A History of the Ministry of Information, 1939-46
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
1. The information campaign in one form or another reached most of the population and newspaper publicity either as advertisements, news or editorial items reached more people than any other single medium.
It is doubtful however whether many people read the advertisements very carefully. Radio publicity reached a fairly high proportion (39%) and seems to have made a stronger impression on those who had heard it. Other forms of publicity reached smaller proportions, which was to be expected since the newspapers were the main medium used, but it is of interest to note the large proportion which the campaign reached indirectly. 40% knew of the campaign by “hearing people talk about exports”.
2. The sections of the public that were most aware of newspaper publicity were in general those sections which are in any case better informed about public matters and which read newspapers most. It is doubtful whether this form of publicity is as successful with the lower economic groups and with housewives as other forms might be. Thus relatively large proportions of the less well informed sections of the population could be reached by films although from the data collected it seems necessary to make longer and more interesting films if this medium is to make a greater impression on those reached by it.
Most of those who heard about exports on the radio remembered this without being prompted. The radio was not very much used in this campaign but such programmes as were heard made a fairly strong impression.
Factory publicity about exports seems to have been somewhat unenthusiastic. Only one third of the workers who knew they were making goods for export had been told this by their employers. The other two thirds had found out themselves.
3. It has already been pointed out that in the absence of information about public knowledge of exports before this campaign started little can be said of its effect in raising the level of knowledge or changing attitudes towards export policy. However, it can be said that at the end of the first stage of the campaign there were serious gaps in public knowledge of the problems and even more serious ignorance of the details. Ignorance and misconceptions on the subject were common to all sections of the population. The better educated and those in managerial positions were even more badly informed than others on some aspects of the problem.
4. About half of the population appeared to know the general purpose of export but precise knowledge of the facts was less well spread.
About one quarter of the sample saw the need for an immediate and permanent increase in exports. 13% in addition to these believed that exports should not increase “for some years”. Thus, only about 40% of the population, at the time of the survey, believed that eventually exports should be higher than the pre-war figures. A quarter of the population, on the other hand believed that eventually exports should be the same or less than pre-war. A third were unable to express an opinion either way.
Only a small section of the sample knew that in the latter part of 1946 the volume of exports was approximately the same as in 1938. Housewives and manual workers frequently thought that more was being exported whilst many of the managerial workers and the better educated thought that less was being exported. It seems clear that the handling of export facts as news has had effects other than those intended. Stress on the need for increasing export has led to underestimation by some sections of the results achieved, whilst the exuberance with which those results have been greeted seems to have induced in the unstatistically minded an unfounded impression of rapid success. Perhaps the use of value instead of volume terms has been misleading. At all events it appears necessary to show people more clearly what the export targets are and what proportion of the target total has been reached at any stage.
Above all it seems necessary to show these export targets in their true proportions as part of the whole national effort. There was wild ignorance of the proportion of manufactured goods which were exported. 40% of the higher economic group thought that exports were three quarters or more of all goods manufactured in this country. 65% of men thought that exports were half or more of all manufactures.
5. Much the same state of misunderstanding was found concerning what goods were sent abroad and received in exchange and which foreign countries were concerned in the export trade. When asked to mention export items large sections of the sample thought first of food or clothing, and apart from one major group of exports (metal manufactures, machinery, electrical goods), only small sections of the sample were able to mention major export items.
The U. S. A. and Germany were prominent amongst the countries mentioned as recipients of British exports, whilst the importance of India and the other European countries as importers was recognised by small sections of the sample only.
Almost everybody knew that food was received in exchange for exports but whilst important foodstuffs, such as meat or butter, were mentioned by small proportions only, fruit was mentioned by 30% of the sample. 56% of the sample mentioned no raw material imports.
It seems to be fairly widely understood that imports come from British Commonwealth countries. On the other hand the European countries appear underestimated as a source of British imports, particularly by housewives.
It can be said from all this that, at the time of the survey, the general public had an unbalanced picture of the export situation. It appears to be necessary not only to show what are the facts but also to take steps to correct mistaken ideas on the subject. It is perhaps a matter of some importance in a country short of consumer goods to make it much better known that consumer goods are a small part only of exports. The widespread misconceptions of this country’s trading relations with the U. S. A. are perhaps a natural outcome of much public discussion of the American loan and its implications. It might however be a serious error to allow these misconceptions to confuse people on the importance in Britain’s trade with the Commonwealth countries and Europe.
6. The misunderstandings and ignorance revealed by the survey affected public opinions of the Government’s export policy. Many of those who disapproved of export policy, at the time of the survey, were ignorant or confused about the facts. At the same time many who were not clear about the facts approved export policy at that time. Such support is clearly not stable and is liable to fluctuate in the face of unfounded rumour. Thus, whilst 71% were prepared on consideration to approve export policy only 37% had no doubt or hesitations on the subject and considerable proportions, rising to one quarter of all housewives, said that too much was being sent out of the country.
7. Conclusions
-
(i) Wide approval of export policy was found in the later part of 1946 but this was not founded on a balanced understanding of tho export situation. Continuing approval will require greater knowledge of the facts than existed in 1946.
-
(ii) There is still need for explanation of the reasons why exports are essential and the majority of the population still need to be convinced that exports must be permanently increased over the pre-war figures.
-
(iii) It is necessary to show more clearly and to many more recognised it so far, just what part is played by exports in the whole national effort. In particular it is necessary to correct the impressions that the larger part of all manufacture is exported and that consumption goods are a large part of all exports.
-
4 3(iv) Injudicious handling of export statistics may continue to give wrong impressions of the relative degree of success of the export drive at different times unless care is taken to present the figures against a background of the export target for the period concerned. It might even be preferable to quote no particular figures but only the proportion of the immediate and long term targets achieved.
-
(v) Public discussion of the American loan and of relief for Germany seem to have produced distorted impressions of the direction of British trade. Indeed a picture of the United States as a receiver of British exports and the supplier of British imports seems to dominate large sections of the population. This may have contributed to the underestimation of the British Commonwealth countries and of Europe as receivers of exports and the underestimation of the European countries as a source of imports. At any rate it seems to be necessary to help people to a more balanced picture of British trading relationships than existed at the time of the survey.
-
(vi) In general it is necessary to help the public to see the facts about exports in the right perspective, nationally and internationally. Future information campaigns of the subject might well concentrate less on particular details of the export situation and more on presenting an overall picture, thus providing the necessary context in which people could see the details so far presented.
-
(vii) It may be that newspaper publicity which has been the main medium for export publicity so far is not particularly suited for a campaign with such a changed emphasis.
The report has shown that newspaper publicity is anyhow not very effective for the less well informed section of the population and it is certainly the case that for large sections of the population films and the radio would be better media than the newspaper in the sense that a more lasting impression would be made. Films in particular would be suited to showing the broad export situation in the way which seems necessary but they would have to form a larger part of programmes than hitherto if they are to make a stronger impression.
SECTION I
HOW MUCH DO PEOPLE KNOW ABOUT EXPORTS
This survey was made in the Autumn of 1946. This was before the fuel crisis of early 1947 which focused attention on the economic situation but after the first phase of a public information campaign on exports. That campaign continued after the survey was completed and the results which are summarised below do not therefore reflect the current state of opinion or knowledge on the subject. In particular it should be borne in mind that recent events may have emphasised two facets of opinion. Those believing that the prime need was to concentrate on the reconstruction of home productive capacity may feel strengthened in this belief, whilst the vulnerability of the British economy may have provided for others the sharpest possible proof of the need for developing the export trade.
In Autumn 1946 there were very few who did not realise that part of the country’s productive capacity was devoted to the manufacture of goods which were then sent abroad. In no section of the population were there more than 2 or 3% who were ignorant of this fact. More important however than such a general awareness is the extent of precise knowledge of the important aspects of export policy. Direct attempts were therefore made to estimate the proportions of the population which were well informed on the subject.
Why do we Export?
After the interview was well started and investigators had developed a good relationship with informants the question “Why do you think we export things at all” was asked. Before this informants had already been invited to express their opinion of export policy and to say what they knew about the type of commodities exported and the countries to which they were sent. The answers to the question which are analysed below reflect therefore a fair amount of concentration on the problem on the part of informants.
Table 1
Why do you think we export things at all?
The answers as shown in the table above need some explanation.
The first “To pay for imports” includes such answers as “to get money to pay for imports”, “in exchange for imports”, “to get the things we need from countries”. A separate category, the third in the table above, was used for answers implying that we needed money but in which no mention of why was made. It is likely of course that people giving such answers knew that the money was needed to pay for imports although they did not say so. “To get foreign money” and “To keep money circulating” were also answers included here. “To regain our position" were also answers as “To compete in the world market”, “To build up confidence”, etc.
Included with the answer “To pay back loans” are such answers as “To pay for the war” and “To save ourselves from bankruptcy”.
Answers such as “To get the country in a better state”, “For economic reasons”, “It’s necessary”, were counted as vague.
It should be noted that in some cases more than one answer was given, e. g. “To get imports and to make more employment at home”. In such cases both answers were counted.
The order of the answers given in the table above may perhaps be taken as a measure of the accuracy of the different types of reply. Group 1 clearly consists of well informed answers. On the other hand answers put into groups 5, 6, 7 and 8 show blank ignorance or confusion, and the further selection of answers put into groups 2, 3 and 4 cannot be considered as reflecting precise knowledge.
The fact that informants were invited and felt able to speak freely led to many persons giving more than one answer to the question. In some cases an answer which might be classified as well informed was followed by another remark which could only be classified as confused. In estimating the balance of opinion those who showed that they could give an informed answer were counted as well informed whether or not they added confused answers to their first statement. If the answers are considered in this way then 31% were well informed in the general function of exports, 28% gave answers which did not clearly show precise knowledge, and 21% showed blank ignorance or confusion only.
Analysis of replies by the economic status of informants were made. The economic classification used by the Social Survey is based on the wage rate of the chief earner in the family of the informant. If there is no wage earner, the pension or other income of the head of the household is considered. The intervals used were as follows:
| Lower Economic Group | up to £4 per week. |
| Middle Economic Group | over £4 to £5. 10. per week. |
| Higher Economic Group | £5. 10. per week |
These figures do not reflect income but rates of pay and it may be assumed that the Lower and Middle groups are the working class sections of the population, whilst the Higher group consists of the better paid skilled workers and the middle class sections.
There was little difference between the levels of knowledge in the middle and upper economic groups but the answers of the lower economic group showed more ignorance or confusion than those of either of the other groups.
A further analysis was made by education. Those who had only elementary education frequently gave answers which showed lack of knowledge, and a high proportion of those with some higher education showed that they were confused on the subject. Only 54% even of the latter mentioned imports.
Amongst the different occupation groups, housewives together with the retired and unoccupied, showed most ignorance and confusion. Men were somewhat better informed than women, but not much. The best informed group appeared to be those manual workers who are not factory operatives, amongst whom are workers in transport, mining, building and public services. The clerical, professional and managerial groups, though they said more than others, gave answers which lacked precision in higher proportions than the average.
It is clear from these results that large sections of the population, in all groups, are not well informed about ‘why we export things at all’ although at least half the population as a whole appears to know.
Though about half the population knew about the general purpose of export this does not imply that as many knew clearly what kind of part exports played in the whole picture of national activity. Some measure was needed of the extent of precise knowledge on the subject. Questions were therefore put to informants which were designed to show if they knew what proportion of all manufactured goods was exported, how the present level of exports compared with the pre-war position, and what the national need was in the export field. Informants were also asked to say what goods are exported, the countries to which they are sent, and what goods are received in exchange.
How much is Exported?
All informants were asked:
Table 2
Have you any idea how much of all we make we send away? Would you say it was roughly a half, or three quarters or a quarter?
| % | |
| Three quarters or more | 33 |
| About a half | 22 |
| A quarter or less | 3 |
| Don’ t know | 42 |
| SAMPLE: | 3,137 |
In fact about one quarter of all manufactured goods is designed for export. It seems from this table that only a minute fraction of the whole population was well informed on this point. Three quarters of the sample either ventured no statement at all or else were wildly wrong in their answer on this question! Yet, clearly, any opinion on the soundness of export policy must be based on some knowledge of the proportion of manufacture which goes on exports. Failing such knowledge public opinion on the subject must rest only on hazardous and unstable guess work. It must further be liable to severe fluctuations which are the result of those fortuitous and short - lived events which happen to be widely publicised.
Men were not much better informed than women. Over 50% of women would venture no answer to the question. Though only 30% of men were unable to offer any answer 65% thought exports were a half or more of all manufactured goods.
54% of the lower economic group were unable to give any answer, as compared with 32% of the higher group. But 64% of the higher group thought that half or more of all manufactured goods were exported, and as many as 40% of this group thought that three quarters or more was exported. A similar state of ignorance was revealed by those with higher education.
Amongst the occupation groups, housewives and the retired or unoccupied were most ignorant, whilst the best, or rather, least badly informed were manual workers other than factory operatives and the professional and managerial group. 9% of the manual workers other than factory operatives who gave an answer gave the correct one. This is higher than the proportion doing so in any other occupation group.
Were we exporting more in Autumn 1946 than before the war?
In Autumn 1946, at the time of this inquiry, the volume of exports was approximately equal to the 1938 volume. However over the year exports had greatly increased and this increase had been widely publicised. This is probably reflected in the following table.
Table 3
Would you say that at present we are exporting a greater or a smaller quantity, or about the same quantity as in 1938?
| % | |
| More | 42 |
| Same | 7 |
| Less | 19 |
| Don’t know | 31 |
| SAMPLE: | 3,137 |
It will be seen that nearly a third of the sample were unable to reply. 60% of the remainder (42% of the whole sample) thought that at that time we were exporting more than in 1938. Only 7% of the sample gave a correct reply, namely that we were exporting about the same volume as in 1938.
It appears from these results that the emphasis laid in publicity on the increase in exports over the year 1946 had resulted in a boomerang effect. Substantial proportions of the population gained the impression that the total volume of exports was greater than in pre-war years.
Amongst the different sections of the population some very peculiar results were obtained. Thus amongst those with some higher education there was a larger proportion than the average thinking that the volume of exports in Autumn 1946 was lower than in 1938. It is noteworthy that even in this group 25% were unwilling to venture an opinion.
Whilst 43% of the lower economic group were unable to give an opinion, there was little difference between the middle and higher economic groups, although the higher economic group (as with the higher education group) had a larger than average proportion thinking that the volume of exports in Autumn 1946 was lower than in 1938.
The proportion of the managerial and professional group thinking that the 1946 export volume was lower than the 1938 figure was almost twice the average. 36% of this key group thought that the Autumn 1946 volume of exports was lower than 1938 volume. On the other hand amongst manual workers, whether factory operatives or not, larger than average proportions thought that the Autumn 1946 volume was greater than the 1938 volume. 40% of housewives were unable to give an opinion, but of those who did give an answer a high proportion, the highest in all groups, thought that the volume of Autumn 1946 exports was greater than the 1938 figure.
It appears from these results that only a minute section of the population (7%) knew that in Autumn 1946 the volume of exports was approximately the same as in 1938. Considerable proportions thought that the Autumn 1946 volume was greater than the 1938 volume and this tendency is most marked amongst housewives and manual workers. On the other hand large sections of the professional and managerial groups, and indeed of the upper income and higher education groups, thought that the Autumn 1946 volume was lower than the 1938 figure.
How much should we Export?
The eventual export target has been put at 175% of the 1938 figure in public statements. All informants were therefore asked:
Table 4
Do you think we ought to export a greater or a smaller quantity or about the same quantity as we did before the war?
| % | |
| More | 46 |
| Same | 18 |
| Less | 13 |
| Don’t know | 23 |
| SAMPLE: | 3137 |
Less than half the population appear to have appreciated, the need for an expanded volume of exports. It will be seen however, that about one quarter of the sample did not venture an answer and a further 31% did not accept the need for more exports. More of the men than of the women thought that we should export more, and the higher economic group gave this answer more frequently than the middle and lower groups. Similarly more of those with higher education than of those with elementary education thought we should export more.
Professional and managerial workers more frequently said that we should export more than those in other occupation groups.
The export target (175% of the 1938 figure) is of course not meant to be a temporary event. It represents a permanent necessity. The table just given, therefore, does not, by itself show the extent to which the basic change in the country’s trading situation was appreciated. How many people realised that the volume of exports had to go up and stay up?
All informants who ventured an answer to this question were therefore asked “Do you think we should always do this or only do it for some years and make a change”. The results of these two questions taken together give a useful picture of the state of the public opinion on the subject. They show that in Autumn 1946, 26% only of the population thought that the post-war volume of exports should always be higher than the pre-war volume. A further 16%, whilst agreeing that the immediate post-war volume should be higher, thought that this need only be the target for ‘some years’.
On the other hand 13% of the population who thought that the post-war volume of exports should be the same only or lower than the pre-war volume meant this to apply ‘for some years’ only. 12% only of the whole population were definitely of the opinion that exports should be only the same or lower than the pre-war figure ‘always’.
These results may be conveniently tabulated as follows:-
Table 5
“ Do you think we ought to export a greater or smaller quantity or about the same quantity as before the war ”
“ Should we always do this or only do it for some years “
Group 6 (13%) is presumably composed of those who believe that exports should be increased only when the country has recuperated. It will be noticed that it almost balances group 2 (16%) which is presumably composed of those who believe that an increased volume of exports is needed only to help the recuperative process or to make up the special, temporary deficiences caused by war.
Group 2 and group 7 total 28%. This is the proportion of the population which believed in Autumn 1946 that immediately or after some years our volume of exports need be only the same as or less than pre-war. Group 1 (26%) is composed of those who believe that an immediate increase and a permanently high level of exports is necessary, and to this group may be added group 6 (13%) who believe that the limitation of exports to the ‘same or less’ than the pre-war figure should hold only for some years. Thus 39% of the population in Autumn 1946 accepted an immediate or eventual increase in exports as necessary.
The remaining third of the population was unable to offer a definite opinion.
What Goods are Exported?
All informants were asked if they knew what kind of things are sent away from this country, 18% of the population were unable to mention any item and this proportion rose to 25% for housewives and 34% for the lower economic group.
Table 6
Do you know what kinds of things we send away?
The frequency with which the different groups of items are mentioned may be set alongside the percentage money value of all exports which was formed by comparable groups of goods in the second quarter of 1946.
In that period nearly 46% in money value of goods exported was formed by metal manufacture, machinery, electrical goods, cutlery, hardware implements, vehicles. It will be seen that motor cars, machinery, vehicles and metal goods are mentioned by large proportions. There is recognition therefore of the important part played by those commodities in the export picture. The same cannot be said of other exported items. Thus 17% in money value of goods exported consisted of textiles (yarn, materials). Textiles were however mentioned by less than one fifth. Chemicals, drugs, dyes, resins and fats, made up 8% in money value of goods exported but were mentioned by a handful of people only.
1. Items mentioned by less than 3% were as follows.
2%: Wireless sets, cutlery, cosmetics or soap,
1%: “Raw materials” unspecified, bedding, sheets, building materials, plastics.
Other items were mentioned by a few people only.
2. Items of clothing specified were:
Stockings 2%, dresses 1%, hosiery 1%, and furs, fur-coats, coats, underwear and other items by less than 1%.
3. Types of food specified were:
Wheat, grain or cereals 2%, biscuits 1%, flour 1%, potatoes and potato seed 1%, and sugar, butter, meat, milk, fats and other foods by less than 1%.
4. Aircraft, lorries and railway engines were the most frequently mentioned vehicles apart from cars and bicycles.
On the other hand some items which are by no means major contributors to the export total were mentioned by considerable sections or the sample. Thus whilst food, drink and tobacco made up 7% in money value of exports in the period considered, 23% mentioned food as an item of export. Less than 4% in money value of exports was made up of apparel and footwear, yet 33% mentioned clothing as an item of export and 9% mentioned shoes. Coal has of recent years been a very minor item of export but 17% mentioned coal.
It is clear from these figures that large sections of the population believe that consumption goods are major items in the export total, or at least, when informants were asked to mention exports large proportions thought of consumption goods. At the same time apart from one large group of exports (metal manufacture, machinery, electrical goods) only small sections of the population were able to mention major items of export and even a clearly identifiable export item such as motor cars was mentioned by about one third of the sample only.
As might be expected consumption goods were mentioned as export items by larger proportions of women than men.
Table 7
Do you know what kinds of things we send away?
Analysis by SEX
The preoccupation of women with clothing difficulties is clearly reflected in the 40% which mentioned clothing as an export item. If those women who were unable to mention any items of export are excluded from the figures over 50% of women mentioning any export item mentioned clothing and over one third mentioned food. It is interesting that only half of the men mentioned motor cars as an export item. The preoccupation with clothing was shared by all economic groups to the same extent whilst food was mentioned rather more by the lower and middle economic groups than by the higher. On the other hand other consumption goods (shoes, furniture, china, glass, pottery and household goods) were mentioned somewhat more by the higher economic groups than by the lower.
The higher economic group and those with some higher education however mentioned the major items of export more frequently than other groups, but apart from this the figures show a clear tendency for various sections of the population to think of exports in terms of items with which they are personally concerned, despite the facts or in ignorance of the facts.
It appears from this that attention needs to be given to telling the population, and particularly some sections of the population, what is not exported as well as what is exported. It would seem to be of use to devise some means of demonstrating clearly that consumption goods are a relatively small part of the export total as well as continuing to say what are the main items of export. Lastly, some major items are less well recognised than others as large contributors to the export total. It may well be considered useful to give rather more prominence to these items in future publicity.
To what Countries do we Export?
After saying what goods they thought wore exported informants were asked to say to what countries they thought goods were being sent.
When general or vague answers were given e.g. “The Colonies”, “America”, informants were not asked to specify the countries but the answer was accepted as it was given. Such answers have been put in inverted commas in the table.
Nearly one third of the sample was unable to mention any country to which goods were sent and this figure rose to 40% of housewives and of the lower economic group. Amongst the different occupation groups those most frequently able to mention countries to which goods were sent were professional and managerial workers and factory operatives.
Table 8
Do you know where the things we export are going to?
Places mentioned by 2% were Egypt, Eire, Czechoslovakia, Greece, Spain, Switzerland, and by about 1% “N. America” Palestine, Turkey, Poland, Portugal, Japan, and “the Continent”.
It will be immediately apparent from this table that the U. S. A. (which for many is the same as “America”) and Germany bulk very large. Clearly public discussion of indebtedness to the U. S. A. and of the depressed condition of Germany have influenced large sections of the population to believe that these countries are the main receivers of British exports. In fact N. America received less than 8% of the total value of exports in the second quarter of 1946. On the other hand the importance of S. Africa, India, the European countries, and especially Denmark, is recognised by small sections of the population only. Men and women gave similar answers except that men mentioned countries within the British Commonwealth considerably more than women.
The upper economic group mentioned the countries in the British Commonwealth and European countries considerably more frequently than did the lower economic group. However 47% of the upper economic group mentioned “America” (U. S. A.) as a country to which exports were sent. This may be compared with the 20% in this group which mentioned Africa or S. Africa and the 17% which, even here, mentioned Germany. Whilst in general the professional and managerial group appeared to be the best informed on this subject 52% of this group mentioned “America” as a country to which exports were sent. This was the highest proportion mentioning N. America in any one group. In general housewives were the least well informed group on this subject. It is clear from these figures that there is as much ignorance and confusion about the countries to which goods are exported as there is about what these goods are.
What Do we get in Exchange for Exports ?
Informants were asked to say what commodities were received in exchange for exports. 12% were unable to mention one item and this figure rose to 17% of housewives and 22% of the lower economic group. Nevertheless there appears to be a much higher level of knowledge on this subject than on any other question so far examined.
84% of the sample gave a specific item of food or made the general reply “Foodstuffs”, although nearly three quarters of these gave the general reply only. There was less knowledge on raw material imports, but even here on an average about one item was mentioned per person. Manufactured imports were mentioned by insignificant proportions only.
Table 9
Could you say what kinds of things we get in exchange for our exports?
Imports mentioned by less than 3% were as follows:
2% Clothing, textiles (unspecified), cheese, chemicals, fertilisers or drugs.
1% Silk, motor cars, china or glass, clocks or watches, furniture, films, luxury or fancy goods, prefabricated houses, building materials, cosmetics, paper.
Other imports were mentioned by a few people only.
The answers “food and drink”, “dairy produce” and “raw materials” have been put in inverted commas in the tables to show that these were only counted if informants answered exactly in these words. In other cases specific answers were counted in the more general category to which they belonged e.g. if an informant said “oranges” this was counted as fruit.
The proportion which neither gave the general answer “Food, food stuffs” nor mentioned any food item varied from 30% in the lower economic group to 10% in the higher economic group. 19% of housewives and 15% of manufacturing workers gave neither answer.
The proportion of housewives mentioning imports is in general lower than the proportion of men doing so. Even food was mentioned by a lower proportion of housewives than of men. Large proportions of women mentioned one food item of import only or gave the general answer “Foodstuffs”. It will be remembered that about one quarter of housewives said “Food” when asked to mention items of export. Clearly under such circumstances the possibilities of badly informed agitation on questions of food supply are manifold. It is a sad reflection on recent occasion that only 16% of all housewives mentioned “Eggs” or “Dried Eggs” as items which were imported. Butter and dairy produce too were mentioned by small proportions only. It is an interesting fact that “fruit” was the most frequently mentioned food item. Whilst this may be due to the obviously exotic nature of items like tangerines it is worthwhile pointing out that 30% mentioned fruit as an item of import whilst only 9% mentioned tea and less than one quarter mentioned meat.
There was little or no difference between the proportions in the different economic groups mentioning different food items of import, or between those with some higher education and those with elementary education only. Those in the higher economic group or with some higher education however gave the general answer “Food, foodstuffs” much more frequently than other groups. Whilst the level of knowledge of particular food import items was low, even less was known about raw material imports. 56% of the whole sample mentioned no raw material imports at all. The proportion giving neither the general expression “raw materials” nor mentioning any item of raw material import varied from 69% in the lower economic group to 39% in the higher economic group. It included 54% of manufacturing workers and 83% of housewives.
Only 16% of the sample gave the general answer “Raw materials” as against the 59% of the sample which said “Food, foodstuffs, food and drink”, and timber given by 17% of the sample was the most frequently mentioned raw material import.
9% of women mentioned cottom imports and 7% wool imports. These figures may be set alongside the 40% of women who gave “Clothing” when asked to mention export items.
These figures show that whilst a high proportion of the population knew that food was received in exchange for imports, only a minority could mention particular items. Important items such as meat or butter were mentioned by small proportions only, whilst fruit was mentioned by 30%. Knowledge of raw material imports was much less and only small proportions mentioned any single raw material import. Manufactured imports were mentioned by a tiny minority only.
Table 10
Do you know where our imports come from?
Persia, Greece and Belgium were mentioned by 2%. Countries mentioned by about 1% were “N. America”, Palestine, Turkey, Switzerland, Brazil, Ceylon, Malaya, Japan, Portugal, Jamaica and “the occupied countries”.
A quarter of the women and nearly one third of the lower economic group were unable to give one country from which Britain imported. However, on an average four places were given by those who did mention particular places. For purposes of judging the accuracy of replies the import value totals for July 1946 were taken as a point of reference.
The importance of the British Commonwealth countries seems to be recognised although not more than 38% of the sample mentioned Canada which is a very important contributor to the import total.
“America” however (which for many is the U.S.A.) was mentioned by over 50%. This further strengthens the impression given by earlier tables that the publicity given to financial arrangements between this country and the U.S.A. has led many to over-estimate the importance of that country in Britain’s total trade picture.
The importance of European countries on the other hand seems to be somewhat under-estimated and not more than 17% mentioned any one European country.
All sections of the sample mentioned the British Commonwealth countries fairly frequently and there was little difference in this respect between men and women or the different occupation groups. The European countries however were much less frequently mentioned by women, the lower economic groups and especially by housewives. On the other hand the U. S. A. was mentioned much more by the professional and managerial groups and the higher economic group than by others. These figures show that on the whole the countries from which imports come are less well known than the commodities which are imported. Although the British Commonwealth countries were fairly well mentioned as a whole not more than 38% of the sample mentioned Canada. On the other hand the U. S. A. was mentioned as a source of imports by over 50%.
It must be pointed out at this stage that the second phase of the Export Campaign, which began after this survey was made, has concentrated on information about the major imports. This will presumably be reflected in an improvement in the state of knowledge of the population on the point just discussed.
The higher economic group and professional and managerial group in particular mention the U. S. A. frequently as a source of imports. In contrast to the prominence of the U. S. A. the European countries appear to be under estimated as a source of imports particularly by the lower economic group and by housewives.
SUMMARY
1. About half of the population appeared to recognise the general purpose of exports but there was a great deal of confusion and muddled thinking in all sections of the population, including the professional and managerial groups and the higher economic group.
Precise knowledge about the export situation is however much less spread than general knowledge.
2. About a quarter of the sample saw the need for an immediate increase to a permanently high level of exports. A further 13% believed that exports should be limited to the same figure as pre-war “for some years”, so that only about 40% of the population, at the time of the survey, believed that eventually exports should be higher than the pre-war figure. A quarter of the population, on the other hand believed that eventually exports should be the same or less than pre-war.
3. Only a very small section of the sample (7%) knew that in Autumn 1946 the volume of exports was approximately the same as in 1938. Housewives and manual workers in particular, thought that more was being exported than pre-war whilst large sections of the professional and managerial groups as well as the better educated sections of the population thought that the Autumn 1946 volume was lower than in 1938.
4. Only a very small section (3%) knew approximately what proportion of manufactured goods was exported. Three quarters of the sample either ventured no answer to this question or gave an answer which was wildly wrong. 40% of the higher economic group thought exports were three quarters or more of all manufacture! 65% of men thought that exports were half or more of all manufactured goods.
5. When informants were asked what goods were sent out of the country, large proportions in all groups mentioned food or clothing. Apart from one major group of exports (metal manufactures, machinery, electrical goods) which was mentioned by considerable proportions, only small sections of the sample were able to mention major export items.
The U. S. A. and Germany bulked large amongst the countries mentioned as the recipients of British exports, whilst the importance of S. Africa, India or the European countries is recognised by small sections of the population only. In particular a large proportion of the professional and managerial group mentioned the U. S. A. as a country to which goods were sent.
6. A high proportion of the population (84%) knew that food was received in exchange for exports but only a minority mentioned particular items. Important foodstuffs such as meat or butter were mentioned by small proportions only, whilst fruit on the other hand was mentioned by 30%. There was much less knowledge of raw material imports. 56% mentioned no raw material and small proportions only mentioned any single raw material which is imported. Manufactured imports were mentioned by a tiny minority only.
The countries from which imports come are even less well known than the commodities which are imported. Although the British Commonwealth countries were fairly well mentioned not more than 38% mentioned Canada. On the other hand the U. S. A. was mentioned as a source of imports by over 50% and particularly by the professional and managerial and the higher economic group. In contrast to this the European countries appear to be underestimated as a source of imports, particularly by the lower economic group and by housewives.