1 Yozshuzshura

Nationalising Mines Essay


Most of the UK's major strategic heavy industries and public utilities were nationalised between 1946 and the early 1950s, only to be returned to the private sector between 1979 and 1990.

Examples of nationalisation

1946 - The Bank of England was the first organisation to be nationalised by the new Labour government of Clement Atlee.

1947 - The Coal industry was nationalised in 1947 when over 800 coalmines were taken under public ownership and a National Coal Board (NCB) was established to manage the industry on commercial lines. The NCB became the British Coal Corporation in 1987, and this was wound up in 1997 as the industry was privatised. (Source: National Archives).

1948 - Railways were nationalised to help rebuild the network infrastructure and re-equip the rolling stock after the destructive effects of the Second World War.

1949 - Steel was first nationalised in 1949, and privatised a year later by the new Conservative government. It was re-nationalised in 1967 when over 90 of steel capacity was put under the control of the British Steel Corporation (BSC).  Steel was returned to the private sector once more in 1988.

2008/9 - A number of key UK banks became subject to full or part-nationalisation from early 2008 as a response to the financial crisis and banking collapse. The first bank to become nationalised was the Northern Rock in February 2008, and by March 2009 the UK Treasury had taken a 65% stake in the Lloyds Banking Group and a 68% stake in the Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS).

The advantages of nationalisation

  1. The main motive for nationalisation during the post-war period was to ensure a co-ordinated approach to production and supply to ensure economic survival and efficiency in the face of war, and post-war reconstruction. For example, the advantage of a nationalised rail network, as with other natural monopolies, was that central planning could help create a more organised and co-ordinated service. This argument was applied widely to the so-called commanding heights of the economy.

  2. It can also be argued that much infrastructure provides a considerable external benefit to individuals and firms. For example, a nationally and centrally funded and efficient rail network helps keep road traffic down and hence reduces pollution and congestion. It may also help reduce business costs, which may be passed on to other businesses.

  3. Another advantage of national ownership is that economies of large scale can be gained that would not be available to smaller, privately owned enterprises.   For example, a nationalised rail service could purchase materials, rail track, and rolling stock on a large scale, thereby reducing average costs and supplying more efficiently than smaller operators.

  4. In more recent times, the failure of major banks has highlighted the fact that, under national ownership and control, failing banks can be funded more quickly and for larger amounts than under private ownership. This enables the banking infrastructure to be rebuilt, as well as ensure the closer regulation of banks in the future.

The disadvantages

By the late 1970s it became increasingly apparent that many of the industries nationalised between 1945 and 1951 were running into difficulties. The major problems that the industries faced were:

  1. They were being managed ineffectively and inefficiently. The principal-agent problem is highly relevant to public sector activities given that the managers of the utilities were generally not required to meet any efficiency objectives set by the state. There was growing criticism that, because these industries were protected from competition, they had become increasingly ‘X’ inefficient.

  2. Nationalised industries were also prone to suffer from moral hazard, which occurs whenever individuals or organisations are insured against the negative consequences of their own inefficient behaviour. For example, if a particular nationalised industry made operating losses, the government would simply cover those loses with subsidies.  Knowing that the taxpayer would come to the rescue meant that the inefficient behaviour could continue. This is, perhaps, the most significant criticism of the recent 'bail out' of failing banks. Given that they know the taxpayer will bail them out this may be an encouragement to continue with their inefficient and highly risky lending activities.

  3. In addition, the nationalised industries had limited scope to raise capital for long term investment and modernisation because they would have to compete with other government spending departments, like education, health and defence.  The result was a prolonged period of under-investment in these industries.

By the late 1970s, and throughout the 1980s, most UK's major State owned industries were sold off to the private sector through privatisation. The  intention was that, back in the free market, these industries would become more efficient and would be able to modernise by having greater access to the capital markets, and by employing more modern and dynamic management. Privatisation also generated huge revenues for the UK Treasury as well as allowing tax cuts and creating an environment where  other supply-side reforms could be implemented.

Following the banking collapse of 2009, nationalisation was put firmly back on the agenda, if only in terms of the financial system.


See: Banking regulation


Other stories

Brexit latest

Mrs May sets out government's position on a new economic relationship with the EU.

Read more
Energy supply

Price cap to be applied to standard variable rate tariffs.

Read more
Customs unions

Costs and benefits of customs unions.

New materials

Multiple choice papers for Paper Three.

Read more
Brexit update

Article 50

What trading options are available to the UK?

Savings ratio

Savings ratio falls to lowest level on record.

Read more
Tax avoidance

Double Irish - and a Dutch Sandwich more..

