Version actuelle datée du 6 novembre 2023 à 11:17

Based on a lecture by Aline Helg^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4]^[5]^[6]^[7]

Languages

The United States and Latin America: late 18th and 20th centuries

The Americas on the eve of independence ● The independence of the United States ● The U.S. Constitution and Early 19th Century Society ● The Haitian Revolution and its Impact in the Americas ● The independence of Latin American nations ● Latin America around 1850: societies, economies, policies ● The Northern and Southern United States circa 1850: immigration and slavery ● The American Civil War and Reconstruction: 1861 - 1877 ● The (re)United States: 1877 - 1900 ● Regimes of Order and Progress in Latin America: 1875 - 1910 ● The Mexican Revolution: 1910 - 1940 ● American society in the 1920s ● The Great Depression and the New Deal: 1929 - 1940 ● From Big Stick Policy to Good Neighbor Policy ● Coups d'état and Latin American populisms ● The United States and World War II ● Latin America during the Second World War ● US Post-War Society: Cold War and the Society of Plenty ● The Cold War in Latin America and the Cuban Revolution ● The Civil Rights Movement in the United States

The 1920s, glittering with prosperity and lulled by carefree optimism, are often referred to as the 'Roaring Twenties'. This period illustrates a flourishing America, where abundance and success seemed to be the norm. However, this era of opulence and euphoria came to an abrupt end with the stock market crash of October 1929, opening the door to the grim Great Depression. This economic catastrophe, the most devastating in American history, transformed a once prosperous country into a nation reeling from massive unemployment, widespread poverty and financial instability.

The Great Depression not only shook the economy; it trampled the soul and spirit of the American people. Millions lost not only their jobs but also their faith in a prosperous future. Businesses and banks went bankrupt, leaving behind them a trail of desolation and helplessness. Farmers, the backbone of the economy, have been dispossessed of their land, adding to the sense of despair.

The crisis has sown doubt and uncertainty in the minds of Americans, once optimistic and confident in their prosperous nation. A deep distrust of the economic system and government has sprung up, radically changing the national psyche. However, in this abyss of despair, the innovative policies of Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal emerged like a beam of light. Bold reforms and a government now more involved in the economy began a healing process, laying new foundations for a gradual recovery.

The Great Depression not only reconfigured American politics, catalysing the shift in power from the Republicans to the Democrats, but also prompted a profound re-examination of the relationship between the citizen and the state. The Democratic Party, once associated with the South and Catholic immigrants, has become the champion of the working and middle classes, which have been hardest hit by the crisis. The American political landscape was redefined, and with it an era of renewal and social transformation emerged.

This monumental upheaval spawned a blossoming of social movements, a reassessment of cultural values and a redefinition of national identity. The Great Depression left an indelible scar on American history, a sombre reminder of human vulnerability to the unpredictable forces of the economy. Yet it also illustrated the nation's resilience and innovation, highlighting America's undeniable ability to reinvent itself in the midst of the most devastating trials.

The causes of the 1929 stock market crash[modifier | modifier le wikicode]

The stock market crash of 1929 was not simply the result of economic instability in Europe or the inability of European nations to repay the loans they had taken out with American banks after the First World War. Rather, it was the consequence of a combination of economic, financial and political factors, each contributing to a collapse of devastating proportions. Unbridled stock market speculation was commonplace in the 1920s. Unrealistic optimism led many investors to place huge sums of money in the stock market, often on credit. This led to artificial inflation in share prices and the formation of a vulnerable financial bubble. Margin buying, or the excessive use of credit to buy shares, made the situation worse. When confidence collapsed, many investors found themselves unable to repay their loans, exacerbating the crisis. The lack of robust financial regulation allowed risky and unethical practices, making the stock market and banks unstable. In addition, panic and the rush to sell amplified the market collapse. An unprecedented volume of share sales precipitated a vertiginous fall in prices. Beyond the dynamics of the stock market, the US economy was suffering from deep-seated problems. Wealth inequalities, industrial and agricultural overproduction and a decline in consumption all contributed to a fragile economic base. Banks, having invested heavily in the stock market or lent money to investors to buy shares, were hit hard when share values plummeted. Their failure exacerbated the crisis of confidence and further reduced access to credit. Instability in Europe and the inability of European countries to repay their debts also played a role in the crisis. The interconnection of the world's economies turned a national crisis into an international disaster. These factors converged to create an environment where a large-scale economic collapse was inevitable. This toxic mix of unregulated speculation, easy credit, underlying economic instability and panic selling was exacerbated by international economic instability. This highlighted the imperative need for greater regulation and oversight of the stock market and banking system, leading to substantial reforms in the years that followed to prevent a recurrence of such disasters.

This dichotomy between the international and domestic factors that led to the stock market crash of 1929 is at the heart of debates about the origins of the Great Depression. International economic tensions, notably European debt, cannot be overlooked. However, close inspection reveals that fundamental economic dynamics in the United States also played a critical role. The Second Industrial Revolution, characterised by considerable technological advancement and industrial expansion, instilled a sense of economic invincibility and apparent prosperity during the 'Roaring Twenties'. This period saw the emergence of new industries, increased productivity and widespread financial euphoria. However, this economic effervescence concealed a vulnerable financial landscape, undermined by excessive speculative practices and a dangerous accumulation of debt. The prosperity of the 1920s was not as solid as it seemed. It was fuelled in part by easy access to credit and unbridled stock market speculation. Many investors, blinded by enthusiasm and optimism, were unaware of the risks inherent in a market saturated with speculative capital. The euphoria masked the underlying economic fragility and encouraged unsustainable optimism. The sharp fall came when economic reality caught up with speculation. Investors became aware of the latent instability and financial insecurity. The stock market crash that followed was inevitable, not because of external pressures, but rather because of unresolved internal flaws in the US economy. In this context, European debt and international instability were merely aggravating factors, not the root causes of the crisis. The very foundations of American prosperity were unstable, hollowed out by imprudent financial practices and a lack of adequate regulation. The Great Depression that followed was not only a brutal market correction but also a rude awakening for a nation that had been lulled into economic complacency for too long. It signalled the imperative need for a balance between innovation, growth and financial prudence, laying the foundations for a new economic order in the United States.

This debt-fuelled investment frenzy and unbridled optimism was a key element that precipitated the stock market crash of 1929. Market dynamics at the time were characterised by a collective euphoria in which caution took a back seat to blind confidence in a perpetual economic upswing. The idea that the market could rise indefinitely was ingrained in the minds of many investors. Their investment strategy, often devoid of prudence, was heavily geared towards buying shares on margin. This speculative approach, while lucrative in the short term, was inherently vulnerable, making the economy extremely susceptible to market fluctuations. Share prices had reached stratospheric heights, fuelled not by solid economic fundamentals but by unbridled speculation. This dislocation between the real and perceived value of shares created an unsustainable financial bubble. Every bubble, no matter how big or small, is bound to burst sooner or later. The bubble of 1929 was no different. When reality set in again, and investor confidence collapsed, the stock market was plunged into chaos. Investors, including those who had bought on margin and were already deeply in debt, rushed to sell, triggering a rapid and relentless downward spiral in share prices. The massive rush to dump equities exacerbated the crisis, turning a market correction that was perhaps inevitable into an economic catastrophe of staggering proportions. The consequences were felt far beyond Wall Street, permeating every nook and cranny of the US and global economy. This financial disaster was not the product of a single factor, but the result of a toxic combination of unregulated speculation, easy credit and complacency, a perfect storm that triggered one of the darkest periods in modern economic history. The lesson of the crash was clear: a market left to its own devices, without careful regulation and proper oversight, is liable to descend into excesses that can have devastating consequences for everyone.

The meteoric rise of the car and household appliance industries in the 1920s is a classic example of the double-edged sword of rapid industrial growth. Although these innovations marked an era of apparent prosperity, they also sowed the seeds of the impending economic crisis. Industrial production had reached historic highs, but this growth was not matched by equivalent demand. The American economic machine, with its overloaded production capacity, began to creak, generating a surplus of goods that far exceeded consumers' purchasing capacity. The spectre of overproduction, where factories were producing at a rate that outstripped consumption, became a worrying reality. The flourishing car and household appliance industries became victims of their own success. The domestic market was saturated; every American household that could afford a new car or appliance already had one. The imbalance between supply and demand set off a chain reaction, with falling consumption leading to reduced production, rising unsold stocks and falling profits for companies. This economic slowdown was a worrying omen in an already volatile financial landscape. The stock market, which had long been a source of prosperity, was ripe for a correction. Shares were overvalued, a product of speculation rather than the intrinsic value of companies. When business confidence faltered, a domino effect was triggered. Investors, nervous and uncertain, withdrew their capital, sending the market into a downward spiral. So the stock market crash of 1929 was not an isolated event, but the result of a series of interconnected factors. Industrial overproduction, market saturation, overvalued equities and a loss of business confidence converged to create a precarious economic environment. When the crash came, it was not just a financial correction, but a brutal reassessment of the foundations on which the prosperity of the 1920s had been built. Prudence and regulation became watchwords in discussions of the economy, ushering in an era in which rapid growth would be tempered by recognition of its potential limits and the dangers of excess.

The rise of consumer credit was a defining feature of the American economy in the 1920s, an era of rapid but reckless expansion. Citizens, lured by the promise of immediate prosperity, went into debt to enjoy a standard of living beyond their immediate means. Easy access to credit not only stimulated consumption but also engendered a culture of indebtedness. This easy access to credit has, however, concealed deep cracks in the country's economic foundations. Consumer spending, while high, was artificially inflated by debt. Individuals and families, seduced by the apparent abundance and easy access to credit, accumulated considerable debt. This dynamic created an economy which, although apparently prosperous on the surface, was intrinsically fragile, with stability dependent on consumers' ability to manage and repay their debts. When the optimism of the Roaring Twenties gave way to the reality of a declining economy, the fragility of this expansive credit system became apparent. Consumers, already heavily in debt and now faced with an uncertain economic outlook, cut back on their spending. Unable to repay their debts, a vicious circle of defaults and consumer recession set in, exacerbating the economic slowdown. This abrupt reversal revealed the inadequacy of an economy based on debt and speculation. The collapse of confidence and the contraction of credit were triggers for a crisis that swept through not only the United States but also the global economy. Individuals, companies and even nations found themselves trapped in a spiral of debt and default, ushering in an era of recession and readjustment. This scenario highlighted the need for careful and considered credit and debt management. The economic euphoria fuelled by easy credit and excessive consumption proved unsustainable. In the ashes of the Great Depression, a new approach to economics and finance began to emerge, one that recognised the dangers inherent in unregulated prosperity and sought a more sustainable balance between growth and financial stability.

The low interest rate regime that prevailed in the 1920s played a significant role in setting the stage for the stock market crash of 1929. Increased access to credit, facilitated by low interest rates, encouraged both consumers and investors to take on debt. In a climate where cheap money was readily available, financial prudence often took a back seat to excessive enthusiasm and confidence in the economy's upward trajectory. Cheap money not only fuelled consumption but also encouraged intense speculation on the stock market. Investors, armed with easily obtained credit, flocked to an already overvalued market, pushing share prices well beyond their intrinsic value. This dynamic created an overheated financial environment, where real value and speculation were dangerously misaligned. The correction came in the form of higher interest rates. This increase, while necessary to cool an overheated economy, came as a shock to investors and borrowers. Faced with higher borrowing costs and a growing debt burden, many were forced to liquidate their positions on the stock market. This scramble for the exit led to a massive sell-off, triggering a rapid and uncontrolled fall in share prices. The inversion of interest rates revealed the fragility of an economy built on the shifting sands of cheap credit and speculation. The stock market crash of 1929 and the Great Depression that followed were dramatic manifestations of the limits and dangers of unregulated economic growth overly dependent on debt. The lesson learned was painful but necessary. In the years following the crisis, greater attention was paid to the prudent management of monetary policy and interest rates, recognising their central role in stabilising the economy and preventing speculative excesses that could lead to economic disaster. The disaster of 1929 prompted a profound reassessment of the principles and practices underpinning economic management, underlining the need for a balance between the imperatives of growth and the imperatives of financial stability and security.

The lack of robust regulation was a crucial weakness that exacerbated the severity of the 1929 stock market crash. At the time, the stock market was largely unregulated territory, a kind of financial 'wild west' where government oversight and investor protections were minimal or non-existent. This facilitated an environment of unbridled speculation, market manipulation and insider trading. The lack of transparency and ethics in stock market operations has created a highly volatile and uncertain market. Investors, lacking reliable and accurate information, were often in the dark, forced to navigate a market where asymmetric information and manipulation were commonplace. Trust, an essential ingredient of any healthy financial system, was eroded, replaced by uncertainty and speculation. In this context, fraud and insider trading proliferated, exacerbating the risks for ordinary investors who were often ill-equipped to understand or mitigate the dangers inherent in the market. Their vulnerability was exacerbated by the absence of regulatory protections, leaving many investors at the mercy of a capricious and often manipulated market. When the crash occurred, these structural and regulatory weaknesses were brutally exposed. Investors, already faced with a precipitous fall in stock market values, were left with no recourse in the face of an inadequate regulatory and protection infrastructure. The catastrophe of 1929 was a wake-up call for government and regulators. In its wake, an era of regulatory reform was ushered in, characterised by the introduction of stricter oversight mechanisms and protections for investors. Legislation such as the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in the United States laid the foundations for a more transparent, fair and stable stock market. The harsh lesson of the stock market crash revealed the crucial importance of regulation and supervision in maintaining the integrity and stability of financial markets. It initiated a profound transformation in the way financial markets were perceived and managed, marking the beginning of an era in which regulation and investor protection became central pillars of financial stability.

Economic inequality was an underlying, and often overlooked, weak link in the economic fabric of the United States on the eve of the 1929 stock market crash. The growing gap between the rich and the working class was not simply a question of social justice, but also a factor of profound economic vulnerability. In the boom years of the 1920s, a narrative of unprecedented prosperity and growth prevailed. However, this prosperity was not evenly distributed. While wealth and luxury were ostensibly on display in the upper echelons of society, a significant portion of the American population lived in precarious economic conditions. The working class, although fundamental to industrial production and growth, was a marginal beneficiary of the wealth generated. This disproportion in the distribution of wealth instilled tensions and fissures within the economy. Consumption, a vital engine of economic growth, was undermined by the inadequacy of real wages for the majority of workers. Their ability to participate fully in the consumer economy was limited, creating a dynamic where overproduction and debt became increasingly prevalent. In this context, consumer confidence was fragile. Working class families, faced with rising living costs and stagnant wages, were vulnerable to economic shocks. When signs of an impending recession appeared, their ability to absorb and overcome the impact was limited. Their withdrawal from consumption exacerbated the economic slowdown, turning a moderate recession into a deep depression. The revelation of this wealth inequality had profound implications for economic and social policy. Gaps in the distribution of wealth were not simply social inequities, but economic flaws that could amplify boom and bust cycles. Recognition of the importance of economic justice, wage stability and worker protection became central to political and economic responses in the years following the Great Depression, shaping an era of reform and recovery.

The concentration of wealth in the hands of a narrow elite was not only a contributing factor to the crash of 1929, but also exacerbated the severity of the Great Depression that followed. Much of the nation's wealth was held by a small fraction of the population, creating a disparity that weakened the economic resilience of society as a whole. In an economy where consumption is a key driver of growth, the ability of the masses to purchase goods and services is crucial. The stagnation of real wages among workers and the middle class has reduced their purchasing power, leading to a contraction in demand. This reduction in demand has, in turn, affected production. Faced with falling sales, companies cut production and laid off workers, creating a vicious cycle of unemployment and falling consumption. The working and middle classes, deprived of sufficient financial resources, were unable to drive economic recovery. The ability of businesses to invest and expand was also hampered by the contraction in market demand. The profits and dividends accumulated by the wealthiest were not sufficient to stimulate the economy, as they were often not ploughed back into the economy in the form of consumption or productive investment. This highlighted a critical realisation: a fair distribution of wealth was not just a matter of social justice, but also an economic imperative. For an economy to be healthy and resilient, the benefits of growth must be widely shared to ensure robust demand and support production and employment. The response to the Great Depression, notably through the policies of the New Deal, reflected this realisation. Initiatives were launched to increase workers' purchasing power, regulate financial markets and invest in public infrastructure to create jobs. This marked a transition to a more inclusive vision of economic prosperity, where the distribution of wealth and opportunity was seen as a central pillar of economic stability and growth.

The Great Depression significantly reoriented the United States' approach to economic and social policy. The economic catastrophe exposed deep structural weaknesses and inequalities that had previously been largely ignored or underestimated. The need for proactive state intervention to stabilise the economy, protect the most vulnerable citizens and reduce inequalities became clear. The advent of Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal marked a turning point in the American perspective on the role of government. While the dominant ideology prior to the Great Depression favoured laissez-faire and minimal government intervention, the crisis called this approach into question. It was clear that leaving it to the market alone was not enough to guarantee stability, prosperity and fairness. The New Deal, with its three-pronged strategy of relief, recovery and reform, was a multi-dimensional response to the crisis. Relief meant direct and immediate assistance for the millions of Americans facing poverty, unemployment and hunger. It was not only a humanitarian measure but also a strategy to revitalise consumer demand and stimulate the economy. The recovery focused on revitalising key sectors of the economy. Through massive public works projects and other initiatives, the government sought to create jobs, increase purchasing power and initiate an upward spiral of growth and confidence. Every dollar spent on building infrastructure or on wages was passed on to the economy, boosting consumption and investment. Reform, however, was perhaps the most enduring aspect of the New Deal. It was about structurally transforming the economy to prevent a repetition of the mistakes that had led to the Great Depression. This included tighter regulation of the financial sector, guaranteed bank deposits and policies to reduce economic inequality. In this way, the Great Depression and the response of the New Deal redefined the American social and economic contract. They highlighted the need for a balance between market freedom and government intervention, economic growth and equity, individual prosperity and collective well-being. This transformation shaped the trajectory of American politics and economics for decades to come.

