Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-mlc7c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-02T19:54:18.310Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Exporting the “Gospel of Productivity”: United States Technical Assistance and British Industry 1945–1960

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 December 2011

Nick Tiratsoo  and
Jim Tomlimon
Nick Tiratsoo
Affiliation:
NICK TIRATSOO is senior research fellow in the Department of History at the University of Luton and visiting research fellow at the Business History Unit, L.S.E..
Jim Tomlimon
Affiliation:
JIM TOMLINSON is reader in British politics and head of the Department of Government at Brunei University, West London, and visiting research fellow at the Business History Unit, L.S.E..
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article examines the attempts by the United States to export industrial and managerial techniques to Britain in the early post-war years. It analyses the types of technical assistance offered by the U.S., the mechanisms developed to deliver this assistance, and the response of both British industry and government. The conclusion offered is that whilst there were problems of “fit” between the techniques advocated by U.S. agencies and the conditions faced by British industry, overall the reluctance of the British to embrace American techniques did not reflect a rounded assessment of their applicability so much as a series of institutional blockages and hostile attitudes.

Type
Articles
Information
Business History Review , Volume 71 , Issue 1 , Spring 1997 , pp. 41 - 81
Copyright
Copyright © The President and Fellows of Harvard College 1997

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 This estimate appears in James M. Silberman, “The History of the Technical Assistance Programs of the Marshall Plan and Successor Agencies 1948–1961” (Draft Report to the Industry Development Division of the World Bank, Nov. 1992), 5. The authors are grateful to Tony Hubert for drawing their attention to this document.

2 See, e.g., Hogan, Michael J., The Marshall Plan. America, Britain and the Reconstruction of Western Europe, 1947–1952 (New York, 1987)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Maier, Charles S., “The Politics of Productivity: Foundations of American International Economic Policy after World War II,” International Organisation 31 (Autumn 1977): 607–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Wexler, Immanuel, The Marshall Plan Revisited: the European Recovery Program in Economic Perspective (West-port, Conn., 1983).Google Scholar

3 However, there is also a developing literature which does not conform to these strictures. See inter alia Carew, Anthony, Labour under the Marshall Plan: The Politics of Productivity and the Marketing of Management Science (Manchester, 1987)Google Scholar; Kuisel, Richard F., Seducing the French: The Dilemma of Americanization (Berkeley, Calif., 1993)Google Scholar; Link, Werner, “Building Coalitions: Non-governmental German and Amercan Linkages,” in The Marshall Plan and Germany, ed. Maier, Charles S. with the assistance of Gunter Bischof (New York, 1991), 282–330Google Scholar; McGlade, Jacqueline, The Illusion of Consensus: American Business, Cold War Aid and the Recovery of Western Euorpe, 1948—1958 (Ph.D. diss., The George Washington University, 1994)Google Scholar and Jacqueline McGlade, “U.S. Technical Assistance and the Education of European Managers, 1948–1958,” paper presented to conference on “The Development of Business Schools in Europe,” Bertinoro, Italy, June 1995.

4 The pattern of Anglo-American business relationships and perceptions can be traced in Dunning, John H., American Investment in British Manufacturing Industry (London, 1958)Google Scholar; Clark, P. A., Anglo-American Innovation (Berlin, 1987)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Lewchuk, Wayne, American Technology and the British Vehicle Industry (Cambridge, 1987)Google Scholar; and Guillen, Mauro F., Models of Management (Chicago, Ill., 1994).Google Scholar

5 Tann, J., “Diffusion of Management Thought and Practice, 1880–1970,” in The Transfer of International Technology: Europe, Japan and the U.S.A. in the Twentieth Century, ed. Jeremy, David J. (Aldershot, U.K., 1992), 193–220.Google Scholar

6 Wayne Lewchuk, “Fordist Technology and Britain: The Diffusion of Labour Speedup,” in ibid, 7–32.

7 Fryer, Tony, Regulating Big Business: Antitrust in Great Britain and America, 1880–1990 (Cambridge, 1992), 196–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

8 Lewis, R. and Maude, A., The English Middle Classes (London, 1949), 137.Google Scholar

9 Rostas, L., “Industrial Production, Productivity and Distribution in Britain, Germany and the United States,” Economic Journal 53 (April 1943): 39—54CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Economist, 19 Aug. 1944.

