Alternative strategies for national industrial planning in the United States, 1929-1933

Abstract

This study examines the origins of the N.I.R.A. (1933) with particular reference to its industrial planning features. It argues that the Act's form was influenced by the interplay of three strategies for national industrial planning which were current during the early years of the depression and of the attempts made to implement them as public policy.
Despite widespread support for the application of systematic planning to the economy, there was no agreement on how it should be conducted.
Three strategies for national industrial planning commanded support: 'voluntary associationism', developed by President Hoover; 'trade associationism' promoted by the business community; and 'central planning* favoured by left-wing intellectuals and organised labour. Of these, only voluntary associationism achieved the status of public policy during Hoover's presidency, but its shortcomings prompted supporters of rival approaches to attempt to influence government policy. However, attempts to establish a national economic council and to amend the antitrust laws were unsuccessful. Hoover persisted with voluntary associationism until the end of his term of office despite its shortcomings, which were illustrated by the failure of The Share-the-Work Movement in 1933.
The politics of industrial planning had become deadlocked by 1933. Experimentation with alternative approaches was prevented by divisions amongst the planners themselves: in particular, the business community resisted an economic council, and President Hoover opposed changes in the antitrust laws. Roosevelt's election and the context of crisis in which he assumed office revived the prospects for the various approaches. Elements of each were included in the administration's Recovery Act, although trade associationism was dominant. Of the three strategies only the trade association movement had gained strength as the depression continued, and by 1933, it was not handicapped with either the stigma of failure or the liability of a limited constituency in its support.