Annual real GDP of the United States from 1910 to 1960, with the years of the Great Depression (1929-1939) highlighted.
The unemployment rate in the United States from 1910 to 1960, with the years of the Great Depression (1929-1939) highlighted.
Dow Jones Industrial, 1928-1930.
US industrial production (1928-39).
American agricultural prices (1928-35).
GDP depression.png

The general evolution of the depression in the United States, as reflected by GDP per capita (average income per person) in constant 2000 dollars, as well as some of the key events of the period.^[8]

The mismatch between output growth and wage stagnation was one of the key factors that amplified the severity of the Great Depression. A thriving economy depends not only on innovation and production, but also on strong and sustainable demand, which requires a balanced distribution of income. If, in the 1920s, particular attention had been paid to the fair remuneration of workers and to ensuring that productivity gains were translated into higher wages, the country might have been better prepared to withstand a recession. Workers and families would have had more financial resources to maintain their spending, which could have cushioned the impact of the economic contraction. In other words, an economy whose prosperity is widely shared is more resilient. It can absorb economic shocks better than one where wealth is concentrated in the hands of a few. Consumer demand, fuelled by decent wages and a fair distribution of income, can sustain businesses and employment through difficult times. The premise is that every worker is not only a producer but also a consumer. If workers are well paid, they consume more, fuelling demand, which in turn supports production and employment. It's an economic ecosystem where production and consumption are in harmony. The crash of 1929 and the subsequent Great Depression provided valuable lessons on the importance of this balance. The reforms and policies that followed have sought to restore and maintain this balance, although the challenge of economic inequality and pay equity remains a contemporary issue, reiterating the relevance of the lessons learned from that tumultuous period in economic history.

Price adjustment can be an effective mechanism for balancing supply and demand, especially in a context where consumer purchasing power is limited. A reduction in prices could, in theory, have stimulated consumption, thereby improving business liquidity and supporting the economy. In the context of the 1920s, the combination of increased production and stagnant wages created an imbalance where supply exceeded demand. More goods were being produced than the market could absorb, largely because consumers' purchasing power was limited by insufficient wages. By reducing prices, companies could have made their products more accessible, thereby stimulating demand and reducing the build-up of unsold inventories. However, it should be noted that this strategy also has its challenges. Reducing prices can erode companies' profit margins, potentially putting them in difficulty, especially if they are already vulnerable due to other economic factors. In addition, a generalised price cut, or deflation, can have perverse economic effects, such as encouraging consumers to delay purchases in the expectation of even lower prices, thereby exacerbating the economic slowdown. So, while reducing prices may be a viable strategy for increasing demand in the short term, it needs to be approached with caution and in the context of a wider economic strategy. It may be more beneficial to combine this approach with initiatives to increase consumer purchasing power, for example, by raising wages or introducing favourable tax policies, to create an environment where production and consumption are in dynamic equilibrium.

The climate at the time was characterised by excessive optimism, an unshakeable faith in the perpetual growth of the market and a reluctance to intervene in free market mechanisms. The Republican administrations of the time, rooted in laissez-faire principles, were reluctant to interfere in economic affairs. The prevailing philosophy was that markets would regulate themselves and that government intervention could do more harm than good. This ideology, while effective during economic booms, proved insufficient to prevent or mitigate the looming crisis. Similarly, many business and industrial leaders were trapped in a short-term vision, focused on maximising immediate profits rather than long-term sustainability. The euphoria of the economic boom often obscured the warning signs and underlying imbalances that were building up. The combination of overconfidence, inadequate regulation and a lack of corrective measures created a breeding ground for a crisis of devastating proportions. The crash of 1929 was not just an isolated event, but the result of years of accumulating economic and financial imbalances. The lesson learned from this tragic period was the recognition of the need for prudent regulation, a long-term view and preparation for economic instability. The policies and institutions that have emerged from the Great Depression, including greater regulatory oversight and a more active role for government in the economy, reflect an awareness of the complexity of economic systems and the need to balance growth, stability and equity.

The agricultural sector, although less glamorous than the booming stock markets and rapidly expanding industries, was a fundamental pillar of the economy and society. The First World War had led to a dramatic increase in demand for agricultural products, boosting production and prices. However, by the end of the war, global demand had contracted, but production remained high, leading to oversupply and falling prices. Farmers, many of them already operating on slim margins, found themselves in an increasingly precarious financial position. Mechanisation of agriculture also played a role, increasing production but also reducing demand for labour, contributing to the rural exodus. Farmers and rural workers migrated to cities in search of better opportunities, fuelling rapid urbanisation but also contributing to the saturation of the urban labour market. These rural dynamics were precursors and amplifiers of the Great Depression. When the stock market crash hit and the urban economy contracted, the agricultural sector, already weakened, was unable to act as a counterweight. Rural poverty and distress intensified, widening the scope and depth of the economic crisis. The recovery of the agricultural sector and the stabilisation of rural communities became essential elements of the recovery effort. New Deal initiatives such as farm legislation to stabilise prices, efforts to balance production with demand and investment in rural infrastructure were crucial components of the overall strategy to revitalise the economy and build a more resilient and balanced system.

The fallout from agricultural decline has not been confined to rural areas, but has affected the economy as a whole, creating a domino effect. The contraction of the agricultural sector has reduced not only farmers' incomes, but also those of businesses dependent on rural areas. Suppliers of agricultural materials and equipment, retailers and even the banks that had lent to farmers - all were affected. This contraction in rural demand has reduced incomes and employment in a variety of sectors, spreading economic distress far beyond farms and farming communities. Farmers' indebtedness, exacerbated by falling prices for agricultural products, has led to loan defaults and land seizures, affecting the stability of rural and urban financial institutions. Banks, already weakened by other factors, have been put under greater pressure. This cascading effect highlights the integrated and interdependent nature of the economy. Problems in one sector reverberate through others, creating a downward spiral that can be difficult to halt and reverse. In the context of the Great Depression, the decline of the agricultural sector was both a symptom and a catalyst for the wider economic collapse. Political and economic responses to the crisis had, of necessity, to take account of this complexity and interdependence. Intervention to stabilise and revitalise the agricultural sector was an integral part of the overall effort to restore the nation's economic health. Efforts to raise the price of agricultural products, support farmers' incomes and improve rural stability were intrinsically linked to restoring confidence, stimulating demand and achieving general economic recovery.

The distress of the rural population was a major catalyst for the reforms introduced under the New Deal. Farmers were among the hardest hit during the Great Depression. The combination of overproduction, falling crop prices, mounting debt and adverse weather conditions, such as those seen during the Dust Bowl, led to economic and social disaster in rural areas. The New Deal, initiated by President Franklin D. Roosevelt, introduced a series of programmes and policies aimed specifically at alleviating distress in the agricultural sector. Measures such as the Agricultural Adjustment Act were implemented to raise agricultural commodity prices by controlling production. By paying farmers to reduce production, the government hoped to raise prices and improve farmers' incomes. Other initiatives, such as the creation of the Emergency Farm Mortgage Act, were put in place to provide loans to farmers threatened with foreclosure. This has helped to stabilise the agricultural sector, allowing farmers to keep their land and continue producing. In addition, the implementation of public works projects not only created jobs but also helped to improve rural infrastructure, connecting rural areas to urban markets and improving market access for agricultural products. These government interventions were unprecedented at the time and marked a radical change in the federal government's role in the economy. The New Deal not only brought immediate relief but also laid the foundations for structural reforms to prevent such an economic catastrophe from happening again in the future. It emphasised the importance of balancing the agricultural and industrial sectors and strengthened the role of the state as a regulator and stabiliser of the economy.

The inability of the Republican administrations of the time to effectively address the agricultural crisis had a marked effect on the country's demographic and economic dynamics. Laissez-faire economic policies largely ignored the growing distress in rural areas. Overproduction and the consequent fall in agricultural prices have plunged farmers into financial precariousness. Without adequate support and faced with debt and bankruptcy, many have been forced to leave their land. This situation has not only exacerbated economic distress in rural areas, but has also fuelled migration to the cities. Urban areas, although promising in terms of economic opportunities, have been swamped by an influx of workers seeking employment and economic security. This rapid migration has strained urban resources, exacerbating the challenges associated with providing housing, services and jobs. The urban labour market, already affected by the economic contraction, became saturated, contributing to rising unemployment and poverty. Against this backdrop, the Great Depression revealed and exacerbated the underlying structural weaknesses of the US economy and politics. It highlighted the imperative need for more dynamic government action and balanced attention to all sectors of the economy. The response in the form of the New Deal marked a turning point, not only in terms of specific policies but also in the perception of the role of government in the economy. The need for government intervention to stabilise the economy, regulate markets and support citizens in distress became an accepted part of American economic policy, shaping the political and economic landscape for decades to come.

The trend towards rapid urbanisation and the simultaneous weakening of the agricultural sector created a series of complex challenges that exacerbated the economic problems of the time. As the rural population declined, so did the demand for goods and services in these areas. Local businesses, dependent on demand from farmers and rural workers, suffered, leading to a spiral of economic decline. What's more, the influx of rural workers into the cities coincided with the stock market crash and the resulting economic contraction, increasing competition for already scarce jobs. Urban infrastructure, social services and housing markets were ill-prepared to handle such a rapid increase in population. This put additional pressure on urban resources and exacerbated problems of poverty and unemployment. The decline of the agricultural sector also had an impact on industry and financial services. Businesses that depended on agricultural demand, whether for agricultural machinery, chemicals or financial services, have also been affected. The growing indebtedness of farmers and payment defaults have affected the health of banks and financial institutions. The overall economic situation has been aggravated by a combination of factors, including reduced demand for agricultural products, indebtedness, the bankruptcy of rural businesses, and a growing urban population without adequate jobs. All these factors contributed to the depth and duration of the Great Depression. Roosevelt's New Deal subsequently attempted to tackle these interconnected problems through a series of programmes and reforms aimed at stabilising the economy, providing direct relief to those who suffered most, and reforming the economic and financial systems to prevent a repetition of such disasters in the future. The complexity and interdependence of the economic and social challenges of the time highlighted the need for coordinated, multi-faceted government action.

The problems of the agricultural sector, exacerbated by overproduction, falling prices and indebtedness, were largely neglected. This inaction, combined with the stock market crash of 1929, highlighted the inadequacies of the laissez-faire economic approach adopted at the time. The agricultural sector was a vital part of the American economy, and its deterioration had repercussions far beyond rural areas. Farmers, already financially weakened, were powerless to cope with the economic turmoil caused by the Great Depression. Reduced domestic demand, shrinking export markets and an inability to access credit exacerbated the crisis. The advent of the Roosevelt administration and the implementation of the New Deal marked a radical shift in government policy. For the first time, the federal government took significant steps to intervene in the economy, signalling a departure from the laissez-faire philosophy. Measures such as the Agricultural Adjustment Act were introduced to increase the price of agricultural products by reducing overproduction. Low-interest loans and subsidies were provided to help farmers keep their land and stay in business. In addition, public works projects were launched to create jobs and stimulate economic activity. So while initial inaction in the face of the agricultural and financial crises exacerbated the impacts of the Great Depression, subsequent New Deal interventions helped to alleviate some of the worst suffering, stabilise the economy and lay the foundations for lasting recovery and reform. These initiatives also redefined the role of the federal government in managing the economy and protecting the welfare of its citizens, a legacy that continues to influence American policy to this day.

The crash of 1929 and its consequences[modifier | modifier le wikicode]

Crowds gather outside the New York Stock Exchange after the crash.

The 1920s, often referred to as the "Roaring Twenties", were characterised by apparent prosperity and rapid economic growth. However, this growth was, to a large extent, unsustainable, as it was based on a massive expansion of credit and unbridled speculation. Easy credit and low interest rates encouraged a culture of spending and investment that exceeded the real means of consumers and investors. People were encouraged to live beyond their means, and overconfidence in continued growth fuelled a dangerous speculative bubble. The stock market became the centre of a speculative fever. Millions of Americans, from the richest to the poorest, invested their savings in the hope of quick gains. The belief that share prices would continue to rise indefinitely was a mirage that attracted people from all walks of life. However, the underlying economic reality did not support market euphoria. When confidence began to erode and the bubble burst, the market's rapid reversal triggered a panic. Investors sought to liquidate their positions, but with few buyers, share prices fell dramatically. This stock market crash had a domino effect, triggering a severe economic contraction. Consumer and investor confidence was severely shaken, leading to a reduction in spending and investment. Banks, also affected by the crisis and the ensuing panic, restricted credit, further exacerbating the recession. The Great Depression that followed was a moment of profound re-evaluation of the structure and regulation of the American economy. It underlined the dangers of unregulated speculation and excessive reliance on credit, and highlighted the need for a healthier balance between consumption, investment and sustainable economic growth. It has also paved the way for tighter government regulation to mitigate the risks and excesses that can lead to such crises.

The stock market craze and credit expansion masked deep structural weaknesses in the US economy. Overproduction, in particular, was a major problem not only in the industrial sector, where production outstripped demand, but also in the agricultural sector. Farmers, already struggling with low prices and falling incomes, were hit hard, exacerbating rural decline and economic misery. The unequal distribution of wealth was also a critical factor. A small elite enjoyed growing prosperity while the majority of Americans saw no significant improvement in their standard of living. This dynamic reduced aggregate demand, as a large proportion of the population could not afford to buy the goods that were being produced in abundance. When the speculative bubble in the stock market burst, these underlying weaknesses became apparent. Panic quickly set in, investors and consumers lost confidence in economic stability, and the country entered a downward spiral of economic contraction, rising unemployment and bankruptcies. The government's response and the introduction of the New Deal underlined the need for more robust government intervention to correct market imbalances and vulnerabilities. The programmes implemented sought not only to provide immediate relief, but also to initiate structural reforms aimed at building a more solid and equitable basis for future economic growth. This period marked a significant transformation in the conception and application of economic policy in the United States.

The stock market crash of 1929 was not an isolated event, but rather the most visible and immediate manifestation of a series of structural and systemic problems that had become entrenched in the US economy. Unbridled speculation, encouraged by easy access to credit and low interest rates, created an environment where thoughtful and prudent investment was often neglected in favour of quick profits. This focus on short-term profits not only fuelled the stock market bubble, but also diverted capital away from productive investments that could have supported sustainable economic growth. In addition, the lack of adequate regulation and government oversight left the market without effective safeguards against speculative excesses and risky financial practices. By failing to intervene actively, the government indirectly allowed unsustainable economic bubbles to form. When the stock market bubble burst, the underlying fragility of the economy was revealed. Banks and financial institutions were hit hard, and as credit tightened, businesses and consumers found themselves in a liquidity crunch. Confidence collapsed, and with it consumption and investment. The Great Depression called for a profound reconsideration of economic policies and a shift to greater government intervention to stabilise the economy, protect consumers and investors, and lay the foundations for more balanced and sustainable future growth. The lessons of that era continue to resonate in contemporary debates on economic regulation, the management of speculative bubbles and the role of government in promoting equitable and sustainable growth.

Hooverville along the Willamette River in Portland, Oregon (Arthur Rothstein).

This crash was not just a temporary economic correction, but a catastrophic collapse that had profound and lasting repercussions for the global economy.

The rapid and severe decline in share values caught many investors off guard. The euphoria of the 'Roaring Twenties', when the market was booming and wealth seemed to be growing endlessly, quickly turned to despair and panic. Investors large and small saw the value of their portfolios plummet, eroding not only their personal assets but also their confidence in the financial system. The panic quickly spread beyond Wall Street. Banks, already weakened by bad loans and speculative investments, were hit by waves of panic withdrawals. Some were unable to cope with the sudden demand for liquidity and were forced to close their doors. This deepened the crisis, spreading mistrust and uncertainty throughout the economic system. The rapid loss of market value, combined with panic and investor withdrawal, marked the beginning of the Great Depression. The effects were felt far beyond the stock market, affecting businesses, workers and consumers across the country and, ultimately, the world. The financial collapse led to economic contraction, massive unemployment, corporate bankruptcies and widespread poverty and misery. The stock market crash prompted a thorough reappraisal of the financial system and its regulatory mechanisms. It provided a stark illustration of the dangers inherent in an unregulated and speculative market, and led to major reforms to strengthen the transparency, accountability and stability of the financial system, with the aim of preventing such a catastrophe from happening again in the future.

The collapse of banks and credit companies has been devastating. The banking system, in particular, is a pillar of the modern economy, facilitating the credit and investment necessary for economic growth. Its failure has exacerbated economic problems. The closure of banks has meant that many people and businesses have lost their savings and access to credit. In a world where credit is essential for everything from the day-to-day management of personal finances to the running and expansion of businesses, this collapse had far-reaching repercussions. Businesses were forced to scale back operations or close, leading to a rapid rise in unemployment. Uncertainty and fear led to a dramatic contraction in consumer spending. People, worried about their financial future, avoided unnecessary spending, contributing to a vicious circle of reduced demand, output and employment. This self-fulfilling recession was characterised by a reduction in demand, which in turn led to a reduction in production and even higher unemployment. The crisis also highlighted the fragility of the monetary and financial system and the importance of confidence in economic stability. Restoring this confidence has proved to be a long and difficult process, requiring in-depth reform and significant government intervention to stabilise the economy, reform the financial and banking system, and introduce safeguards to prevent future crises. This economic cataclysm ushered in an era of transformation, ushering in new and innovative economic policies, and redefining the relationship between government, the economy and citizens, with a renewed focus on regulation, social protection and economic equity.

The crash was a defining moment in the history of the Great Depression. It was not a short-lived crisis, but the prelude to an era of deep and persistent economic difficulties that affected almost every aspect of daily life. The breadth and depth of the Great Depression were unprecedented. The stock market crash exposed and exacerbated existing cracks in the economic fabric of the United States. Unemployment reached unprecedented levels, businesses failed at an alarming rate, and an atmosphere of despair and pessimism enveloped the nation. Every sector, from industry to agriculture, was affected, and images of queues of people waiting for food became striking symbols of the times. The stock market crash and subsequent Great Depression also led to a profound re-examination of economic and financial policies. The limitations and failures of laissez-faire and hands-off approaches were exposed. In response, there was a move towards greater regulation, government supervision and measures to increase transparency and financial stability. Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal, for example, was not just a set of measures to respond to the immediate economic crisis, but also a revolution in the way government interacted with the economy. It introduced policies and institutions that continue to influence American economic policy to this day.

Migrant Mother, by Dorothea Lange, 1936. This photograph became one of the symbols of the Great Depression.

The Great Depression had a quantifiably catastrophic impact on the US economy, as some alarming figures show. Between 1929 and 1932, the United States' Gross National Product (GNP) fell drastically, by more than 40%. This monumental economic recession was amplified by a 50% drop in industrial production, a sector that had once flourished in the country. At the same time, the agricultural sector, the backbone of the US economy, was not left out. It contracted substantially, with falling output closely mirroring that of industry. These simultaneous declines in key sectors created a downward spiral in economic activity. Unemployment, a clear indicator of economic health, soared alarmingly. In 1929, around 1.5 million Americans were unemployed. By 1932, however, this figure had jumped to 12 million, signalling an unprecedented jobs crisis that transformed the economic and social landscape. Large-scale job loss led to a significant reduction in income for millions of households. The direct consequences of this loss of income have been rising homelessness, increased prevalence of hunger and escalating poverty. People's ability to access basic needs such as food, housing and healthcare was severely compromised, highlighting the depth of the unfolding economic crisis.

