Did the 48-hour week damage Britain's industrial competitiveness?1

Britain's Competitiveness

Bibliographic Data

ID3249176
AuthorsPeter Scott (0000-0003-1230-9040, University of Reading), Anna Spadavecchia (0000-0003-1468-0206, University of Reading)
Year2011
Volume64
Issue4
Pages1266-1288
Publication date2011-11-01
Peer ReviewedYes
Open AccessYes
TypeARTICLE
VenueThe Economic History Review (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 0013-0117 • E-ISSN: 1468-0289
PublisherWiley (PUBLISHER • GB)
DOI10.1111/j.1468-0289.2010.00590.x
OpenAlexW1566426063
LanguageEN
Citations received7
References cited45

Britain's 1919 introduction of a 48-hour week for industrial workers has been highlighted as a key factor depressing its relative labour productivity. This largely ignores both any potential offset to lower hours from higher hourly productivity and the fact that the 48-hour week was also introduced in almost all other industrialized nations (generally involving substantially greater reductions in hours). We examine the international context and the short-term impact on British productivity, focusing on three major export industries—coal, cotton, and iron and steel. Britain did not suffer any significant relative productivity loss in these industries, while reduced working hours are shown to have been partially compensated for by higher hourly productivity

Agricultural economics · Context (archaeology) · Demographic economics · Economic growth · Economics · Geography · Labour economics · Productivity · Economic Theory and Policy · Historical Economic and Social Studies · Monetary Policy and Economic Impact

Tools

Open DOISci-Hub