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
 
 

Commentary

Pacific Currents in the Tasman: Comparative and Transnational Perspectives on New Zealand Labour History

Melanie Nolan

The Labour History journal recently revised its editorial policy. Greg Patmore, the editor, makes clear that the 'primary focus of the journal remains Australasia'. However articles are now welcomed that 'engage in international debates in labour historiography and theory; innovative articles on labour and social history in other countries and regions; and comparative and transnational perspectives on Australian labour and social history'.1 These changes are made, we are told, in the wake of labour historians' increasing internationalism. The editorial board would have revised its policy in February 2004 fully cognisant of the difficulties involved in transnational history.2 Historians from smaller countries, such as New Zealand, have had difficulty making an impact on larger historiographies and will welcome the development. Of course Australian historians have sometimes felt the same in regard to the United States.3 The new policy will hopefully promote internationalism. 1
      The new policy occurs in the wake of increasing interest in Australasian comparative history.4 A group of New Zealanders has been largely responsible for a developing stream of New Zealand and Australian comparative work from the 1980s, most recently by Philippa Mein Smith and James Bennett.5 Similarly New Zealand and Australian comparative labour history has been growing apace too.6 Eric Fry's edited collection, Common Cause, published in 1986 marks the beginning of a sustained trend.7 However the work that is emerging is not particularly self-reflective. There have been several conferences on New Zealand and United States comparisons which considered the issues involved in more depth: one in 1988; and another more specifically on New Zealand and North American comparative labour history in 2001. The latter, in particular, aired issues involved in a wider comparative and regional history in the way that comparative Australasian labour history has not. In this commentary I discuss some issues of comparative history from a New Zealand point of view.8 2
   

New World Comparisons

 
In 1988 Jock Phillips gave three reasons for the growth in United States and New Zealand comparative history.9 First, New Zealand historians had a decolonisation psychology: the non-British American model appealed to New Zealand nationalist historians. Historians wanting to 'get out from under British history' emphasised 'local conditions and frontier experience (the Turner thesis), rather than the import of tradition'. These themes led historians to make comparisons between New Zealand and America rather than between New Zealand and Britain. Most would not admit to avoiding tradition; rather that they were choosing to look to an example of a society with similar traditions but one which also was relevantly similar in terms of local conditions. 3
      Secondly, the trans-Pacific traffic in historians led to comparative history. A number of New Zealand historians, trained in United States' history, were in a position to write comparative history. They used the United States historiography to 'boost' New Zealand's. Moreover, the Fulbright program, established under treaty and operating from 1948 set out to 'further mutual understanding through educational and cultural exchange' also enabled United States historians to make research trips to New Zealand. After 40 years there were sufficient numbers of historians working in the area for the New Zealand-United States Education Foundation to successfully sponsor the 1988 'New Worlds: the comparative history of New Zealand and the United States' seminar and the subsequent 1989 publication edited by Jock Phillips, New Worlds? The Comparative History of New Zealand and the United States. 4
      Thirdly, the wider development of comparative history itself encouraged comparisons. Historians cannot do experiments with history. But we could test 'for social or cultural differentiation in the historical development of common institutions, ideas and social, political and economic structures' usually by comparing two nations across international boundaries.10 Comparison within a country was not seen as involving sufficient difference to be useful. Comparative history is a tool helping historians produce more robust explanations that applied to a wider number of examples. Social historians, flirting with social science, turned to comparative analysis (and to quantification) as being more scientific. 5
      In the 1980s historians had not yet embraced a comparative method of undertaking history as wholeheartedly as sociologists. Theda Skocpol, a sociologist and one of the leading advocates of comparative methodology, popularised John Stuart Mills' methods 'of agreement' and 'of difference'.11 For example, you might think of New Zealand and the United States as similar in traditions, both being 'new societies' but massively different in scale. So the differences between the United States and New Zealand might plausibly be thought to be explained by the difference in scale. The similarities might either be due to similarity in traditions or being a new society; you need to do a comparative test with the United Kingdom to throw light on that question. If the United Kingdom, United States, New Zealand and Australia are all similar, then that supports the 'tradition' explanation; if New Zealand and the United States are similar but contrasting with the United Kingdom, that supports the 'New Society' explanation. This is pretty crude of course. But it does bring out the fundamental inferential method of the comparative idea. Where historians did adopt the comparative method it was used either as a hypothesis testing tool or to point out differences between cases. Likewise, the 1989 papers compared and contrasted New Zealand and the United States histories although, in the end, difference was emphasised. 6
   