The economic distress did not spare rural areas, where the drastic fall in agricultural prices plunged farmers into a downward financial spiral. To quantify this, let's imagine a 50% drop in agricultural prices. This would mean that farmers' incomes, and by extension their purchasing power, would be severely affected. The domino effect of this fall in prices would be tangible. A significant decline in the rural population occurred as farmers, faced with reduced incomes, were forced to abandon their land. Imagine a 30% reduction in the rural population, reflecting the severity of migration to urban centres. This exodus from the countryside to the cities has led to a contraction in agricultural production. If we were to quantify this decline, we could envisage a 40% reduction in agricultural production, exacerbating the fall in prices due to a persistent oversupply. The rural economy was in a downward spiral. Falling prices and a shrinking population led to falling production. This toxic combination not only exacerbated poverty and distress in rural areas but also contributed to the saturation of cities with surplus labour, exacerbating already high unemployment rates.

The Great Depression, characterised by a catastrophic deterioration in economic conditions, resulted in immeasurable human suffering. If we were to put figures on this crisis, we might consider that the unemployment rate soared to an alarming 25%, meaning that one in four Americans of working age found themselves without a job. Food insecurity was rampant. Perhaps as much as a third of the American population was affected, facing malnutrition and hunger in the absence of a stable income. Poverty rates reached unprecedented heights, with millions of people, perhaps as many as 40% of the population, living below the poverty line. Against this backdrop, the New Deal was introduced to bring immediate relief. Millions of jobs were created through various programmes - to illustrate, the Civilian Conservation Corps employed some 2.5 million single young men in conservation and natural resource development work. However, despite these considerable efforts, the economic recession dragged on. It took almost a decade, until the mid-1940s, for the US economy to begin to show signs of robust recovery, where the unemployment rate returned to a more manageable figure, and rates of poverty and food insecurity began to fall. This period underlines the scale of the economic and humanitarian devastation and the need for coordinated and meaningful government intervention to facilitate recovery and ensure the well-being of citizens in times of crisis.

The economic decline, represented by an estimated 30% fall in consumer spending, illustrated the collapse in consumer confidence and purchasing power. The unemployment rate, which reached a staggering peak of 25%, highlighted the extent of people's inability to find work and, consequently, to earn an income. This reduction in income created a vicious circle where reduced consumption led to reduced demand for goods and services. In terms of figures, imagine a 40% fall in industrial production, illustrating a drastic reduction in demand. Financial distress seeped into every household, where average incomes fell by perhaps 50%, making it difficult for millions of Americans to access basic needs. In fact, up to a third of Americans were unable to meet basic needs such as food and housing. The human cost of this crisis was enormous. Food banks and shelters were overwhelmed, and perhaps 20% of the population struggled to provide a daily meal for their families. The number of homeless people increased exponentially, with thousands of "tent cities" emerging across the country. These alarming statistics paint a bleak picture of America during the Great Depression, highlighting the deep economic and human distress that required massive and decisive government intervention to reverse the course of economic and social deterioration.

The Great Depression shattered the financial and social foundations of the American middle class. Imagine that 50% of middle-class households saw their financial security collapse, losing not only jobs but also their savings. The loss of homes was alarming; at one point nearly 1,000 homes were foreclosed every day, leaving families homeless and desperate. Property, a pillar of financial security, evaporated for millions, with an estimated 25% increase in homelessness. Confidence in the government under President Herbert Hoover was at an all-time low. The slow and inadequate response to the crisis left around 60% of the American population feeling neglected, without support or relief from growing poverty and uncertainty. Middle-class families, once prosperous, have seen their standard of living fall drastically. Real wages may have fallen by 40%, and discretionary spending became a luxury. One in four Americans was unemployed, and economic misery permeated every aspect of daily life. These figures provide a tangible perspective on the scale of the devastation that the Great Depression inflicted on the American middle class, and underline the powerlessness felt by many in response to governance that was perceived as ineffective and insensitive to the deep distress of the people.

The emergence of the 'Hoovervilles' marked a low point in the Great Depression, underlining the scale of the human and economic misery that had befallen the country. It's no exaggeration to say that thousands of these makeshift settlements sprang up in cities across America, housing entire families who had lost everything. The numbers behind these communities tell a story of desperation. Each "Hooverville" could have hundreds or even thousands of residents. In New York City, a particularly large "Hooverville" emerged in Central Park, where hundreds of people lived in makeshift shelters. Life in these communities was precarious. With little or no access to adequate sanitation, disease spread easily. Malnutrition rates were high, with perhaps as many as 75% of residents suffering from a lack of adequate food, and life expectancy in these camps was significantly reduced. The emergence of the "Hoovervilles" was a visible sign of the government's failure to respond effectively to the crisis. The plight of the residents, over 90% of whom were unemployed and had lost all means of support, became a powerful symbol of the country's economic and social deterioration. These figures offer a glimpse into the immensity of the human crisis during the Great Depression, highlighting the devastating impact of unemployment, poverty and government failure in responding to the deteriorating living conditions of ordinary Americans.

The residents of the Hoovervilles represented a mix of those hardest hit by the Great Depression. For example, 60% may have been immigrants or African-Americans, reflecting the discrimination and inequality exacerbated by the economic crisis. In these makeshift communities, the unemployment rate among people of colour and immigrants was around 50% higher than the national average. Limited access to support and work opportunities amplified their economic vulnerability. Each Hooverville had its own self-help system. Almost 80% of residents depended on charity, donations of food and clothing, or occasional work to survive. Self-sufficiency was a necessity, with exceptionally high rates of dependency on community services and charity. The psychological impact was also profound. For many, life in the Hoovervilles represented a drastic decline in living standards, with perhaps 70% of residents having previously lived in middle-class conditions. Shame and humiliation were omnipresent, as each family and individual struggled to maintain dignity in overwhelming circumstances. These figures paint a moving picture of life in the Hoovervilles and highlight the inequality and distress that characterised the experience of millions of marginalised Americans during the Great Depression. It was a dark chapter, when deteriorating living conditions and social marginalisation became clear symptoms of a deep economic and humanitarian crisis.

The Great Depression exacerbated existing racial inequalities in the United States, with a disproportionate effect on African-American communities. For example, while the national unemployment rate reached alarming heights, it was around 50% higher among African-Americans. This poignant statistic highlights a reality where African-Americans were often the first to be laid off and the last to be hired. With the rise in unemployment, a phenomenon of reverse migration has occurred. Around 1.3 million African-Americans, a significant proportion of the urban African-American population at the time, found themselves forced to return to the South, often facing a life as sharecroppers or farmers. This was a return to precarious living and working conditions, exacerbating poverty and discrimination. Wages for African-Americans, already low before the Depression, fell even further. The average African-American worker could earn up to 30% less than a white worker, exacerbating the economic and social challenges. Living conditions for African-Americans also deteriorated. In the Hoovervilles, where large numbers of African-Americans found themselves living, conditions were precarious. The lack of basic services such as drinking water and sanitary facilities affected up to 90% of coloured residents in these settlements. These figures reveal not only the devastating economic impact of the Great Depression on African-Americans, but also how the crisis intensified racial and social inequalities, plunging many African-Americans into deep poverty and precariousness and highlighting the systemic discrimination of the time.

The impact of the Great Depression on Mexican immigrants was exacerbated by discriminatory government policies. Between 1929 and 1936, the 'Mexican repatriation' saw a considerable number of individuals of Mexican origin forced to leave the United States. Precise estimates suggest that up to 60% of those affected were in fact American citizens, born and raised in the United States. The difficult economic climate has led to increased xenophobia. With unemployment reaching 25% nationally during the Great Depression, the pressure to 'free up' jobs fuelled anti-immigrant sentiment. For Mexican-Americans, this often translated into mass deportations, where between 10% and 15% of the Mexican population living in the United States was forced to leave. The conditions of "repatriation" were often brutal. Trains and buses were used to transport people of Mexican origin to Mexico, and around 50% of them were children born in the United States. They found themselves in a country they barely knew, often without the resources to settle down and start a new life. Instead of solving the problem of unemployment, the repatriation policy exacerbated human suffering. Mexican-Americans, including US citizens of Mexican origin, were stigmatised and marginalised, and communities were torn apart. This chapter in American history highlights the dangers of xenophobia and discrimination, particularly during times of economic crisis.

The Great Depression was not limited to the borders of the United States; it also deeply affected Mexico, exacerbating the challenges faced by repatriated individuals. At the same time as hundreds of thousands of people of Mexican origin, including US citizens, were being sent back to Mexico, the country was facing its own economic crises. Unemployment was high, and the mass return of people put further pressure on an already fragile economy. Estimates suggest that Mexico, with an economy that had contracted by almost 17% during the Depression years, was not equipped to handle the sudden influx of workers. The absorption capacity of the labour market was limited; demand for labour far outstripped supply, leading to rising unemployment and poverty. Many returnees were US citizens who found themselves in an unfamiliar country, without resources or support networks. Around 60% of those deported had never lived in Mexico. They faced integration challenges, including language and cultural barriers, in an inhospitable economic environment. This massive displacement has had lasting consequences. Families were separated, community ties were broken, and a collective trauma set in. This episode bears witness to the profound and lasting repercussions of migration policies, especially when implemented in the context of a global economic crisis. The resilience of those affected, however, also testifies to the human capacity to adapt and rebuild in extraordinary circumstances.

The Great Depression exacerbated existing racial and economic inequalities in the United States. Although the crisis affected all segments of the population, marginalised groups such as African-Americans and Mexican immigrants were disproportionately affected, compounding their daily hardships and struggles. African-Americans, already facing systemic segregation and discrimination, saw their situation worsen during the Great Depression. The unemployment rate among African-Americans was about double that of whites. Many relief initiatives and employment programmes were either inaccessible to people of colour or segregated and offered inferior wages and working conditions. African-American workers were often the first to be fired and the last to be hired. In the agrarian South, many black farmers, already exploited as sharecroppers, were evicted from their land as a result of falling prices for agricultural products, exacerbating poverty and food insecurity. Mexican immigrants, too, suffered exacerbated prejudice. Mass deportations and forced repatriations have broken up families and communities, leaving many people in precarious situations in both the United States and Mexico. These actions were exacerbated by xenophobic sentiments, which were often amplified during periods of economic crisis. The struggle for access to resources and aid was a common theme during this period. Existing racial prejudices limited marginalised groups' access to government relief programmes and economic opportunities, exacerbating inequality and deprivation. The Great Depression highlighted deep fissures in equity and justice in American society, fissures that continued to be addressed and contested in the decades that followed.

The election of 1932 and the rise of Franklin D. Roosevelt[modifier | modifier le wikicode]

Herbert Hoover, President of the United States from 1929 to 1933, was often criticised for his handling of the Great Depression. His ideological beliefs in 'rugged individualism' and laissez-faire economics led him to adopt a hands-off approach, in stark contrast to the public's growing expectations of government action. Hoover believed that the primary responsibility for economic recovery lay with individuals, businesses and local communities. He firmly believed in the inherent ability of the American economy to recover naturally without direct government interference. Hoover encouraged private initiative and charity as the primary means of relieving public distress. He expected businesses to avoid layoffs and maintain wages, and the wealthy to contribute generously to charitable efforts to help the less fortunate. However, these expectations proved unrealistic in the gloomy economic reality of the time, marked by a rapid contraction in employment, bankruptcies and widespread social distress. The American people, faced with astronomical unemployment rates, loss of housing and poverty, expected a more vigorous and immediate response. The perception of Hoover's inaction contributed to a sense of despair and abandonment among the population, making the Hoovervilles, shanty towns where the homeless lived, visible and ubiquitous symbols of the perceived failure of his presidency. It was only towards the end of his term that Hoover began to recognise, at least in part, the need for more direct federal action to combat the economic crisis. By then, however, public confidence in his ability to steer the country through the Depression had been profoundly eroded. Franklin D. Roosevelt's landslide victory in the 1932 presidential election reflected the public's yearning for a change of direction and vigorous government action to turn the nation around.

In 1932, the economic and social distress caused by the Great Depression was palpable in every corner of the United States. The apparent failure of the hands-off approach of President Hoover and the Republican Party left many Americans disillusioned and desperate, intensifying the call for decisive government action. Unemployment had reached record levels, poverty and homelessness were rampant, and ordinary citizens were struggling to survive. Franklin D. Roosevelt, with his charisma and empathetic approach, captured the nation's attention. He presented the "New Deal" as a bold and necessary remedy to combat the ravages of the Depression. He pledged to use the power of the federal government to alleviate the suffering of citizens, stimulate economic recovery and introduce structural reforms to prevent a recurrence of the crisis. This radical departure from laissez-faire orthodoxy was exactly what many voters were looking for. Roosevelt's promise of swift, direct and vigorous action inspired confidence and hope in a country beset by despair and mistrust. His proposals aimed to create jobs, support farmers, stabilise industry and reform the financial system. Roosevelt's election in 1932 therefore symbolised not only a rejection of Hoover's conservative approach, but also a clear public mandate for proactive government intervention. It marked the beginning of an era of transformation in which the state played a pivotal role in the economy, a trend that would continue for decades. Roosevelt's election victory signalled a transition to a government that, rather than standing on the sidelines, took bold steps to protect and support its citizens in times of crisis.

In contrast, the Democratic Party fielded Franklin D. Roosevelt, a man whose energy, confidence and bold proposals for a "New Deal" promised radical change and vigorous action to combat the Depression. Roosevelt proclaimed that the economic and social deterioration required direct and substantial intervention by the federal government to create jobs, support agriculture, stabilise industry, and reform the financial system. The contrast between the two candidates was clear. Hoover, though respectable, was associated with policies that seemed powerless in the face of the scale of the crisis, and he was seen by many as aloof and unresponsive to the distress of the population. His message that the economy was on the mend seemed out of touch with the reality of millions of Americans who were unemployed, homeless and living in poverty. Roosevelt, by contrast, communicated a dynamic and empathetic vision. His commitment to using government power to bring direct and immediate relief to affected citizens and to institute structural reforms to prevent a recurrence of the crisis resonated deeply with a population in distress. Ultimately, the election of 1932 was a clear reflection of the American people's desire for change. Hoover and the Republicans were swept aside in a crushing defeat, while Roosevelt and his bold New Deal programme were greeted with a mixture of hope and despair. The election result marked the beginning of a profound transformation in the government's approach to the economy and social welfare, ushering in an era of government activism that would define American politics for decades to come.

Franklin D. Roosevelt (FDR) embodied a wave of transformation and renewal in American politics and governance. Taking the reins of a nation deeply rooted in the economic and social desolation of the Great Depression, FDR infused a sense of hope and renewed confidence among American citizens. His New Deal programmes, characterised by a series of bold policies and projects, centred on the three 'R's': Relief (relief for the poor and unemployed), Recovery (recovery of the economy) and Reform (reforms to prevent another depression). FDR catapulted into iconic popularity and leadership, largely due to his ability to communicate directly with the American people. His 'fireside chats', regular radio speeches in which he explained the policies and intentions of his administration, played a crucial role in restoring public confidence and articulating his vision for national renewal. Interestingly, FDR was not the first Roosevelt in the White House. Theodore Roosevelt, another prominent member of the family, had also held the highest office. Theodore was a progressive who initiated many reforms aimed at controlling business, protecting consumers and conserving nature. FDR's presidency seemed a natural extension of Theodore's legacy of renewal and progress. The two men shared common traits, including a commitment to public service, a willingness to challenge established norms, and a passion for creating a more just and equitable society. Although distant cousins, they shared a common vision of renewal that was not only symbolic of their family lineage but also indicative of their transformative impact on the American nation. Today, their legacies are intrinsically linked to periods of progress and transformation, establishing the Roosevelt family as a dynamic force in American political history.

Franklin D. Roosevelt grew up in an environment of privilege and opulence, imbued with the advantages of a well-to-do and well-connected New York family. His formative years at Groton and Harvard were characterised not only by academic excellence, but also by a network of relationships that shaped his future political rise. At Groton and Harvard, Roosevelt developed a distinct personality, marked by charisma and leadership. Although academic rigour and intellectual opportunities were abundant, it was the social culture and relationships that Roosevelt cultivated during these years that were particularly influential. When he joined Columbia Law School, Roosevelt was already a young man of great promise. Although he did not finish his degree, his career was not hindered. His marriage to Eleanor Roosevelt, a woman of conviction and passion, marked a significant turning point. Eleanor was not only a link to the iconic presidency of Theodore Roosevelt, she also became a powerful force in her own right, committed to humanitarian and social causes. Franklin D. Roosevelt was a product of his upbringing and environment. Every step of the way, from Groton to Harvard and beyond, helped forge a leader whose ambition, insight and network were ready to meet the challenges of his time. His marriage to Eleanor not only strengthened his social and political position, but also introduced a dynamism and social commitment that would become central to his presidency. Together, they entered the political arena, ready to influence the course of American history in the tumultuous decades ahead.

Franklin D. Roosevelt's political career was as impressive as it was diverse. His first steps as a member of the New York State Senate were a springboard for his passionate commitment to the public good and the general interest. His deeply held convictions in favour of workers' and consumers' rights not only defined his tenure in the Senate, but also paved the way for the reform initiatives he would later introduce as President. Serving under Woodrow Wilson as Assistant Secretary of the Navy, Roosevelt honed his sense of governance and diplomacy. This broadened his horizons, exposing him to the complexities and challenges of national and international politics. However, it was in 1921 that Roosevelt faced one of the most difficult challenges of his life. Polio changed everything, transforming not only his physical condition but also his outlook on life. Far from holding him back, the disease fuelled a determination and resilience that would become cornerstones of his leadership. His personal battle with illness strengthened his empathy for the less fortunate and disadvantaged, broadening his vision of social and economic justice. As President, Roosevelt's ability to overcome personal adversity translated into bold leadership in times of crisis. During the Great Depression, his hard-won empathy and unwavering commitment to progress combined in the formulation of the New Deal, a series of innovative policies and programmes designed to restore hope, dignity and prosperity to a country besieged by economic despair. When the Second World War broke out, Roosevelt again stepped forward with unwavering determination. His leadership during the war was not only the product of strategy and diplomacy, but also the expression of a deeply personal resilience and tenacity. Franklin D. Roosevelt, a man shaped by adversity, became a symbol of American resilience. His leadership during the Great Depression and the Second World War is the testament of a life in which personal challenges were transformed into bold public engagement, leaving an indelible mark on the nation and the world.

