88  
Journals link Search link Partners link Information link
May, 2005
Previous
Next
Labour History

Table of Contents
List journal issues
Home
Get a printer-friendly version of this page
 
 

Comparative Labour History in Britain and Australia

Stefan Berger and Greg Patmore*

The comparative method is a valuable tool for understanding labour history in Australia and the UK. This paper defines comparative labour history and examines the various benefits and problems of comparative research. The article then looks at the use of comparative labour history in Australia and UK. It argues that comparative analysis plays a marginal role in both labour historiographies due to a strong empiricist tradition. This tradition also mitigates against a sophisticated discussion of both concepts and comparative method. Where comparative method is used, there is a bias towards 'Anglo-Saxon' countries partially due to limited non-English language skills. Among UK historians who focus on the UK, academic links with many parts of the former British Empire, including the USA, are stronger than they are with Europe. When Australian labour historians have adopted a comparative approach, it focuses on 'settler societies' such as Canada and the USA, where there is a common interest in general questions such as the 'frontier' and more specific issues such as scientific management and the Industrial Workers of the World. The article concludes by arguing that comparative labour history has to take into account the streams of cultural transfer between nationally constituted labour movements to produce better results. 1
   

Why Does History Need Comparison?

 
Historians cannot avoid comparison unless they restrict themselves to listing dates and events. If history is more than chronology, any attempt to explain and interpret what has been going on in a particular place and time involves comparing it with what has been going on before or later or at other places at the same time. Take, for example, explanations of the weakness of Marxism in the British context. If we say that the strength of British liberalism and the absence of a strong state were crucial factors in preventing the spread of Marxism, we also say that the absence of liberal traditions and the existence of strong state interventionism elsewhere had positive consequences for the development of strong Marxist labour movements. Narrative structures depend on comparison but these comparisons are often implicit rather than explicit. 2
      A more explicit comparative history is often motivated by the desire to obtain a better knowledge of one's own society through comparison. Even where historians are engaged in comparative history in order to understand other societies better, their interest was frequently fired by a wish to learn from the experiences of others and to encourage adaptation of positive features of other societies. Having studied a problem or theme in different social contexts, they could draw up typologies of how different societies dealt with the same problem. They might also ask whether the same problem was present in different societies to a similar degree. Such an observation might have escaped the attention of historians who focussed on one particular society.1 For example, the focus on national histories in Europe in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries hid from sight the fact that, beyond the boundaries of national states, something like a European experience in economic, social, political and cultural life was developing. The comparative method also allows for the identification of problems not evident from observation of a single societal context. As Peter Burke argues comparisons are 'useful primarily because they enable us to see what is not there'.2 They complement regional and national histories by allowing historians to gain insights from a different spatial perspective. 3
      There are a variety of comparative methods. Bonnell draws the distinction between the 'analytical use of comparison' and the 'illustrative use of comparison'. In the former the researcher compares equivalent units such as nation states and searches for variables that explain similar or different patterns of variables. Any regularities noted may provide 'explanatory' generalisations. The illustrative approach is where one evaluates a varying number of nation states not in relation one another but in relation to a basic theory that is applicable to all of them.3 4
      One dimension is the 'most similar' system approach versus the 'most different' system approach. Researchers look for countries with similar economic systems, political institutions, terminology and heritage in the 'most similar approach'. It is argued that under these circumstances the researcher can control certain variables and have a greater chance of identifying differences.4 5
      What is similar? Researchers have attempted to create typologies to establish similar features. Some typologies are based on the political system and the level of economic development. Examples include market-industrialised countries, communist countries and developing third world countries. Of particular relevance to Australia are typologies based on the patterns of settlement. Countries as diverse as Argentina, Australia, Canada, South Africa and the United States are classified either as 'settler capitalism' or 'regions of recent settlement' or 'settlement society'. Some 'similar' countries share a geographical position. Some scholars lump the 'bureaucratic-authoritarian states' of Latin America together despite differences.5 6
      The 'most different' approach involves tracing similar processes of change in cases that are as diverse as possible. The supporters of this approach argue that the 'most similar' method does not eliminate a large number of rival interpretations and provides the researcher with no criteria for choosing the most suitable. Researchers are forced to extract from the diversity of common set of explanatory variables.6 7
      Another issue arising within the comparative method is how many countries should be compared. There are a number of arguments that favour selecting a small number of countries, which is known as the 'small-N method'. You can examine each country in detail and find subtle factors that explain similarity or differences. It also allows 'comparative historical analysis' in which countries can be both compared and scrutinised over long periods. Further, the range of variation that a sample of countries can provide is more important than the number of countries.7 8
      The 'large-N' method involves the examination of a large number of countries. The emphasis is on finding generalities and the method involves statistical analysis. However, in attempting to demonstrate generality, diversity may become obscure. A preoccupation with distilling explanatory variables eliminates the distinct identity of each nation state.8 9
      There is also a debate about whether comparisons should be over the long run or the short run. The danger of long-run comparisons is that contexts may alter so much over time that it becomes doubtful whether one is comparing the comparable. There are also problems with consistent sets of data over long periods and changes to meanings of terms such as strikes. Unless there are powerful theories, such as those relating to trade union growth, available to compensate for the lack of context, then long-term comparative analysis may be very difficult.9 10
      One approach to comparative analysis that narrows the time-frame is based on the concept of 'punctuated equilibrium'. This assumes that industrial relations and political systems remain relatively stable over long periods of time, with pressure to change resisted and only minor adjustments being incorporated to preserve the system. Gradually, tensions build up and a 'critical juncture' occurs leading to 'transformation' or major changes which occur very quickly and are very difficult to predict. Eventually a new partial equilibrium occurs. The period from 1890 to 1914 is seen as a critical juncture in Australia with federation, compulsory arbitration, tariffs and the rise of the Labor Party. Similarly the 1930s Depression provided a 'critical juncture' in the USA through the 'New Deal' and the Wagner Act. Comparative historians focus on these critical junctures to explain why different choices were made in particular countries. Why was compulsory arbitration adopted in Australia and rejected in the US?10 11
      The final major issue in comparative method is the level of analysis. Do you focus on the national level — macro comparative labour history? Or do you focus on the industry, workplace, region or community — micro comparative labour history? The problem with the macro approach is that results can be misleading because one or more industries dominate the economy. The industry effect is misinterpreted as the national effect and Bean suggests that the problem may be overcome by examining both industry and national factors. Comparative studies of the same industry across several countries is helpful because it allows the researcher to assume that the technical and market factors are relatively constant and focus on broader political and social influences. At the micro-level there can be still problems defining the focus of the study. It is difficult to define what a region is and the regions chosen may be a-typical in a particular country. Micro-labour history requires a not only a competent knowledge of the general national context but also a detailed knowledge of the particular case studies.11 12
      Over the last 20 years, the practice of comparative history has taken off in many societies and cultures.12 Scholarly exchange programmes have increased international contacts after 1945, and scholars now work in national contexts different to those in which they were raised. Globalisation has also directed the historians' attention to past interlinkages and comparisons between different parts of the world.13 If comparative history is practised more frequently today than ever before, it is not done to the same extent everywhere. In what follows we intend to give a brief overview of the main directions of comparative labour history in Britain and Australia. We did not aim for comprehensiveness, but rather attempted to delineate the main areas, where comparative research has been carried out, give some examples of comparative research and ask about reasons for the limitations of comparative labour history in both national contexts. 13
   

Comparative Labour History in Britain

 
A prominent practitioner of comparative history in Britain, Geoffrey Crossick, has recently argued that comparative history has had relatively little influence on historiographical research in Britain.14 He mainly blames the lacking influence of sociological theories on history writing as well as the lacking financial infrastructure for this state of affairs. Individualised historical research in Britain found it difficult to form the research clusters at special research centres which, in other countries, successfully kickstarted a major interest in comparative history. And there was simply no equivalent figure to Durkheim in France or Max Weber and Werner Sombart in Germany, whose influence on Marc Bloch, Lucien Febvre and Jürgen Kocka proved so influential in the historiographies of France and Germany. 14
      Within comparative history, according to Crossick, comparisons between cities and regions of Britain were more prominent than inter-cultural comparisons between nations. Specifically in labour history, we can think, among others, about Jonathan Zeitlin's studies on work relations,15 John Foster's controversial analysis of class consciousness in three industrial towns,16 Martin Daunton's study on miners' housing,17 David Gilbert's comparison of two British coalfields,18 Alan Campbell's comparative work on Scottish coalfields,19 or Neil Evans's comparison of the links between social protest and the industrialisation of South Wales and the North-East of England.20 15
      Crossick singles out economic and urban history, in particular the history of the industrial revolution, as areas in which comparisons have been reasonably prominent, whereas he identifies labour history and, generally speaking, studies on the British working class as being particularly poorly served by comparison. It is revealing, he writes, that two of the most prominent British comparative labour historians, John Breuilly and Dick Geary, have been experts on German rather than British history. Such relative insularity of British labour history, Crossick argues, has much to do with the lasting influence of the work of E.P. Thompson and the history workshop movement. Thompson's famous aversion to structuralism and his particular brand of 'empirical Marxism' started from the assumption of peculiarly English characteristics of working-class development. The strength of oral history traditions in the wake of the enormously enriching history workshop movement was also hardly conducive to the strengthening of comparative history. 16
      Crossick, we believe, is correct in drawing attention to the relative dearth of comparative labour history writing in Britain. However, his judgment is in need of some adjustment. For a start, comparisons are more prominent with other English-speaking countries than they are with continental Europe. This has much to do with the neglect of foreign languages at school level and the distinction between European history on the one hand and British history on the other that we still routinely encounter in university courses. Neville Kirk's attack on American exceptionalism in working-class history, his comparative investigations into Australian and British labour history, and Sheila Rowbotham's history of women in Britain and the United States are only three examples of a relatively strong vein of comparative research involving English-speaking countries, especially the USA and countries of the Commonwealth.21 Edward Thompson, for example, took a strong interest in the history of India and the US, and encouraged his students at Warwick to engage on transnational and comparative work. The MA at Warwick, which he led, was focussed on comparative British and US labour history, and he introduced American labour historians such as David Montgomery to British postgraduate students at Warwick.22 His seminal work on the formation of the English working class has also inspired comparative studies into the role of culture in working-class formation.23 17
      Geographical strength and weaknesses of comparative labour history to one side, we can safely say that most comparative labour history in Britain has been focussed on organisations, institutions and ideas. Some of the pathfinders of comparative labour history include some of the biggest names in British labour history in the 1950s and 1960s, such as Henry Pelling, Royden Harrison and Eric Hobsbawm.24 There are by now, a whole string of excellent comparative synthesis involving a wide range of working-class parties and the Left more generally. Dick Geary's European Labour Protest, 1848-1939, John Schwarzmantel's Socialism and the Idea of the Nation, Donald Sassoon's One Hundred Years of Socialism, John Callaghan's The Retreat of Social Democracy, Willie Thompson's The Communist Movement Since 1945, Stefano Bartolini's The Political Mobilisation of the European Left, Geoff Eley's Forging Democracy, Herbert Kitschelt's The Transformation of European Social Democracy and Gerassimos Moschonas's In the Name of Social Democracy have all approached the topic in illuminating and enlightening ways. And all of them incorporated the history of the British Left in an important way. There have also been some more limited and detailed comparisons of specific working-class parties such as John Breuilly's studies on Labour and Liberalism in Britain and Germany, James Fulcher's investigation into the triangular relations between labour movements, employers and the state in Britain and Sweden, Ross McKibbin's question about the weakness of Marxism in the British labour movement, Duncan Tanner's 'heretical counter-arguments' to what he described as the prevailing national perspective on the British Labour Party, Douglas Newton's analysis of the struggle of British and European socialists to maintain peace before 1914, or Stefan Berger's The British Labour Party and the German Social Democrats.25 18
      Comparative industrial relations have for a long time been a favourite subject for social scientists and economists alike and their work has had some influence on historians.26 Trade union history as such has often been an intensely national affair, given that most of the trade unions' bread and butter struggles have been carried out within a national framework. At the same time, however, trade unionism has been characterised by strong internationalist sentiments, and trade union internationalism has received considerable attention.27 Yet comparisons between trade union movements are relatively rare.28 There have been huge collaborative projects such as the one on dock workers which brought together national experts on particular groups of workers in order to provide a framework in which these groups and their interest organisations can be usefully compared.29 As far as individual researchers are concerned Christiane Eisenberg wrote a pathbreaking and exemplary comparison of the early British and German trade union movements which is only available in German.30 19
      In Communist Party of Great Britain (CPGB) history, Kevin Morgan has recently argued that 'it is ... in the development of more comparative approaches to the CPGB that the most promising lines of future development seem to lie'.31 The history of the Comintern has already attracted some intriguing transnational labour history.32 It is perhaps not surprising that it is the history of those groups on the left who have been most internationalist in their orientation that we find a good deal of fine comparative scholarship. Carl Levy's studies on revolutionary syndicalism and anarchism, for example, are a good example of this,33 as is the journal Anarchist Studies, edited by Sharif Gemie which is distinguished through its broad international coverage which often facilitates or explicitly endorses comparison. 20
      The historiography of the co-operative movement now also boasts some important forays into the realm of comparison as does the history of mutual benefit societies.34 Arguably comparisons in labour movement history have been particularly prominent because much work on parties and unions had already been done in diverse national contexts. There is no reason why the 'new labour history' of everyday life experiences, perceptions and subjectivities should not also result in important comparative work. What were workers' political perceptions in different national contexts? What memories and experiences became the topic of workers' narratives about the past? Personal feelings and subjective sensibilities should be an area of closer investigation in comparative labour history than has been the case so far. Some path-breaking work in this area has been done a good while ago, for example, the inspirational essay on political shoemakers published by Eric Hobsbawm and Joan Wallach Scott in Past and Present in 1980.35 Comparisons between particular groups of workers have subsequently been championed by Jonathan Zeitlin.36 Scott, of course, has gone on to become one of the most influential historians of gender. Gender and women's history has been a prominent area of historical research for at least two decades and important work, including strong comparative elements has been produced by, among others, Pamela Graves, Sheila Rowbotham, Eileen Yeo, June Hannam and Karen Hunt.37 Other areas closely related to labour history which have produced important comparative work are welfare history,38 the history of migration, ethnicity and diasporas,39 as well as cultural history.40 There is as yet very little comparative work on the representation of labour in different nation states,41 although this has attracted a considerable amount of attention across diverse national labour historiographies. 21
      Comparative and transnational studies involving British labour history have also featured prominently in a Labour history book series published by the Labour History Society.42 But the Society's journal, Labour History Review (LHR), has generated few directly comparative articles. In 2000 Colin J. Davis published a highly informative comparison of the New York City and London dockworkers discussing rank-and-filism and their challenges to established organisations and institutions in the USA and Britain.43 In 1998, one of the international doyens of comparative labour history, Marcel van der Linden, provided a broad-brush comparison of revolutionary syndicalist movements, discussing some of the literature in the field and providing useful perspectives for future comparative work.44 In 1997, in a review essay programmatically entitled 'The Power of Comparative History' Neville Kirk wrote a review of Roger Fagge's important comparison of the West Virginian and South Wales coalfields between 1900 and 1922.45 In 1995 Stephen Bird and Christine Collette published a very positive report about a conference at Wayne State University (held in 1994) on the theme of 'International and comparative labour history'. In 1992 John Belchem provided some intriguing but all-too-short comparative comments on the history of Irish workers in the US, Australia and Britain.46 In 1990 John Breuilly reviewed some of the key problems of the comparative approach in labour history.47 In 1986 Hugh McLeod published a comparison of the relationship between the labour movement and religion in Germany and Britain.48 In 1985 John Rule looked into the proletarianisation of artisans before 1848.49 Occasionally review essays have attempted to bind together national studies and provide some comparative glimpses, for example Andy Croft's essay on proletarian fiction in the USA and Britain, and S.J. Kleinberg's essay on the state regulation of female employment in the USA and Britain.50 In addition to those we find a trickle of articles on international labour history51 and also occasional articles on non-British topics which have a potentially important role in encouraging comparative perspectives among British labour historians. The index of labour history theses and dissertations, regularly published in LHR always lists a number of works, but there is hardly ever a year when numbers reach double figures. The Annual Bibliography of British Labour History publications also published in LHR does not even have a rubric for comparative history (whereas it tends to have very detailed listings for regional history). 22
      Another important labour history journal in Britain is Socialist History, the journal of the Socialist History Society, which self-consciously continues the work of the earlier Marxist Historians' Group of the CPGB, although it is less directly related to Communist party politics.52 The journal's current editor, Kevin Morgan, who took over from Willie Thompson in 1999 (Thompson had been at the helm for 17 years before that) and his editorial team have certainly attempted to encourage comparative and international history in a substantial way. One recent issue, in 2000, was dominated by comparative history. In addition, other themed issues, such as the one on 'Red Lives' in 2002 provided intriguing glimpses on the making of Communists in the Netherlands, Germany, France, Britain and Norway, or they explored at great depth links between the British Left and America. Even earlier, for example issue nine in 1996 saw a coherent attempt to relate labour movement histories in the US, France, Britain and Austria plus articles on the creation of socialist heroes in Britain, Finland and Germany. And contributions such as the recent roundtable discussion on the historical significance of the Russian revolution also invite comparison across nation states.53 23
      One of the many strengths of British labour history has been its deep embeddedness in regional and local history. The Scottish Labour History Society, the Welsh Labour History Society (renamed Welsh People's History Society in 2001) and the North-West Labour History Society all have their independent journals which publish high-quality and extremely fruitful articles on a wide range of topics involving labour history. Comparative perspectives, however, are notable only through their absence. This is the case even in Wales, where the editor of Llafur, Neil Evans, is himself a distinguished comparativist who has been keen to encourage comparative perspectives.54 24
      Labour journals and their respective societies are often good indicators of the state of labour historiographies in specific countries. Institutions more generally, as Crossick has pointed out, often play an important part in encouraging comparative history. Two institutions in particular have successfully nurtured a considerable amount of comparative labour studies in the UK: the Warwick-based Centre for Comparative Labour Studies, and the Manchester-based International Labour Studies Centre. Both of those have been consciously interdisciplinary, but sociological and political-science, industrial relations type of work has been more prominent than historical works.55 In the 1990s the establishment of a Comparative Labour and Working-Class History Seminar at the University of London by Rick Halpern and Shula Marks provided an important focus for comparative labour history. International labour associations were also at times influential in fostering comparative and transnational work and interest. This has been particularly the case for the International Industrial Relations Associations, and for the International Conferences of Historians of the Labour Movement in Linz, Austria. 25
      Another important factor for the future of comparative labour history in Britain is the ongoing Europeanisation of research agendas and research cultures driven by the various EU framework programmes, the EU commission and the European Science Foundation. Research funds available through these institutions and programmes are already by far larger than anything that can be offered by national research councils. European institutions have a direct interest in fostering comparative European history which can help understand the differences and similarities between different nation states in Europe today. Furthermore, comparative history, including comparative labour history, is more developed in continental Europe than in Britain. The biggest player is, without any doubt, the International Institute of Social History. Other smaller institutes include the Institute for Social Movements at Bochum University and the Arbeterarölsensarkiv in Stockholm. British labour historians have already been, and, one can confidently predict, will perhaps be even more in future drawn into the comparative (often collaborative) projects initiated by continental European institutes and institutions. The most recent overview of labour history emanating from the Internationaal Instituut voor Sociale Geschiedenis (IISG)56 had no fewer than three British contributors out of a total of seven. 26
      British labour historians have also in the past collaborated with labour historians of other countries to produce conferences and subsequently volumes which provided cross-national perspectives, in particular Deian Hopkin's and Greg Kealey's work on the Welsh and Canadian labour movements, but also several British-Dutch conferences on labour history in the 1980s and early 1990s.57 All too often, however, these ventures ended in a collection of essays which were nationally focussed with an introduction desperately trying to build comparative bridges. In fact there have been a whole range of edited collections along those lines, undoubtedly with many benefits but also necessarily with grave shortcomings.58 27
   

Comparative Labour History in Australia

 
      Australian labour historians made even less use of the comparative method than their British counterparts. This section will examine why this was the case. As early as 1888, the centenary of white settlement, Australian trade unionists saw it as their duty to document the success of their labour movement for others. In that year several trade unionists produced The History of Labour and Capital in All Lands and Ages, which reviewed not only the history of labour in Australia, but also developments internationally since antiquity. W.E. Murphy published a two volume history of the Australian and overseas eight hour movement in 1896 and 1900.59 28
      Russel Ward in his book, The Australian Legend (1958), tried to trace the source of the myth of the typical Australian male — practical, egalitarian and hospitable. Ward, drawing on Turner's frontier thesis, argued that the frontier exerted a strong unifying national influence in both Australia and the US. In accordance with Turner's thesis the frontier also promoted democracy in both countries. However, 'democracy' had different meanings in the USA and Australia. In the USA democracy implied the freedom of the 'individual to make his way to the top by his own individual efforts, and regardless of his fellows'. For Australian frontiersmen it was 'the freedom to combine with his mates for the collective good' and the 'discomfiture' of large landowners. Why did this occur? The lack of arable land in Australia undermined individualism since many Australians could not have their own farms and were forced to work for large landowners. Ward claimed that the tradition of 'mateship' assisted the formation of the important Amalgamated Shearers Union and permeated the trade union movement. From the trade unions it spread widely throughout Australian society. Ward believed that 'mateship' explained why Australians were more tolerant of socialist and collectivist ideas than Americans.60 29
      Another early labour historian who showed an interest in comparative labour history was Lloyd Churchward. Churchward argued that the rise of the Industrial Workers of the World (IWW) in Australia cannot be explained in terms of 'non citizen immigrant' and 'disenfranchised' workers as in the US. However, there were some similarities. The IWW enjoyed support in similar industries in Australia and the US. Both countries shared a conservative and opportunist labour leadership in the American Federation of Labor and the ALP. Churchward also argued that particular Australian factors assisted the growth of the IWW philosophy. Some unionists quickly became disillusioned with compulsory arbitration when it failed to deliver higher living standards and became a tool for employers to coerce workers through the fining and imprisonment of strikers.61 His comparative focus on the IWW in Australia and the USA was subsequently pursued by other Australian labour historians such as Bedford, Cain and Burgmann.62 30
      There were several notable Australian examples of comparative labour history in the 1970s and 1980s. In 1979 Markus published a comparative study of Australia and California examining the treatment of the Chinese during the second half the nineteenth century. He reinforced the argument that labour movement opposition to Chinese labour arose from economic competition rather than racism. In 1984 Kennedy engaged in micro-comparative labour history through a study of the mining towns of Johannesburg and Broken Hill between 1885 and 1925. Australian labour historians have also participated in a number of international conferences and projects of a comparative nature. Roe compiled and edited a collection of case studies on unemployment during the Great Depression in Australia and several other countries. Eric Fry edited a collection of essays on Australian and New Zealand labour history. However, in both cases the comparative analysis was undertaken by the editors rather than the contributors. 63 31
      While comparative labour history still remains marginal in Australia, there are several recent noteworthy examples. Taska undertook a comparative study of the cultural diffusion of scientific management in the USA and NSW. She finds that scientific management was diffused in both countries through reformed educational practices. The rate of diffusion was not as great in Australia in the 1920s due to a smaller industrial base, the neglect of technical education by conservative governments and problems of university-engineers in obtaining social and political acceptance of their professional worth. Gardner and Quinlan drew upon an Australian research database to undertake a comparative analysis with Canada of strikes, worker protests and unions in the nineteenth century. McConville examined waterfront unionism at Buenos Aires, Melbourne and San Francisco for the period 1919-34. He finds a convergence in waterfront unionism despite differing industrial relations and political regimes in three countries. Hagan and Wells also edited a book of historical essays on Australia and Japan. As with earlier books, the comparative analysis was undertaken by the editors rather than the authors in an introductory chapter, which one editor claimed was the first comparative labour history of Australia and Japan.64 32
      A review of Labour History reinforces the impression of the fringe status of comparative labour history in Australia. While the journal published 459 articles between January 1962 and May 1996, of these only four can be considered to be comparative. Bedford attempted in November 1967 to explain the IWW in Australia through comparison with the US. In November 1989 Jennifer Crew tried to explain why the ratio between men and women's wages did not change significantly in Australia during World War I by reference to the United Kingdom, where it did. Scates used both Australian and New Zealand evidence in November 1991 to highlight the importance of women's militancy in the 1890 Maritime Strike. Cross in May 1996 compared Australia and the USA for the period from 1860 to 1920 through the construct of 'settlement society'. While he argued that both were 'settler societies emerging in an age of capitalist expansion and democratic settlement', divergent environmental and geographic factors explain why the two countries developed 'distinct models of market democracy'.65 33
      The November 1996 Labour History, which was a joint issue with the Canadian Labour/Le Travail, explicitly challenged the previous neglect of a comparative approach to labour history in the journal. The genesis of this volume lay in a conference of Australian and Canadian labour historians at the University of Sydney in December 1988. Despite the presentation of over 30 papers at the conference, only two drew direct comparisons. They examined railway labour and state intervention in industrial disputes. The conference and the subsequent publication highlighted the problem of some comparative labour history analogies, which are little more than national case studies with the reader left the task of drawing comparisons and similarities between countries.66 34
      National experts in the November 1996 issue jointly authored articles featuring Australian-Canadian comparisons. The experts' close co-operation ensured the emergence of genuine comparative perspectives. The issue included trade unions and labour-in-politics, the traditional institutional foundations of labour history. There were also contributions that reflected the shift in both Australian and Canadian labour history towards social history. There were papers on culture, gender, state welfare and the labour process. Friesen and Taksa, for example, focussed on formal and informal working-class education both in the labour movement and working-class communities.67 The common experience of being settler societies was highlighted. One contribution recognised the importance of immigration in the formation of both societies, while another explored the history of indigenous peoples. 35
      While the general approach has been hailed as 'a new field of comparative history',68 there were a number of findings in the volume on Australia and Canada that provided fresh insights into Australian labour history. Several studies suggest that relative to Canada the political strategies of the Australian labour movement led to a more sympathetic state for workers. Frances, Kealey and Sangster noted that Australian wages tribunals and compulsory arbitration provided Australian women with improved wages and a 'floor of protection' compared to Canadian women. Bray and Rouillard also suggest that the growth of mass unions in Australia and the Australian unions' political strategies led to a more sympathetic state in Australia that allowed Australian unions to prosper relative to Canadian unions before the 1940s.69 36
      Unfortunately the publication of the special joint issue has had little impact on the publication of comparative labour history in Labour History. There are only three examples of comparative labour history out of 151 articles published between the joint issue and the May 2004 issue. Roberts' study of the organising of salespersons in New Zealand and the USA in the November 2003 issue focussed on retail employees' unions in Wellington and St. Paul (Minnesota) between 1930 and 1960. It highlighted the problems of organising around a particular issue and not sustaining a long-term commitment to unionism or 'ethic of collectivism'. While these unions were successful in gaining their members a 40-hour week, their failure to broaden their focus to include the wider range of retail employees lost them members in the long term. Beris Penrose in the May 2003 issue compares the influence of the Lead Association, primarily in the USA but also Australia, concerning the effect of lead poisoning on workers. In the May 2004 issue Dominique Clément explored the role of civil liberties movements in fighting the attempts by federal governments in Australia and Canada to suppress Communism. The Communist Party Dissolution Bill (1950) and subsequent referendum (1951) in Australia and the espionage commission (1946) in Canada represented the highpoint of these efforts. He noted, however, that divisions within the political Left, most notably between social democrats and communists, as well as weaknesses in the legal system, created significant obstacles to the civil liberties in both countries.70 37
      Why has comparative labour history remained underdeveloped in Australia? Australian labour historians like their British counterparts were preoccupied with uniqueness of their own labour movement. There is a strong link between the development of Australian labour history and the search for a distinctive national identity and history. This preoccupation was strongly reinforced by E.P.Thompson, oral history and the history workshop movement as in Britain. The continued dominance of empiricism in mainstream history inhibits a relatively sophisticated discussion of comparative method or the concepts that it may seek to test. When there is comparative analysis labour historians in both countries share a focus on English-speaking nations, which reflects a dearth of foreign language skills among labour historians. The weakness of comparative analysis can be seen in other areas of Australian labour history. While there has been a surge of interest by Australian labour historians in local labour history, comparisons between cities, regions and towns are rare.71 38
   

Conclusion: Why Comparative Labour History?

 
If British labour history has produced more comparative perspectives than its Australian counterpart, the kind of perspectives provided differed substantially. For a start, many of the Australian comparisons focussed on the impact of Australia as a settler society on labour and social questions. This led to a strong focus on North America, where there are similar issues in regard to native peoples, immigration and nation building. Despite its geographical location in Europe, British comparisons are also overwhelmingly with the United States and English-speaking cousins in the Commonwealth/ former Empire. By contrast, comparisons with its European neighbours are not as prominent. All comparisons, however, focus largely on the history of the organised labour movement. The new labour history, which has been less movement-centred and more concerned with the cultural and everyday life history of workers and the representation of workers and labour, has had less of an impact. This, however, is changing. The Australian-Canadian labour history project, for example, consciously brought together the traditional concerns of trade unions and labour politics with the new labour history issues such as culture, gender , the labour process and immigration. 39
      What then, has comparative labour history added to our understanding of Australia and Britain? Quite a lot, we would argue. For a start, comparative labour history has successfully demolished widespread assumptions about exceptionalism in labour history.72 Theories of special paths and exceptionalisms in labour history could only emerge in a research context which was almost exclusively nationally constituted and in a nationalist climate in which national historiographies wanted to distinguish their own national histories from those of others. If every labour movement and every working class was in some sense peculiar or exceptional it would be impossible to talk about the special path of one country vis-à-vis a group of others representing some kind of normative development. 40
      If notions of exceptionalism are best discarded, comparative perspectives have brought out many of the differences between Britain, Australia and other countries more clearly. Thus, just to give two examples, it would appear that Social Democratic Parties on the continent have a stronger historical consciousness and are much more concerned with official representations of their pasts than the Labour Party in Britain.73 It would also appear that a sympathetic state provided more favourable outcomes for women and trade unions in Australia as compared to Canada. Comparative history has also been helpful in critically re-assessing concepts which have been used often unthinkingly in analysing British labour history. Thus, for example, Steve Fielding has pointed out that 'labourism' might not in effect be an appropriate concept with which to describe the development of the British Labour Party, as it sets up a framework which almost presupposes the difference of Britain in a wider European context.74 41
      Finally, comparative labour history, has, we would argue, highlighted the importance of transnational transfer processes for the development of nationally constituted labour movements. The importance of cultural transfers between nation states breaks up our assumption of homogeneous and internally stable nation states, national cultures and even national labour movements.75 Insofar as there are national labour movements, they are constituted through a dialectical process through which indigeneous and foreign elements are selectively appropriated. As labour leaders (and followers) tended to champion an internationalist outlook, they often found it easier to look beyond the nation for potential ideas and models which could be imported and adapted to their own particular national circumstances. If we take comparative labour history seriously, we therefore can no longer (rather artificially) isolate national units of comparison and contrast them as though they have had nothing in common. Rather we need to recognise that what may be construed as the characteristic of one particular national labour movement is often bound up with what has been conceived of, whether in negative or in positive terms, as the national 'other'. Taking into account the streams of cultural transfer between nationally constituted labour movements allows the comparative historian to expose the conceptual absurdity of notions of the national character of labour movements, and, at the same time, to make visible the evolution of plurally constituted national labour movement cultures. Allegedly national labour movement cultures, in other words, comprise innumberable fragments of cultural assets, a goodly proportion of which are imported and adapted. Relational and comparative history will need to be combined more in future so as to produce better results in comparative labour history. 42


Endnotes

*.We would like to thank Neville Kirk, Melanie Oppenheimer and the two anonymous referees for their helpful comments concerning this article.

1. G.M. Frederickson, 'From Exceptionalism to Variability: Recent Developments in Cross-National Comparative History', Journal of American History, vol. 82, no. 2, 1995, p. 604.

2. P. Burke, Sociology and History, Allen & Unwin, London, 1980, p. 33.

3. V.E. Bonnell, 'The Uses of Theory, Concepts and Comparison in Historical Sociology', Comparative Studies in Society and History, vol. 22, no. 2, 1980, pp. 164–165.

4. G.S. Kealey and G. Patmore, 'Comparative Labour History: Canada and Australia', Labour History, no. 71, Labour/Le Travail, no. 38, 1996, p. 3.

5. R. Bean, Comparative Industrial Relations: an Introduction to Cross-National Perspectives, Croom Helm, London, 1985, pp. 12–13; D. Collier, 'The Comparative Method: Two Decades of Change', in D.A. Rustow and K.P. Erickson (eds), Comparative Political Dynamics: Global Research Perspectives, Harper Collins, New York, 1991, p. 17; G. Cross, 'Labour in Settler-State Democracies: Comparative Perspectives on Australia and the US, 1860–1920', Labour History, no. 70, 1996, pp. 1–24; D. Denoon, Settler Capitalism: the Dynamics of Dependent Development in the Southern Hemisphere, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1983; J.P. Fogarty, 'The Comparative Method and the Nineteenth Century Regions of Recent Settlement', Historical Studies, vol. 19, no. 76, 1981, pp. 412–429; Kealey and Patmore, 'Comparative Labour History', p. 3.

6. Collier, 'The Comparative Method', pp. 16–17.

7. Bean, Comparative Industrial Relations, p. 13; Collier, 'The Comparative Method', pp. 7–8; C. Ragin, 'New Directions in Comparative Research', in M.L. Kohn (ed.), Cross-National Research in Sociology, Sage, Newbury Park, 1989, pp. 57–62.

8. Ragin, 'New Directions', pp. 60–61.

9. J. Breuilly, 'Comparative Labour History', Labour History Review, vol. 55, no. 3, 1990, p. 6.

10. G. Strauss, 'Comparative International Industrial Relations', in K. Whitfield and G. Strauss (eds), Researching the World of Work: Strategies and Methods in Studying Industrial Relations, Cornell University Press, Ithaca, 1998, p. 187.

11. Bean, Comparative Industrial Relations, pp. 13–15; S. Berger, 'Working-Class Culture and the Labour Movement in the South Wales and the Ruhr Coalfields, 1850–2000: a Comparison', Llafur, vol. 8, no. 2, 2001, p. 7; N. Fishman, 'A Comment on "Working-Class Culture and the Labour Movement in the South Wales and the Ruhr Coalfields, 1850–2000: A Comparison" – By Stefan Berger', Llafur, vol. 8, no. 3, 2002, pp. 107–109.

12. H. Kaelble, 'Vergleichende Sozialgeschichte im 19. und 20. Jahrundert. Forschungen europäischer Historiker', Jahrbuch für Wirtschaftsgeschichte, part 1, 1993, pp. 173–200, for an attempt to provide a survey of the rise of comparative history in Europe from around 1980.

13. R. Axtman, 'Society, Globalization and the Comparative Method', History of the Human Sciences, vol. 6, no. 1 1993, pp. 53–74.

14. G. Crossick, 'And What Should They Know of England? Die vergleichende Geschichtsschreibung im heutigen Großbritannien', in H.-G. Haupt and J. Kocka (eds), Geschichte und Vergleich. Ansätze und Ergebnisse international vergleichender Geschichtsschreibung, Campus, Frankfurt, Main, 1996, pp. 61–76.

15. R. Harrison and J. Zeitlin (eds), Divisions of Labour: Skilled Workers and Technological Change in Nineteenth Century England, Harvester Press, Brighton, 1985.

16. J. Foster, Class Struggle and the Industrial Revolution, Weidenfeld and Nicholson, London, 1974.

17. M.J. Daunton, 'Miners' Houses: South Wales and the Great Northern Coalfield, 1880–1914', International Review of Social History, vol. 25, no. 2, pp. 143–175; M.J. Daunton, Housing the Workers, 1850–1914: a Comparative Perspective, Leicester University Press, Leicester, 1990.

18. D. Gilbert, Class, Community and Collective Action: Social Change in Two British Coalfields, 1850–1926, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1992.

19. A. Campbell, 'Honourable Men and Degraded Slaves: a Comparative Study of Trade Unionism in Two Lanarkshire Mining Communities, c. 1830–1874', in R. Harrison (ed.), The Independent Collier: the Coalminer as Archetypical Proletarian Reconsidered, Harvester Press, Hassocks, 1978.

20. N. Evans 'Patterns of Protest and Regional Labour Implantation in South Wales and the North-East of England, 1780–1950', Tijdschrift voor Sociale Geschiedenis, vol. 80, no. 2, 1992, pp. 212–230.

21. N. Kirk, Labour and Society in Britain and the United States, 1780–1939, 2 vols, Scholar Press, Aldershot, 1994; N. Kirk, Comrades and Cousins: Globalisation, Workers and Labour Movements in Britain, the USA and Australia from the 1880s to 1914, Merlin Press, London, 2003; Sheila Rowbotham, A Century of Women: the History of Women in Britain and the United States, Viking, London, 1997. See also: John Benson, 'Working-Class Capitalism in Great Britain and Canada, 1867–1914', Labour/Le Travailleur, no. 12, 1983, pp. 145–154; Roger Fagge, Power, Culture and Conflict in the Coalfields: West Virginia and South Wales, 1900–1922, Manchester University Press, Manchester, 1996; R.M. Jones and J. Lovecy, 'Slate Workers in Wales, France and the United States: a Comparative Study, 1870–1920', Llafur, vol. 4, no. 4, 1987, pp. 9–19.

22. We are grateful to Neville Kirk for this information.

23. See, for example, B.H. Moss, 'Republican Socialism and the Making of the Working Class in Britain, France and the United States: a Critique of Thompsonian Culturalism', Comparative Studies in Society and History, vol. 35, no. 3, 1993, pp. 390–413.

24. Pelling and Harrison had a particular interest in British-American comparisons and mutual perceptions. See, for example, Henry Pelling, America and the British Left: from Bright to Bevan, London, 1956, and Royden Harrison, 'British Labour and the Confederacy: a Note on the Southern Sympathies of Some British Working-Class Journals and Leaders During the American Civil War', International Review of Social History, vol. 2, no. 1, 1957, pp. 78–105. Sidney Pollard, of course, was one of the key champions of the regionalisation of economic history and strongly advocated regional comparisons of economic development. For a fascinating comparison of marginal regions in Europe see also his Marginal Europe: the Contribution of Marginal Lands since the Middle Ages, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1997. Hobsbawm, of course, has produced so much comparative history which was so influential in encouraging comparative research that it would be futile here even to begin listing his major achievements.

25. J. Breuilly, Labour and Liberalism in Nineteenth Century Europe: Essays in Comparative History, Manchester University Press, Manchester, 1992; James Fulcher, Labour Movements, Employers and the State: Conflict and Co-operation in Britain and Sweden, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1991; R. McKibbin, 'Why was there no Marxism in Great Britain?', English Historical Review, vol. 99, no. 2, 1984, pp. 297–331; D. Tanner, 'The Development of British Socialism, 1900–1918', Parliamentary History, vol. 16, no. 1, 1997, pp. 48–66; D.J. Newton, British Labour, European Socialism, and the Struggle for Peace, 1889–1914, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1985; S. Berger, The British Labour Party and the German Social Democrats, 1900–1931: a Comparison, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1994.

26. See, for example, S. Berger and H. Compston (eds), Policy Concertation and Social Partnership in Western Europe: Lessons for the 21st Century, Berghahn Books, Oxford, 2002. Much comparative work on industrial relations is currently being carried out by Richard Hyman and Steve Jeffreys. See, for example, Richard Hyman, Understanding European Trade Unionism: Between Market, Class and Society, Sage, London, 2001; and Steve Jeffreys, Frederik Mispelblom Beyer and Christer Thörnquist (eds), European Working Lives: Continuities and Change in Management and Industrial Relations in France, Scandinavia and the UK, Edward Elgar, Northampton, MA, 2001.

27. See for example, R. Reinalda (ed.), The International Transportworkers' Federation, 1914–1945, Stichting beheer IISG, Amsterdam, 1997 and M. van der Linden et al. (eds), The International Confederation of Free Trade Unions, Peter Lange, Berne, 2000.

28. A notable recent exception being J.L. Robert, A. Prost and C. Wrigley (eds), The Emergence of European Trade Unionism, Ashgate, Aldershot, 2004, which is based on team-written thematic chapters.

