IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/ehsrev/v60y2007i1p1-34.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Towards a new Bradshaw? Economic statistics and the British state in the 1950s and 1960s

Author

Listed:
  • GLEN O’HARA

Abstract

This article outlines the attempts of British central government to react to the perceived inadequacy of official economic statistics. A huge amount of work went into this project, the main aim of which was to speed up the production of statistics so that the economy could be analysed in more detail, and thus better managed. If this was to work, more data was required on the labour market, on productivity, on production, and on the interlinkages between those indicators. British official statistics clearly were more comprehensive and more detailed at the end of this period than they had been at the start. Even so, the effort was usually thought to have been a failure by the early 1970s. More detail took time to produce; it was difficult to recruit the necessary staff; successive administrative reorganizations also absorbed energies. The devolved informality of British government hampered the emergence of an overall picture. Businesses and trade unions resisted attempts to collect more data, especially when it showed them in an unflattering light. Above all, the elite, specialist, and technical nature of the reform process meant that very little political and popular pressure built up to force through further changes.

Suggested Citation

  • Glen O’Hara, 2007. "Towards a new Bradshaw? Economic statistics and the British state in the 1950s and 1960s," Economic History Review, Economic History Society, vol. 60(1), pages 1-34, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:ehsrev:v:60:y:2007:i:1:p:1-34
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-0289.2006.00354.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0289.2006.00354.x
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.1468-0289.2006.00354.x?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Stone,Richard, 2010. "Some British Empiricists in the Social Sciences, 1650–1900," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521128452.
    2. Tooze,J. Adam, 2001. "Statistics and the German State, 1900–1945," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521803182.
    3. Roger Middleton, 1998. "Charlatans or Saviours?," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 1556.
    4. Roger E. Backhouse, 1997. "Truth and Progress in Economic Knowledge," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 766.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Miguel A. Duran, 2007. "Mathematical Needs and Economic Interpretations," Contributions to Political Economy, Cambridge Political Economy Society, vol. 26(1), pages 1-16.
    2. Sandra Silva & Aurora Teixeira, 2009. "On the divergence of evolutionary research paths in the past 50 years: a comprehensive bibliometric account," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 19(5), pages 605-642, October.
    3. Blankart Charles B. & Koester Gerrit B., 2007. "Theoretischer und empirischer wissenschaftlicher Fortschritt / Theoretical and empirical scientific progress: Eine kritische Analyse des Buches von Alesina und Spolaore: „The Size of Nations“ / A crit," ORDO. Jahrbuch für die Ordnung von Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft, De Gruyter, vol. 58(1), pages 167-180, January.
    4. Bruno Frey, 2005. "Problems with Publishing: Existing State and Solutions," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 19(2), pages 173-190, April.
    5. Pedro N. Teixeira, 2007. "Great expectations, mixed results and resilient beliefs: the troubles of empirical research in economic controversies," Journal of Economic Methodology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 14(3), pages 291-309.
    6. D. Hodge, 1999. "The Monetary Approach: A Methodological Appraisal," South African Journal of Economics, Economic Society of South Africa, vol. 67(4), pages 263-274, December.
    7. Gigliobianco Alfredo & Giordano Claire, 2012. "Does Economic Theory Matter in Shaping Banking Regulation? A Case-study of Italy (1861-1936)," Accounting, Economics, and Law: A Convivium, De Gruyter, vol. 2(1), pages 1-78, September.
    8. Clive Beed & Cara Beed, 1999. "Intellectual Progress and Academic Economics: Rational Choice and Game Theory," Journal of Post Keynesian Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 22(2), pages 163-185, December.
    9. Francesco Guala & Andrea Salanti, 2002. "Model-robustness in ‘old’ and ‘new’ growth theory," Working Papers (-2012) 0201, University of Bergamo, Department of Economics.
    10. Francesco Guala & Andrea Salanti, 2002. "On the Robustness of Economic Models," Working Papers (-2012) 0208, University of Bergamo, Department of Economics.
    11. Marcel Boumans & Mary Morgan, 2002. "Ceteris paribus conditions: materiality and the application of economic theories," Journal of Economic Methodology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 8(1), pages 11-26.
    12. Thomas Leonard, 2001. "Reflection on rules in science: an invisible-hand perspective," Journal of Economic Methodology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 9(2), pages 141-168.
    13. Arne Heise, 2014. "The Future of Economics in a Lakatos–Bourdieu Framework," International Journal of Political Economy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 43(3), pages 70-93, July.
    14. Holmlund, Bertil, 2014. "What do labor market institutions do?," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 30(C), pages 62-69.
    15. Bernd Hayo, 1998. "Simplicity in econometric modelling: some methodological considerations," Journal of Economic Methodology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 5(2), pages 247-261.
    16. repec:dgr:rugggd:gd-129 is not listed on IDEAS
    17. Bruno S. Frey, "undated". "Publishing as Prostitution? Choosing Between One�s Own Ideas and Academic Failure," IEW - Working Papers 117, Institute for Empirical Research in Economics - University of Zurich.
    18. Arne HEISE, 2016. "‘Why has economics turned out this way?’ A socio-economic note on the explanation of monism in economics," The Journal of Philosophical Economics, Bucharest Academy of Economic Studies, The Journal of Philosophical Economics, vol. 10(1), pages 81-101, November.
    19. Scott Newton, 2009. "The two sterling crises of 1964 and the decision not to devalue1," Economic History Review, Economic History Society, vol. 62(1), pages 73-98, February.
    20. Francesco Sergi, 2020. "The Standard Narrative about DSGE Models in Central Banks’ Technical Reports," The European Journal of the History of Economic Thought, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 27(2), pages 163-193, March.
    21. Roger Backhouse & Mary Morgan, 2001. "Introduction: is data mining a methodological problem?," Journal of Economic Methodology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 7(2), pages 171-181.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:ehsrev:v:60:y:2007:i:1:p:1-34. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/ehsukea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.