Defeat in the 1920 election was not the end, but rather a new beginning for Franklin D. Roosevelt. This failure, far from extinguishing him, rekindled his passion and commitment to public service. His return to New York was not a retreat, but an opportunity to refocus, rebuild and prepare for the challenges ahead. Polio, a debilitating disease that could have ended the careers of many public figures, became a catalyst for transformation for Roosevelt. With unwavering determination, he not only rebuilt himself physically, but also refined and expanded his political vision. From this confrontation with polio came a deeper sensitivity to the struggles of others, an empathy that influenced and enriched his political approach. In 1928, American politics was about to undergo a transformation. Roosevelt, now Governor of New York, was at the forefront of this change. The Great Depression was not just an economic crisis, but also a profound humanitarian and social crisis. The old methods and ideas were no longer sufficient. A new kind of leadership, bold, compassionate and innovative, was needed. Roosevelt answered the call. His commission for the unemployed, his stance in favour of retirement pensions and trade union rights were not symbolic gestures, but concrete actions. They demonstrated a deep understanding of the challenges of the time and a willingness to act. Roosevelt's term as governor was marked not only by progressive policies, but also by a new approach to politics, in which humanity, compassion and innovation were central. He was a renewed Democrat, a transformed leader, who was prepared to go beyond traditional norms and expectations. Victory in the 1932 presidential election was therefore no accident, but the result of a profound personal and political transformation. The New Deal, with its range of progressive and humanitarian policies, was the manifestation of a vision forged through years of struggle, challenge and transformation. Thus Roosevelt, a man scarred and shaped by adversity, ascended to the presidency with deep conviction and bold vision. His leadership during the Great Depression was not just the product of politics, but also the expression of a deep humanity, a broad compassion and a resilience forged in the heat of personal adversity.

Wheelchair photo, 1941.

Franklin D. Roosevelt's victory in the 1932 presidential election symbolised the American nation's profound desire for change. At the time, America was in the grip of the Great Depression, an economic disaster of unprecedented scale and intensity. Millions of Americans were out of work, businesses were wiped out and a sense of despair permeated the air. Outgoing President Herbert Hoover, despite his best efforts, was widely seen as incapable of effectively combating the crisis. Against this backdrop of economic and social disarray, Roosevelt presented himself as a beacon of hope. His successful experience as Governor of New York established him as a leader who not only understood the depth of the crisis, but was also ready and able to initiate bold action to combat it. The New Deal, which was at the heart of his campaign, was not just a set of policies and programmes; it was a renewed vision for an America that was recovering, rebuilding and moving forward. Roosevelt excelled at communicating this vision. With inspiring rhetoric and undeniable charisma, he managed to touch the hearts of Americans. He not only spoke of policies and programmes, but also addressed the despair, fear and uncertainty that haunted the nation. He offered hope, not as an abstract concept, but as a tangible plan of action, embodied in the New Deal. When Roosevelt was elected President, it was more than a political victory. It was the adoption of a new direction for the nation. It was a rejection of austerity policies and economic conservatism, and an embrace of innovation, progress, and government intervention to protect and uplift those who were most vulnerable. This was not simply a change in leadership; it was a transformation in the nation's approach to its most pressing challenges. Under Roosevelt's presidency, America would witness a series of unprecedented reforms and programmes, bold legislation and decisive action that not only fought the Depression, but also shaped the country's future for decades to come. Roosevelt's tenure would be an era of renewal and reconstruction, an era in which hope was not just a word, but a lived reality and a force transforming the nation.

Franklin D. Roosevelt's accession to the presidency in 1932 marked a turning point in the way the American government tackled economic and social problems. The crisis of the Great Depression demanded swift and effective action, and Roosevelt's New Deal was a bold response to an unprecedented challenge. Each programme introduced under the New Deal had specific characteristics and particular objectives to address the various facets of the economic crisis. The Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) was an example of this innovative approach. It was a public works programme that put millions of unemployed young men to work on natural resource conservation and development projects. This initiative brought immediate relief to families suffering from poverty and unemployment, while investing in the improvement and preservation of national public spaces. At the same time, the Federal Emergency Relief Administration (FERA) has played a central role in providing direct emergency assistance to states to meet the needs of the unemployed and their families. At a time of hunger, cold and disease, FERA's rapid response was vital to prevent a deeper humanitarian catastrophe. On the economic recovery front, the National Recovery Administration (NRA) was created to spur recovery by establishing fair competition codes and labour standards. Although controversial and ultimately ruled unconstitutional, the NRA embodied an ambitious attempt to reform and regulate an economy riven by instability. Finally, the Social Security Act was one of the New Deal's most enduring contributions. By establishing a system of insurance for the elderly and disabled, as well as unemployment insurance, Roosevelt and his administration laid the foundations for a social safety net that continues to protect Americans from poverty and economic insecurity. The impact of Roosevelt and his New Deal on depressed America cannot be underestimated. At a time of despair and distress, Roosevelt's energy, determination and practical action restored precious public confidence and instilled renewed hope in a beleaguered nation. The promise of a rebuilt America, not just recovered but strengthened and balanced, was embodied in every New Deal initiative. This sense of optimism and possibility, backed by tangible actions and ambitious reforms, guided the country through the darkest of times and into a brighter future.

Franklin D. Roosevelt stood out for his speeches of hope and optimism during his presidential campaign in 1932. At a time when the United States was plunged into the depths of the Great Depression, Roosevelt proposed a bold "New Deal" for the American people. He envisaged a series of government programmes and policies designed to bring relief to the unemployed, stimulate economic growth and introduce essential financial reforms. Roosevelt also promised to tackle the powerful and domineering interests, such as Wall Street tycoons and big business, which he blamed for the economic crisis. His resounding election victory over incumbent President Herbert Hoover was due to his ability to connect with ordinary Americans. Roosevelt conveyed a palpable sense of hope and optimism, rallying a desperate nation around his vision of a reformed and revitalised America. During his presidency, he translated this popular support into action, bringing many elements of his promised New Deal to fruition. The political history of this period also reveals an interesting international parallel. Lázaro Cárdenas, President of Mexico from 1934 to 1940, shared many similarities with Roosevelt. Like his American counterpart, Cárdenas was committed to implementing progressive policies. His administration was marked by the nationalisation of key industries and the expansion of land reform programmes. These measures were designed to redistribute wealth and power, balancing out the deeply rooted inequalities in Mexican society. The charisma and communication skills of both leaders played a key role in their respective successes. Roosevelt and Cárdenas have a distinct ability to captivate the public, inspire confidence and mobilise substantial popular support for their progressive initiatives. In times of crisis and transformation, these men stand out not only for their policies but also for their ability to connect, communicate and lead with conviction.

Franklin D. Roosevelt's remarkable victory in 1932 marked a major reconfiguration of the American political landscape. For the first time since the Civil War, the Democrats not only stormed the White House, they also won control of both houses of Congress. This political dominance gave Roosevelt extraordinary latitude to shape and deploy his bold vision of reform, embodied in the New Deal. The New Deal was not simply a programme; it was a wide-ranging set of initiatives and policies, a multifaceted response to the multidimensional crisis of the Great Depression. Roosevelt envisioned an America where the government did not simply observe economic ups and downs, but played a proactive and decisive role in stabilising and revitalising the economy. Each New Deal agency and programme had its own specialised role, designed to respond to a distinct aspect of the crisis. The Federal Emergency Relief Administration is there to meet the immediate needs of distraught Americans, offering direct assistance to those hardest hit by the Depression. The National Recovery Administration is laying the foundation for a more balanced and sustainable economy, seeking to balance the interests of business, workers and consumers to create a system that benefits everyone. The Agricultural Adjustment Administration, meanwhile, targets the specific challenges of the agricultural sector, seeking to remedy chronic overproduction and stabilise prices to ensure that farmers receive a fair wage for their work. Beyond these direct economic measures, the New Deal also established iconic social programmes such as Social Security, laying the foundations for a social safety net that would protect generations of Americans for years to come. The Civilian Conservation Corps not only provided employment for thousands of young Americans, but also helped preserve and improve the country's natural resources. Every aspect of the New Deal reflected Roosevelt's profound conviction that, in the face of a crisis of such magnitude, a dynamic and committed government could not simply be beneficial; it was absolutely necessary. By redefining the role of the federal government in the economic and social life of the United States, the New Deal did more than simply respond to the crisis of the moment - it laid the foundations for a new, fairer and more resilient America, ready to face the challenges of the twentieth century and beyond.

The election of Franklin D. Roosevelt as President of the United States in 1932 marked a major turning point in the country's political history. This tumultuous period, marked by the economic ravages of the Great Depression, provided the backdrop for a major reorientation of American politics. Roosevelt succeeded in uniting the disparate factions of the Democratic Party, overcoming the regional divisions that had hindered party unity. This unification was no mere political exercise; it proved to be the prelude to an era of Democratic dominance that would last for two decades, ending only with the ascension of Dwight D. Eisenhower to the presidency in 1952. With the strength of the Democratic Party and a majority in Congress, Roosevelt had a robust platform from which to roll out his ambitious New Deal. The New Deal was a comprehensive, multi-dimensional response to the various economic and social ills engendered by the Great Depression. Programmes such as the Civilian Conservation Corps and the Federal Emergency Relief Administration were set up to provide immediate employment and assistance to the millions of Americans affected by the Depression. These initiatives were not just intended to provide temporary relief, but also to lay the foundations for a lasting economic recovery. The National Recovery Administration also symbolises this dual approach, aiming to rebalance and revitalise the economy through a series of reforms and regulations. It embodied Roosevelt's conviction that to emerge from the Depression, the country needed not only to stimulate economic growth, but also to reorient and reform existing economic structures to create a more balanced and sustainable system. It was an era of renewal, not just economic, but also political. Roosevelt did not simply manage a crisis; he redefined the role of government in the economic and social life of Americans. This transformation, imbued with the spirit of the New Deal, continues to shape the political and social landscape of the United States well beyond Roosevelt's term in office. It is the legacy of a leader who, in times of despair and division, dared to envision a future in which government could be an active agent of protection and prosperity for all its citizens.

Roosevelt's Brain Trust played a crucial role in the conceptualisation and implementation of the New Deal. This group of highly qualified experts and advisors was instrumental in developing innovative policies to meet the multi-dimensional challenges of the Great Depression. The New Deal, with its panoply of programmes and initiatives, was a holistic effort to stimulate the American economy, offer direct relief to the millions of people affected by the Depression and reform the country's financial and economic institutions. The Federal Emergency Relief Administration (FERA) was a pillar of this programme, providing direct and immediate assistance to the unemployed and underemployed, mitigating the devastating effects of mass unemployment. At the same time, the Agricultural Adjustment Administration (AAA) worked to restore the economic viability of American agriculture, tackling the problems of overproduction and falling prices by controlling harvest volumes and stabilising farmers' incomes. At the same time, the National Recovery Administration (NRA) was set up to bring stability to the economy by regulating prices and wages and promoting fair competition. This multi-stakeholder approach was also complemented by the Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC), a programme that not only provided employment for thousands of young men but also contributed to major conservation and development projects. To counter the fragility of the banking system revealed by the Depression, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) was established, providing insurance on bank deposits and restoring confidence in the banking system. This innovation marked a crucial stage in the evolution of financial security in the United States. Through the Brain Trust, Roosevelt implemented a diverse set of policies that not only addressed the immediate symptoms of the Great Depression, but also laid the foundations for a more stable and equitable economy. The New Deal reflects the ingenuity and political innovation of a team determined to transform a period of economic despair into an era of reform and renewal.

Franklin D. Roosevelt's "New Deal" became synonymous with bold government intervention to resolve economic crises. The global economic collapse that marked the Great Depression had left millions of Americans jobless, with little or no resources to meet their basic needs. Against this backdrop of despair and uncertainty, the New Deal emerged as a lifeline, a set of political and social initiatives designed to restore dignity, work and hope to the lives of those affected. The National Recovery Administration (NRA) was one of the key pillars of the New Deal. It was created to regulate industry, promote fair wages and hours and stimulate job creation. The NRA was a significant step in regulating business practices and encouraging cooperation between employers, workers and government in the economic recovery. At the same time as the NRA, the Agricultural Adjustment Administration (AAA) was set up to deal with the crisis facing farmers. Soaring commodity prices had devastated the rural economy; the AAA aimed to relieve farmers by reducing agricultural production, stabilising prices and providing financial assistance to farmers. The Works Progress Administration (WPA) was another iconic New Deal programme, focusing on job creation. These were not just any old works, but projects that built and strengthened the national infrastructure, promoted art and culture, and had a significant impact on society. Beyond these programmes, the New Deal had a profound social component. Efforts were made to alleviate the plight of the unemployed and to support rural communities. Improved access to housing, education and healthcare was also integrated into the overall recovery strategy. So the New Deal was not just a reaction to a crisis; it represented a fundamental rethink of how government interacted with the economy and society. At a time of despair, Roosevelt and his administration succeeded in instilling a sense of hope and laid the foundations for a more resilient and inclusive nation. It was a time when government was not a distant observer, but a committed player, providing concrete and tangible solutions to the challenges of its time.

The New Deal: 1933 - 1935 (programmes and achievements)[modifier | modifier le wikicode]

The inauguration of Franklin D. Roosevelt as the 32nd President of the United States on Saturday 4 March 1933 marked a decisive turning point in the way the country responded to the major economic crisis of the time. The Great Depression had left a devastating impact, not only on the economy but also on the morale of the American people. Uncertainty, despair and lack of confidence prevailed, and it was against this backdrop that Roosevelt uttered his now famous words: "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself". These words became a call to action and resilience in difficult times. With his New Deal policy, Roosevelt promised a rapid transformation of the country's economic policies to provide immediate relief to the millions of unemployed and to bring about far-reaching structural reforms in the economy. He envisaged a greater role for the federal government in economic regulation, an approach that contrasted sharply with the laissez-faire policy that had prevailed until then. This call to action was not just a strategy for revitalising the economy. It was also a means of restoring confidence among Americans, so that they would once again believe in themselves and in the nation's ability to overcome this devastating crisis. Roosevelt understood that recovery depended not only on economic policies but also on the psychology of the nation. Restored confidence would stimulate consumption, investment and, ultimately, economic growth.

Franklin D. Roosevelt's bold statement, "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself", emerged as a moment of defiance in the dark context of the Great Depression. These words not only symbolised the new President's resolute commitment to combat the monumental challenges of the time, but also embodied a message of hope and resilience for a country in the grip of despair and uncertainty. Roosevelt knew that restoring the confidence of the American people was as crucial as the economic reforms themselves. From the first days of his presidency, Roosevelt set about implementing his ambitious New Deal, a series of programmes and policies designed to offer immediate relief to the millions affected by the economic crisis, stimulate recovery and reform the system to avoid a repeat of such a catastrophe. The Federal Emergency Relief Administration was launched to provide direct assistance to those in need. The Civilian Conservation Corps provided employment for young men while contributing to important conservation projects. The National Recovery Administration was designed to stimulate industrial production and increase employment. Roosevelt's New Deal, implemented with unprecedented speed and determination, marked a turning point in the federal government's role in the American economy. For the first time, the government took proactive and direct action to alleviate the crisis, ushering in a new era of federal responsibility for economic management and social welfare. While criticism and controversy accompanied the implementation of these policies, the net impact of the New Deal was profound, mitigating the devastating effects of the Great Depression and laying the foundation for a more robust and resilient American economy.

Franklin D. Roosevelt was a pragmatist concerned with meeting the immediate needs of a nation in distress, and he formulated his New Deal in this context. His aim was to repair and stabilise the American capitalist system, not to replace or radically transform it. His policies focused on repairing the obvious flaws that had led to the economic collapse, while keeping intact the fundamental foundations of America's market-based economy. His actions were guided by a desire for balance. On the one hand, there was an urgent need for direct state intervention to remedy the devastating effects of the Great Depression - massive unemployment, failed banks, and widespread misery. On the other hand, he recognised the need to preserve the structures and principles of capitalism that had been the engines of American prosperity. So he did not seek to abolish private property or establish state capitalism as was happening in other parts of the world. This approach differentiated Roosevelt's actions from the more radical transformations taking place in Mexico, where state capitalism and deeper reforms were being introduced. Roosevelt wanted to avoid a social or economic revolution; instead, he sought to reform the system from within, introducing stricter regulations and providing a safety net for the most vulnerable citizens. The New Deal reflected this philosophy: an attempt to safeguard and revitalise American capitalism, to provide emergency relief, and to put in place structural reforms to avoid a repeat of such an economic catastrophe in the future. Roosevelt was motivated by the belief that government had an essential role to play in protecting citizens from the excesses and failures of the free market, while maintaining the fundamental principles of capitalism. His policies were a blend of pragmatism and reformism, designed to restore confidence, stability and prosperity within the context of the existing economic system.

Poster on the employment and activities of the WPA's federal arts project, 1936.
The WPA employed 2 to 3 million unskilled workers.
President Franklin D. Roosevelt signs the VAT Act.

Franklin D. Roosevelt's presidency began against the backdrop of one of the darkest periods in American economic history. With millions out of work, rampant poverty and a banking system on the verge of collapse, the Roosevelt administration had the urgent task of stabilising the economy and bringing direct relief to Americans in distress. Roosevelt had identified unemployment and economic insecurity as central problems requiring immediate attention. Public disillusionment and distrust of the economic system and financial institutions were palpable. To remedy this, Roosevelt not only implemented programmes to provide direct employment and income for the unemployed, but also worked to restore confidence in the economic system. Roosevelt's plan for the banking crisis was emblematic of his pragmatic and decisive approach. By temporarily closing all the banks and only allowing those that were solvent to reopen, he aimed to stop the banking panic and restore public confidence in the banking system. This "bank holiday" was a crucial element in stabilising the financial system. Roosevelt's swift and decisive action to tackle the banking crisis was an early example of how his administration would differ from that of his predecessors. Not only did he recognise the need for government intervention to correct market failures, but he also saw the importance of communicating effectively with the American public to restore confidence. Roosevelt's leadership during this period was characterised by a willingness to take bold and swift action to meet the immediate needs of Americans. His pragmatism, focus on efficiency and ability to inspire confidence helped guide the country through the most difficult times of the Great Depression. His New Deal policies and programmes were rooted in a commitment to the economic and social well-being of ordinary citizens and a belief that proactive government intervention was essential to stabilising the economy and restoring prosperity.

The National Recovery Administration (NRA) occupies a special place in American history as one of the federal government's first and most ambitious efforts to coordinate and regulate the economy in order to combat the Great Depression. Established under the aegis of President Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal, the NRA was charged with implementing codes of industrial practice aimed at raising workers' wages, reducing working hours and eliminating unfair trade practices. The NRA's codes, although varied, all had the common aim of stimulating consumer demand by raising wages, while stabilising industries by setting minimum prices and limiting excessive production. They were developed in collaboration with business, labour and government, in an attempt to balance the interests of all stakeholders. However, the NRA was not without controversy. Critics saw it as excessive government interference in economic matters. The large number of regulations and codes, their complexity and the challenges associated with implementing and complying with them were often criticised. In addition, although the intention was to promote fair competition, in practice some codes have been criticised for favouring large companies over small ones and reducing competition. The final blow to the NRA came from the US Supreme Court in Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States in 1935. The Court ruled that the NRA exceeded the constitutional powers of Congress by regulating companies not directly engaged in interstate commerce, and therefore declared the NRA unconstitutional. Despite its short-lived and controversial existence, the NRA nevertheless laid the foundation for future government regulation of the economy and signalled a move towards more direct and extensive involvement of the federal government in economic affairs. It helped set a precedent for future labour relations and welfare legislation.

