The moments of, and movements for national accounts: contextualising changes to British national accounting during the 1930s to 1950s Matthew Philip James Fright Queens’ College June 2020 This thesis is submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy i ii Declaration This thesis is the result of my own work and includes nothing which is the outcome of work done in collaboration except as declared in the Preface and specified in the text. It is not substantially the same as any that I have submitted, or, is being concurrently submitted for a degree or diploma or other qualification at the University of Cambridge or any other University or similar institution except as declared in the Preface and specified in the text. I further state that no substantial part of my thesis has already been submitted, or, is being concurrently submitted for any such degree, diploma or other qualification at the University of Cambridge or any other University or similar institution except as declared in the Preface and specified in the text. It does not exceed the prescribed word limit for the relevant Degree Committee. iii iv The moments of, and movements for national accounts: contextualising changes to British national accounting during the 1930s to 1950s Matthew Philip James Fright Abstract Despite a renewed interest in the origins of national income accounting, and increasing scholarship on the relationship this has to the State, there is further scope for us to better understand the context of how this came about. We do not fully understand how institutional factors shaped them or what the numbers themselves meant to the researchers. This thesis adopts a historical approach informed by the works of Geoffrey Hodgson and Quentin Skinner to better understand a critical juncture in national accounts transformation – the 1941 publication of White Paper Command Paper 6261 An analysis of War Finance and an Estimate of National Income and Expenditure – and how it was influenced by wider intellectual and institutional changes from the 1930s. The thesis is organised in two parts. In the first part, the Moments of National Accounts, Chapter 3 argues that 1930s economics drew on heroic figures from the distant past to justify new approaches to economics. Chapter 4 zooms out to consider the influence of international bodies such as the League of Nations and the Rockefeller Foundation during the 1930s upon a new data-driven, “realistic” approach to economics. Chapter 5 looks at how wider pressures for new wartime finance approaches justified new technocratic approaches which led to the publication of the first official national accounts. The second part, the Movements for National Accounts, examines the institutionalisation of this new technocratic national accounting approach through two case studies. Chapter 5 considers the way Keynes and Stone founded the Department of Applied Economics in Cambridge as a research centre for furthering a “realistic” research agenda. Chapter 6 examines a confluence of interests between the Colonial Office’s desire to export national accounts public finance, the researchers of the DAE and the colonial government of Nigeria led to the publication of the National Accounts of Nigeria in 1951. The contribution of the thesis is twofold: 1) showing how context matters to the idea of National Accounts culminating in the 1941 publication; and 2) showing why and how ideas became institutionalised after World War II. By unpacking both, this thesis shows how different bases of v thought, rationale and contextual factors informed what National Accounts became in the UK, importantly, in ways that differ from thinking about National Accounts today. vi Acknowledgements and dedication In the process of preparing this document there are many people to whom I owe deep and sincere thanks. Whilst the flaws of this document remain my own, the submitted document wouldn’t have been possible without the guidance, help and support from the people below. I sincerely thank Dr Mark Pigott for the award of a scholarship that supported the first three years of my research. Particular thanks are merited to Queens’ College for the Munro Studentship which alongside support from the Cambridge Political Economy Trust financed my final year of study. Thanks also go to Queens’ for its continued assistance towards conference presentations and archival travel in addition to providing a warm and friendly environment for my time in Cambridge. Further thanks for financial support go to the Centre of Development Studies for its contributions towards fieldwork costs. Significant intellectual thanks are owed to the many people that have provided considerable assistance throughout the writing process. Firstly, to my supervisor Dr Shailaja Fennell, someone with an encyclopaedic knowledge of a range of topics, who, after introducing me this subject, inspired me to think big and challenged me to refine my analytical style. I would not have applied were it not for her and would not have been able to do this research otherwise; Shailaja has now, and always, my deepest heartfelt thanks. Joint second goes to my friend and colleague Dr Henry Midgely and to Dr Peter Sloman for their encouragement, guidance and support. Henry regularly discussed my work with me and asked me to look further in my research. Peter, out of the generosity of his time, has reviewed chapters and provided important insights into wider literatures. Fourth to Professor Geoff Harcourt who reviewed and provided valuable ideas on the strengths and weaknesses of early thinking. Fifth to Dr Gay Meeks who has always inspired me to follow thoughts through to their logical conclusions. Sixth to Professor Martin Daunton for reading and discussing chapter five with me. Equally sincere intellectual thanks go to the many talented friends who have reviewed chapter drafts: Drs Shachi Amdekar, Lou Cantwell, Steph Diepeveen, Or Rosenboim and Victoria Stewart- Jolly, you’ve all provided really valuable insights on how to improve the draft and throughout had my back. Many, many thanks. Other intellectual thanks should be noted for the many academics who have provided input to earlier stages of the research: Raymond Atherton, David Clark, Michael Kuzcynski, Peter Nolan and Richard Sidebottom in the Centre of Development Studies all provided significant inspiration for many lines of enquiry. I am also grateful for the insightful conversations, feedback and comments from Gareth Austin, Diane Coyle, John Eatwell, Edo Gallo, Jane Humphries, Duncan Kelly, Murray vii Millgate, Mary Morgan, Rhyll Nolan, Tinashe Nyamunda, Constantinos Repapis, Sharlene Swartz, and Adam Tooze. My biggest thanks go to my family, for letting me move back home and for all your support while drafting the thesis, often under quite pressing circumstances. From the early stages reviewing scrappy drafts of my writing and for patiently enduring my many gripes about trivia and general life, for all the loving care and support you’ve shown particularly in the past 12 months, and, for you just being you, I’m extremely lucky. Most of all thank you for the distractions from work: sitting reading books to you on my knee, blowing bubbles and encouraging me to be brave while going on bear hunts, not just with the childish older members, but particularly with Sandy and Ebelle. Personal thanks go to the many friends who have been a bedrock of support through hard times. Firstly to my former housemates Alison Bumke, Amy Gilligan, David Neave, Agnes Upshall, Olga Zeveleva, Manu Signer, Charlie Cadby, Arseniy Khitrov and Taras Ferdiko who have always been a constant source of good humour and even better food. It is true to say I would not have been able to submit this without you all. Secondly, there has been a wealth of other friends who have supported throughout challenging times from friends at Queens’ (Alex, Eduardo, Sandra, Loughlin, Jack, Rao, Jenny, Simon, Diane), from the Department of Politics and International Studies (Maha, Katie, Sophie, Annette and her parents) and Paulina. Thirdly, to the many many inspirational people in the Centre of Development Studies in my intake in particular Albert, Mihiri, Chris, Noura, Christine, Nungari and Arief, as well as students from the other PhD cohorts – Ivanka, Sophie, Jolly, Jane, Shakti, Jas, Joao, Lorena, Halima, Rekha, Sharmeen and the Family Fennell Reading Group. Fourthly, I am also indebted to many London-based friends that helped to support me while juggling a job and working long hours on the thesis – John, John, Marili, Kaye, Marc, Ailbhe, Stefan, Alex, Tim, Areti, Luke, Jenny, you all, and many others, have helped me across this line. Penultimate thanks go to Andrew for relaying advice and for his support. Thank you all. I leave the last thanking of friends to Anand Shrivastava who back in 2011, on the Diploma in Economics, recommended I look at the MPhil at the Centre of Development Studies. Final thanks are noted for the many members of government and academia for their time during interviews conducted in the early stages of the thesis and, to Caroline Stone, for her kindness in letting me access the resources of her father. Thanks are also owed to the many members of library and archival staff who have helped me purchase books and access the materials needed for this work – particular thanks should be emphasised for the staff of the Marshall Library, African Studies Library Cambridge, Cambridge University Library, Fryer Library, Rockefeller Archive Centre, The Loveday Archive, The Nuffield College Archives, the Bodleian library and the British Library, all of viii whom went particularly above and beyond the call of duty. I also want to pass thanks to the support from the Administrators at the Centre of Development Studies (formerly Diana Kazemi, Doreen Woolfrey, Nathalie Henry, Emma Cantu and Élise Lapaire, now, to Annabel Sherwood) and to Mark Rogers in the Mond Building for always reminding me to backup.