Revisiting New World Comparisons

 
The factors that Phillips pointed to have gained impetus since 1988. Recent United States-New Zealand comparative history is no longer a negative reaction to Britain.12 Globalisation decolonialisation and diaspora studies are new positive fillips. Moreover, the fastest-growing economies of the world now border the Pacific Rims and the historical past of this dynamic region is also being rediscovered.13 The vast population movements of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries internationalised working-class experience. Historians such as Jeremy Mouat, a Canadian historian who was a postgraduate at the University of Canterbury, have examined mining around the Pacific Rim.14 There are many Pacific-Rim biographies and industries which have yet to be examined.15 From this perspective, the United States and New Zealand are no longer independent societies each offering the possibility of testing hypotheses about the other. Rather, each is an element of an increasingly integrated economic block, subject to the same socio-economic forces. This is closer to Marc Bloch's belief that the units of comparison ought to be geographical neighbours and historical contemporaries constantly influencing one another.16 Some transnational studies of the Pacific Rim have begun: Shelton Stromquist is currently working on municipal labour and socialist politics in a comparative perspective that includes the United States, Australia and New Zealand; Robert Weir is tracking the Knights of Labour around the Pacific Rim and Francis Shor is following the Industrial Workers of the World and early twentieth-century radicalism.17 At the moment there is strong interest in English-speaking countries — the remnants of a Pax Britannica.18 7
      Meanwhile public policy has evolved to present compelling contemporary reasons for this new interest, for in some important ways, Pacific-Rim countries have become more similar to one another. Consider for example, industrial relations. New Zealand and Australia have been contrasted sharply with North America and Japan. Australasia had industry-wide centralised compulsory arbitration systems. North American and Japan had enterprise or plant-level bargaining. However, between 1988 and 1991, New Zealand's industrial relations system was overturned. The basic bargaining structure was dramatically altered as the government embraced market and decentralisation strategies. So now the differences between New Zealand and the United States seem less. Similarly comparative figures from Britain and the United States suggest that New Zealand was probably a more wealthy and equal society in the early twentieth century.19 More recent studies suggest that this has changed in the later twentieth century. New Zealand's market deregulation has also seen it grapple with the 'gap between rich and poor'. In particular the health systems, which were so different, now have an interface. 8
      The traffic in historians, and especially labour historians, has boomed. The path from New Zealand to postgraduate study in Australia has been well-trod by Patrick O'Farrell, Len Richardson and Libby Plumridge. But it was subsidiary, in labour history terms, to the earlier academic sojourn by Erik Olssen, Jim Holt and Michael Bassett who trained in the United States and then returned home to write labour history. Recently Fulbright has funded Shor's and Weir's work (above) as well as Daniel Ernst studies on comparative industrial relations systems. Evan Roberts is working on a Fulbright scholarship at the University of Minnesota on comparisons of New Zealand and United States shopworkers. 9
      Finally comparative labour history has been developing in the last decade and a half. The 'conventional tendency' of historians to look for 'particularity, complexity and ambiguity' is not as obvious among labour historians who have always been interested in larger issues that lend themselves to comparison. However, there is still a number of 'demarcation disputes' in the literature: whether one ought to make analytical use of comparison or just an 'illustrative use of comparison'; what unit of comparison to use — similar or different; how many countries to compare; small or large; and whether the nation as a whole or a microstudy; and so on.20 10
      Like comparative history more generally, labour history once emphasised differences. However, this early and ambitious attempt to generalise, known as the 'exceptionalist' debate, was not a signal success. Marx was crucial here with his belief that England provided the clearest example of the historical development of class consciousness in the industrial age and class-struggle ought to be more advanced. We should expect to see class consciousness develop, so its failure to develop needs special explanation. On this basis, the United States was exceptional,21 the German Sonderweg was a special case22 and Australasia was unique. In Australasia there was strong trade unionism but 'moderate reformism' and extraordinary mobility in every direction. This multiplication of exceptions was not good news, especially as in due course, the British experience also became exceptional as it also failed to follow Marx's predictions! 11
      Raymond Richard's work is written in this tradition. He embraced 'many exceptionalisms' to emphasise national ambience. Richard's target was the modernisation thesis: the claim that countries converge as 'industrialization, technological development and urbanization bring similar problems to all countries'. His example is that two different countries, New Zealand and the United States, with different societies, economies and political systems, produced two very different social security systems in the Social Security Acts of 1935 and 1938 respectively.23 The United States Social Security Act reinforced social inequalities while the New Zealand Social Security Act bolstered those in poverty. This has been called the 'most different' research design, one that 'deliberately seeks cases of a particular phenomenon that differ as much as possible, the research objective being to find similar processes or outcomes in the diverse cases',24 with welfare states and labourism being the major comparative topics.25 12
      More recently, United States labour historians doing comparative history have moved from the frontier to political formation theses and to emphasise similarities:
US comparative history since the 1960s has been concerned less with the dynamics of entire societies than with the role and character of particular ideas, institutions, modes of social and political action or environmental challenges in a small number of national settings, often only two.26