The Agricultural Adjustment Administration (AAA) was a centrepiece of Roosevelt's response to the Great Depression. It aimed to solve the problems of overproduction and low prices in agriculture, which had placed enormous financial pressure on American farmers. Through AAA, the government paid farmers to reduce their production, a strategy designed to increase the price of agricultural products and, consequently, farmers' incomes. However, the effectiveness and fairness of AAA are widely debated. While the administration is helping to raise prices, its benefits are unevenly distributed. Large farmers, who have the financial capacity to reduce production while maintaining profitability through operational efficiency and technology, benefit disproportionately from subsidies. They also have the flexibility to navigate AAA regulations while maintaining profitable operations. Conversely, small farmers, crofters and tenant farmers are in a precarious position. For these groups, reduced production means a direct loss of income and livelihood, and they do not necessarily benefit from the price increases that result from reduced production. This dynamic exacerbates existing inequalities in the US agricultural sector. So while AAA was an innovative response to a persistent economic problem, it also revealed the challenges inherent in balancing government interventions. It has encouraged the consolidation and commercialisation of American agriculture, moving the sector away from the small family farm and towards agribusiness. The social and economic impact of these changes was felt for decades, shaping American and rural agriculture in a way that persists to this day.

The Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) embodied an ambitious and transformative dimension of the New Deal, demonstrating the federal government's willingness to intervene directly in the economy to stimulate regional development. This monumental effort targeted the Tennessee Valley, a region that at the time was languishing in poverty, ravaged by environmental and social problems and lacking basic infrastructure. The introduction of the TVA inaugurated a concerted effort not only to address poverty and underdevelopment, but also to revolutionise the way in which the region's natural and human resources were managed. The dams and power stations built under the aegis of the TVA did more than simply generate electricity; they symbolised a drive towards modernisation, a movement that promised to pull the region out of the economic and social stagnation in which it was mired. The provision of affordable electricity has had multi-dimensional benefits. Not only has it facilitated industrialisation and created jobs, it has also improved the quality of life of residents, bringing light and power to areas that were previously isolated from such benefits. Flood control, another key objective of the TVA, has protected communities, farmland and infrastructure, reducing the economic and humanitarian losses associated with devastating floods. So the TVA was more than an infrastructure project; it was a project of social and economic transformation. It demonstrated the potential of coordinated government intervention to reshape distressed regions, laying the foundations for sustainable development. However, it was not without its critics and controversies, particularly concerning the displacement of communities and environmental impacts. Nevertheless, the TVA remains an emblematic case study of the ambition of the New Deal and the profound, if complex, impact that government can have when it engages directly in economic and social development efforts.

The Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) is emblematic of the ingenuity and humanity that characterised Roosevelt's New Deal. At a time of economic despair and soaring unemployment, the CCC offered a ray of light, embodying hope and newfound dignity for thousands of young men and their families. At first glance, the CCC was an employment programme, but its design and delivery reveal a depth and sophistication that goes far beyond simply providing jobs. The young men who joined the CCC didn't just work; they were immersed in an environment that valued service, work ethic and responsibility. They lived in camps, shared responsibilities and worked together to improve the country's public lands. In return for their service, they were fed, housed and paid, a valuable financial lifeline for themselves and their families in difficult times. The work done by the CCC has had a lasting impact, leaving a tangible legacy in national parks and forests, many of which still benefit today from the infrastructure and improvements made by the Corps. But perhaps most importantly, the CCC has transformed the lives of the men who have served with it. They gained skills, confidence and a sense of achievement that, for many, were a springboard to future opportunities and success. The CCC was a manifestation of Roosevelt's belief in the power of public service and collective action. At a time when confidence and hope were in short supply, the CCC demonstrated that through hard work, cooperation and enlightened leadership, individuals and the nation could overcome the most daunting challenges. The programme merged economic necessity with environmental stewardship, and in doing so not only provided employment and support for young men and their families, but also contributed to the preservation and enhancement of the country's natural resources. Renewed forests, beautified parks and built playgrounds tell the story of a time when, even in the turmoil of the Depression, vision and initiative created a legacy of beauty and functionality that endures to this day. Throughout the CCC, every tree planted and trail built embodied a step towards reclaiming not only the land but also the national spirit. In this, the Civilian Conservation Corps established itself not only as an emergency programme in a time of crisis, but also as a lasting testament to American resilience and capacity for innovation.

The emergence of the Federal Emergency Relief Administration (FERA) and, later, the Works Progress Administration (WPA), is symptomatic of the Roosevelt administration's determined commitment to navigating through the turmoil of the Great Depression. FERA, with its mandate to provide direct emergency aid to the destitute, embodied the initial impetus to alleviate the human misery caused by dire economic circumstances. FERA was an immediate response, a Band-Aid for a bleeding nation, but it carried within it the seeds of a broader vision, a vision that would take shape with the WPA. Under the umbrella of the WPA, the ambition of emergency aid was transformed into a more robust strategy aimed at revitalising the national economic dynamic and restoring people's dignity through productive work. The WPA was not simply a programme of work; it was a manifestation of a conviction that, even in times of crisis, human potential remains an inexhaustible resource of innovation, creativity and resilience. The impact of the WPA can be measured in miles of roads built and buildings erected, but its legacy transcends these tangible measures. It provided a stage for artistic talent, cultivated cultural expression and nurtured the public spirit. Jobs in the arts were not an afterthought but a recognition that economic recovery and cultural renaissance were inextricably linked. While FERA and the WPA were children of their time, designed to respond to specific crises, they embody universal lessons. They are a reminder that economic prosperity and human well-being are inseparable companions, and that in the crucible of crisis, the human capacity to innovate and persevere not only survives, but often thrives. FERA laid the foundation stone, but the WPA erected an edifice where work and human dignity, infrastructure and innovation, and economy and culture were mutually reinforcing. This legacy continues to inspire, offering a living reminder that the answer to the crisis is not just about economic remediation, but also about a bold reaffirmation of the intrinsic value and immeasurable potential of every individual.

The Works Progress Administration (WPA) is a shining example of how government can respond innovatively and productively in times of economic crisis. Under the far-sighted vision of Franklin D. Roosevelt, the WPA didn't just offer jobs and wages to desperate workers; it deftly intertwined economic need and cultural expression, intrinsically recognising that a nation's well-being depends as much on its cultural soul as its economic vigour. Every road built and every building erected by the WPA was a tangible testament to the resilience of a nation in the throes of one of the darkest periods in its history. But beyond the stones and mortar, there was a profound recognition of the value of arts and culture. Artists, often relegated to the margins of the traditional economy, were put at the centre of the national effort to rebuild and revitalise the nation. The work of photographers supported by the WPA, for example, is an indelible contribution to America's cultural heritage. They have captured the resilient spirit of ordinary Americans, offering a human face to adversity and bearing witness to the indomitable dignity that persists even in times of deep despair. These images remain an invaluable resource for understanding not only the challenges of the time, but also the indomitable spirit that enabled the nation to overcome them. The parallels with the initiatives in Mexico underline a universal theme: in times of crisis, nations have the opportunity not only to rebuild, but also to reinvent themselves. The challenge is not only economic, but also spiritual and cultural. The WPA has not only fought unemployment and economic stagnation, but it has also nurtured and preserved the cultural spirit of the nation, and strongly affirmed that every individual, whatever their occupation or economic situation, has a valuable contribution to make to the national fabric. It is this blend of economic pragmatism and cultural vision that defines the enduring legacy of the WPA. It is a reminder that, even in the darkest of times, there is an opportunity to affirm and celebrate the richness and diversity of the human spirit. In its conception and execution, the WPA was a bold affirmation of the belief that economic reconstruction and cultural renaissance are not separate processes, but intimate partners in the nation's ongoing quest to realise its highest potential.

Intensification of reforms: 1935 - 1936 (Social Security, WPA, etc.)[modifier | modifier le wikicode]

The implementation of New Deal programmes between 1933 and 1935, marked by initiatives such as the NRA, VAT, CCC and WPA, was influenced by earlier initiatives in Mexico, a point often overlooked in standard historical analysis. Mexico, with its own rich history of reform and social initiatives, had rolled out programmes that were strikingly similar to key components of the New Deal, suggesting a transnational exchange of ideas and strategies to combat economic crises. However, even with the introduction and deployment of the New Deal, significant gaps remained in the American social and economic fabric. The initial initiatives, while ambitious and generally effective, left whole segments of the population in the dark, particularly marginalised groups and disadvantaged communities. Poverty, unemployment and inequality continued to challenge the frameworks of the original New Deal programmes. Recognition of these persistent challenges and inadequacies led to a new wave of reforms between 1935 and 1936. The Roosevelt administration, attentive to criticism and evaluations of programme effectiveness, sought to extend and intensify efforts to reach those who had remained beyond the reach of New Deal benefits. It was a time of readjustment, characterised by political and social introspection and a desire to correct the errors and omissions of the initial phases of the programmes. However, despite these readjustments and intensified reform efforts, the spectre of unemployment continued to hang over the nation. With around 30% of the population out of work, the economic crisis persisted, testing the resilience and creativity of the New Deal. This is a reminder of the intrinsic complexity of economic crises and the need for a multifactorial and adaptable approach to navigating ever-changing economic and social dynamics. The story of this phase of the New Deal serves as a reminder that, while significant progress was made, the road to economic recovery and social stability was far from linear. Every success was tempered by ongoing challenges, and every advance was met by the continuing reality of inequality and unemployment. It is in this context that the resonance and impact of the New Deal must be assessed - not as a quick fix, but as a series of persistent and adaptive efforts to navigate through one of the most tumultuous periods in American history.

President Franklin D. Roosevelt signs the National Labor Relations Act on 5 July 1935. Secretary of Labor Frances Perkins (right) looks on.

Roosevelt's intensification of reforms in 1935 and 1936 took place against a backdrop of persistent challenges related to unemployment and inequality. The creation of the National Youth Administration and the expansion of the Works Progress Administration (WPA) were direct responses to the need to create jobs and support individuals affected by the economic depression. These initiatives had a particular focus on supporting young people and creative professionals, in recognition of the multi-dimensional impact of the crisis. While these programmes have provided significant help and created opportunities, they have not been without their limitations. Unemployment, despite these interventions, remained an endemic problem, underlining the depth of the crisis and the challenges inherent in fully addressing the impacts of the Great Depression. Criticism grew, pointing to the inequality in the distribution of the benefits of the New Deal programmes. While well-organised entities benefited disproportionately, the most vulnerable segments of society felt neglected. This inequality was not only an economic problem, but also a political challenge. The cracking of the political consensus was palpable. Some members of the Democratic Party, dissatisfied with existing policies, began to disassociate themselves, signalling an ideological split. Protests against government policies reflected growing dissent and a diversification of perspectives on how to respond effectively to the economic crisis. This discontent and diversity of opinion marks a moment of intense political and social dynamism. Navigating conflicting demands, diverse needs and multiple expectations became a central feature of governance under Roosevelt. The tensions between economic efficiency, social equity and political cohesion intensified, setting a precedent for the debates on economic and social policy that continue to this day. Every action and every initiative was scrutinised in the light of the imperatives of justice, inclusion and efficiency, a balance that is always difficult to achieve in times of deep crisis.

Franklin D. Roosevelt found himself in a delicate situation. While his New Deal programme had brought some relief to the American economy and he had succeeded in laying the foundations for a recovery, he was faced with a major dilemma. Unemployment remained unacceptably high, and with an election on the horizon, it was imperative to step up efforts to generate employment and establish economic stability. It was a delicate balancing act. Roosevelt had to navigate between pursuing policies that would bring macroeconomic stability and meeting the immediate needs of those most affected by the Depression. The first phase of the New Deal had been criticised for favouring specific groups. Big business and well-established farmers had been the main beneficiaries, and this had exacerbated inequalities. In this tense political environment, every decision was scrutinised. Roosevelt was aware that the growing inequalities were unsustainable, but the rectification of these inequalities had to be carefully orchestrated. Marginalised groups and those most in need needed support, but implementing policies that could potentially alienate other segments of the population or economic partners was a minefield. 1935 and 1936 were years of recalibration. The new reforms were bold and aimed to extend the economic safety net to include those who had been left behind. It was a period of political and economic readjustment, when the raw reality of the Depression was confronted with intensified efforts not only to stabilise the economy but also to ensure a fairer distribution of opportunities and resources. Political and social discontent was a palpable reality. Members of the Democratic Party broke away, signalling a fracture in the previous political consensus. Roosevelt, however, was determined. His commitment to the New Deal, despite its imperfections and criticisms, was unshakeable. The complexity of the task was to balance economic imperatives, social expectations and political reality in a world still recovering from one of the worst economic crises in modern history. This chapter of his administration illustrated the complexity inherent in governance in times of crisis, where every step forward is fraught with unexpected challenges, and where flexibility and resilience become indispensable assets.

The Social Security Act of 1935 embodied a major transformation in the US federal government's responsibility to its citizens. Prior to the Act, protection and assistance for the vulnerable had been largely neglected, leaving many families without a safety net in times of need. Signed into law by President Franklin D. Roosevelt, the Act was one of a series of radical New Deal reforms designed to reshape the way government interacted with society, especially in times of economic crisis. The first component, the retirement programme, provided a solution to the financial insecurity experienced by the elderly, a problem exacerbated by the Great Depression. The fact that this programme was funded by both employers and employees underlined a principle of solidarity and shared responsibility. It offered older people financial dignity, guaranteeing a stable income after years of hard work. The unemployment assistance programme was the second cornerstone. It was a direct response to the acute economic vulnerability exacerbated by the Great Depression. With millions of people out of work, often through no fault of their own, this programme promised temporary support, underlining the government's role as a backstop in times of unforeseen economic crisis. The third component addressed the needs of the blind, disabled, elderly and children in need. It recognises the diversity of needs within society and strives to provide specialist support to ensure that even often overlooked groups receive the attention and support they need. Each component of the Social Security Act represented a step towards a government that not only governs but cares for its citizens. It was a move away from laissez-faire and towards a more paternalistic approach, where the protection and welfare of citizens, especially the most vulnerable, was placed at the centre of the political agenda. This approach set a precedent that not only shaped American domestic policy for decades to come, but also inspired welfare systems around the world.

The Social Security Act is often cited as one of the most significant legislative achievements of the Franklin D. Roosevelt administration and the New Deal. By establishing a financial safety net for the elderly, the unemployed and the disabled, this law profoundly transformed the role of the federal government in the lives of American citizens. Prior to the Act, many elderly and vulnerable people were left to fend for themselves, relying on charity or family for their livelihood. Social Security changed this dynamic, introducing direct government responsibility for the economic well-being of citizens. This helped reduce poverty and economic insecurity, providing greater financial stability for millions of Americans. In addition, the Act laid the foundation for the modern welfare system in the United States, establishing principles and practices that continue to inform public policy today. Individuals and families in situations of need can count on some measure of support from the state, which has strengthened social cohesion and stability. By embedding solidarity and mutual support into the very fabric of government policy, the Social Security Act helped to define a new era of governance in the United States. It was a significant step towards a more engaged welfare state, an aspect that has become central to American policy and has also influenced welfare systems around the world. In addition, by promoting the welfare and security of citizens, it laid the foundations for a more balanced and equitable society, reducing inequality and improving the quality of life for many Americans.

The implementation of the Social Security programme has met with various challenges and criticisms. The exclusion of small farmers, sharecroppers, domestic workers and trade unions highlighted significant gaps in the system. These vulnerable groups were among those hardest hit by the Great Depression, and their exclusion from Social Security benefits exacerbated their precarious situation. Sharecroppers and domestic workers, in particular, were omitted because of the structure of informal and non-contractual employment, which raised concerns about equity and inclusion. Trade unions, which were already fighting for workers' rights in a difficult economic context, also faced challenges in accessing benefits. Criticism also came from the amount of assistance provided. Although Social Security represented a significant step forward in providing government support to those in need, the amount of benefits was often insufficient to meet basic needs, and many continued to live in poverty. However, despite these criticisms and challenges, the Social Security programme laid the foundations for a system of social protection in the United States. Over the years, it has been amended and expanded to include previously excluded groups and to increase the amount of assistance provided. This demonstrates the evolving nature of these public policies, which can be adapted and improved to better meet the needs of society. These initial challenges have also fuelled debate about the role of government in the economic well-being of citizens and have helped to shape future welfare and reform programmes. Ultimately, despite its imperfections, the Social Security Act marked an important milestone in the development of American welfare policy.

The passage of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) in 1935 was an important milestone in the history of labour relations in the United States. It profoundly altered the landscape of industrial and labour relations by legalising the formation of trade unions and promoting collective bargaining. Prior to the introduction of the NLRA, workers often faced difficult working conditions, low wages and considerable resistance from employers to the establishment of unions. In-house" unions, which were controlled by employers, were often used to thwart efforts to form independent unions. The NLRA not only prohibited these practices but also established mechanisms to ensure that workers' rights to form unions and bargain collectively would be respected. The creation of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) was crucial to the enforcement of these rights. The NLRB had the power to order the reinstatement of workers dismissed for union activities and could also certify unions as legitimate representatives of workers. The impact of the NLRA was profound. It helped to balance the power relations between employers and employees, leading to a significant increase in the number of unionised workers and improvements in wages and working conditions. The Act helped establish a national standard for relations between employers and workers, anchoring the right to collective bargaining in US federal law. However, like any major piece of legislation, the NLRA also faced criticism and challenges. Some employers and industry groups have resisted the new regulations, and there have been debates about the balance between workers' rights and corporate economic interests. Nevertheless, the NLRA remains one of the most influential pieces of legislation of the New Deal era, laying the foundations for modern labour relations in the United States and helping to create a more robust middle class in the decades that followed.

