The growth of statutory compensation for industrial injuries and illness has attracted considerable attention from historians of state welfare and students of organized labour in both Europe and North America. The rights of legal redress for disease and accidents in the workplace have become the subject of some debate among historians of occupational health and safety, most particularly in regard to asbestos-related illnesses. Among the most detailed and scholarly accounts of the subject in Britain are those by Peter Bartrip and his collaborators. In contrast to many accounts in labour and medical history which express strong empathy with the plight of workers who faced injury and death in the workplace, Bartrip adopts a model of industrial behaviour which is closer to rational-choice assumptions of mainstream economics. His recent account of government regulation of occupational diseases since the nineteenth century offers limited comment on the attitudes of trade unionists to accidents, though he broadly maintains that British unions have historically been more concerned with winning compensation awards than pressing for the prevention of hazards in the industrial workplace.

This is the first of two related articles in the present volume which examine the recent history of health services management using the case of the British National Health Service (NHS). In the historiography of the NHS the 1980s is widely seen as a watershed, when public policy first sought to introduce market disciplines into its operation. Administrative and managerial reforms were central to this process, and their origins and impact have been the subject of continuing debate. This article examines and evaluates one of the key events in this history, the Griffiths NHS Inquiry of 1983, which put in place the principles of ‘general management’ in the NHS. Drawing on both documentary records and oral evidence it offers fresh perspectives on the reasons why the Conservative government embarked on this reform, on the workings of the inquiry team under the leadership of the businessman Roy Griffiths, and on the uneven course of the implementation of his recommendations. While its initial impact arguably did not meet the expectations of its supporters, it is suggested that several of Griffiths’ key concerns have grown, not diminished, in importance as aspects of subsequent health politics. These include: the need for clinician involvement in NHS management and financing; the conundrum of how to depoliticise the central direction of the service while retaining political accountability; the desirability of measuring and improving performance; and the question of how best to incorporate the wishes of patients and public in the decision-making arena.

Histories of the global smallpox eradication programme have tended to concentrate on the larger national formations in Africa and Asia. This focus is generally justified by chroniclers by the fact that these locations contributed a major share of the world’s annual tally of variola, which meant that international agencies paid a lot of attention to working with officials in national and local government on anti-smallpox campaigns in these territories. Such historiographical trends have led to the marginalisation of the histories of smallpox eradication programmes in smaller nations, which are presented either in heroic, institutional tropes as peripheral or as being largely shorn of sustained campaigns against the disease. Using a case study of Bhutan, a small Himalayan kingdom sandwiched between India and China, an effort is made to reclaim the historical experiences in small national entities in the worldwide smallpox eradication programme. Bhutan’s experience in the 1960s and 1970s allows much more in addition. It provides us with a better understanding of the limited powers of international agencies in areas considered politically sensitive by the governments of powerful nations such as India. The resulting methodological suggestions are of wider historical and historiographical relevance.