Introduction

Economists and economic historians writing about the slump and recovery of the 1930s have tended to concentrate on the macroeconomic dimensions. It was, after all, a period of general economic malaise, and the magnitude of the fluctuations in aggregate activity starkly revealed the dynamics of capitalist economies. It is therefore not surprising that in many western countries postwar studies of business cycle behaviour, and debates over alternative policies for macro-stabilization, have drawn heavily on the experience of this decade. Most notable have been the contributions by Friedman, Temin and their critics to the analysis of the causes of the ‘great contraction’ in the United States following 1929. The principal study of Australia during the period (Schedvin 1970a) is also concerned primarily with macroeconomic policies and performance. By contrast, social historians emphasize the equity dimensions—the varied depression experience of particular regions, industries, groups or classes. Similarly, the most powerful images we have of the 1930s, derived especially from literature and films, are most probably those that refer to the differential impact of the depression. The plight of the unemployed is the central theme of most fictional and historical accounts of the 1930s.

Ideally, economic inequality during the depression and recovery should be examined via a wide range of quantitative and qualitative evidence relating to the distribution of income and wealth or proxies for them such as wage rates, earnings, home ownership, other personal assets, probate data, and so on. The unit of analysis should embrace not just the individual; in many instances the household or family is more appropriate.