Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-xbtfd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-15T04:34:52.419Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Party Politics and the Default Move from Coordination to Liberalism

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 October 2013

Cathie Jo Martin
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article delves into the origins of the first national multi-sector employers' associations in Denmark and the United Kingdom to understand why some countries produce highly-centralized, unitary national business associations, which develop labor market coordination with unions and the state. In contrast, other countries conclude their experiment with coordination by ultimately falling back on laissez-faire liberalism. In particular, I explore how the structure of party competition works to augment or to diminish coordination among employers. I argue that the interplay of party politics in the policy-making process influenced the incentives of opposing parties to block the legislation sought by employers, informed the incentives of the business-oriented right parties to delegate policy-making authority to private business and labor organizations, and shaped the capacities of employers to get what they wanted from the state.

Type
Articles
Information
Business History Review , Volume 87 , Issue 3 , Autumn 2013 , pp. 431 - 459
Copyright
Copyright © The President and Fellows of Harvard College 2013 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Wiebe, Robert, The Search for Order (New York, 1967)Google Scholar; Tolliday, Steven and Zeitlin, Jonathan, The Power to Manage (New York, 1991)Google Scholar.

2 See also Martin, Cathie Jo and Swank, Duane, The Political Construction of Corporate Interests: Coordination, Growth, and Equality (New York, 2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

3 Chandler, Alfred D. Jr., Strategy and Structure: Chapters in the History of the American Industrial Enterprise (Cambridge, Mass., 1962)Google Scholar; Fellman, Susannaet al., eds., Creating Nordic Capitalism: The Business History of a Competitive Periphery (New York, 2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Fear, Jeffrey, Organizing Control: August Thyssen and the Construction of German Corporate Management (Cambridge, Mass., 2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Dunlavy, Colleen and Welskopp, Thomas, “Myths and Peculiarities: Comparing U.S. and German Capitalism,” German Historical Institute Bulletin no. 41 (Fall 2007): 33–64Google Scholar; Berghahn, Volker, “Varieties of Capitalism in the ‘American Century,’” Business History Review 84 (Winter 2010): 661–63Google Scholar.

4 Pierson, Paul and Skocpol, Theda, “Historical Institutionalism in Contemporary Political Science,” in Political Science: State of the Discipline, ed. Katznelson, Ira and Milner, Helen (New York, 2002), 693–721Google Scholar; Capoccia, Giovanni and Ziblatt, Daniel, “The Historical Turn in Democratization Studies,” Comparative Political Studies 43, no. 8/9 (2010): 931–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Martin, Cathie Jo, Shifting the Burden: The Struggle over Growth and Corporate Taxation (Chicago, 1991)Google Scholar; Kocka, Jürgen, “Capitalism and Bureaucracy in German Industrialization before 1914,” Economic History Review n.s. 34, no. 3 (1981): 453–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Schneiberg, Marc, King, Marissa, and Smith, Thomas, “Social Movements and Organizational Form: Cooperative Alternatives to Corporations in the American Insurance, Dairy, and Grain Industries,” American Sociological Review 73, no. 4 (2008): 635–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

5 Hacker, Jacob, The Divided Welfare State: The Battle over Public and Private Social Benefits in the United States (Cambridge, U.K., 2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Thelen, Kathleen, How Institutions Evolve: The Political Economy of Skills in Germany, Britain, the United States, and Japan (Cambridge, U.K., 2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Streeck, Wolfgang and Thelen, Kathleen, Beyond Continuity (New York, 2005)Google Scholar.

6 Cusack, Thomas, Iversen, Torben, and Soskice, David, “Economic Interests and the Origins of Electoral Institutions,” American Political Science Review 101, no. 3 (2007): 373–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Party leaders may also be employers with class interests, but this focus is on specific party interests.

7 For a broader, systematic analysis of alternative explanations for business organization, see Martin and Swank, The Political Construction of Corporate Interests. For other political explanations see Iversen, Torben and Soskice, David, “Distribution and Redistribution: In the Shadow of the Nineteenth Century,” World Politics 61, no. 3 (2009): 438–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Dunlavy and Welskopp, “Myths and Peculiarities.”