10 Quoted in Economist, 28 July 1944.

11 Rostas, L., Comparative Productivity in British and American Industry (Cambridge, 1948), 189–92 and 231–2.Google Scholar

12 Economist, 28 July 1945.

13 Tiratsoo, Nick and Tomlinson, Jim, Industrial Efficiency and State Intervention: Labour 1939–51 (New York, 1993).Google Scholar

14 “A Contributor,” “Training Within Industry—A National Issue,” Industry Illustrated 13 (Dec. 1945): 14–15; Creyke, G. R., “Motion Study,” Industry Illustrated 16 (Feb. 1948): 26–8.Google Scholar

15 Irvine, A. G., “The American Business Scene Today,” Industry Illustrated 15 (Jan. 1947): 27–8.Google Scholar

16 Economist, 3 Feb. 1945.

17 Machinery and Allied Products Institute, Technological Stagnation in Great Britain (Chicago, Ill., 1948).Google Scholar

18 McGlade, “Illusion of Consensus,” passim.

19 The following paragraph is based on material in Tiratsoo and Tomlinson, Industrial Efficiency, 132–40.

20 L. Rostas, Comparative Productivity.

21 Francis E. Rogers, “Report of the United Kingdom Technical Exchange and Section 115–K Program,” 6 Sept. 1956, 1–8, box 5, file on “U.K. Productivity—General (Directors' Files) 1955–7,” Subject Files of the Director 1953–7, Office of the Director, Mission to the U.K., Records Group 469, National Archives, Washington, D.C. [hereafter Rogers]; and EPA Information Bulletin, No. 6–7 (Dec. 1954–Jan. 1955): 10.

22 Rogers, 9–22.

23 See, e.g., James A. Hynescaron; and Carl R. Taylor, “Comments on the Productivity Drive,” 15 April 1950, box 25, Technical Assistance Country Files 1949–52, Office of the Director, ECA Productivity and Technical Assistance Division, Record Group 469, National Archives, Washington, D.C.; and Anon., “U.K. Mission—Production Assistance Program Report. Summary and Conclusions,” 9 July 1951, box 13, file on “Lennen. U.K. Policy,” Records Relating to Productivity Program Policy, 1949–55, Records Group 469, National Archives, Washington, D.C.

24 Fourastie, Jean, “Towards Higher Labour Productivity in the Countries of Western Europe,” International Labour Review 67 (April 1953): 340–355Google Scholar; and “European Productivity Agency. Results Obtained and Future Prospects,” EPA (57) 11, 3 Sept. 1957, 9–13, box 1, file of “EPA—General through 1957,” Records Relating to EPA 1953–7, Record Group 469, National Archives, Washington, D.C.

25 Francis E. Rogers to William L. Batt, 5 Aug. 1952, box 6, file on “U.K. Productivity. 115K Agreement …,” Subject Files of the Director 1953–7, Office of the Director, Mission to the U.K., Records Group 469, National Archives, Washington, D.C.

26 Anon., “U.K. Mission,” 1–12, box 13, file on “Lennen. U.K. Policy,” National Archives, Washington, D.C; Arnold Rivkin – Lincoln Gordon, 24 April 1953, box 6, file on “U.K. Productivity Section 115 (K)—Productivity Attitudes …,” Subject Files of the Director, 1953–7, Office of the Director, Mission to the U.K., Records Group 469, National Archives, Washington, D.C.; and Kenney, W. John, “Marshall Aid and British Management,” Manager 18 (June 1950): 264–5.Google Scholar

27 Rogers, 23.

28 EPA, Higher Productivity Through European Co-operation (Paris, 1956), 3Google Scholar; EPA, Activities and Achievements (Paris, 1958), 35Google Scholar; Rogers, 23–41.

29 Silberman, “History,” 34.

30 See. e.g., “The Heavy Electrical Engineering Industry,” R. 269/March 1953, Labour Party archive, Manchester, U.K.; “The American Stake in London,” Director (July 1964): 39.

31 See. e.g., Minutes of Meeting of Anglo-American Consultative Group, AACG (55) 3rd Meeting, 29 Nov. 1955, item 2, box 1, file on “United Kingdom—Anglo-American Consultative Group,” Subject Files of the Director 1955–7, Office of the Director, Mission to the U.K., Records Group 469, National Archives, Washington, D.C.; Rogers, 7 and 52.

32 Cabinet European Co-operation Committee, “Survey of Technical Assistance and Similar Schemes. Note by the Chairman …,” E.R. (L) (51) 12, 13 Feb. 1951, 8, BT 195/ 57, Public Record Office, London, U.K.