The OECD presents its final package for reform of international tax rules..more

OECD - reducing income inequality will boost growth..more


In economics, nationalization means the establishment of public ownership over the principal means of production. Nationalization implies that, on behalf of the nation, the government of the country owns and operates the productive system, and sometimes also the distributive system.

Nationalization is usually done in piecemeal. One after another, the important industries are brought under government ownership.

It is a step towards socialism which usually signifies a system in which all major productive enterprises have been nationalized.

Arguments for Nationalization

The demand for nationalization arose as a result of the excesses perpetrated by laissez-faire capitalism. The onward march of the capitalistic system of production in the 18th and the 19th centuries gave rise to a number of acute social and economic problems.

1. Inequality of wealth and income: The problem of inequality of wealth and income occupied the pride of place. In explaining root causes of this inequality, social thinkers could not but point to the defects of a system of production which was operated primarily on considerations of private profit. A system of private enterprise, it was pointed out, could run successfully only if private profits were large. Since opportunities of making large profits could be reaped only by a few, the system inevitably tended to create inequality. This original shortcoming was perpetuated and multiplied a hundredfold by the laws of property and inheritance. Thus, the system of private enterprise actuated by the profit motive came in for sharp criticism. Social reformers began to advocate the abolition, or at least partial modification of the present system. There was demand on all sides for State ownership of important industries, for appropriation of private profits by the State and for reduction of the existing inequalities.

2. Monopolistic stagnation: Gradually, other arguments were added to support the case for nationalization. As private industry lost its competitive character and developed all the symptoms of monopolistic stagnation people came to argue that individual self-interest was no longer adequate to ensure progressive increase in industrial efficiency. Monopoly was regarded as the greatest single barrier to innovation and improved methods of production. The solution of the impasse was sought in nationalization. Industries owned and managed by the State, it was argued, would never become so inefficient as those under private monopoly, since there would be no vested interests to oppose the introduction of new methods and new products. In the first flush of enthusiasm, nationalization was often regarded as synonymous with all-round increase in efficiency and industrial progress, though later experience has frequently been otherwise.

These arguments for nationalization are all based on considerations of social welfare.


The advantages of Nationalization is given below:

1. Safeguards the interests of Laborers: Nationalization also came to be regarded as holding the key to better relations between labor and management. Under private capitalism the managers are agents acting for a host of owners. They have therefore to oppose the demands of labor in every case to safeguard the owners’ interests and to keep their own position absolutely safe and clear. This would not be so under a system of nationalized industries, because the interests of the laborers would not be opposed to those of the managers. Both would act on behalf of the nation and get such rewards for their services as the nation is willing to pay.

2. Technical efficiency and lower cost of production: The managers, freed from their tutelage to the industrial overlords, would devote themselves entirely to improving technical efficiency and lowering the cost of production.

3. Cooperation and prosperity for all: The industrial world, under private capitalism, is torn as under by strife and discords. There are frequent stoppages of production or, at least, the quantity and quality of work have to suffer as a result of this bitterness. Nationalization would do away with industrial unrest and usher in a period of cooperation and prosperity for all.

4. Increased earnings of the State: Nationalization of some important industries would enable the State to earn large revenue easily and without any extra cost.

5. Control over prices of war supplies: During war, nationalization would help because the government could not be forced to pay exorbitant prices for war supplies by a handful of war profiteers.

6. Employment opportunities: In periods of unemployment, people could be given employment expanding the activities of the nationalized industries.

7. Economic and political growth: In short, nationalization would help the State to order the political and economic life of the nation more conveniently both in peace and in war. Without mastery over certain industries, at least, the government would be solely at the mercy of the economic lords. With nationalization the tables are turned and the State can dictate its own terms to those industrial magnates as are allowed to remain.


Nationalization was a slogan raised by these who were impressed by the wastes of private capitalism and wanted to introduce considerations of social welfare in the management of a nation’s economic affairs. The disadvantages of Nationalization is summarized below:

1. Lack of individual initiative: The men who shout these slogans do not always stop to consider if there can be any progress if individual initiative is stopped. Social philosophers have often pointed out that in a regime of nationalized industries, the spur of individual advancement will never be as powerful as it is today. Men will have a tendency to work in accordance with a dull routine rather than strike out a new path.

2. Lack of freedom: It is only when men can think and act freely as individuals that they can produce new ideas and make new inventions.

3. Lack of Spirit of competition: Then we must not forget that although modem industry is often dominated by monopolies, there is some rivalry among them and the spirit of competition is not entirely dead.

4. Rigid system: State ownership of industries may mean rigid routine and a dead uniformity.

5. Less intervention of public in economic affairs: Moreover, there is a danger in making the government the sole master of economic affairs. In private Capitalism the government can act as the balance-wheel; if any­thing goes wrong, we can look to the government for redress.

Category: Essays, Paragraphs and Articles

Leave a Comment


Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *