The Wanganui Chronicle. "Nulla Dies Sine Linea." SATURDAY, JULY 31, 1920. NATIONALISATION.

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume LXXVI, Issue 17935, 31 July 1920, Page 4

The Wanganui Chronicle. "Nulla Dies Sine Linea." SATURDAY, JULY 31, 1920. NATIONALISATION.

Of recent years various factors have combined to make nationalisation a "live” question iii countries which were previously individualistic in ■their attitude to industry. Both in England and America the Government control of certain services approximated in many instances to temporary nationalisation, accustomed people to the idea of it. Nationalisation is a leading plank in the platform of English Labour; it was in the forefront of the men’s claims iu the railway and the colliery strike. A rapidly-increasing body of literature on the subject, is being produced, to which "The Case for Nationalisation,” by Mr. E. A. Davies, is, in the opinion of reviewwriters, an interesting contribution.

Mr. Davies, who is a member bf the London County Council and chairman of the Railway Nationalisation Society, does not advance many new arguments in support of his theory, but he has collected a mass of useful material in the shape of statistics about State enterprises in various parts of the world, and even those who do not agree with his conclusions will admit the force of much of his reasoning. In England there are certain industries, notably coal-mining and railway transportation, in which it is not difficult to make out a telling case for nationalisation simply because the existing system is wasteQil. There are relatively unimportant, towns which are tapped by two or even three railways. The business is only sufficient for one, and the companies concerned have to depend on more productive lines to make up for any ■ deficit incurred on the running of I these. Moreover, the public gets no i benefit from the apparent competij tipn, because fares and freights are i fixed by agreement. Expressly with j a view to the elimination of tlj-is uni economical system, a committee of [ j the British Ministry of Transport [ has recently recommended the.amalgamation of British railways into five or six groups. In the same way a number of British collieries are expensive to work, and produce inferior coal; in order that these may have their profit the price of coal has io be artificially maintained at a higher level than would otherwise be necessary. The advocates j for nationalisation claim that State ownership would correct these anomalies, and effect economies which would benefit the public. It is important to remember that a not inconsiderable section of labour now rejects nationalisation in the accepted sense, on the ground that it would simply lead to the creation of a servile state, in which the worker would be enslaved to a bureaucracy instead of to the .capitalist.. The modern tendency is to insist that each industry should be governed by those engaged in it. This, of course, resembles the syndicalist theory that each industry should be owned and controlled ■ by its members, who alone receive its profits. The weakness of this theory was that it expressly excluded any authority which should regulate prices and output in the interests of the community as a I whole. The later school of opinion (would seem to recognise the need of i such an authority. The stock argument against, nationalisation is that in the absenee of competition there is no incentive to efficiency and economy. Mr. Davies, however, declares that in big business free competition does not exist. Rivalry may be genuine up to a point, but then there Is an amalgamation or “a gentleman’s agreement.” How much real competition has the shipping combine left in Britain or the gro'Up of gigantic trusts in America? This may be admitted, but there are many people who will agree with the critic who meets the author with the apt contention that it should not be beyond the wit of man to devise anti-trust legislation that should prove effective. On the general j question of efficiency Mr. Davies quotes several examples of successful State enterprises, including the Commonwealth Bank and the State Insurance Office and butchers’ shops in Queensland. With regard to this l there are two things to be sai j. In the first place it is difficult to see ! how those mentioned by Mr. Davies | could have failed to succeed, as I they enjoyed great advantages over I their competitors. The Common{wealth Bank has the sole right of | issuing paper currency; the QueensI land producers say that the success iof the State butchers has been [ achieved by the wholesale sacrifice of their legitimate interests. In the second place, as a Melbourne writer reminds us, for every successful State enterprise that Mr. Davies can cite Australians can cite a failure. Of course if a State enterprise Jias a monopoly it clearly must succeed; it can always show a. profit by raising its prices. We believe that the same writer correctly sums up an overwhelming weight of colonial opinion when he says: To us nationalisation is no bogey. We are quite used to it, and our experience, to put it mildly, has not been calculated to make us wax wildly enthusiastic over it. It is no panacea for industrial unrest, for some of otjimost disastrous strikes have been in . State services. Even where the control is put in the hands of commissioners political influence is often difficult to resist. Though no profit need be made for the entrepreneur, the public is little better off, because there is scanty inducement for economical management. The dividend declared by a company has its equivalent in the heavier costs of a State department. Say what he will, Mr. Davies cannot convince us that a State enterprise is run with as much efficiency as a private enterprise. In theory, perhaps, there is no reason why it should not . be; in practice, human nature being what it is, the State comes a bad sqpond.