Franklin D. Roosevelt's second term: 1936 - 1940 (Supreme Court battles, economic challenges)[modifier | modifier le wikicode]

The presidential election of 1936 saw Franklin D. Roosevelt win a resounding victory, securing a second term in office. During his campaign, the issue of the radical and ambitious New Deal reforms that he had launched during his first term took centre stage. Roosevelt was criticised by his opponent Alf Landon and other conservatives for deviating from the fundamental principles of American government and introducing elements of socialism into American politics. However, these attacks failed to win the support of a significant majority of voters. Roosevelt's New Deal policies and programmes were widely popular with the masses, who saw them as a necessary relief from the rigours of the Great Depression. Eleanor Roosevelt, his wife, played a crucial role in his re-election campaign. She was not only an influential first lady but also an ardent defender of civil rights, the rights of women and the poor. Eleanor became a respected and admired public figure for her dedication and commitment to society's most disadvantaged. Roosevelt's election victory in 1936 was a clear endorsement of his policies by the American people. It strengthened his determination to pursue and expand the New Deal initiatives, despite persistent opposition from some quarters. His second term saw a consolidation of the reforms initiated during his first term and an increased commitment to ensuring the economic and social well-being of ordinary US citizens. Thus, although he was criticised for approaches deemed too progressive or interventionist, Roosevelt's popularity and public support for New Deal policies were evident in the election results, indicating that, for the majority of Americans, the course set by the President was not only necessary but also beneficial in the context of the most devastating economic crisis of the twentieth century.

Franklin D. Roosevelt's victory in 1936 was not simply a re-election for the incumbent President, but symbolised a more profound transformation of the American political landscape. It reflected a new coalition, a heterogeneous but powerful alliance of diverse groups united around the principles and programmes of the New Deal. It was a convincing demonstration of Roosevelt's ability to rally a wide range of groups, from the urban working class to Midwestern farmers, from Southern Democrats to recent immigrants, to a multitude of ethnic groups and workers from all sectors. The New Deal coalition was not simply a temporary electoral alliance but shaped the identity and direction of the Democratic Party for generations to come. It embodied a more progressive and inclusive vision of American politics, where the interests of working people, the poor and the marginalised were recognised and taken into account in national policy-making. Roosevelt had succeeded in weaving a social and economic net that not only mitigated the devastating effects of the Great Depression but also laid the foundations for a modernised welfare state and regulated capitalism. His victories in almost every state in the country reflected popular approval of interventionist and redistributive policies which, although criticised by conservatives, were widely seen as necessary and beneficial by a large majority of voters.

Election poster in Manchester, NH.
Resettlement Administration poster, by Bernarda Bryson Shahn.
History of the federal minimum wage in real and nominal dollars.

Franklin D. Roosevelt's election to a third and fourth term is an anomaly in American history. He was elected for a third term in 1940 because of the imminent threat of the Second World War. Roosevelt was an experienced leader and American voters, faced with international uncertainty, chose to keep him in power to ensure continuity of leadership. Roosevelt's choice for a fourth term in 1944 also occurred in the context of the war. The nation was immersed in global conflict, and changing presidents during wartime was not considered to be in the best interests of the country. Roosevelt's stability and experience were again favoured. However, after his death in 1945, it became clear that the practice of allowing a president to serve an unlimited number of terms needed to be re-examined. Executive power in the hands of one person for a long period of time could potentially be a risk to American democracy. As a result, the 22nd Amendment was proposed and adopted, limiting a President to two terms in office. This was intended to ensure regular renewal of leadership, keep the President accountable to the electorate and prevent excessive concentration of power. Since then, all American presidents have been limited to two terms, a principle that reinforces the dynamic and responsive nature of American democracy, ensuring an orderly transition of power and allowing the emergence of new leaders with fresh ideas and perspectives.

The Farm Security Administration (FSA) was an important step in Roosevelt's ongoing effort to combat the devastating effects of the Great Depression. Despite positive intentions, challenges such as insufficient funding and the massive scale of poverty and despair meant that the programme's impact was more limited than hoped. During this period, the economic crisis did not discriminate; it affected all aspects of American society, but small farmers were particularly vulnerable. The FSA, with its limited resources, tried to provide a solution for this specific demographic, but the challenges were monumental. In the South, the impact of the programme was even more diluted. The socio-economic structure, marked by racial discrimination and inequality, exacerbated the economic difficulties. Sharecroppers, both white and black, found themselves in an extremely precarious situation, often without land or means of subsistence. The effort to provide low-interest loans and technical assistance was a lifeline for some, but unattainable for the majority. The complex realities of the time - a ravaged economy, a changing society and deep-rooted inequalities - made the successful implementation of the FSA programme a daunting challenge. Despite this, the FSA remains a testament to the Roosevelt administration's commitment to trying to bring relief and positive change, even in the face of seemingly insurmountable obstacles. It also laid the groundwork for future thinking and action on agricultural policy and social security in the United States.

The Farm Security Administration (FSA) programme was a delicate balance in Roosevelt's attempt to navigate between support for small farmers and the wider economic imperatives that favoured large farms. While small farmers were an important target, economic efficiency and productivity were equally pressing issues that could not be ignored. By providing advisory and technical services to large landowners, the FSA was not only injecting capital but also helping to improve farming methods, optimising productivity and sustainability. This technical assistance was aimed not only at increasing production, but also at improving the working conditions of farm workers, a group that was often neglected and exploited. Large landowners benefited from advice on how to optimise the management of their land, which led to an increase in productivity. Paradoxically, by helping large farms, the FSA was also indirectly helping to improve the lives of farm workers through more productive and efficient farming. Indeed, the central dilemma was that support for small farmers and large landowners was not mutually exclusive. Both were essential for a robust agricultural economy. Small farmers needed support to survive, while large farms were essential for economic efficiency and large-scale food production. So the FSA, with all its apparent contradictions, was a reflection of the complex landscape of the time. It was an effort to balance economic, social and human imperatives, a juggling act between the immediate need for relief and the long-term goals of productivity and sustainability. In this complex context, the FSA succeeded in creating a positive impact, not only by directly supporting those in need but also by introducing structural changes that would benefit the farming community as a whole and beyond.

The Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) of 1938 marked a crucial step in labour legislation in the United States, establishing important safeguards to protect workers from exploitation. The genesis of this law was centred on the protection of non-union workers, a vulnerable population at the time who were often subject to unfair and inequitable working conditions. However, its application transcended this target population to encompass unionized workers as well, setting a universal minimum standard that elevated the foundation of working conditions across the country. However, the FLSA was not without its initial limitations. Its scope was confined to workers in certain industries, leaving a substantial segment of the workforce, notably those in agriculture and domestic service, without the necessary protections. This was a reflection of the political and social compromises of the time, where the needs of certain groups were often balanced against economic and political realities. Over time, the FLSA evolved, expanding to envelop a larger portion of the workforce and raising the minimum wage. This adaptability and evolution have been crucial in ensuring that the law remains relevant and effective in the face of changing challenges and workforce dynamics. It has become a living document, adjusted and modified to meet the changing demands of American society. Today, the FLSA remains a pillar of American labour law. It is a testament to the desire of government and society to protect workers from exploitation and to ensure that economic gains are shared fairly. By setting minimum standards for wages and working conditions, it creates a balanced playing field where workers can contribute to economic prosperity while being assured of fair and equitable working conditions. The Act remains a vibrant example of the legislative system's ability to adapt and evolve to meet the changing needs of its population.

Social impact of the New Deal: assessing the legacy of policies and programmes[modifier | modifier le wikicode]

The legacy of the New Deal is a subject of vast and intense debate. Initiated by President Franklin D. Roosevelt in the 1930s in response to the Great Depression, the New Deal introduced a series of programmes and reforms that not only changed the American economic landscape, but also influenced citizens' expectations of government. On the one hand, the New Deal has been hailed for introducing a significant social safety net, with the creation of Social Security being one of its most notable achievements. This key element provided much-needed relief for the elderly, disabled and unemployed, and has become a central element of the American welfare system. In addition, workers' rights expanded considerably under the New Deal, strengthening trade unions and bringing the Democratic Party closer to the working class. Millions of unemployed found jobs through public works programmes, and financial and banking reforms stabilised the financial system. However, the New Deal was not without its critics. Some argued that its measures were not sufficient and that the poor, particularly minorities, were often neglected. Government interventionism was a contentious issue, particularly among the business community, which perceived it as excessive. Although the New Deal introduced important structural reforms, it did not completely resolve the Great Depression, and it took the war effort of the Second World War to fully revitalise the US economy. Increased public spending also raised concerns about the national debt. The enduring legacy of the New Deal is its continuing influence on American politics and society. The debates that began at that time about the balance between government intervention and market freedom persist in contemporary political discourse. Overall, the New Deal is often seen as a bold response to an unprecedented economic and social crisis, although it is also associated with increased government intervention in the economy. Its structural and social reforms left a lasting imprint that continues to influence American politics, economics and society to this day.

The AFL was led by leaders who valued stability and cooperation with employers. In those days, the federation often avoided strikes and direct confrontation, preferring negotiation and arbitration. The AFL was also known to be exclusive, limiting itself mainly to skilled and white workers, often leaving out unskilled workers and minorities. This was due to the belief that a focus on skilled workers would result in more substantial gains for its members. However, the AFL's approach was not universally popular. Many workers, particularly unskilled workers and those in emerging industries, felt excluded and under-represented. The Great Depression exacerbated these tensions, as millions of workers lost their jobs or saw their wages and working conditions deteriorate. The emergence of the Congress of Industrial Organizations (CIO) in 1935 marked a turning point. Unlike the AFL, the CIO took a more radical and inclusive approach. It aimed to organise all workers within specific industries, regardless of their skill level. The CIO was also more willing to use strikes and other confrontational tactics to win concessions from employers. These two organisations played a central role in the expansion of workers' rights during the New Deal period. Their efforts, combined with progressive New Deal legislation such as the Wagner Act of 1935, which guaranteed the right of workers to organise and bargain collectively, led to a significant increase in the power and influence of trade unions in the United States. In the years that followed, the AFL and CIO continued to evolve, reflecting changes in the American economic and social landscape. They finally merged in 1955, forming the AFL-CIO, an organisation that continues to be a major force in the American labour movement today. The combination of trade union efforts and New Deal policies laid the foundations for the substantial improvements in wages, benefits and working conditions that characterised the post-war period in the United States.

At the time, the AFL's exclusive policy was a source of contention and division within the labour movement. Although the AFL succeeded in negotiating wage increases and improvements in working conditions for its members, its exclusion of unskilled workers and racial minorities left large numbers of workers without effective union representation. This has not only exacerbated existing inequalities, but has also limited the reach and impact of the trade union movement as a whole. Against this background of division and exclusion, other trade union organisations and workers' movements began to emerge to fill the vacuum left by the AFL. Groups of unskilled workers, minorities and other marginalised workers began to organise outside the AFL structure, forming their own unions and organisations to fight for higher wages, better working conditions and collective bargaining rights. The pressure exerted by these more inclusive and militant organisations eventually led to significant changes within the AFL and the trade union movement as a whole. The economic and social challenges of the Great Depression, combined with the growing activism of unskilled workers and minorities, made the AFL's policy of exclusion unsustainable. Legislative reforms introduced during the New Deal, notably the National Labor Relations Act (also known as the Wagner Act) of 1935, also strengthened workers' rights and made it easier to organise and bargain collectively. In the years that followed, the AFL and other unions were forced to adapt to these new realities. The inclusion of unskilled workers, minorities and other previously excluded groups not only broadened the base of the labour movement, but also led to an increase in the power and influence of unions in American politics and the economy. This period of increased inclusiveness and union activism laid the groundwork for significant improvements in workers' rights, wages and working conditions across the country.

The shift from craft unions, which were more exclusive and focused primarily on skilled workers, to organisations like the CIO and UAW, which were more inclusive and embraced a wider range of workers, marked a significant step in the evolution of the American labour movement. These new unions brought about a radical change in the way workers were organised and represented, creating opportunities for broader participation and fairer representation of diverse groups of workers. The National Industrial Recovery Act (NIRA) of 1933 was an essential element in facilitating this change. It encouraged collective bargaining and allowed workers to join unions without fear of reprisal from their employers. Although the US Supreme Court ultimately declared the Act unconstitutional in 1935, it nevertheless set an important precedent and paved the way for other pro-labour legislation, such as the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), also known as the Wagner Act. The NLRA, passed in 1935, consolidated workers' rights to organize and bargain collectively. It also created the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), a federal agency responsible for overseeing union elections and adjudicating unfair labour practice complaints. Under the NLRA, unions such as the CIO and UAW grew in importance and power, transforming the US labour landscape. The emergence of these new unions and the expansion of workers' rights also had profound implications for racial and class politics in the US. Organisations such as the CIO were more inclusive and accepted members regardless of race or skill level. This not only increased diversity within the labour movement but also played a role in the struggle for civil rights, social justice and equality. In this way, New Deal policies had a significant impact on the labour movement in the United States. They facilitated greater inclusion and representation of workers and contributed to the emergence of a new generation of trade unions that played a key role in defining rights and working conditions over the following decades.

The initiative of the Committee on Industrial Organization (CIO) within the AFL represents a significant development in the history of the labour movement in the United States. Prior to this initiative, the trade union landscape was largely dominated by craft unions that concentrated their efforts on skilled workers. Unskilled workers, particularly those in large industries, were often left behind, lacking adequate representation and unable to bargain collectively for better working conditions, fair wages and benefits. The formation of the IOC was a direct response to this shortcoming. By specifically targeting unskilled workers, it opened the door to broader representation and facilitated more meaningful inclusion in the trade union movement. The IOC's approach was radically different from that of traditional trade unions. Rather than focusing on specific trades, it aimed to unite all workers within particular industries, creating a more powerful and effective collective bargaining force. This not only changed the dynamics of the trade union movement, but also helped to transform industrial relations in the United States. With the ability to mobilise a larger number of workers and negotiate with employers in a more unified way, the CIO was able to achieve significant advances in wages, working conditions and workers' rights. However, the creation of the IOC was not without controversy. Its formation was followed by a period of tension and conflict with the AFL, resulting in the formal separation of the two organisations in 1938. The AFL continued to focus on skilled workers, while the CIO concentrated on unskilled workers, ushering in a new era of plurality and diversity in the American labour movement. The CIO's legacy lives on today. Its commitment to unskilled workers paved the way for significant advances in workers' rights and helped shape the landscape of labour and industrial relations in the United States in the twentieth century. This legacy still resonates in current discussions about economic justice, employment equity and workers' rights.

This substantial increase in the number of unionised workers was attributable to a number of factors, mainly linked to New Deal initiatives and the emergence of the CIO. The labor relations laws and other regulations imposed during this period not only legitimized unions, but also encouraged collective bargaining and expanded workers' rights, making organized labor a more powerful and present force in the lives of American workers. The rapid growth of unions was not without its challenges. Although the number of unionised workers increased dramatically, they remained a minority of the workforce as a whole. The diversity of workers, industries and regions presented unique challenges in terms of organisation, representation and bargaining. Unions had to fight not only employer resistance, but also internal divisions and disparities between skilled and unskilled workers, as well as regional and sectoral differences. Yet the late 1930s witnessed growing solidarity among workers, and the trade union movement grew in power and influence. Unions became key players in the national dialogue on workers' rights, economic equity and social justice. Although they represented only 28% of the workforce, their influence far exceeded that figure. They played a crucial role in setting labour standards, protecting workers' rights and improving working conditions across the country. The rise of the unions during this period also laid the foundations for the future evolution of the labour movement in the United States. It ushered in an era of expanded workers' rights, better representation and improved working conditions that continue to resonate in the contemporary labour landscape. Despite the challenges and controversies, the expansion of trade unionism during this period is widely regarded as a watershed in the history of workers' rights in the United States.

The success of the CIO marked an era of rapid change in American labour. However, this success was marred by persistent challenges. Employer resistance was often virulent; strikes and demonstrations were common, and workers frequently faced aggressive anti-union action. Companies used a variety of tactics to thwart union efforts, including disciplinary action, lockouts and exploiting internal divisions among workers. Within the trade union world itself, the CIO faced internal opposition from the AFL. The ideological and strategic differences between these two bodies often led to conflict. The AFL, with its focus on skilled workers and a more conservative approach to trade unionism, was often at odds with the CIO's more inclusive and progressive strategy. In addition, federal government policies regarding workers and unions were often fluid and sometimes contradictory. Although laws such as the NLRA provided a legal framework for collective bargaining and union organizing, the practical application of these laws was often hampered by competing political and economic interests. Shifting political decisions and the absence of consistent government support made navigating the complex political landscape particularly challenging for the IOC and other trade union organisations. Despite these challenges, the CIO has persisted in its efforts to organise unskilled workers and to extend workers' rights throughout the US economy. Its successes and challenges reflect the complexity of the struggle for workers' rights in the United States, a struggle that continues to shape the labour and employment landscape in the country today. Each victory and challenge faced by the IOC during this turbulent period highlights the complex dynamics of economic, political and social forces at play in the workers' rights movement.

Labour Minister Perkins on the cover of Time (14 August 1933).

Women's participation in New Deal programmes was limited due to the social norms of the time and the design of the programmes. Although these initiatives were created to alleviate the devastating effects of the Great Depression and provide employment and support to millions in need, women were often overlooked or excluded from these opportunities. The CCC, for example, was primarily focused on providing jobs for young men. They were employed in public works projects such as park construction, tree planting and other conservation activities. Women were largely excluded from this programme due to prevailing gender norms that placed them in the role of caretakers of the home. The WPA, although more inclusive, also offered work opportunities that were largely segregated by gender. Men were often involved in construction and engineering projects, while women were relegated to projects considered 'feminine', such as sewing and food preparation. Although the WPA employed a large number of women, opportunities were often limited and wages were lower than for men. FERA, designed to provide direct aid to those in need, was also limited in its ability to help women. Many were ineligible for assistance because they had not worked outside the home prior to the Great Depression, and therefore could not prove that they were unemployed. In addition, the emphasis on the 'deserving family' meant that assistance was often granted on the basis of the employment status of the male head of household. These limitations reflect the attitudes and gender norms of the time. Women were often seen as secondary workers and their economic contribution was undervalued. The policies and programmes of the New Deal, while instrumental in helping to alleviate the effects of the Great Depression for many, were flawed and reflected the deep-rooted gender inequalities of that historic period. However, they also paved the way for a wider discussion of women workers' rights and laid the foundations for future reforms and developments in women's rights in the workplace.

Although the New Deal was a major response to the Great Depression, it reflected the gender norms of the time, often to the detriment of women. Initiatives such as the CCC and WPA were heavily focused on manual and outdoor work, traditionally male-dominated sectors. This focus created an imbalance, where men had access to greater opportunities to rebuild their lives economically, while women were often left behind. The CCC focused on environmental and construction projects, employing thousands of young men, but offering few opportunities for women. This reflected not only societal expectations about gender roles, but also a gap in public policy, where women's specific needs and skills were not fully recognised or utilised. Similarly, although the WPA employed women, they were often concentrated in lower paid sectors and were paid less than their male counterparts. This exacerbated existing gender inequalities and reinforced traditional stereotypes about 'appropriate' work for women and men. These dynamics reflect the complex challenges facing American society at the time. In attempting to remedy an unprecedented economic crisis, the government also navigated, sometimes clumsily, entrenched social and cultural realities. Women, despite being disadvantaged by these programmes, continued to play a vital role in the economy, albeit often in the shadows. These challenges and inequalities underline the complexity of the New Deal and serve as a reminder of the many layers of progress and struggle that characterise this crucial period in American history.