29. Sam Davies, Colin J. Davis, David de Vries, Lex Heerma van Voss, Lidewij Hesselink, Klaus Weinhauer (eds), Dock Workers: International Explorations in Comparative Labour History, 1790–1970, Ashgate, Aldershot, 2000.

30. C. Eisenberg, Deutsche und englische Gewerkschaften: Entstehung und Entwicklung bis 1878 im Vergleich, Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, Göttingen, 1986; C. Eisenberg, 'The Comparative View in Labour History: Old and New Interpretations of the English and German Labour Movements Before 1914', International Review of Social History, vol. 34, no. 3, 1989, pp. 403–432.

31. K. Morgan, 'Labour with Knobs on? The Recent Historiography of the British Communist Party', Mitteilungsblatt des Instituts für soziale Bewegungen, no. 27, 2002, p. 82.

32. See, for example, T. Rees and A. Thorpe (eds), International Communism and the Communist International, 1919–1943, Manchester University Press, Manchester, 1998.

33. See recently, for a fascinating intra-Italian comparison, C. Levy, 'The Centre and the Suburbs: Social Protest and Modernisation in Milan and Turin, 1898–1917', Modern Italy, vol. 7, no. 2, 2002, pp. 171–188.

34. For details see C. Wrigley, 'The Co-operative Movement', Mitteilungsblatt des Instituts für soziale Bewegungen, Heft 27, 2002, p. 115; on mutual benefit societies see Marcel van der Linden (ed.), Social Security Mutualism: the Comparative History of Mutual Benefit Societies, Peter Lang, Berne, 1996.

35. Reprinted in E. Hobsbawm, Worlds of Labour: Further Studies in the History of Labour, Weidenfeld and Nicolson, London, 1984, ch. 7.

36. Jonathan Zeitlin, 'Engineers and Compositors: a Comparison', in R. Harrison and J. Zeitlin (eds), Divisions of Labour: Skilled Workers and Technological Change in Nineteenth Century Britain, Harvester, Brighton, 1985, pp. 185–250.

37. A few examples include H. Gruber and P. Graves (eds), Women and Socialism, Socialism and Women: Europe Between the Two World Wars, Berghahn Books, New York, 1998; S. Rowbotham, A Century of Women, Viking, London, 1997; E. Yeo, The Contest for Social Science: Relations and Representation of Gender and Class, Rivers Oram Press, London, 1996; E. Yeo, 'The Creation of "Motherhood" and Women's Responses in Britain and France, 1750–1914', Women's History Review, vol. 8, no. 2, 1999, pp. 201–218; J. Hannam, M. Auchterlonie and K. Holden, International Encyclopaedia of Women's Suffrage, ABC-CLIO, Santa Barbara, 2000; K. Hunt, 'British Women and the Second International', Labour History Review, vol. 58, no. 1, 1993, pp. 25–29.

38. G. Bock and Pat Thane (eds), Maternity and Gender Policies: Women and the Rise of the European Welfare States, 1880s –1950s, Routledge, London, 1991; P. Baldwin, The Politics of Social Solidarity: Class Bases of the European Welfare States, 1875–1975, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1990.

39. J. Belchem and K. Tenfelde (eds), Irish and Polish Migration in Comparative Perspective, Klartext-Verlag, Essen, 2003; Jan Lucassen and Leo Lucassen (eds), Migration, Migration History, History: Old Paradigms and New Perspectives, Peter Lang, Berne, 1997.

40. See, for example, on sport, S.G. Jones, 'The European Workers' Sport Movement and Organised Labour in Britain between the Wars', European History Quarterly, vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 3–32, and on working-class religion the outstanding H. McLeod, Piety and Poverty: Working-Class Religion in Berlin, London and New York, 1870–1914, Holmes and Meier, New York, 1996.

41. An outstanding exception to the rule is R. Biernacki, The Fabrication of Labour: Germany and Britain, 1640–1914, University of California Press, Berkeley, 1995.

42. See, for example, M. Walsh (ed.), Working Out Gender: Perspectives from Labour History, Ashgate, Aldershot, 1999; M. van der Linden, Transnational Labour History, Ashgate, Aldershot, 2003; S. Berger, A. Croll and N. LaPorte (eds), Towards a Comparative History of Coalfield Societies, Ashgate, Aldershot, 2005.

43. C.J. Davis, 'New York City and London Dockworkers: a Comparative Perspective of Rank-and-File Movements in the Post-Second World War Era', Labour History Review, vol. 65, no. 3, 2000, pp. 295–316.

44. M. van der Linden, 'Second Thoughts on Revolutionary Syndicalism', Labour History Review, vol. 63, no. 2, 1998, pp. 182–196.

45. N. Kirk, 'The Power of Comparative History', Labour History Review, vol. 62, no. 3, 1997, pp. 328–332.

46. J. Belchem, 'Britain, United States and Australia: Some Comparative Reflections', Labour History Review, vol. 57, no. 3, 1992, pp. 5–8.

47. Breuilly, 'Comparative Labour History', pp. 6–9.

48. H. McLeod, 'Religion in the British and German Labour Movements, c. 1890–1914', Bulletin for the Society of the Study of Labour History, no. 55, 1986, pp. 25–35. The Bulletin was the predecessor of the Labour History Review.

49. John Rule, 'Artisan Attitudes: a Comparative Survey of Skilled Labour and Proletarianisation before 1848', Bulletin of the Society for the Study of Labour History, no. 50, 1985.

50. S.J. Kleinberg, 'Women, Work and Domesticity in the United States and Britain', Labour History Review, vol. 60, no. 3, 1995, pp. 66–70; A. Croft, '"Proletarian" Writers in Britain and America', Labour History Review, vol. 59, no. 3, 1994, pp. 81–83.

51. See in particular the papers read at a Labour History Society conference on 'Social Democracy and the Second International' published in Labour History Review, vol. 58, no. 1, 1993, pp. 8–34.

52. On the journal's development see W. Thompson, 'Socialist History: a Personal Note', Socialist History, no. 15, 1999, pp. 66–68.

53.International and Comparative Labour History, Socialist History, no. 17, 2000; Red Lives, Socialist History, no. 21, 2002; Labour Movements, Socialist History, no. 9, 1996.

54. See, eg, N. Evans, 'Two Paths to Economic Development: Wales and the North-East of England', in P. Hudson (ed.), Regions and Industries: a Perspective on the Industrial Revolution in Britain, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1989; for recent attempts to provide comparative perspectives on Welsh labour history see Llafur, vol. 8, no. 2, 2001, pp. 5–40, and vol. 8, no. 3, 2002, pp. 89–140.

55. The Manchester-based Centre currently leads a shadow existence and seems to be almost defunct.

56. L. Heerma van Voss and M. van der Linden (eds), Class and Other Identities: Gender, Religion and Ethnicity in the Writing of European Labour History, Berghahn Books, New York, 2002.