 Ira Katznelson's comparison of working classes in Western European states and the United States is significant here.27 He claimed that since the social and economic factors which shape class formation did not vary greatly between Western Europe and the United States they did not require his attention. The logic is Mills again. If you want to explain a difference in the outcomes of various cases, you need to find a difference in their causal histories. As the European social and economic factors were not markedly different, the difference in outcomes must be caused by the differences in the societies' political experiences. Katznelson's main argument was that it is at the level of politics that genuinely significant variation occurs in the outcome of class formation. He concentrated on national differences in political economies, nation-state formation, extension of the franchise, and how the character of political parties contributed to varied patterns of class mobilisation. This led him to concentrate on similarities on a continuum.		 13
      Similarly a group of labour historians has returned to the 'exceptionalist debate' to emphasise similarities.28 Following Marx in his ambition, if not his views about comparative history, most hold that comparative tests are of especial importance in labour and social history. More than this, they have focused on international movements and developments, despite national differences. That is they have pursued the 'most similar' design, attempting to distil from similar cases a set of common causal factors. This has led to a challenge to the dominance of the exceptionalist tradition within American historiography which emphasised the lack of working-class consciousness. Fine-grained studies on the Irish, such as Lyndon Fraser's, test for 'social or cultural differentiation in the historical development of common institutions, ideas and social, political and economic structures'. The United States was not an exception to general patterns, for instance, of the development of class consciousness. Fraser emphasised the timing of Irish immigrants with United States' ones fleeing and being more political than the later New Zealand ones who were more religious.29 14
      Similarly Stromquist is finding — in contrast to national studies of labor and socialist politics — that local studies provide both more diverse and, within that range of case studies, interestingly comparable cases. He is setting out to find comparable cases so closely matched that they provide the functional equivalent of an experiment. His work is based on the assumption that similarities are more in need of explanation than differences. (Of course to explain a similarity you need to find the contrast case, as with the United States-New Zealand, Australia-United Kingdom example above. Given that, there is more than one similarity in the historical matrix of New Zealand and United States: they have similar political traditions and ethnicity of colonisers; they are new and Pacific-Rim societies; you do not know which element or elements in that historical matrix explains the similarity). Hitherto, a concentration on national difference had led to a comparative blindness towards international similarities. 15
      While some historians, particularly in the past, have aimed to do comparative history in the grand manner by comparing the essential dynamics of entire societies, most are now using comparative perspectives to investigate the social element of groups of people or industries to write their comparative history.30 But effectively they have been even more restricted in time. There is a pattern in the historiography. Comparative history has addressed only certain questions in the past.31 Internationally modernisation, racism, institutions and ideas such as women's suffrage and temperance have been focused upon. United States-New Zealand writing has concentrated on the Pacific-Rim labour market, industrial relations, visitors and welfare states. And just two themes with a bit of debate emerge from recent supranational and subnational comparisons: progressive-era politics and labour process. 16
      One of the largest themes is nation-state formation and the emergence and development of social legislation in the 'progressive era'.32 Shor is examining the common ideological matrix at the turn of the century.33 This matrix was borne of an Anglo-American environment where the ideology of reform reflected certain contiguities of culture among the English-speaking countries. Populism as a political ideology took root in New Zealand's predominantly agrarian society whereas it found infertile soil in an increasingly industrial America during the last half of the nineteenth century. The People's Party, an offshoot of the Farmers' Alliance, found it difficult to adopt a cohesive polity to represent the American farmer as well as the urban working class and a burgeoning middle class. New Zealand's Reform Party, beleaguered by British colonialism and economic depression, sought to balance rural and urban interests in order to build a nation where an ideology of the people would take priority.34 This is a 'traditional independent societies used to test hypotheses' usage of comparative history. 17
      Peter Coleman has gone further to suggest that there was a two-way relationship between New Zealand and the United States even though the 'New Zealandization' of the United States failed.35 New Zealand liberalism, a comprehensive system of economic and social reforms enacted between 1891 and 1911, entered the American mainstream during the progressive era and reappeared during the 1930's and the New Deal. New Zealand liberalism prepared the way for the modern American welfare state by demonstrating how the state could create a just social and economic order, and by inspiring comparable programs of reform in the United States. Two hitherto neglected ideas are stressed: the destiny of New Zealand to serve as a social laboratory for experimentation, and the drive to preserve colonial life from the worst features of Old World civilisation — its poverty, unemployment, and sweated labour, on the one hand, and land monopoly, absenteeism, and serfdom on the other. Coleman's is an instance on the 'both parts of the Pacific rim' sense of comparative history; New Zealand and the United States are both parts of a common causal process. Sometimes in this work, Australia has been overlooked. The largest discussion of New Zealand-United States relations has revolved around New Zealand's 1984 nuclear-free policies which quite obviously excludes Australia. 18
      Some labour historians are starting to abandon the mono-focus on the nation to emphasise movements such as workers and employers in the labour process. Evan Roberts has explored the international developments of department stores. 'How did imported management and sales ideas work in New Zealand stores which employed at most 1000 people, compared to the 4000 people in large department stores in the northeast of the United States?'36 What was the role of gender in New Zealand department stores, and 'how does it compare to the discovery in Australia and the United States of a distinct saleswomen's work culture?'37 In answering these questions in New Zealand Roberts engages with comparable American and Australian work. Comparative history provides a 'rough negative check on accepted historical interpretations' as well as 'a tool for criticizing and invalidating mistaken theoretical assumptions'. It is a useful theoretical corrective and an empirical reminder that 'periphery' experience can change our views about what is happening in the centre too. 19
   