8 Gerschenkron, Alexander, Bread and Democracy in Germany (Berkeley, 1962)Google Scholar; Gourevitch, Peter, Politics in Hard Times: Comparative Responses to International Economic Crises (Ithaca, N.Y., 1986)Google Scholar; Galenson, Walter, The Danish System of Labor Relations: A Study in Industrial Peace (Cambridge, U.K., 1952)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

9 Cronin, James, “Labor Insurgency and Class Formation,” in Work, Community, and Power: The Experience of Labor in Europe and America, 1900–1925, ed. Cronin, James and Sirianni, Carmen (Philadelphia, 1983), 20–48Google Scholar; Tolliday and Zeitlin, The Power to Manage; Thelen, How Institutions Evolve.

10 Hyldtoft, Ole, Danmarks okonomiske historie, 1840–1910 (Aarhus, 1999), ch. 13-14Google Scholar.

11 Bruun, Henry, Den faglige arbejderbevœgelse I Danmark indtil år 1900 (Copenhagen, 1938)Google Scholar; Due, Jesperet al., The Survival of the Danish Model: A Historical Sociological Analysis of the Danish System of Collective Bargaining (Copenhagen, 1994), 73–75Google Scholar; Galenson, The Danish System of Labor Relations; Knudsen, Tim, Den nordiske protestantisme og velfœrds-staten (Aarhus, 2002)Google Scholar; Østergård, Uffe, “Peasants and Danes: The Danish National Identity and Political Culture,” Comparative Studies in Society and History 34, no. 1 (1992): 16CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

12 Bruun, , Den faglige arbejderbevœgelse, 409Google Scholar; Agerholm, Sophus and Vigen, Anders, Arbejdsgiver foreningen gennem 25 aar, 1896–1921 (Copenhagen, 1921)Google Scholar; Hansen, J. A., “De Samvirkende Fagforbund Gennem 25 Aar: Foredrag i Nationaløkonomisk Forening d. 26. Oktober 1922,” National Economic Journal 3, no. 30 (1922)Google Scholar; Georg, Nørregaard, “Arbejds-forhold indenfor dansk håndværk og industri, 1857–1899,” Nationalokonomisk Tidsskrift, Bind 81 (1943): 362Google Scholar; Jacobsen, Kurt and Pedersen, Dorthe, Kampen om den danske model: Da sosu'erne rystede det etablerede system (Copenhagen, 2010), 8Google Scholar.

13 The king could form a government unless both chambers opposed it, and the Right Party dominated the executive branch, even while lacking a plurality in the lower chamber. Fink, Jørgen, Storeindustri Eller Middelstand: Det ideologiske opgor i Det Konservative Folkeparti, 1918–1920 (Aarhus, 2000), 14–15Google Scholar.

14 Fink, , Storeindustri Eller Middelstand, 23Google Scholar; Bindslev, Alfred, Konservatismens Historie i Danmark fra 1848–1936, vols. 2–3 (Odense, 1937–1938), 57–58Google Scholar; Dybdahl, Vagn, Partier og Erhverv: Studier i partiorganisation og byerhvervenes politiske aktivitet, ca.1880-ca.1913 (Aarhus, 1969), 14–15Google Scholar. The Liberal party was also divided. Petersen, Jan Nørgaard, “Brydninger i Højre, 1894–1901,” Historie/Jyske Samlinger, Bind Ny række 13, no. 4 (1979–1981): 218Google Scholar.

15 Bindslev, , Konservatismens Historie i Danmark, 57–58Google Scholar; “De forenede konservative klubbers delegeretmøde,” Berlingske Tidende (18 Dec. 1894)Google Scholar; Petersen, , “Brydninger i Højre,” 223Google Scholar; Kiilerich, Ole, Politikeren Estrup og hans konge (Copenhagen, 1975), 114–17, 128Google Scholar; Karl G., Brøndsted, J. B. S. Estrup: Mindeskrift i anledning af hundredaarsdagen for hans Fodsel (Copenhagen, 1925), 146–54Google Scholar; Dybdahl, , Partier og Erhverv, 11Google Scholar.

16 Agerholm and Vigen, Arbejdsgiver Foreningen Gennem.

17 Ibid., 211–12; Fink, , Storeindustri Eller Middelstand, 21–25Google Scholar; Dybdahl, , Partier og Erhverv, 91, 115–17Google Scholar.

18 Agerholm, and Vigen, , Arbejdsgiver Foreningen Gennem, 10–13Google Scholar.

19 Dybdahl, , Partier og Erhverv, 115–17Google Scholar; Neergaard, N., “Niels Andersen,” Salmonsens konversationsleksikon, http://runeberg.org/salmonsen/2/1/0764.htmlGoogle Scholar; Petersen, , “Brydninger i Højre,” 219–20Google Scholar; Charles Nielsen, “Ydby skriver i Sydthy Årbog om: Polarforskeren Knud Rasmussen, Etatsråden og Ydby Missionshus,” http://www.cm1.dk/Charles.html. Cites Niels Andersen letter to “De kongelige ordenes kapitel.” Ministry of Transportation, “Niels Christensen Monberg,” http://www.trm.dk/sw14784.asp; Kiilerich, , Politikeren Estrup og hans konge, 128Google Scholar; Rambusch, Sigurd, Jacob Scavenius: En moderne politiker i det gamle Højre (Aarhus, 1988), 232–33Google Scholar.

20 “DA-Korrespondence, General udgående 1896 6 30 til 1899 9 21,” 1897_25 (20 Feb. 1897)Google Scholar, Erhvervsarkivet [Danish State Archives], Aarhus, Denmark.

21 Agerholm, and Vigen, , Arbejdsgiver Foreningen Gennem, 5, 16Google Scholar. Translated by author.

22 Andersen, Lars, “Ulykkesforsikringen og den danske model, 1890–1930,” Nyhedsbrev for Netværkfor Nordisk Velfærdsstatshistorie, no. 28 (Dec. 2006): 2–13Google Scholar; Bramsen, Bo, Ludvig Bramsen (Copenhagen, 1964)Google Scholar; Nørgaard, Asbjørn Sonne, The Politics of Institutional Control: Corporatism in Danish Occupational Safety and Health Regulation and Unemployment Insurance, 1870–1995 (Aarhus, 1997), 168Google Scholar.

23 These included Håndværkerforeningen, Industriforeningen, Haandværkerstandens Repræsentantskab, and Fællesrepræsentationen for dansk Haandværk og Industri. Galenson, , The Danish System of Labor Relations, 2–3, 48, 70–72Google Scholar.

24 Arbejdsgiverforeningen af 1896, “Til Bestyrelsen for,” 3 Aug. 1897, 1-2, 1897_26. DA-Korrespondance, General udgånde 1896 6 30 til 1899 9 21, Erhvervsarkivet. Italics in original, trans. by author.

25 Korrespondance, General Udgående, 30 June 1896-21 Sept. 1899, Dansk Arbejdsgiver-forening (06158), Erhvervsarkivet; Agerholm, and Vigen, , Arbejdsgiver Foreningen Gennem, 15–16Google Scholar.

26 “Vedtægter for Arbejdsgiverforeningen af 1896” (Vedtagne pågeneralforsamlingen 25 Aug. 1897) DA–lovmateriale, 1896–1914, Erhvervsarkivet.

27 1897_46–48, 23 June 1897, DA-Korrespondance, General udgående 1896 6 30 til 1899 9 21, Erhvervsarkivet.

28 Due, et al., The Survival of the Danish Model, 78–79Google Scholar; Galenson, , The Danish System of Labor Relations, 2–8, 58, 69–72, 91Google Scholar.

29 1897_52 12 July 1897; 1897_71 10 Sept. 1897; 1898_138 22 Mar. 1898, all DA-Korrespondance, General udgående 1896 6 30 til 1899 9 21 Erhvervsarkivet; Agerholm, and Vigen, , Arbejdsgiver Foreningen Gennem, 20Google Scholar; Due, et al., The Survival of the Danish Model, 79Google Scholar.