33 W. A. Kimbel - W. J. Hoff, 19 Oct. 1949, 4, BT 195/53, Public Record Office, London, U.K.

34 Rogers, 49.

35 See, e.g., editorial comment, Manager 20 (May 1952): 271–2; Anon., “The Productivity Reports,” Future 6 (June-July 1951): 59–71; Iron and Coal Trades Review, 19 Oct. 1951; and Tippett, L. H. C., Productivity in the Cotton Industry—Achievements and Prospects (Manchester, 1954).Google Scholar

36 Council, British Productivity, A Review of Productivity in the Bronze and Brass Casting Industry (London, 1955), 7.Google Scholar

37 “Visit to Manchester. Conversation with Mr. Alan Kershaw,” 27 Sept. 1955, box 2, file on “United Kingdom—Economic Research July 1954–August 1956,” Subject Files, Office of the Director, Mission to the U.K., Records Group 469, National Archives, Washington, D.C.

38 Henderson, A., “Private Network,” Management Education and Development 3 (1972): 117–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

39 Economist, 4 Aug. 1956.

40 Cabinet Mutual Aid Committee Minutes, MAC (59) 4th Meeting, 6 April 1959, CAB 134/2203, Public Record Office, London, U.K.

41 See, e.g., EPA, Annual Report. Part One (Paris, 1954), Annex 3.Google Scholar

42 Mosson, T. M., Management Education in Five European Countries (London, 1965), 156.Google Scholar

43 National Economie Development Council, Management Recruitment and Development (London, 1965), 6.Google Scholar

44 Taylor, H. Stuart, “How Business Uses Graduates,” Management Today (May 1969): 87–9.Google Scholar

45 Burns, T. and Stalker, G. M., The Management of Innovation (London, 1961), 211.Google Scholar

46 New Society, 16 June 1966.

47 Dyer, P. F., “Presenting Financial Information to Employees,” Manager 25 (1957): 101–8.Google Scholar

48 Wilson, D., “The Baton not the Rod,” Director 7 (Oct. 1955): 124–5.Google Scholar

49 Urwick, L., Personnel Management m Perspective (London, 1959).Google Scholar

50 British Productivity Council, A Review of Productivity in the Pressed Metal Industry (London, 1954), 7.Google Scholar

51 McLean, James W., “What Goes Wrong with British Packaging,” Director 12 (Oct. 1959): 122–3.Google Scholar

52 Nixon, F., “Spending to Save. Product Quality and Reliability,” Times Review of Industry and Trade 2 (Feb. 1964): 18–19.Google Scholar

53 Simpson, G., “The Specialist Barrier,” Scientific Business 1 (1963): 143–8.Google Scholar

54 Anon., “Summary of United States Assistance Programs to the United Kingdom …,” Sept. 1955, 1, box 5, file on “U.K. Productivity—General (Director's File) 1955–7,” Subject Files of the Director 1953–7, Office of the Director, Mission to the U.K., Records Group 469, National Archives, Washington, D.C.

55 Francis E. Rogers -Martin M. Tank, 9 Jan. 1956, box 6, file on “U.K. Productivity—EPA 1952–7, Directors' File,” Subject Files of the Director 1953–7, Office of the Director, Mission to the U.K., Records Group 469, National Archives, Washington, D.C.; and more generally, Gomberg, William, “Labor's Participation in the European Productivity Program. A Study in Frustration,” Political Science Quarterly 74 (June 1959): 240–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

56 McGlade, “U.K. Technical Assistance,” 22.

57 S. L. Behoteguy -M. S. Belcher, 19 July 1956, box 11, file on EPA Project 349, EPA Project Files 1950–7, Records Group 469, National Archives, Washington, D.C.

58 Francis E. Rogers -Martin M. Tank, 4 Feb. 1956, box 6, file on “U.K. Productivity EPA 1952–7, Directors' File,” Subject Files of the Director 1953–7, Office of the Director, Mission to the U.K., Records Group 469, National Archives, Washington, D.C.

59 E.g., Katherine F. Allen—Scott L. Behoteguy, 29 July 1957, box 10, file on EPA Project 329, EPA Project Files 1950–7, Records Group 469, National Archives, Washington, D.C.

