Deindustrialisation and ‘Thatcherism’: moral economy and unintended consequences

Abstract

The first period of Conservative government under Margaret Thatcher in 1979 saw an extraordinary acceleration of deindustrialisation-the decline in share of workers employed in industry. This article examines the diverse understandings of this trend as they developed from the mid-1970s, and how this related to the politics of the time. It then examines the approach to industry of the 'Thatcherites', and how this related to their moral economy assumptions about the determination of employment levels. It assesses the causes of the dramatic loss of industrial jobs after 1979, and how these losses related to the government's economic beliefs and actions. The central thesis is that rapid deindustrialisation after 1979 was an unintended consequence of the economic policies pursued, but the enormous surge in unemployment that followed led to an attempt to fit the experience of those years into a 'moral economy' framework which shifted the alleged cause of job loss onto the behaviour of workers and trade unions.

Myths and Realities of “Left Behind” and “Levelling Up”

“…This structural inequality, then, is rooted in political choices made by successive governments, and in the economic and social consequences that flow from that. Post-industrial towns, particularly smaller towns in the North and Midlands, do indeed have high levels of deprivation and inequality, a lack of investment, and weaker levels of economic growth (Holden et al 2021;Pike et al 2016;Tomlinson 2021). But at the same time, places like this have until recently been absent from national policy debates about economic growth or deprivation.…”

Managerial ideology and identity in the nationalised British coal industry, 1947–1994

“…This saw a shift in the balance in social and political forces and a shrinking of the role of government in the economy; in Polanyian terms, the disembedding of the market from society. It is important to note that these political positions and policy measures to roll back the state, and to curb trade union power, were equally (if distinctly) morally informed (Sutcliffe-Braithwaite, 2012; Tomlinson, 2021). As for those managers who in 1947 either supported or opposed nationalisation, so in the maelstrom of the 1970s and 1980s, managers also held strong ideological positions on the future of the nationalised industry and trade union power.…”

“…For those who approved of the new discipline, like Wheeler, this was about a fundamentally distinct vision for the industry based on the reassertion of market forces and a certain kind of managerial fiat, one which chimed with the moral beliefs of ministers (Sutcliffe-Braithwaite, 2012;Tomlinson, 2021). After becoming Scottish Area Director in 1982, Wheeler berated colliery managers for their failure to take more aggressive action -misappropriating, in much the same way as Conservative ministers of the time did, the spirit of post-Enlightenment Scottish philosophers -and set about replacing longstanding managers with those more amenable to his viewpoint and tearing up longstanding industrial relations agreements with the NUM at colliery level (Perchard and Phillips, 2011;Phillips, 2012).…”

“…These divisions reflected the profoundly different ideologies of the managers concerned, informed by a combination of distinct identities and personalities. These divisions amongst NCB managers also reflected pointed ideological clashes in Britain at the time after the election of a new Conservative government in 1979, led by Prime Minister (PM) Margaret Thatcher; an administration committed to rolling back the state and reducing public sector borrowing, not least through the privatisation of nationalised industries, and confronting and defeating trade unions, particularly the NUM (Chick, 2019; Dorey, 2013; Tomlinson, 2021). The Conservative government appointed MacGregor to secure ‘the highest possible efficiency and reduce costs’ in the industry (Hansard, 28 March 1983).…”

Review of periodical literature for 2021

“…In another study on ‘unintended consequences’ (p. 620), Tomlinson suggested in an article for Contemporary British History that the rapid acceleration of deindustrialization during the first term of the Thatcher government was not a deliberate result of economic policy. Nevertheless, these changes were later rationalized in terms of Britain enjoying competitive advantages within service sectors whilst trade unions and industrial workers were held morally responsible for manufacturing job losses.…”