Books for students and academics alike have explained the rise of free trade. History undergraduates are familiar with the concept of a free trade ideology linked to the Edwardian pride in the British Empire. They learn of the shift towards a more managed Keynesian mixed economy, and the welfare state.

Trentmann’s Free Trade Nation is the first major work to explore the whole period of free trade, from the late nineteenth century to mid-1930s. While resources are plenty, this is the first economic and social history of the phenomenon. Historians have traditionally thought of free trade firstly as a political ideology, acknowledging an aspect of social history during the early 1900s. But Trentmann argues for an economic and social analysis, which covers a much longer historical period.

The crisis in 1931 that led Ramsay MacDonald to cut unemployment benefit to secure an IMF loan, and ultimately the British withdrawal from the gold standard and a major split within the Labour Party, is widely regarded as the trigger for the demise of free trade as an ideology and concept it its own right. However, Trentmann describes a more complex picture.

Free Trade, as Trentmann explains, is treated as a distinct ideology in the period up to the First World War and so is written with capitals, whereas by the Second World War, Free Trade has become free trade. Trentmann makes a division between the first half of this story, ‘Building a Free Trade Nation’, and the second, ‘Unravelling’, in his book. The first part is reasonably light and entertaining, reflecting a well-trodden path amongst historians of the Edwardian period. The second part however lacks a certain argument, possibility even lacks the confidence of the first, as if Trentmann is unsure of the causes of the decline.

‘Unravelling’ suggests a slow process, and although to a degree the First World War can be seen as a long period of time, in historical terms the decline of an ideology within a four-year period is pretty decisive. Trentmann argues, somewhat predictably, that the introduction of conscription under Lloyd George, and particularly the management of the allied navies, sounded the death knell for Free Trade. The decision to take a planned approach to distributing food between the allies using the limited naval ability inevitably brought Britain, as a naval power, into a coordinating and managing role. Before the war, under its Free Trade system, Britain had been an outsider, a maverick even, but during the war, all allied countries needed to pull together and Britain was a fundamental part in this planned system of food delivery. The cultural change this necessitated was arguably the major shift that led to the decline of Free Trade.

However, there were also changes afoot in mass politics, an issue that is touched on by Trentmann but would benefit from expansion. It may have been interesting to suggest that the growth of mass politics generated enough space for two mainstream ideologies. Charles Booth’s Life and Labour of the People in London suggested in 1902 that the political loyalties of the working class were tribal rather than well informed or considered. The introduction of the working class into the political realm through universal suffrage in 1918 may have caused an increased awareness of what different ideologies were on offer and what each party stood for. In particular, the rise of the Labour Party and the Webb’s 1919 socialist manifesto aimed to engage the working class in politics. However, Trentmann fails to focus on this as a reason for Free Trade’s demise, despite arguing for the importance of mass politics as a reason for its rise.

Traditional history focuses on high politics only, whereas the reaction against this from the 1960s onwards has focused only on economic and social factors. While Trentmann clearly sees himself within the economic and social tradition, in the twenty-first century there is surely an argument to be made for historians to take all factors into account. While Trentmann’s work on Free Trade is an interesting introduction, it skims over political issues yet neglects to make a solid case for the predominance of economic and social factors.