60 “Technical Assistance. Facts and Figures on Mission Organisation,” EPA/CS/376, 25 May 1956, 9–10, box 3, file on EPA Project 180, EPA Project Files 1950–7, Records Group 469, National Archives, Washington, D.C.

61 S. A. Holme – N. Kipling, 1 June 1951, MSS 200/F/3/D3/7/29, Confederation of British Industry papers, Modem Records Centre, University of Warwick, U.K.

62 Bent Boel, “The European Productivity Agency and the Development of Management Education in Western Europe in the 1950s,” paper presented to conference on “The Development of Business Schools in Europe,” Bertinoro, Italy, June 1995.

63 “European Productivity Agency. Results Obtained and Future Prospects,” EPA (57)11, 3 Sept. 1957, 24, box 1, files on “EPA—General Through 1957,” Records Relating to EPA 1953–7, Records Group 469, National Archives, Washington, D.C.

64 Productivity Committee Minutes, EPA/D/9097, 7–8 March 1961, MSS 200/F/3/S2/48/2, Confederation of British Industry papers, Modern Records Centre, University of Warwick, U.K.

65 Chandler, Alfred D. Jr, Scale and Scope: The Dynamics of Industrial Capitalism (Cambridge, Mass., 1990), 389–92.Google Scholar

66 Broadberry, Stephen, “Employment and Unemployment” in The Economic History of Britain since 1700. Volume 3: 1939–1992, ed. Floud, Roderick and McCloskey, Donald (Cambridge, 1994), 212Google Scholar; N. F. R. Crafts, “The Assessment: British Economic Growth over the Long-Run,” Oxford Review of Economic Policy No. 4 (1988), x; and Crafts, N. F. R., “‘You've never had it so good?’: British economic policy and performance, 1945–60,” in Europe's Post-War Recovery, ed. Eichengreen, B. (Cambridge, 1995), 246–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

67 In 1949, Britain had 55,129 manufacturing establishments employing more than ten workers, but only 25 percent of these employed over 100: see Ministry of Labour Gazette 58 (June 1950): 189–90.

68 See, e.g., H. D. Willcock, “The Dissemination of Technical Information in Industry. A Pilot Inquiry,” 1952, RG 23/170, Public Record Office, London, U.K.

69 Anon., “Progress report on Pottery,” Business 78 (Oct. 1948): 41.

70 W. H. Temple, “Personnel Management in the Small Firm,” 12 Oct. 1951, 2, LAB 10/1020, Public Record Office, London, U.K.

71 Engineering, 30 Sept. 1955.

72 Macrea, G., “New Ideas Enliven an Old Industry,” Business 85 (1955): 107–111.Google Scholar

73 Trades Union Congress, Trades Unions and Productivity (London, 1950), 58–61.Google Scholar

74 F. M. Paride, “Briefing Paper on Productivity,” May 1951, 6, box 6, file on “Productivity,” Glenn Atkinson Papers, Records Group 469, National Archives, Washington, D.C.

75 Harry L. Turtledove – John Hutchison, 5 Dec. 1951, enc. “Survey of United Kingdom Productivity Team Follow-Up Activities,” box 5, file 10, Subject Files of Glenn Atkinson 1950–2, Labour Division, Office of Economic Policy and Planning, Mission to the U.K., Records Group 469, National Archives, Washington, D.C.; and James Stein, “The United Kingdom Industrial Productivity Program,” [n.d.], 19, box 6, file on “Productivity,” Glenn Atkinson Papers, Records Group 469, National Archives, Washington, D.C.

76 Tiratsoo, N. and Tomlinson, J., “Restrictive Practices on the Shopfloor in Britain, 1945–1960: Myth and Reality,” Business History 36 (April 1994): 65–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

77 Editorial comment, The Times Review of Trade and Engineering (April 1946): 2.

78 Editorial comment, The Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders' Progress Report (March 1949): 4.

79 Iron and Coal Trades Review, 9 May 1952.

80 See, e.g., anon., “Japanese Competition,” Chamber of Commerce Journal 134 (Sept. 1953): 12.

81 See, e.g., Iron and Coal Trades Review, 14 Aug. 1953 and anon., “What's Wrong with the Motor Industry,” Director 9 (Oct. 1956): 94–5.