30 Nørregaard, , “Arbejdsforhold indenfor dansk håndværk og industri,” 525–26 (translated by author)Google Scholar; Due, et al., The Survival of the Danish Model, 80–81Google Scholar.

31 Andersen, Steen and Jacobsen, Kurt, Foss (Copenhagen, 2008), ch. 13Google Scholar.

32 Andersen and Jacobsen, Foss; Agerholm, and Vigen, , Arbejdsgiver Foreningen Gennem, 27Google Scholar.

33 “Industrifagene under Arbejdsgiverforeningen,” Arbejdsgiveren 42, no. 7 (1906): 325–26Google Scholar; Henriksen, Victor, “Industriforeningen og den danske Industri,” Arbejdsgiveren 45 (9 Nov. 1910): 569–72Google Scholar; Andersen and Jacobsen, Foss.

34 Agerholm, and Vigen, , Arbejdsgiver Foreningen Gennem, 161Google Scholar; Henriksen, , “Industri-foreningen og den danske Industri,” 569–72Google Scholar; “Industrifagenes Fælleskommission,” Arbejdsgiveren 49, no. 7 (5 Dec. 1906): 384–85Google Scholar.

35 Dybdah, l, Partier og Erhverv, 12Google Scholar; Bindslev, , Konservatismens Historie i Danmark, 264–71Google Scholar; Galenson, , The Danish System of Labor Relations, 79Google Scholar.

36 “Den ekstraordinære Hovedgeneralforsamling den 19. December,” Arbejdsgiveren 20, no. 52 (26 Dec. 1920): 450–51Google Scholar; Hovedkontoret, DA, Beretning om Dansk Arbejdsgiver Forenings Virksomhed (Copenhagen, 1928), 62–66Google Scholar; Galenson, , The Danish System of Labor Relations, 79Google Scholar.

37 Hall, Peter and Soskice, David, eds., Varieties of Capitalism: The Institutional Foundations of Comparative Advantage (Oxford, 2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Fulcher, James, “Did British Society Change Character in the 1920s or the 1980s?” British Journal of Sociology 48, no. 3 (1997): 514–21CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed; Zeitlin, Jonathan, “The Triumph of Adversarial Bargaining: Industrial Relations in British Engineering, 1880–1939,” Politics and Society 18, no. 3 (1990): 405–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Runciman, W. G., “Has British Capitalism Changed since the First World War?” British Journal of Sociology 44, no. 1 (1993): 53–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Lowe, Rodney, “The Failure of Consensus in Britain: The National Industrial Conference, 1919–1921,” Historical Journal 21, no. 3 (1978): 649–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

38 A deeper issue was the “parasitism of landowners on productive capital and labour.” Marrison, A. J., “Businessmen, Industries and Tariff Reform in Great Britain, 1903–1930,” Business History 25, no. 2 (1983): 148CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Daunton, M. J., “‘Gentlemanly Capitalism’ and British Industry, 1820–1914,” Past and Present 122 (Feb. 1989): 127CrossRefGoogle Scholar. On British small firm size, see Lazonick, William, “Industrial Organization and Technological Change: The Decline of the British Cotton Industry,” Business History Review 57 (Summer 1983): 195–236CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

39 Trentmann, Frank, “The Transformation of Fiscal Reform: Reciprocity, Modernization, and the Fiscal Debate within the Business Community in Early Twentieth-Century Britain,” Historical Journal 39, no. 4 (1996): 1005–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Cain, P. J., and Hopkins, A. G., “The Political Economy of British Expansion Overseas, 1750–1914,” Economic History Review n.s. 33, no. 4 (1980): 485Google Scholar; Burgess, Keith, The Origins of British Industrial Relations: The Nineteenth Century Experience (London, 1975), 305Google Scholar; Platt, D. C. M., Finance, Trade, and Politics in British Foreign Policy, 1815–1914 (Oxford, 1968), 81–82Google Scholar. The few opponents of protection in cotton, wool, and textile manufacturers hired only 3.4 percent of workers in 1901. See Klug, Adam, “Why Chamberlain Failed and Bismarck Succeeded: The Political Economy of Tariffs in British and German Elections,” European Review of Economic History 5, no. 2 (2001): 230–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

40 Clegg, Hugh, Fox, Alan, and Thompson, A. F., A History of British Trade Unions since 1889 (Oxford, 1964)Google Scholar; Unwin, George, The Gilds and Companies of London (London, 1966)Google Scholar; Cronin, “Labor Insurgency and Class Formation.”

