Challenges to Post-War Economic Doctrines in the 1960s and 1970s
TITLE
‘During the1960s and 1970s it was clear that post-war economic doctrines were failing.
ESSAY
The 1960s and 1970s marked a pivotal period in economic history where the traditional post-war economic doctrines were called into question. The prevailing belief in the effectiveness of Keynesian economic policies and the strong role of government intervention in the economy began to falter as challenges from slowing growth and external events emerged.
Post-World War II economic thinking was shaped by the failures of unregulated capitalism during the Great Depression and the need for federal control that arose during the war era. The United States, now a global power, embraced a mixed economy model where the government played a significant role in managing business cycles, ensuring full employment, regulating private firms and the financial sector, and investing in public goods such as infrastructure development.
However, as the 1960s and 1970s progressed, there was a growing sense that the post-war economic doctrines were struggling to deliver sustainable growth. Despite high levels of government spending and subsidies aimed at maintaining economic stability, the economy was experiencing sluggish growth rates. The oil crisis of the 1970s further exacerbated the challenges, highlighting the limitations of government control over external events.
Critics of the post-war economic doctrines began to advocate for a shift towards laissez-faire economic principles. They argued that excessive government intervention, high taxation, and regulation were stifling economic vitality and hindering innovation and entrepreneurship. Calls for deregulation, reduction of subsidies, tax cuts, and expansion of free trade gained momentum as alternatives to the existing economic model.
The push for neoliberal economic policies challenged the status quo and led to a reconsideration of the balance between the public and private sectors. Proponents of neoliberalism emphasized the importance of empowering markets and reducing government interference to stimulate economic growth and efficiency. Trade negotiations focused on dismantling barriers to international trade and promoting privatization and free-market competition.
The debate over the effectiveness of post-war economic doctrines versus neoliberalism continues to this day. Defenders of the previous economic model argue that it provided stability and social prosperity, while critics point to its limitations in promoting sustained growth and innovation. The transition towards neoliberal economic policies brought about significant changes in economic thinking and policy direction, leading to a reevaluation of the role of government in the economy and the importance of market forces.
In conclusion, the 1960s and 1970s were a period of transformation in economic thought, marked by a shift away from post-war economic doctrines towards neoliberal principles. The challenges posed by slowing growth and external events forced a reexamination of traditional economic approaches and paved the way for a new era of economic policy and thinking.
SUBJECT
HISTORY
PAPER
A LEVEL
NOTES
During the 1960s and 1970s, it was clear that post-war economic doctrines were failing. Discuss this view Challenge to post-war assumptions as growth slowed and impact of external events. Post-war economic thinking was heavily influenced by the apparent failures of unregulated capitalism in the Great Crash and the rise of federal responsibility and control which grew during the Second World War. After 1945 the US could not return to isolationism and had to accept its global position.
Through to the 1960s and 1970s, it was taken for granted that the Federal government would play a large part in the domestic economy and would manage business cycles, aim to maintain full employment, regulate private firms and the financial sector and produce various public goods such as the expansion of the interstate highways. To do this required relatively high levels of taxation and there was limited progress towards tax cuts through the period. This adapted Keynesianism was accompanied by high levels of defence spending putting the state as a major driver of economic activity.
Federal and state spending and subsidies cushioned free enterprise against market forces. The US allied this macroeconomic management with moves for free trade, but international capital movements were restricted. There were critics of this mixed economy who looked back to neoliberal economic theory and when the US economy faltered from steady if unimpressive growth rates in the 1970s there were calls for deregulation and reduction of subsidies and welfare and tax cuts to stimulate enterprise together with an extension of free trade.
Laissez-faire ideas were reintroduced on the grounds that government efforts to manage the business cycle were futile and excessive levels of taxation and regulation were destroying the vitality of market economies. Trade negotiations were expanded to dismantle ‘nontariff barriers’ that included domestic legislation that had the unintended consequence of discriminating against foreign products.
Developing nations were told to scrap their planning processes, privatise state-owned enterprises, and end subsidies that made food, transportation, and housing more available for the poor. The assault on post-war economic doctrines that still determined much thinking in the 1960s and 70s was considerable, but the debate is whether it was justified.
Defenders have argued that the balance between the public and private sectors was beneficially maintained and that the oil crisis was beyond the control of governments and the recession was not a result of ill-judged doctrine but of changes in the world context. It is also pointed out that the critics could not prevent continuing high levels of government spending which were part of US commitment to world power status, not Keynesianism. Also, the consumer-based prosperity that continued into the 1960s did ensure a degree of social stability that was lost by neoliberal economic policy which resulted in greater social inequality.
Critics pointed to the sluggish growth rates and the over dependence on the state and the benefits of greater enterprise with the expansion of technology and the freer financial markets.