82 Freyer, Regulating Big Business, 285–98.

83 Mercer, H., Constructing a Competitive Order: The Hidden History of British Antitrust Policies (Cambridge, 1995), 3 and 31–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

84 Hague, D. C., The Economics of Man-Made Fibres (London, 1957)Google Scholar; Donnithorne, A. G., British Rubber Manufacturing (London, 1958)Google Scholar; and Barna, T., Investment and Growth Policies in British Industrial Firms (Cambridge, 1962).Google Scholar

85 Mercer, Constructing a Competitive Order, passim.

86 Political and Planning, Economic, Industrial Trade Associations. Activities and Organisation (London, 1957), 164.Google Scholar

87 Carter, C. F. and Williams, B. R., Industry and Technical Progress (London, 1957), 154–62 and 163–6Google Scholar; and Burn, D., “Retrospect,” in The Structure of British Industry, Volume 2, ed. Burn, D. (Cambridge, 1958), 429–54.Google Scholar

88 Balfour, W. Campbell, “Productivity and the Worker,” British Journal of Sociohgy, 4 (Sept. 1953): 257–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

89 See various reports from MSA sponsored British visitors to the States, MSS 200/F/3/T3/29/4–6, Confederation of British Industry papers, Modern Records Centre, University of Warwick, U.K.; and AACP Team Report, Freight Handling (London, 1951), 51.Google Scholar

90 G. B. Blaker, “Note for Record,” 21 July 1950, BT 195/52, Public Record Office, London, U.K.; and Elliott, T. G., A Survey of Production and Industrial Engineering Organisation and Practice in the U.S.A and Canada (London, 1952).Google Scholar

91 “Interim Report to the Mutual Security Agency by tlie British Industrial Management Group, College of Business Administration, University of Cincinnati,” 12 May 1953, 18, MSS 200/F/3/T3/29/4, Confederation of British Industry papers, Modern Records Centre, University of Warwick, U.K.

92 See, e.g., Board of Trade, Working Party Reports. Cotton (London, 1946), 242–9Google Scholar; Jewkes, John, Ordeal by Planning (London, 1948), 222Google Scholar; editorial comment, Manager 20 (1952): 271–2; and editorial comment in the Engineer, 2 Jan. 1953.

93 See. e.g., the differing assessments in Tiratsoo and Tomlinson, Industrial Efficiency, 144–52 and Zeitlin, Jonathan, “Americanization and its Limits: Theory and Practice in the Reconstruction of Britain's Engineering Industries, 1945–55”, Business and Economic History 24 (Fall 1995): 277–86.Google Scholar

94 “Industry Comment 7. Internal Combustion Engines,” [n.d.], 1, SUPP 14/141, Public Record Office, London, U.K.

95 Tiratsoo, Nick, “Standard Motors 1945–55 and the Post-war Malaise of British Management,” in Management and Business in Britain and France: The Age of the Corporate Economy, ed. Cassis, Youssef, Crouzet, Francois and Gourvish, Terry (Oxford, 1995), 99.Google Scholar

96 H. D. Willcock, “Overseas Buyers' Experience of British Goods,” (Aug. 1953), 45, RG 23/185, Public Record Office, London, U.K.

97 Economist, 29 Dec. 1951 and 5 Jan. 1952.

98 Economist, 29 Dec. 1951.

99 “Report of the Lemon Committee for Standardisation of Engineering Products— Comments by the Employer Members on the Engineering Advisory Council,” [n.d.], 1, SUPP 14/141, Public Records Office, London, U.K.

100 AACP Team Report, Metalworking Machine Took (London, 1953), 48.Google Scholar

101 AACP Team Report, Drop Forging (London, 1950), 9.Google Scholar

102 AACP Team Report, Simplification in British Industry (London, 1950), 5–6.Google Scholar

103 Manchester Guardian, 29 Nov. 1949.

104 Engineering, 8 June 1956.

105 Some Aspects of the Motor Vehicle Industry in the U.S.A. (Technical Assistance Mission No. 92, Paris, 1953), 21.

106 Council, British Productivity, Better Ways. Nineteen Paths to Higher Productivity (London, 1957), 34.Google Scholar

107 Advocacy of the “3 Ss” could be sometimes rather crudely made in popular propaganda material as opposed to technical publications: see, e.g., Hutton, G., We Too Can Prosper (London, 1953), 89–118.Google Scholar

108 Hopkins, Harry, The New Look (London, 1964), 109–110.Google Scholar

109 G. Withers to Mr. White, 10 Oct. 1952, MSS 200/F/3/T3/29/2, Confederation of British Industry papers, University of Warwick, U.K.