41 National Unionists broke with Liberals, voted and ultimately merged with Conservatives, and the Labour Party voted with, and ultimately replaced, the Liberals. While most industrialists were Conservative by the war, some in the financial sector and in staples remained Liberal. Garst, W. Daniel, “From Sectoral Linkages to Class Conflict: Trade and Coalition Formation in Britain prior to and after World War I,” Comparative Political Studies 32, no. 7 (1999): 800CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Ridings, Eugene, “Chambers of Commerce and Business Elites in Great Britain and Brazil in the Nineteenth Century: Some Comparisons,” Business History Review 75 (Winter 2001): 771CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Fraser, Peter, “The Liberal Unionist Alliance: Chamberlain, Hartington, and the Conservatives, 1886–1904,” English Historical Review 77, no. 302 (1962): 60, 66–67Google Scholar.

42 Abortive attempts at earlier organization were the Conservative Party's Board of Trade efforts around the proposed Board of Arbitration in 1895 and the far right's experiments with an Employers' Parliamentary Council. Rempel, Richard, Unionists Divided: Arthur Balfour, Joseph Chamberlain, and the Unionist Free Traders (London, 1972), 16Google Scholar; Trentmann, , “The Transformation of Fiscal Reform,” 10–24Google Scholar; Irwin, Douglas, “The Political Economy of Free Trade: Voting in the British General Election of 1906,” Journal of Law and Economics 37, no. 1 (1994): 85CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Middlemas, Keith, Power, Competition and the State: Threats to the Postwar Settlement: Britain, 1961–74, vol. 2 (London, 1990), 39Google Scholar.

43 Birmingham employers asked trade unions not to let their members work for firms outside of the association. Clegg, Fox, and Thompson, , A History of British Trade Unions, 161–67Google Scholar; Macrosty, Henry, The Trust Movement in British Industry: A Study of British Organisation (London, 1907), 8Google Scholar.

44 “Need for Shells,” Times, 14 May 1915, 8Google Scholar. Lloyd George asked unions to give up the right to strike, in return for the restitution of this right upon the conclusion of the war. Platt, , Finance, Trade, and Politics in British Foreign Policy, 353–58Google Scholar; Turner, John, “The Politics of Business,” in Businessmen and Politics: Studies of Business Activity in British Politics, 1900–1945, ed. Turner, John (London, 1984), 33–34Google Scholar; Rubin, Gerry, “Law, War and Economy: The Munitions Acts 1915–17 and Corporatism in Context,” Journal of Law and Society 11, no. 435 (1984): 318CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

45 Gollin, Alfred, “Review of British Economic and Strategic Planning, 1905–1915,” A Quarterly Journal Concerned with Banking Studies 15, no. 3 (1983): 259–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Morgan, Kenneth, “VII: Lloyd George's Premiership: A Study in ‘Prime Ministerial Government,’ “ Historical Journal 13, no. 1 (1970): 129–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

46 Letter from Arthur Steel-Maitland to “Pele” Lieut.-Colonel R. A. Sanders, MP, 6 June 1916, GD193/170/1/490, National Records of Scotland, Edinburgh (hereafter NRS); Letter from Docker to Steel-Maitland, 29 July 1915, ASM GD193/165/1/179, NRS.

47 Daunton, “‘Gentlemanly Capitalism’ and British Industry”; Steel-Maitland letter to McKenna, 16 Aug. 1915, GD193/164/3/1/54, NRS W. Elbert Dando, Memo, “Details of a Plan for Creation of a Banking Organization, to Deal Especially with Government Loan Requirements Incidental to the War,” no date, GD193/164/3/1/2, NRS.

48 Middlemas, , Threats to the Postwar Settlement: Britain, 40Google Scholar; Steel-Maitland letter to McKenna, 16 Aug. 1915.