Pacific Rim Labour Comparison?

 
Many comparative labour historians are, then, adopting a 'narrower focus' strategy to gain the knowledge necessary to devise wider frameworks. They are either making the number of cases larger (as in local case studies) or they are reducing the number of variables examined (international movements rather than national cultures). They do this because they are well-aware that controlled comparison is one of the major problems facing comparative history: comparative history is hampered because not all the relevant information is available to historians; historians just do not get two cases resembling each other in every respect but one; there are difficulties in teasing out variables in complex socio-historical phenomena; and different causal patterns can lead in some instances to similar outcomes while similar outcomes in several cases need not have a common cause. Skocpol defended the comparative method despite these difficulties; '[s]till, comparative historical analysis does provide a valuable check, or anchor, for theoretical speculation'.38 Rather than dismiss comparative history as never being feasible in history, comparative historians begin this task with the assumption that, while it is difficult, it is far from impossible to conduct a 'controlled comparison'. Every historical method after all has its strengths and weaknesses. Some even suggest imperfect comparison is better than nothing. Certainly the task becomes that of discovering different causal patterns that lead to similar outcomes. 20
      For whatever reason labour historians are moving away from emphasising both the nation-state similarities and nation-state differences as the units of comparison. In this regard, the Pacific Rim then is doubly important as a historic-economic unit and as a strategic research unit for testing of historical processes. If you wanted to contrast the effect of the inheritance of a common culture, you would choose as your example a frontier society with very alien traditions: maybe the westward expansion of imperial China. One concern about the United States is that, because it is an essentially United Kingdom-derived society, you need to worry about whether features that are common to the United States and New Zealand are a result of common cultural inheritance or common aspects of the social and physical environment. The United Kingdom can be used at least as a partial control as can other countries. 21
      Similarly, Pacific-Rim countries would be useful if you wanted to examine socio-economic issues related to citizenship. A number of recent works, with comparative implications, draw attention to the importance of race and gender in the formation of working-class movements. A number of historians discuss the construction of 'white Australia' as a central feature of the Australian Labor Party's formation; Aurora Bosch cites the ethnic and racial heterogeneity of the American working-class as characteristics that set its political mobilisation apart from Australia.39 Historians of working-class politics have begun to take seriously the masculinist culture that infested Labor's political organisations and that contributed to the marginalisation of women, whether in Australia, England, Germany or the United States. But we need to avoid a western focus. Marx did not have much to say about the Asiatic mode of production but we cannot ignore its influence in the twenty-first century. The Pacific Rim might have been a Spanish Lake from the sixteenth to the nineteenth centuries, a Pax Britannic in the nineteenth, and an American ocean in the twentieth. But it is going to be an Asian dragon's Pacific soon. Not surprisingly, the most recent New Zealand Vice-Chancellors' Committee survey shows that almost 20 per cent of graduates from New Zealand universities are Asian (that includes migrants, permanent residents and international students).40 22
      The implications of pursuing Pacific-Rim history is that we will need to overcome the obsession with nation-states. The model is the 1988 Australian-Canadian Comparative Labour History Conference which brought together historians from both countries although few comparative papers were presented at the original conference. After this conference, teams were assigned themes and eight years later the joint Labour/Le Travail and Labour History comparative volume was published. Size most definitely matters. In this regard, Australia and the United States are our Romes; we in New Zealand are a province. We have to convince the larger historiography of the value of the comparison. The recent editorial policy change affords us a good opportunity now to do so in Labour History. 23


Endnotes

1. Greg Patmore, 'Editorial' in Labour History, no. 86, May 2004, pp. v–vi.

2. James E. Cronin, 'Neither Exceptional nor Peculiar: Towards the Comparative Study of Labor in Advanced Society', International Review of Social History, vol. 38, 1993, pp. 59–75.

3. Ann Curthoys, 'Does Australian History Have a Future?', Australian Historical Studies, vol. 33, no. 118, 2002, pp. 140–52.

4. Rollo Arnold 'The Australasian Peoples and their World, 1888–1915', in Keith Sinclair (ed.), Tasman Relations: New Zealand and Australia, 1788–1988, Auckland University Press, Auckland, 1988, p. 52.

5. Donald Denoon and Philippa Mein-Smith with Marivic Wyndham, A History of Australia, New Zealand and the Pacific, Blackwell, Oxford, 2000. James Bennett, 'Redeeming the Imagination: a Transnational History of Australia and Aotearoa/New Zealand, 1880–1944', PhD thesis, Melbourne University, 1997. Some of the work has been initiated by Australians living in New Zealand; Bruce Scates, 'Gender, Household and Community Politics: the 1890 Maritime Strike in Australia and New Zealand', in Raelene Frances and Bruce Scates (eds), Women, Work and the Labour Movement in Australia and Aotearoa/New Zealand, Australian Society for the Study of Labour History, Sydney, 1991, (special issue of Labour History, no. 61, November 1991), pp. 101–22.

6. There was also an early wave of work such as: W.P. Reeves, State Experiments in Australia and New Zealand, 2 vols., Grant Richards, London, 1902; and Victor S. Clark, The Labour Movement in Australasia: a Study in Social-Democracy, Burt Franklin, New York, 1906.

7. Eric Fry (ed.), Common Cause, Essays in Australian and New Zealand Labour History, Allen and Unwin, Sydney, 1986. James Bennett, 'Rats and Revolutionaries' : The Labour Movement in Australia and New Zealand 1890–1940, Otago University Press, Dunedin, 2004.

8. These issues were discussed at the 'New Zealand and North American Comparative Labour History Workshop', Stout Research Centre, Victoria University of Wellington, 24 August 2001.

9. Jock Phillips, (ed.) New Worlds? The Comparative History of New Zealand and the United States, Stout Research Centre, Wellington, 1989, pp. 4–6.

10. George M. Frederickson, 'Comparative History' in Michael Kammen (ed.), The Past Before Us: Contemporary Historical Writing in the United States, OUP, New York, 1980, pp. 457–473.

11. Theda Skocpol, States and Social Revolutions: a Comparative Analysis of France, Russia and China, CUP, Cambridge and New York, 1979, discusses John Stuart Mill's 1843, A System of Logic.

12. See James Belich's recolonisation thesis, Paradise Reforged: a History of the New Zealanders from the 1880s to the Year 2000, Allen Lane/The Penguin Press, Auckland, 2001.

13. Thomas R. Dunlap, Nature and the English Diaspora: Environment and History in the United States, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1999.

14. Jeremy Mouat, Mining in the Settler Dominions: a Comparative Study of the Industry in Three Communities from the 1880's to the First World War, National Library of Canada, Ottawa, 1989.

15. Gregory S. Kealey and Greg Patmore, 'Comparative Labour History: Australia and Canada', in special issue, Australia and Canada: Labour Compared, Labour/Le Travail, vol. 38, Fall 1996, and Labour History, no. 71, November 1996, pp. 1–15.

16. Marc Bloch, 'Toward a Comparative History of European Societies' discussed in William H. Sewell, 'Marc Bloch and the Logic of Comparative History', History and Theory, vol. 6, 1967, pp. 208–18.

