The exigencies of war compelled Britain to develop administrative machinery for regulating monopoly and trade restraints. During World War I cooperation between business and government had sufficiently eroded the Free Trade consensus that the authorities established the Profiteering Acts and the Standing Committee on Trusts to police monopolistic and restrictive practices through the use of publicity. After 1921 this mode of government intervention was replaced by a policy promoting large corporations and looser cartel arrangements, especially trade associations. Permitting the enforcement of trade restraints, the courts reinforced this promotional policy. From 1941 to 1945 debate within the Government centered on whether to continue the inter-war policy or to develop a stronger interventionist approach. Undoubtedly the single most significant decision facilitating greater intervention was the Coalition Government's commitment to the attainment of full employment as a primary goal of planning for postwar economic reconstruction. Debate persisted, however, over what degree of official intervention was sufficient to ensure full employment. The Gaitskell-Allen memorandum urged a policy which directly fostered competition. Indirectly, diplomatic pressure from the United States during 1943–1948 supported a similar principle. Ultimately, however, the interplay of domestic pressure groups, politics, and ideology resulted in a new consensus which favored institutionalizing the earlier reliance on publicity through the enactment of the Monopolies and Restrictive Practices Act of 1948.

DEFENDERS OF GARTELIZATION VS. PROMOTERS OF COMPETITION, I94O-I942

Monopoly and restrictive practices issues emerged initially as British officials began planning for postwar reconstruction. During the first part of the war a Minister without Portfolio, Arthur Greenwood, had general responsibility for postwar reconstruction planning.