49 Steel-Maitland to Lord Milner, 19 Feb. 1910, ASM GD193/147/1/11-12x, NRS.

50 Steel-Maitland to Norris Foster, 15 Dec. 1914, GD193/164/1/31, NRS; “Minutes of Meeting,” 11 Oct. 1917, GD193/99/2/153, NRS.

51 Steel-Maitland's memo attachment (GD193/99/2/148) to letter from Steel-Maitland to Bonar Law, 16 Nov. 1917, GD193/99/2/147, NRS.

52 Davenport-Hines, R. P. T., Dudley Docker: The Life and Times of a Trade Warrior (Cambridge, U.K., 1984), 55–56, 79–80Google Scholar; Letter from Steel-Maitland to J. St. Loe Strachey 24 Feb. 1916 ASM GD193/170/1/441, NRS. Steel-Maitland to Lord Milner 19 Feb. 1910, ASM GD193/147/1/11-12x, NRS.

53 Blank, Stephen, Industry and Government in Britain: The Federation of British Industries in Politics, 1945–65 (Lexington, Mass., 1973), 14–16Google Scholar; Labour Research Department, The Federation of British Industries (London, 1923), 8–9, 13Google Scholar.

54 Blank, Industry and Government in Britain; Davenport-Hines, Dudley Docker; Middlemas, , Threats to the Postwar Settlement: Britain, 113Google Scholar; Grant, Wyn and Marsh, David, The Confederation of British Industry (London, 1977)Google Scholar.

55 Steel-Maitland to Gerald A. Steel, 8 June 1916, GD193/170/1/29, NRS; Docker to Steel-Maitland, no date, GD193/128/231, NRS; Docker to Steel-Maitland, 30 Nov. 1911, GD193/153/4/68, NRS; Steel-Maitland to Docker, 3 Dec. 1911, GD193/153/4/70, NRS. Letter from Steel-Maitland to Docker, 10 Jan. 1916, GD172/1/3, NRS. Steel-Maitland to Docker, 24 May 1915, GD193/165/1/538, NRS; see correspondence in ASM GD193/GD166/2, NRS; letter from Steel-Maitland's secretary to B. S. Townroe at the War Office, 9 Nov. 1915, GD193/164/3/14/135, NRS; Docker to Steel-Maitland, 13 Nov. 1915, GD193/165/2/124, NRS; Davenport-Hines, , Dudley Docker, 55–56, 63, 90Google Scholar.

56 Davenport-Hines, , Dudley Docker, 86Google Scholar; “Company Meeting: Federation of British Industries,” Times, 12 Mar. 1917, 12Google Scholar.

57 Labour Research Department, The Federation of British Industries, 5, 7–8Google Scholar; “Company Meeting”; Davenport-Hines, , Dudley Docker, 106–7, 71Google Scholar.

58 Davenport-Hines, , Dudley Docker, 3, 8, 83–85Google Scholar; Turner, , “The Politics of Business,” 33–39Google Scholar; Letter from Steel-Maitland to W. G. S. Adams, 4 July 1916, GD193/170/1/371, NRS; “Company Meeting.”

59 Labour Research Department, The Federation of British Industries, 42Google Scholar; “Company Meeting”; “Army of Industry,” Times, 22 Jan. 1917, 6Google Scholar; Blank, , Industry and Government in Britain, 16–17Google Scholar.

60 Nugent to Vassar-Smith, 26 Oct. 1917, Modern Records Centre, Warwick University (hereafter MRC); Nugent to Fitzjohn Oldham, 20 Mar. 1917, MRC; Steel-Maitland, Arthur, “Scheme for the Reform and Development of the Consular and Commercial Diplomatic Services” (Mar. 1919) in British Documents on Foreign Affairs: Reports and Papers from the Foreign Office Confidential Print, Volume 1, Part 2, Series K, ed. Watt, D. Cameron (Bethesda, Md., 2000–2003), 32Google Scholar.

61 Steel-Maitland to Bonar Law, 1916, NRS; Nugent to William B. Peat, 8 Feb. 1917, MRC; Nugent to Caillard, 14 Mar. 1917, MRC.

