Changes

see [[British Rail]]

see [[British Rail]]

===Shipbuilding===

===Shipbuilding===

The privatization on the state-owned entity British Shipbuilders (BS) was a major event. With the huge expansion of maritime industries between 1945 and 1975, British shipbuilding endured a sustained period of competitive and comparative failure, so that during the slump of the mid-1970s the industry was only saved from total failure by nationalization. British policy, however, had to act within the parameters of broader European Community (EC) legislation which was often contradictory, supporting the industry in the expectation of an upturn in demand while reducing capacity as markets remained weak. Subsidy and capacity reduction were supported by the Shipbuilding Intervention Fund (SIF), which attempted to bridge the price gap between European and Asian prices, and Counterpart Funding, designed to assist those areas where shipbuilding closed, but only on condition that no future shipbuilding be conducted. In the wake of nationalization BS established a tripartite divisional structure serving the merchant, warship, and offshore sectors. With the weak market continuing into the 1980s, both the merchant and offshore sectors were heavy loss-makers, whereas the warship sector enjoyed reasonable profits.  

The privatization on the state-owned entity British Shipbuilders (BS) was a major event. With the huge expansion of maritime industries between 1945 and 1975, British shipbuilding endured a sustained period of competitive and comparative failure, so that during the slump of the mid-1970s the industry was only saved from total failure by nationalization. British policy, however, had to act within the parameters of broader European Community (EC) legislation which was often contradictory, supporting the industry in the expectation of an upturn in demand while reducing capacity as markets remained weak. Subsidy and capacity reduction were supported by the Shipbuilding Intervention Fund (SIF), which attempted to bridge the price gap between European and Asian prices, and Counterpart Funding, designed to assist those areas where shipbuilding closed, but only on condition that no future shipbuilding be conducted.  

 

 

In the wake of nationalization BS established a tripartite divisional structure serving the merchant, warship, and offshore sectors. With the weak market continuing into the 1980s, both the merchant and offshore sectors were heavy loss-makers, whereas the warship sector enjoyed reasonable profits.  

By 1984 privatization had been decided upon - initially, the warship yards were put up for sale - and BS had decided to pull out of the unprofitable offshore sector. Seven yards were privatized as warship yards; although this seemed (and did) meet a major criteria of injecting competitive tendering into the naval sector, the combined impact of the end of the Cold War and the inability of designated warship yards to access the SIF led to the closure of four of the yards by 1994. The merchant sector fared little better; under a tight financial regime a program of closures and dispersals was carried through between 1984 and 1989. This process was conducted against a background of criticism that the government favored closure. Moreover, there was concern that it had accepted EC Counterpart Funding as its only policy and had made little attempt to forecast either the size or nature of the market for British shipbuilding in the future. Of the 17 extant shipbuilding companies on the British mainland in 1979, only six remain open in 1996, while shipbuilding employment has fallen from 65,063 in 1979 to 12,100 in 1996. The stated aims of privatization - increasing efficiency, wider share ownership, and a reduction in public borrowing - have proven tenuous gains for British shipbuilding. <ref> Johnman, Lewis, "The Privatisation of British Shipbuilders" ''International Journal of Maritime History'' 1996 8(2): 1-31.</Ref>

By 1984 privatization had been decided upon - initially, the warship yards were put up for sale - and BS had decided to pull out of the unprofitable offshore sector. Seven yards were privatized as warship yards; although this seemed (and did) meet a major criteria of injecting competitive tendering into the naval sector, the combined impact of the end of the Cold War and the inability of designated warship yards to access the SIF led to the closure of four of the yards by 1994. The merchant sector fared little better; under a tight financial regime a program of closures and dispersals was carried through between 1984 and 1989. This process was conducted against a background of criticism that the government favored closure. Moreover, there was concern that it had accepted EC Counterpart Funding as its only policy and had made little attempt to forecast either the size or nature of the market for British shipbuilding in the future. Of the 17 extant shipbuilding companies on the British mainland in 1979, only six remain open in 1996, while shipbuilding employment has fallen from 65,063 in 1979 to 12,100 in 1996. The stated aims of privatization - increasing efficiency, wider share ownership, and a reduction in public borrowing - have proven tenuous gains for British shipbuilding. <ref> Johnman, Lewis, "The Privatisation of British Shipbuilders" ''International Journal of Maritime History'' 1996 8(2): 1-31.</Ref>

==Further reading==

==Further reading==