110 “Gulliver,” “Across the Board,” Director (Jan. 1966): 45.

111 Willcock, H. D., “Public Opinion: Attitudes Towards America and Russia,” Political Quarterly 19 (Jan.-March 1948): 61–2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

112 Anon., , “Anglo-American Economic Co-operation,” Manager 13 (Jan. 1945): 31–2Google Scholar; Clark, William, Less Than Kin. A Study of Anglo-American Relations (London, 1957), 146–59Google Scholar; and Lowenthal, R., “The American [Model,]” Twentieth Century 163 (April 1958): 361–71.Google Scholar

113 Lewis, R. and Stewart, R., The Boss. The Life and Times of the British Business Man (London, 1958), 175–95.Google Scholar

114 The following two paragraphs are based upon material in Tiratsoo, “Standard Motors.”

115 Orr, J. L., “Providing the Conditions of Efficiency,” British Management Review 9 (Oct. 1950): 41.Google Scholar

116 Editorial comment, Business 84 (Nov. 1954): 65.

117 Urwick, L., “The American Challenge in Industrial Management,” British Management Review 12 (April 1954): 166.Google Scholar

118 Granick, D., The European Executive (New York, 1962), 234.Google Scholar

119 Tiratsoo and Tomlinson, Industrial Efficiency, passim; Tiratsoo, “Standard Motors.”

120 Mercer, Constructing a Competitive Order, passim.

121 Appley, R., “Management and Work,” British Management Review 10 (March 1952): 20–3.Google Scholar

122 See, e.g., G. Pollock - F. E. Rogers, enc. “European Productivity Agency …,” [n.d.], 1, box 5, Subject Files of the Director, Office of the Director, Mission to the U.K., Records Group 469, National Archives, Washington, D.C.

123 Ingham, H., “Interfirm Comparison for Management,” Manager 27 (1959): 313–16Google Scholar; Shinn, J., “The Sealed Lips of British Business,” Director (Jan. 1963): 96–7.Google Scholar

124 Tiratsoo and Tomlinson, Industrial Efficiency, 141.

125 Minutes of Board of Trade Committee on E.P.A. Matters, BT/EPA (59)M, 5 Oct. 1959, 2, MSS 200/B/3/3/944.1 Pt. 9, Confederation of British Industry papers, Modern Records Centre, University of Warwick, U.K.

126 “Notes of Sir Harry Pilkington's speech … on 21 April 1955,” 7, MSS 200/3/3/P3/ 11/1, Confederation of British Industry papers, Modern Records Centre, University of Warwick, U.K.

127 Airgram from L. Gordon to FOA, 23 Feb. 1955, box 1, file on ‘EPA …,’ Records Relating to EPA 1955–7, Records Group 469, National Archives, Washington, D.C.

128 Rivkin - Gordon, 24 April 1953, box 3, file on “U.K. Productivity,” Subject Files, Office of the Director, Mission to the U.K., Records Group 469, National Archives, Washington, D.C.

129 “Memorandum of Conversation with Mr. Hill, Board of Trade, November 16, 1954,” box 5, file on “U.K. Productivity—General 1954,” Subject Files of the Director 1953–7, Office of the Director, Mission to the U.K., Records Group 469, National Archives, Washington, D.C.

130 ECA London - Washington, 14 Oct. 1949, 4 and 7, box 21, ECA Subject Files, Records Group 469, National Archives, Washington, D.C. On the weakness of the Monopolies Commission, see Mercer, Constructing a Competitive Order, chaps. 5 and 6.

131 “Notes of a Conversation with MSA reps.,” 13 Oct. 1953, T 235/134, and Cabinet Minutes, 11 Sept. 1952, CAB 128/25, Public Record Office, London, U.K.

132 Dudley, N. A., “Comparative Productivity Analysis—Study in the United Kingdom West Midlands Engineering and Metalworking Industries,” International Journal of Production Research 8 (1970): 400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

133 Williams, J. M., “Materials Handling and Manufacturing Management” in Department of Industry Industrial Technologies Secretariat, Manufacturing Management and Industrial Technologies: Symposium Papers (London, 1976), 26–37.Google Scholar

134 SirWarner, F., Standards and Specifications in the Engineering Industries (London, 1977), 11.Google Scholar

135 Lockyer, Keith G., Oakland, John S. and Duprey, Clive H., “Work Study Techniques in U.K. Manufacturing Industry,” Omega 11 (1983): 301–2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar