In contemporary societies the obligation to exercise some control of national economic and social affairs is judged to be the natural order of things. In the more advanced countries, the government inter venes to control the many divergent forces in the process of industriali sation, whilst in those at earlier stages of modernisation, the State's role is to somehow gear society up to a higher standard of living?and fast. In the nineteenth century, things were very different. Far more, individualism was the natural order of things. State intervention in anything other than law and order, and defence, was anathema to the leading power groups in society. Accordingly, governments were allowed to function only on the periphery of economic and social matters, venturing nearer the centre only where it suited the major political pressure groups ascendant at the time. There were exceptions, of course. The State was actively interventionist in Japan, for example, but as a generality we can hold that government intervention was just not wanted, and mostly was not forthcoming. Nineteenth-century Australia was betwixt and between. In the settlement years, government regulation and control of most aspects of economic and social life were vital for survival. Perhaps the experi ence of these formative years bit deeply into the character of both contemporaries and succeeding generations of Australians. It is possibly more true than false that once having 'taken off' in the social and institutional sense, private institutional control measures supplanted those of the state. Yet equally, it may be more true than false that the deeply rooted inclination to look to the State for help in difficult times was not dead but dormant.
Read full abstract