62 “Minutes of the Organization Sub-Committee of the Executive Council,” 31 Oct. 1916, 1, MSS.200/F/3/DA/A/12, MRC; Nugent, “Excerpt from Letter to Mr. Docker of 28 Oct. 1916,” MSS.200/F/3/D1/2/2-3, MRC; Engineering Employers Federation Minute Book, no. 13, 27 July 1917, 59, MSS.237/1/1/13, MRC; Engineering Employers Federation Minute Book, no. 13, MRC; Meeting of Management Committee, 19 July 1917, 20, MSS.237/1/1/13, MRC; Turner, “The Politics of Business,” 39-42; FBI Bulletin, 15 Aug. 1918, 385 and 5 Dec. 1918, 491, MRC.

63 Davenport-Hines, , Dudley Docker, 114–16Google Scholar; “Employers’ Parliamentary Association,” 27 Mar. 1914, 13; Nugent to Dixon, 8 Feb. 1917, MSS.200/F/3/D1/2/7, MRC.

64 Journal of meeting notes of the National Union of Manufacturers, no page numbers or dates, MSS.200/N/1/1/1, MRC; Nugent, “Excerpt from letter to Mr. Docker of 1st March, 1917,” MSS.200/F/3/D1/2/2-3, MRC; Nugent to Caillard 20 Mar. 1917, MSS.200/F/3/D1/2/13, MRC.

65 Maisel, Ephraim, “The Formation of the Department of Overseas Trade, 1919–1926,” Journal of Contemporary History 24, no. 1 (1989): 169–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Watt, D. Cameron, “Economic Affairs, Cultural Propaganda, and the Reform of the Foreign Office, 1910–1939,” British Documents on Foreign Affairs, Part 2, Series K (Washington, D.C., 1997), xvGoogle Scholar.

66 Letter from Steel-Maitland to W. G. S. Adams, 4 July 1916, GD193/170/1/371, NRS; Steel-Maitland to Bonar Law, 1916, GD193/170/1/359, NRS.

67 SirWellesley, Victor, “Principles of British Commercial Policy Abroad” (June 1918), British Documents on Foreign Affairs, Part 2, Series K (Washington, D.C., 1997)Google Scholar, doc. 12, appendix VI, 51-59; Nugent to Peter Rylands, 18 Jan. 1917, MRC; “Commercial Counsellors,” Times, 16 Dec. 1916, 5Google Scholar; “Company Meeting”; Davenport-Hines, , Dudley Docker, 112Google Scholar; letter Steel-Maitland to Bonar Law, 17 Sept. 1917, GD193/115/1/81, NRS. Lloyd George had himself been President of the Board of Trade from 1905 to 1908 and Chancellor of the Exchequer from 1908 to 1915; “Overseas Trade Departmental Differences,” Times, 26 July 1919, 8Google Scholar.

68 “Excerpt from letter to Mr. Docker of 27 March 1917” and “Reconstruction Scheme,” MSS.200/F/3/D1/2/2-3, MRC.

69 Lowe, Rodney and Roberts, Richard, “Sir Horace Wilson, 1900–1935: The Making of a Mandarin,” Historical Journal 30, no. 3 (1987): 649–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

70 The NCEO grew out of the “Central Association of Employers’ Organisations,” founded by Sir Charles Macara and W. P. Rylands (with Liberal politicians’ involvement) and the “Confederation of Employers Organisations,” created by the EEF and others in 1918, upon Lloyd George's request for a unitary business voice. Turner, , “The Politics of Business,” 34–35Google Scholar; Lowe, and Roberts, , “Sir Horace Wilson,” 653, 645Google Scholar; SirMacara, Charles W., Recollections (London, 1921), 170–72, 206, 240Google Scholar.

71 Lowe, , “The Failure of Consensus in Britain,” 650–54, 668Google Scholar; Blank, , Industry and Government in Britain, 1973Google Scholar.

72 Lowe, , “The Failure of Consensus in Britain,” 651–71Google Scholar.

73 Alderman, Geoffrey, Pressure Groups and Government in Great Britain (New York, 1984), 11–12Google Scholar; Turner, , “The Politics of Business,” 41–44Google Scholar.