17. Shelton Stromquist, 'Contesting the Liberal City: Social Democrats' Municipal Strategies in Comparative Perspective, 1890–1910', unpublished paper presented to the Annual Convention of the Social Science History Association at Chicago, 19 November 2004. Robert E. Weir, 'Whose Left/Who's Left?: The Knights of Labour and 'Radical Progressivism' and Francis Shor, 'Bringing the Storm: Syndicalist Counterpublics and the Industrial Workers of the World in New Zealand, 1908–14', in Pat Moloney and Kerry Taylor, (eds), On the Left; Essays on Socialism in New Zealand, Otago University Press, Dunedin, 2002, pp. 21–58 and 59–72.

18. Eric Jones, Lionel Frost, Colin White, Coming Full Circle. An Economic History of the Pacific Rim, Melbourne University Press, Melbourne, 1993.

19. M.N. Galt, 'Wealth and Its Distribution in New Zealand, 1893 to 1939', Australian Economic History Review, vol. 35, no.2, 1995, pp. 66–81.

20. Victoria E. Bonnell, 'The Uses of Theory, Concepts and Comparison in Historical Sociology', Comparative Studies in Society and History, vol. 22, no. 2, 1980, pp. 155–173.

21. See Erik Olssen, 'The case of the Socialist Party that failed, or reflections on an American dream', Labor History, vol. 29, Fall 1988, pp. 416–49.

22. Jurgen Kocka, 'Comparative Historical Research: German Examples', International Review of Social History, 1993, vol. 38, no. 3, pp. 369–379.

23. Raymond Richards, Closing the Door to Destitution: the Shaping of the Social Security Acts of the United States and New Zealand, Pennsylvania State University Press, Pennsylvania, 1994.

24. Adam Przeworski and Henry Teune, 'Equivalence in Cross-National Research', Public Opinion Quarterly, vol. 30, 1967, p. 551.

25. Peter J. Coleman, Progressivism and the World Reform: New Zealand and the Origins of the American Welfare State, University Press of Kansas, Lawrence, 1987.

26. Fredickson, 'Comparative History', pp. 457–48.

27. See Ira Katznelson, 'Working-Class Formation: Constructing Cases and Comparisons', and Aristide R. Zolberg, 'How Many Exceptionalisms?; in Ira Katznelson and Aristide R. Zolberg (eds), Working-Class Formation: Nineteenth-Century Patterns in Western Europe and the United States, Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1986, pp. 3–41 & 397–455.

28. Cronin, 'Neither Exceptional nor Peculiar', pp. 59–75.

29. John McQuilton, 'Comparative Frontiers: Australia and the United States', Australasian Journal of American Studies, vol. 12, no. 1, 1993, pp. 26–46.

30. Christiane 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, 1989, p. 429.

31. Raymond Grew, 'The Case for Comparing Histories', American Historical Review, vol. 85, no. 4, 1980, pp. 763–78.

32. Maree Murray, 'Where's "Generation X"? Themes, Comparisons and Directions, University of Wollongong, 30 September–1 October 1996, Labour History, no. 72, 1997, pp. 185–188.

33. Francis Shor, 'The Ideological Matrix of Reform in Late-19th-Century America and New Zealand: reading Bellamy's Looking Backward, Prospects, vol. 17, 1992, pp. 29–58.

34. Scott G. McNall, 'State, Party and Ideology: Populism in New Zealand and the United States, Comparative Social Research, vol. 9, 1986, pp. 3–26.

35. Peter J. Coleman, 'New Zealand Liberalism and the Origins of the American Welfare State', Journal of American History, vol. 69, no.2, 1982, pp. 372–391.

36. Evan Roberts, 'Overseas Influences in New Zealand Department Stores, 1909–1956', Business History Review, vol. 77, Summer 2003, p. 265.

37. Evan Roberts, 'Gender in Store: Salespeople's Working Hours and Union Organisation in New Zealand and the United States, 1930–60', Labour History, no. 83, November 2002, pp. 107–125.

38. Theda Skocpol and Margaret Somers, 'The Uses of Comparative History in Macrosocial Enquiry', Comparative Studies in Society and History, vol. 22, no. 2, 1980, pp, 174–97.

39. Aurora Bosch, 'Why is There No Labor Party in the United States? A Comparative New World Case Study: Australia and the U.S., 1783–1914', Radical History Review, no. 67, Winter 1997, pp. 67–69.

40.Dominion Post, 23 March 2005.

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