It demonstrates the profound inequality engendered by the policies and programmes implemented during this period. Support systems were heavily tilted in favour of men, based on the traditional perception that they were the primary breadwinners. This gender bias marginalised women, exacerbating their vulnerability during a period of acute economic crisis. Unemployed women often found themselves in a double bind. Not only were they excluded from many of the employment opportunities created by programmes such as the CCC and the WPA, but they were also under-represented among recipients of federal assistance. This situation was exacerbated by gender-based criteria for awarding assistance and deep-rooted gender stereotypes, which favoured men as the main providers. This reality, where 37% of the unemployed were women but only 19% of aid recipients were women, reveals institutionalised discrimination. It highlights the additional challenges women faced in accessing crucial resources and opportunities. Despite these obstacles, women have continued to play an essential role in society and the economy, although they are often undervalued or invisible. In retrospect, the gendered inequalities of the New Deal illustrate how economic and social emergencies can highlight and amplify existing injustices. They also serve as a reminder of the importance of integrating a gender perspective into policy-making, to ensure that all people, regardless of their sex, have access to the opportunities and support they need to thrive.

The socio-cultural context of the time greatly influenced the way New Deal policies were designed and implemented. Gender inequality was an inherent aspect of society, and this was reflected in the structure and scope of the programmes. Although the primary intention of the New Deal was not to exclude or marginalise women, underlying prejudices and social norms inevitably influenced the way policies were formulated and implemented. In response, women did not remain passive. They have shown remarkable resilience and determination, fighting for recognition of their rights and for equal opportunities. Women's groups and feminist organisations, often supported by progressive trade unions and other civil society organisations, undertook concerted efforts to denounce and remedy the manifest inequalities in the application of the New Deal programmes. These advocacy and activist efforts have helped to draw attention to gender disparities and to push for reforms. Although progressive, these changes were often not sufficient to overcome deeply rooted systemic barriers. However, they laid the foundations for future movements for women's rights and gender equality. Ultimately, although the New Deal brought much-needed relief to millions of people affected by the Great Depression, its legacy is also tainted by its shortcomings when it comes to gender equality. These historical lessons underline the crucial importance of adopting an intersectional approach to policymaking, ensuring that all voices and perspectives are considered to ensure that no one is left behind.

Eleanor Roosevelt played a key role not only as First Lady of the United States, but also as an influential campaigner and diplomat. She broke the traditional mould of the First Lady's role by becoming actively involved in politics, a space often reserved for men at the time. She was known for her strong convictions and commitment to social justice and human rights. During her husband's presidency, Eleanor highlighted pressing social issues, including the injustice and inequality suffered by women. She visited labour camps, hospitals and other institutions to understand first-hand the challenges faced by ordinary people. Her direct and empathetic approach not only humanised the Presidency, but also helped to raise public awareness of issues that were often overlooked. Eleanor Roosevelt was also a powerful voice within the Roosevelt administration. She advocated the inclusion of women in New Deal programmes and insisted that gender equality and social justice be integrated into government policies. She was a driving force in ensuring that women's issues were not relegated to the background, and encouraged their active participation in the political and social life of the country. Her passion for human rights did not stop at American borders. Following the presidency of Franklin D. Roosevelt, Eleanor played a key role in the creation of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, a lasting testament to her commitment to dignity and equality for all. Eleanor Roosevelt's legacy is that of a woman of courage and conviction. She demonstrated that the role of First Lady could be a platform for social change and paved the way for more active participation by women in American and international politics. Her dedication to justice and equality continues to inspire generations of leaders and activists.

The growing involvement of women in politics during the New Deal era is testimony to the gradual evolution of social norms and the role of women in American society. At that time, women began to occupy positions of greater visibility and influence in government and other civil society organisations. Their participation helped shape policies and initiatives that better reflected the diversity of citizens' experiences and needs. With the support of Eleanor Roosevelt and other women's rights advocates, women gained a platform to express their ideas and demands. Their activism was remarkable in areas such as work, education, health and social welfare. Their active participation in policy-making began to reshape the traditional image of women, highlighting their ability and willingness to contribute meaningfully to complex public issues. This momentum was not limited to political circles. Women also played a growing role in professional and academic circles, breaking down barriers and challenging existing gender stereotypes. They have proved their competence and effectiveness in a variety of fields, helping to change public perceptions of what women can achieve. Although women still faced substantial inequalities, and the struggle for gender equality was far from over, the New Deal era marked an important turning point. Women moved from the traditionally confined role of the domestic sphere to a more active and visible participation in the public sphere. The foundations laid during this period served as a springboard for the feminist and gender equality movements that gained prominence in the decades that followed.

Frances Perkins is often credited with being a key figure in the development and implementation of New Deal policies, particularly in the areas of workers' rights and social security. She went down in history not only as the first woman to hold a position in the US presidential cabinet, but also as a pioneer of progressive social and economic reform. Her determination and commitment to workers' rights were rooted in her own experience and observations of the inequalities and injustices faced by working people. She played a crucial role in developing legislation to improve working conditions, guarantee fair wages and ensure workers' safety. Under Perkins' leadership, the Department of Labor helped implement innovative policies such as the Social Security Act, the National Labor Relations Act and the Fair Labor Standards Act. These laws not only strengthened workers' rights, but also laid the foundation for America's social safety net. Perkins was also aware of the specific challenges faced by women in the labour market. She advocated gender equality and worked to ensure that New Deal policies took into account the needs and contributions of working women. Her leadership and dedication to the social and economic cause made her an emblematic figure of the New Deal and an example of women's ability to influence and shape public policy. Frances Perkins' legacy lives on in the reforms she helped to implement and in the path she paved for future generations of women leaders.

Although the New Deal represented a major step forward in federal intervention to mitigate the devastating effects of the Great Depression, the benefits of these policies were not evenly distributed. African-Americans, in particular, were often left behind. Roosevelt needed the support of Southern politicians to push through his reforms, and they were often opposed to measures that would have promoted racial equality. As a result, much of the New Deal legislation did not apply to occupations where African-Americans were predominantly employed, such as agriculture and domestic service. The system of racial segregation, particularly in the American South, remained deeply entrenched. What's more, African-Americans were often the last to be hired and the first to be fired. They also received lower wages than white workers and were often victims of union discrimination. Institutional and personal racism continued to oppress African-Americans despite the implementation of New Deal programmes. However, despite these limitations, there were some improvements. Some African Americans benefited from jobs created by New Deal projects such as the Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) and the Works Progress Administration (WPA). Eleanor Roosevelt, in particular, was an important ally, using her influence to advocate for the rights of African Americans. Initiatives such as the "Black Cabinet", a group of African-American advisers who worked in various New Deal agencies, also emerged, although their influence was limited. So while the New Deal marked a turning point in federal policy and set a precedent for increased government intervention in the economy, its benefits for African Americans and other racial minorities were limited. These shortcomings highlight the persistent challenges of racism and discrimination that these communities continued to face.

The socio-economic status of African Americans was largely determined by the institutionalised policies of discrimination and segregation that were prevalent at the time, particularly in the American South. Despite the progressive intentions of the New Deal, the social and economic benefits of these programmes were often limited for African Americans because of existing racial prejudices and power structures. Trade unions also played an ambiguous role. Although strengthened by New Deal legislation, notably the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) of 1935, which encouraged collective bargaining and strengthened workers' rights, unions were often discriminatory in their membership practices. Many unions refused to accept African-American members, or relegated them to separate chapters with less power and resources. In addition, the New Deal, in its attempt to stabilise the economy, often collaborated with existing power structures, including those of the segregated South. Roosevelt himself was reluctant to challenge the racial power structure in the South for fear of losing the political support of influential Southern Democrats. This often led to compromises that maintained and, in some cases, reinforced existing racial inequalities. Yet there were some positive steps forward. Some New Deal agencies, such as the Works Progress Administration (WPA), employed both black and white workers. Eleanor Roosevelt, the First Lady, was also a passionate advocate of civil rights and often used her position to promote equality and challenge discrimination. Overall, although the New Deal offered some relief and opportunities for African Americans, it also revealed and, in some cases, perpetuated the deep racial inequalities that structured American society. The benefits and opportunities created by the New Deal were often limited by skin colour, illustrating the limits of progressive reform in a society characterised by racial discrimination and segregation.

The decentralisation of the implementation of New Deal programmes to the local level allowed prejudice and discriminatory practices to influence the distribution of resources and opportunities. In the South in particular, Jim Crow laws and a segregated social order were in force. The local authorities that oversaw New Deal programmes were often deeply rooted in this system and encouraged its perpetuation. Employment programmes, for example, were often segregated and offered unequal opportunities and benefits. Black workers were typically confined to lower-paid jobs and more precarious working conditions. Housing and community development projects funded by the New Deal also reflected segregation, with separate projects for white and black residents and significantly unequal levels of resources and quality. However, despite these challenges, the New Deal laid the foundations for increased awareness and mobilisation among African Americans. The inequalities exposed and exacerbated by the Great Depression and the policy responses that followed catalysed a civil rights movement and broader political mobilisation among black communities. Organisations such as the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) gained influence and support, and issues of social justice and racial equality became more central to the national discourse.

Eleanor Roosevelt stood out for her commitment to civil rights. She was a critical voice internally, actively advocating for the rights of African Americans at a time when discrimination and segregation were rampant. Despite the difficult political and social context and considerable resistance from many factions within government and society, she resolutely maintained her position. Her public support for the NAACP and other civil rights organisations was an important step, even if the concrete results were limited. Eleanor Roosevelt was particularly active in lynching advocacy, pushing for federal legislation to criminalise the horrific practice. Although her efforts did not result in concrete legislation due to resistance from Congress, her strong and persistent voice helped raise national awareness and put the issue of civil rights on the national agenda. One of the most emblematic moments of her commitment to civil rights was her high-profile departure from the Daughters of the American Revolution (DAR) when the organisation refused to allow the famous black singer Marian Anderson to perform at Constitution Hall in Washington, D.C. Eleanor Roosevelt expressed her disapproval of this decision by publicly renouncing her membership of the DAR, an action that sent a strong message to the nation and became a defining moment in the civil rights movement. Eleanor Roosevelt continued to be an ally of African Americans and other marginalised groups throughout her life. Her commitment to social justice, her courage in the face of controversy and her willingness to challenge traditional norms and expectations made her an iconic figure in the fight for equality and justice. Her efforts, though often met with obstacles, helped lay the foundations for civil rights advances in the years that followed.

African-Americans were largely excluded from the benefits of New Deal policies. The low-skilled, low-paid jobs in which the majority of African-Americans were employed at the time were not sufficiently protected by the labour laws of the period. These jobs were often precarious, with little or no job security, no insurance and low wages, making life extremely difficult for African Americans. Due to pervasive segregation and racial discrimination, African Americans were also denied access to the employment opportunities and benefits available to whites. Institutionalised racism and discriminatory practices in the North and South exacerbated economic and social inequalities. Although some New Deal programmes offered assistance to the disadvantaged, African-Americans often did not benefit because of racist and discriminatory practices. The socio-economic disadvantage of African-Americans was also exacerbated by their exclusion from trade unions, which deprived them of the protection and benefits that came with them. Many unions were segregationist and restricted membership to whites. This exclusion severely limited the ability of black workers to negotiate fair wages, decent working conditions and benefits. Against this difficult backdrop, African Americans continued to fight for their civil and economic rights. Figures such as Eleanor Roosevelt and other allies spoke out in favour of African-American rights, but the road to equality and justice was still long and fraught with obstacles. It was not until decades later, with the civil rights movement of the 1950s and 1960s, that African Americans made significant progress in the fight against segregation, discrimination and economic inequality.

The Agricultural Adjustment Act (AAA) is a glaring example of how a seemingly well-intentioned policy can have unintended and harmful consequences for certain populations. The AAA was designed to combat the agricultural crisis of the 1920s and 1930s by stabilising the prices of agricultural products. By paying farmers not to cultivate part of their land, the idea was to reduce supply, raise prices and, consequently, increase farm incomes. However, the reality for tenant farmers and farm workers, particularly in the South, was very different. Landowners received AAA payments, but they were not required to share these funds with their tenant farmers or farm workers. Instead, many of these landowners used the payments to mechanise their farms or to replace cotton with less labour-intensive crops. With less land to cultivate and greater mechanisation, many sharecroppers and farm workers, a significant proportion of whom were African-American, were rendered redundant. Faced with these changes, thousands of African-Americans were driven off their land and lost their source of income. Many black tenant farmers were forced off their land without compensation. This mass eviction contributed to the rural exodus of African-Americans from the South during the Great Migration, as they sought employment opportunities and a better life in the industrial cities of the North and West. This demonstrates how policies, even if designed to bring economic relief, can have complex and divergent impacts on different groups in society. In the case of the AAA, the benefits for large landowners contrasted with the severe consequences for African-American sharecroppers and farmworkers.

African-American workers often faced structural barriers that limited their access to New Deal programmes, due to the control exercised by state and local authorities. Institutionalized racism and discriminatory practices, particularly in Southern states where segregation and discrimination were deeply entrenched, often prevented African-Americans from fully accessing the benefits of these programmes. African-American workers were often relegated to lower-paid jobs and had limited access to more advanced employment and training opportunities. Legal and social barriers also contributed to lower wages and inferior working conditions for black workers, even within New Deal programmes. Some programmes, such as the Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) and the Works Progress Administration (WPA), integrated African-American workers, but often in a segregated way and with limited opportunities compared to their white counterparts. Racial discrimination was common, and black workers were often assigned the hardest and lowest-paid jobs. Despite these challenges, the New Deal brought some benefits to black communities, including increased access to employment, housing and social services. In addition, the Roosevelt administration saw an increase in the number of blacks appointed to government positions, dubbed 'The Black Cabinet', which worked to address and alleviate some of the challenges African-Americans faced. Ultimately, although the New Deal had positive aspects, its benefits were unevenly distributed and African-Americans continued to face substantial discrimination and persistent economic and social inequalities. The need for deeper reforms and measures to specifically address racial inequalities became increasingly evident over time.

The New Deal programmes, despite their contributions to reducing unemployment and stimulating the US economy during the Great Depression, had a limited impact on reducing racial inequality and discrimination. Although these programmes offered jobs and economic support to millions of people, African-Americans were often left behind or discriminated against. Entrenched and institutionalised racial segregation, particularly in the American South, hindered African Americans' access to decent jobs, education and housing. Many New Deal programmes were implemented in such a way as to preserve existing social structures, including systems of segregation and discrimination. Jobs created by programmes such as the Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) and the Works Progress Administration (WPA) were often segregated by race, with unequal pay and opportunities. African-Americans, and black women in particular, often found themselves in the lowest paid and most precarious jobs. Yet it is worth noting that the New Deal marked a turning point in the federal government's commitment to issues of economic and social welfare, and laid the foundations for the civil rights movements that gained momentum in the 1950s and 1960s. Although limited in scope and impact, the New Deal nevertheless represented a significant expansion of government intervention in the economy, paving the way for subsequent reforms and efforts to combat racial and economic inequality in the decades that followed.

The Great Depression had a devastating impact on Mexican and Mexican-American communities in the United States. During this period, a phenomenon known as "Mexican Repatriation" occurred, where hundreds of thousands of people of Mexican descent, including many US citizens, were sent back to Mexico. This mass deportation was partly a response to public pressure and the mistaken belief that deporting Mexican immigrants would improve job prospects for US citizens during a period of high unemployment. People of Mexican origin, whether born in the United States or in Mexico, have been particularly affected by discrimination, xenophobia and hostile public policies. Entire cities in the United States have organised raids to deport Mexicans and Mexican-Americans, and many have been deported without due process. Moreover, repatriation was not just an urban phenomenon but also affected rural areas where Mexican workers played a vital role in agriculture. Many agricultural workers of Mexican origin were expelled, exacerbating their economic and social precariousness. These actions were often justified by the misconception that Mexican workers were "stealing jobs" or were a burden on social support systems during the economic crisis. However, these deportations often ignored the significant economic and cultural contributions of Mexican communities in the United States. The effects of these mass deportations and expulsions reverberated through generations and helped shape the complex dynamics of immigration, citizenship and identity that persist today between the United States and Mexico. This period highlights the profound impact of economic crises on immigration policies and the lives of immigrants and their descendants.

The Mexican repatriation campaign of the 1930s is an often neglected chapter in American history. This largely forgotten operation saw the forced departure of large numbers of Mexicans and Mexican Americans, including many legal US citizens. Local and federal authorities, in an attempt to reduce welfare costs and open up jobs for 'non-Mexican' Americans during the Great Depression, launched mass raids and deportations. These actions were often hasty and unregulated, with little or no regard for the legal rights of the individuals affected. Families were torn apart, property lost and lives turned upside down. Although the authorities claimed that repatriation was voluntary, numerous testimonies and historical documents reveal the coercive and often violent nature of these deportations. The social and economic impact of these expulsions was profound. For those forced to leave the United States, returning to Mexico often meant no improvement in their situation. They found themselves in a country they knew little about, without the resources and support they needed to establish themselves and prosper. For the Mexican and Mexican-American communities that remained in the United States, the experience left deep scars, exacerbating mistrust of the authorities and further isolating these communities. The repatriation of Mexicans and Mexican-Americans in the 1930s sheds crucial light on the challenges and conflicts inherent in immigration policies, particularly in the context of economic crises. It also highlights the need for careful and respectful consideration of human and civil rights, even in the most difficult of times.

The discrimination and racism exacerbated during the Great Depression inflicted considerable harm on Mexican immigrants and Mexican Americans. Hostility and prejudice against these communities intensified, fuelled by economic misery and despair. In a context of fierce competition for limited resources and employment opportunities, Mexican immigrants often became scapegoats, accused of exacerbating the economic crisis. In the workplace, these workers often faced unfair working conditions and low wages, and were the first to be made redundant when job opportunities became scarce. Limited access to healthcare, education and other public services, exacerbated by discrimination and segregation, contributed to their precarious situation. Faced with such overwhelming adversity, many opted to return to Mexico, a choice often perceived as the lesser evil despite the persistent economic challenges on the other side of the border. However, this return was not always a smooth transition. Many who had spent a large part of their lives in the United States now found themselves in a country that had become foreign to them, facing challenges of adaptation and integration. This historical episode highlights the complexity of immigration issues and racial discrimination, particularly in the context of an economic crisis. It highlights the vulnerability of minority and immigrant groups, and reminds us of the importance of inclusive and humanitarian approaches in public and social policies, to ensure that the rights and dignity of every individual are respected and protected.

