also affected <strong>the</strong> colonial <strong>empire</strong>. A fur<strong>the</strong>r major consequence of <strong>the</strong><br />
depression that had a profound influence on postwar events was <strong>the</strong> impact of economic<br />
dislocation in streng<strong>the</strong>ning political nationalism in India and <strong>the</strong> colonial territories. The<br />
grievances of local populations were heightened. 57 Postwar pressures <strong>from</strong> London, particularly<br />
on <strong>the</strong> major colonial dollar earners, fur<strong>the</strong>r stimulated <strong>the</strong> growth of nationalist movements<br />
and demands for independence.<br />
Failure of <strong>the</strong> Anglo-European Option(Toronto, 1993), esp. ch. 1; T. Rooth, ‘Australia, Canada and <strong>the</strong> International<br />
Economy in <strong>the</strong> Era of Post-War Reconstruction, 1945-50’, Australian Economic <strong>History</strong> Review, 40 (2000), 127-52.<br />
56 Rooth, ‘Economic Tensions and Conflict in <strong>the</strong> Commonwealth, 1945-c.51’, Twentieth Century <strong>British</strong> <strong>History</strong>, 13<br />
(2002), 121-43..<br />
57 B.R. Tomlinson, ‘Imperialism and After: The Economy of <strong>the</strong> Empire on <strong>the</strong> Periphery’ in Judith M. Brown and<br />
Wm. Roger Louis (eds.) The Oxford <strong>History</strong> of <strong>the</strong> <strong>British</strong> Empire: Vol. IV, The Twentieth Century (Oxford, 1999), p.<br />
365-6; Findlay and O’Rourke, Power and Plenty, 469.