57. Some of the papers presented to the British-Dutch conferences were subsequently published in the IISG Studies + Essays series; for the Welsh-Canadian enterprise see D.R. Hopkin and G.S. Kealey (eds), Class, Community and the Labour Movement: Wales and Canada, 1850–1930, Llafur/ Committee on Canadian Labour History, Cardiff, 1989.

58. R. Geary (ed.), Labour and Socialist Movements in Europe Before 1914, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1989; S. Salter and J. Stevenson (eds), The Working Class and Politics in Europe and America, 1929–1945, Longman, New York, 1990; M. van der Linden and J. Rojahn (eds), The Formation of Labour Movements, 1870–1914: an International Perspective, 2 vols, E.J. Brill, Leaden, 1990; and S. Berger and D. Broughton (eds), The Force of Labour: the Western European Labour Movement and the Working Class in the Twentieth Century, Berg, Oxford, 1995 provide just some examples of these kinds of studies.

59. W.E. Murphy, History of the Eight Hours' Movement, 2 vols, Spectator/Picken, Melbourne, 1896–1900; J. Norton (ed.), The History of Capital and Labour in All Lands and Ages: their Past Condition, Present Relations and Outlook for the Future, Oceanic Publishing, Sydney, 1888; G. Patmore, 'Australian Labor History', International Labor and Working Class History, no. 46, 1994, p. 161.

60. R. Pascoe, The Manufacture of Australian History, Oxford University Press, Melbourne, 1979, pp. 50–53; R. Ward, The Australian Legend, 2nd ed., Oxford University Press, Melbourne, 1966, ch. 9.

61. L.G. Churchward, 'The American Influence on the Australian Labour Movement', Historical Studies, vol. 5, no. 19, 1952, pp. 258–270.

62. I. Bedford, 'The Industrial Workers of the World in Australia', Labour History, no. 13, 1967, pp. 40–46; V. Burgmann, 'Antipodean Peculiarities: Comparing the Australian IWW with the American', Labor History, vol. 40, no. 3, 1999, pp. 371–392; V. Burgmann, Revolutionary Industrial Unionism in Australia: the Industrial Workers of the World in Australia, Cambridge University Press, Melbourne, 1995, pp. 27–31; F. Cain, The Wobblies at War: a History of the IWW and the Great War in Australia, Spectrum Publications, Melbourne, 1993, chs. 1, 11.

63. E. Fry (ed.), Common Cause: Essays in Australian and New Zealand Labour History, Allen & Unwin/Port Nicholson Press, Wellington, 1986; B. Kennedy, A Tale of Two Mining Cities: Johannesburg and Broken Hill, 1885–1925, Melbourne University Press, Melbourne, 1984; A. Markus, Fear and Hatred: Purifying Australia and California, 1850–1901, Hale & Iremonger, Sydney, 1979; J. Roe (ed.), Unemployment: are there Lessons from History?, Hale & Iremonger, Sydney, 1985.

64. J. Hagan and A. Wells (eds), Industrial Relations in Australia and Japan, Allen & Unwin, Sydney, 1994, p. viii; M. Quinlan and M. Gardner, 'Strikes, Worker Protest, and Union Growth in Canada and Australia, 1815–1900', Labour/Le Travail, no. 36, 1995, pp. 175–208; L. Taksa, 'The Cultural Diffusion of Scientific Management: the United States and New South Wales', Journal of Industrial Relations, vol. 37, no. 3, 1995, pp. 427–461; C. McConville, 'Waterfront Unionism in Three Ports: Buenos Aires, Melbourne and San Francisco', in D. Palmer, R. Shanahan and M. Shanahan (eds), Australian Labour History Reconsidered, Australian Humanities Press, Adelaide, 1999, pp. 75–88.

65. J. Crew, 'Women's Wages in Britain and Australia during the First World War', Labour History, no. 57, 1989, pp. 27–43; Cross, 'Labour in Settler-State Democracies', pp. 1–2; I. Bedford, 'The Industrial Workers of the World in Australia', Labour History, no. 13, 1967, pp. 40–46; B. Scates, 'Gender, Household and Community Politics: the 1890s in Australia and New Zealand', Labour History, no. 61, 1991, pp. 70–87.

66. G.S. Kealey and G. Patmore (eds), Canadian and Australian Labour History: Towards a Comparative Perspective, Australian Society for the Study of Labour History/Committee on Canadian Labour History, Sydney/St John's, 1990.

67. G. Friesen and L. Taksa, 'Workers' Education in Australia and Canada: a Comparative Approach to Labour's Cultural History', Labour History, no. 71, Labour/Le Travail, no. 38, 1996, pp. 170–197.

68. Strauss, 'Comparative International Industrial Relations', p. 187.

69. M. Bray and J. Rouillard, 'Union Structure and Strategy in Australia and Canada', Labour History, no. 71, Labour/Le Travail, no. 38, 1996, pp. 198–238; R. Frances, L. Kealey and J. Sangster, 'Women and Wage Labour in Australia and Canada, 1880–1980', Labour History, no. 71, Labour/Le Travail, no. 38, 1996, pp. 37–53

70. D. Clément, '"It is Not the Beliefs but the Crimes that Matter": Post-War Civil Liberties Debates in Australia and Canada', Labour History, no. 86, 2004, pp. 1–36; B. Penrose, 'Occupational Lead Poisoning in Battery Workers: the Failure to Apply the Precautionary Principle', Labour History, no. 84, 2003, pp. 21–46; E. Roberts, 'Gender in Store: Salespeople's Working Hours and Union Organisation in New Zealand and the United States, 1930–1960', Labour History, no. 83, 2002, pp. 107–130.

71. Greg Patmore, 'Community and Australian Labour History', in T. Irving (ed.), Challenges to Labour History, University of New South Wales Press, Kensington, 1994, p. 178; Greg Patmore, Australian Labour History, Longman Cheshire, Melbourne, 1991, pp. 8–17.

72. S. Berger, 'European Labour Movements and the European Working Class in Comparative Perspective', in Berger and Broughton (eds), The Force of Labour, pp. 245–262.

73. L. Black, 'Labour at 100', Mitteilungsblatt des Instituts für soziale Bewegungen, no. 27, 2002, p. 22.

74. S. Fielding, '"Labourism" and Locating the British Labour Party within the European Left', Working Papers in Contemporary History and Politics, no. 11, University of Salford, Salford, 1996.

75. On the importance of cultural transfer in comparisons see also S. Berger and P. Lambert, 'Intellectual Transfers and Mental Blockades: Anglo-German Dialogues in Historiography', in S. Berger, P. Lambert and P. Schumann (eds), Historikerdialoge: Geschichte, Mythos und Gedächtnis im deutsch-britischen kulturellen Austausch, 1750–2000, Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, Göttingen, 2003, pp. 9–62.

Content in the History Cooperative database is intended for personal, noncommercial use only. You may not reproduce, publish, distribute, transmit, participate in the transfer or sale of, modify, create derivative works from, display, or in any way exploit the History Cooperative database in whole or in part without the written permission of the copyright holder.

 



May, 2005 Previous Table of Contents Next