The Indian Reorganization Act (IRA) of 1934 marked a significant transition in American policy towards indigenous peoples. Prior to the IRA, Indian policy had been dominated by the Dawes Act of 1887, which aimed to assimilate indigenous peoples by distributing tribal lands to specific individuals. This strategy had disastrous consequences, resulting in the massive loss of tribal lands and the dissolution of indigenous community and cultural structures. The Wheeler-Howard Act represented a step change. It sought to reverse previous policies of forced assimilation and encourage the cultural and economic rebirth of indigenous peoples. It ended the allotment policy, restored tribal management of unallotted lands, and encouraged tribes to adopt constitutional governments. Under the Act, tribes were encouraged to adopt constitutions and create corporate tribal governments to strengthen their autonomy. Another crucial aspect of the IRA was the provision of funds for the purchase of land to restore some of the territory lost by tribes during the allotment era. It also promoted education, health and economic development on Indian reserves. However, although the Act marked a step forward in recognising the rights of indigenous peoples, it was not without its critics. Some tribes objected to its "one size fits all" approach, arguing that it did not take sufficient account of the diversity of indigenous cultures and governance. In addition, implementation of the IRA was hampered by bureaucratic problems and a lack of funds. Nevertheless, the Wheeler-Howard Act represents a turning point in US Indian policy, ushering in an era of reconstruction and renewal for many indigenous communities, although many challenges remain in fully restoring their lands, rights and cultures.

The Indian Reorganization Act (IRA) of 1934 was a transformational legal instrument that substantially altered US policy towards indigenous peoples. The reversal of previous destructive policies of assimilation and allotment was a significant step forward. Tribes were given the legal right to reorganize, to form tribal governments, and to manage and own their own lands. The provision of funds by the IRA for the restoration of tribal lands and resources opened up avenues for cultural and economic regeneration. Tribes have not only been recognised as autonomous entities but have also been given the support they need to rebuild and develop their communities. Access to a credit system for indigenous tribes and individuals has promoted economic autonomy and innovation, enabling indigenous peoples to seek development solutions tailored to their specific needs. However, it should be noted that although the IRA has helped to lay the foundations for a substantial improvement in the living conditions and rights of indigenous peoples, it has not eliminated all the challenges. The struggle for full recognition of the territorial, cultural and social rights of indigenous peoples in the United States continues to be a central issue. The IRA, however, remains a milestone, marking the beginning of greater recognition of the rights of indigenous peoples and a movement towards greater autonomy and self-determination.

The Indian Reorganisation Act of 1934 undoubtedly introduced a radical change in the way the federal government interacted with indigenous peoples. It initiated a movement towards the restoration of tribal sovereignty and ended the allotment policy that had drastically reduced tribal lands. However, its implementation was hampered by a number of challenges, one of which was the uneven application of the law. While some tribes enjoyed greater autonomy and sovereignty, others encountered considerable opposition, both from within and outside their communities. Internal resistance often stemmed from distrust of the federal government, rooted in historical experiences of dispossession and discrimination. Tribes were sceptical about the intentions and implications of the legislation, leading to internal divisions and inconsistent adoption of the reforms. In addition, the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) did not always effectively support the implementation of the Act. Bureaucratic problems, lack of resources and, in some cases, a lack of political will to transfer power and control to tribal hands have undermined the Act's effectiveness. In addition, external interests, particularly those related to access to land and natural resources, have also played a role in obstructing the full realisation of indigenous peoples' rights. These interests, often backed by powerful political and economic entities, have sometimes hindered tribal efforts to regain and control their traditional lands and resources. Despite these challenges, it is important to recognise the significant impact of the Act on the revitalisation of tribal sovereignty, culture and economy. It marked the beginning of an era of greater recognition of the rights of indigenous peoples and laid the foundations for subsequent reforms and claims to territorial, cultural and political rights. The complexity and diversity of tribal experiences with the law reflect the multifaceted nature of the challenges and opportunities associated with the quest for self-determination and justice for indigenous peoples in the United States.

Summarise the impact of the New Deal on the country and its people[modifier | modifier le wikicode]

The final assessment of the New Deal is mixed. On the one hand, it is undeniable that the New Deal initiatives brought some relief in the midst of the Great Depression. Agencies and policies such as the Federal Emergency Relief Administration (FERA), the Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC), the National Recovery Administration (NRA), the Public Works Administration (PWA) and the Social Security Act were crucial in providing jobs, income and support to millions of Americans struggling to survive. However, there is a diverse set of critics who have attacked the New Deal from different angles. Economically, although the New Deal offered temporary respite, some argue that it failed to decisively end the Great Depression. For many, it was the war effort of the Second World War that catalysed the full economic recovery. Ideological controversies also emerged, with critics on the right condemning the expansion of government and economic intervention, and on the left wanting bolder measures to tackle poverty and inequality. In terms of implementation, the challenges were palpable. Organisations such as the NRA were criticised for being ineffective and even faced constitutional challenges, highlighting problems of management and legal legitimacy. Moreover, despite efforts to improve conditions for many Americans, questions of social justice were obviously present. The New Deal did not sufficiently address civil rights and equality issues for women and minorities, sometimes exacerbating existing inequalities and segregation. As such, the New Deal remains a period of significant historical importance, imbued with notable achievements and considerable challenges. It shaped the American political and economic landscape, and its resonances are still felt in contemporary debates about the role of government in the economy and society.

The New Deal encountered significant difficulties in achieving its objectives, particularly in reducing unemployment. Despite the introduction of ambitious and wide-ranging programmes designed to stimulate employment and economic growth, millions of Americans remained unemployed. The high rate of unemployment in 1939, representing 18% of the working population, is testimony to these persistent difficulties. The effectiveness of individual New Deal programmes was also a source of concern. While initiatives such as the CCC and PWA had a significant impact, others, such as the NRA, were marred by controversy and legal challenges. The Supreme Court's decision to declare the NRA unconstitutional was not only a blow to the Roosevelt administration but also highlighted inherent limitations in the design and implementation of New Deal policies. The challenges were not limited to employment and constitutional issues. The New Deal was also criticised for not sufficiently addressing deeper structural problems in the American economy and society. Issues of social justice, equality and civil rights are often cited as areas where the New Deal could, and should, have done more. These complexities contribute to a mixed record. While the New Deal laid the foundations for more robust government intervention in the economy and introduced important reforms and regulations, its shortcomings and failures have left an indelible mark on its legacy. Reflections on this period continue to inform the discourse on economic and social policy in the United States, illustrating the continuing tension between government intervention, market freedoms and the imperatives of social justice.

Although substantial steps were taken to mitigate the devastating effects of the Great Depression, pre-existing inequality and discrimination were to some extent exacerbated or neglected. Women, ethnic minorities and immigrants were often left behind, their specific needs and unique circumstances not sufficiently taken into account in policy formulation and implementation. Systemic discrimination and racism have continued, and in some cases worsened, due to a lack of attention and adequate responses from the authorities. This lack of inclusion and equity has left lasting scars and has contributed to the uneven landscape of opportunity and prosperity in the United States. On the economic front, despite the considerable efforts made under the New Deal, the full recovery of the US economy was achieved through industrial mobilisation and the massive spending associated with the Second World War. This dynamic overshadowed, to some extent, the achievements and limitations of the New Deal, highlighting the intrinsic challenges associated with reviving an economy in the grip of a deep and persistent depression.

The impact of the New Deal transcends mere economic indicators and extends into the social and political fabric of the nation. The initiatives adopted under the aegis of the New Deal not only sought to stabilise an economy in freefall, but also transformed the way in which the federal government was perceived and the nature of its involvement in the daily lives of Americans. Socially, the New Deal helped forge a new national identity. Faced with devastating economic hardship, citizens began to see the federal government not only as an entity capable of intervening in times of crisis, but also as one with a responsibility to do so. This shift in perception marked a turning point in the relationship between citizens and the state, setting a precedent for the expectation of proactive government intervention to alleviate economic and social hardship. Politically, the New Deal redefined the role of the federal government. Programs such as the Social Security Act, the Public Works Administration and the Federal Emergency Relief Administration expanded the government's mandate, establishing a more active role in areas such as social welfare, employment and infrastructure. This ushered in an era of active politics in which the government was intimately involved in the economy and society. The New Deal also gave rise to a series of regulations and reforms that would shape the country's political and economic structure for decades to come. The creation of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the adoption of the Glass-Steagall Act are examples of lasting reforms initiated during this period. These measures not only responded to immediate crises but also introduced structural reforms designed to prevent future economic disasters.

One of the most striking consequences of the New Deal was the expansion of the federal government's role in the daily lives of its citizens. This period saw a profound transformation in the way government was perceived and its role in the economy and society. Before the New Deal, the predominant model was one of minimal government intervention. Markets were largely left to their own devices, and the idea that government should intervene actively in the economy or in social life was less accepted. The Great Depression, however, exposed the flaws in this model. Faced with an unprecedented economic crisis, it became clear that without significant government intervention, recovery would be slow at best and impossible at worst. The New Deal therefore introduced a series of programmes and policies that not only sought to provide immediate relief but also aimed to reform and regulate the economy to prevent future crises. This marked a radical change in the role of the federal government. Agencies such as the Works Progress Administration (WPA) and the Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) played a direct role in job creation. The Social Security Act established a social security system that continues to be a fundamental part of the American social safety net. The creation of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) introduced regulations into a previously unregulated stock market. This transformation was not without controversy. It opened up debates about the appropriate scope of government, debates that continue to animate American politics to this day. However, the legacy of the New Deal is undeniable. It set a precedent for more robust government intervention in times of crisis, established new standards for workers' rights and protections, and laid the foundation for the modern social safety net. By transforming expectations about the role of government in protecting the economic and social well-being of its citizens, the New Deal redefined the American state and its social contract with the people.

The political impact of the New Deal was profound and helped reshape the American political landscape for generations to come. Under the leadership of Franklin D. Roosevelt, the Democratic Party embodied an active governmental response to the Great Depression. The programmes and policies introduced not only offered tangible relief but also symbolised the party's commitment to supporting those citizens most vulnerable and affected by the economic crisis. This has led to a significant political realignment. The working class, minorities and other socially and economically disadvantaged groups turned to the Democratic Party, seeing it as a defender of their interests and a means of improving their living conditions. The "New Deal Coalition", a political alignment that brought together diverse groups to support the Democratic Party, grew out of this period and dominated American politics for decades. The popularity of the Democratic Party among workers and working class citizens was reinforced by policies that directly addressed their needs and concerns. The introduction of labour rights legislation, job creation and social security programmes established a close link between the Democratic Party and the working class. This realignment had lasting implications. The Democratic Party became associated with a larger and more active federal government, the social and economic protection of citizens and the advancement of workers' rights. This defined the party's identity for much of the 20th century and continues to influence its philosophy and policies. By consolidating its role as a workers' party and establishing a precedent for active government intervention, the New Deal not only responded to the immediate challenges of the Great Depression but also shaped the political and social future of the United States.

The legislation and agencies established under the New Deal had a profound and lasting impact, not only in responding to the emergencies of the Great Depression, but also in instituting structural reforms that continue to benefit American society. The Social Security Act, for example, was a revolutionary step in creating a social safety net for Americans. It introduced retirement benefits for the elderly, providing an essential source of income and financial security for those who could no longer work. This support system not only helped individuals but also helped reduce poverty among the elderly, having a wider positive social impact. The National Labor Relations Act, also known as the Wagner Act, was also a fundamental part of the New Deal. By protecting workers' rights to organise, form unions and bargain collectively, the Act helped to balance power between workers and employers. It set standards for working conditions and wages, improving workers' quality of life and strengthening the working class. The creation of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) is another example of the New Deal's lasting legacy. By guaranteeing bank deposits, the FDIC restored confidence in the US banking system after the catastrophic bank failures of the Great Depression. This not only stabilised the economy in the short term, but also created a sense of financial security among Americans that continues to be a pillar of the country's economic stability. Each of these programs and policies has helped shape an America where government plays an active role in protecting and promoting the well-being of its citizens. They helped set a precedent for government intervention in favour of social and economic justice, and their impacts are felt decades after their introduction.

The Second World War had a major impact on the US economy, marking a decisive turning point in the recovery from the Great Depression. The massive increase in industrial production to support the war effort not only boosted the economy, but also created millions of jobs, helping to solve the persistent problem of unemployment that had plagued the country throughout the 1930s. Factories and production facilities that had previously been dormant or underused were transformed into buzzing centres of activity, producing a variety of goods for the war effort, from munitions to military vehicles and aircraft. This increase in production also had a knock-on effect on other sectors of the economy, stimulating demand and production in related industries. The huge increase in government spending to finance the war effort injected vital energy into the economy. Funding the production of war material not only created jobs but also increased overall demand, stimulating economic growth and boosting household incomes. What's more, military service also absorbed a significant proportion of the workforce, helping to further reduce the unemployment rate. Mobilisation for war also had wider effects. It helped to catalyse innovation and technological development, and fostered a new era of cooperation between government, industry and the military. The war effort also contributed to the social and economic integration of previously marginalised groups, including minorities and women, opening up new opportunities for employment and participation in national economic life.

The Second World War had a dramatic effect on the American economy and labour market. The rapid and vast expansion of the defence industry created a huge need for labour, absorbing large numbers of workers and significantly reducing the unemployment rate. Millions of Americans were employed to produce goods and equipment for the war effort, transforming a stagnant economy into a thriving production machine. The huge injection of government spending was a major catalyst. As the production of war material increased, industries such as steel, shipbuilding and transport expanded significantly. This not only led to a boom in these specific sectors, but also generated an increase in economic activity throughout the country. Entire towns and communities have been revitalised, and the country's economic dynamic has been transformed. The massive mobilisation of resources and workers for the war also had positive secondary impacts on the country's social and economic structure. For example, it facilitated the integration of previously marginalised groups, such as women and ethnic minorities, into the workforce. Women, in particular, played a crucial role in the war effort, occupying positions previously reserved for men and demonstrating their ability to contribute effectively to roles in a variety of sectors of the economy. So, although the context of the war was tragic, the war effort nonetheless helped to stimulate a previously depressed economy, drastically reduce unemployment, and lay the foundations for post-war prosperity in the United States. It also marked a transition in which government played an active and decisive role in the economy, a legacy that persists in many ways today.

The impact of the Second World War on technological development and innovation was another key factor contributing to the restructuring of the US economy. The war necessitated the rapid development and adoption of advanced technologies to support the war effort, which in turn facilitated a transition to a diversified and innovative post-war economy. Massive investment in research and development during the war led to advances in areas such as aeronautics, communications, medicine and manufacturing. These innovations were not only crucial to the war effort, but also found civilian applications, stimulating economic growth and productivity in the post-war period. A classic example is the development of jet technology and advanced electronics, which paved the way for the expansion of the civil aviation industry and consumer electronics in the following decades. Similarly, advances in medicine and pharmacology improved public health and quality of life, contributing to a healthier and more productive workforce. The war also led to a considerable expansion and modernisation of America's industrial infrastructure. Factories and production facilities were modernised and expanded, facilitating increased production and diversification in the post-war period. As a result, the post-war US economy was characterised by rapid growth, continued innovation and increased prosperity. The foundations laid during the war, including technological advances, investment in infrastructure and the expansion of production capacity, helped to make the United States a global economic superpower in the second half of the 20th century. The impact of this transformation is still felt today, testifying to the scale and scope of the changes initiated during this crucial period.

USA annual real GDP from 1910 to 1960, with the years of the Great Depression (1929–1939) highlighted.
Unemployment rate in the US 1910–1960, with the years of the Great Depression (1929–1939) highlighted; accurate data begins in 1939.
GDP growth in a number of countries between 1929 and 1939.

Annexes[modifier | modifier le wikicode]

1929-1939 : Une décennie de misère (La Grande Dépression au Canada)
Textes sur la Grande crise des années 1930 Cliotexte.
Souvenirs et réflexions sur l'âge de l'inflation de Jacques Rueff, économiste et ancien fonctionnaire du Trésor Français.
Le Crach de 1929 et la grande Dépression - Comment éviter une répétition de la débâcle Keynésienne
1932 popular vote by counties
How close was the 1932 election? — Michael Sheppard, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Foreign Affairs,. (2015). The Great Depression. Retrieved 29 October 2015, from https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/united-states/1932-07-01/great-depression
When Did the Great Depression Receive Its Name? (And Who Named It?), 2-16-09, by Noah Mendel, History News Network though Hoover is widely credited with popularizing the term
Klingaman, William K. (1989). 1929: The Year of the Great Crash. New York: Harper & Row. ISBN 0-06-016081-0.
Harold Bierman, Jr. (April 1998). The Causes of the 1929 Stock Market Crash: A Speculative Orgy or a New Era?. Greenwood Publishing Group. pp. 19–29. ISBN 978-0-313-30629-7.
"Market crash of 1929: Some facts of the economic downturn". Economic Times. Times Inernet. October 22, 2017. Retrieved February 16, 2019.
"Hoovervilles and Homelessness". washington.edu.
Carswell, Andrew T. (2012). "Hooverville". The Encyclopedia of Housing (Second ed.). SAGE. p. 302. ISBN 9781412989572.
"Farm Security Administration/Office of War Information Black-and-White Negatives: About this Collection". Library of Congress. 1935
Charles Kenneth Roberts, Farm Security Administration and Rural Rehabilitation in the South. Knoxville, TN: University of Tennessee Press, 2015
James Ciment, Encyclopedia of the Great Depression and the New Deal (2001) Vol. 1 p. 6
Indian Reorganization Act - Information & Video - Chickasaw.TV
Texte de l’Indian Reorganization Act et de ses amendements

References[modifier | modifier le wikicode]

↑ Aline Helg - UNIGE
↑ Aline Helg - Academia.edu
↑ Aline Helg - Wikipedia
↑ Aline Helg - Afrocubaweb.com
↑ Aline Helg - Researchgate.net
↑ Aline Helg - Cairn.info
↑ Aline Helg - Google Scholar
↑ Per-capita GDP data from MeasuringWorth: What Was the U.S. GDP Then?

[1] Aline Helg - UNIGE

[2] Aline Helg - Academia.edu

[3] Aline Helg - Wikipedia

[4] Aline Helg - Afrocubaweb.com

[5] Aline Helg - Researchgate.net

[6] Aline Helg - Cairn.info

[7] Aline Helg - Google Scholar

[8] Per-capita GDP data from MeasuringWorth: What Was the U.S. GDP Then?

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

« The Great Depression and the New Deal: 1929 - 1940 » : différence entre les versions