462 TRANSACTIONS OF SECTION F. 
hand, legislation in a new country is much more conscious. Not only are 
there fewer customary bonds, but there is less regard for those which there 
are. I do not wish to pronounce any opinion as to the net advantages of one 
method or the other. The point to be emphasised is the existence of a 
difference in this as in many other respects. 
To what, it may be asked, does the examination summarised under the fore- 
going headings point? In the first place, it gives some grounds for and explains 
the nature of public action as it has manifested itself in these countries. Now, 
an active state policy in social and economic matters may be due to many 
reasons. It may arise from an imperfect individual development, or, again, 
from what seems at first sight nearly the same thing but is really quite different 
—the existence of a highly organised and peculiarly efficient bureaucracy. But 
neither of these is true of the principal countries under consideration; in the 
United States, Canada, and Australasia, individuality is a very vital force, and 
the tendency of government cannot be termed unduly bureaucratic. The latter 
point may be illustrated by a comparison with modern Germany, which has been 
influenced so greatly by the system of bureaucratic administration built up by 
Stein and his successors. Of course, good officials can always achieve a great 
deal, but it is one thing to use officials and the official system as instruments 
to give effect to a policy, and another to take a policy from them. It must not 
be supposed, however, that democratic countries are altogether free from this 
latter danger. They are liable to it, unless means be adopted to keep the people 
as a whole in immediate contact with problems of government and to give them 
opportunities of co-operating in some way or other in public administration. 
But to return to the main point. State activity in these countries seems to me 
due to quite other causes; on the one hand, the occasions for it are more 
numerous and the opportunities for it great; on the other hand, not only is there 
a natural predisposition in its favour, but many of the objections present in 
older countries are absent. But both these matters require explanation. With 
regard to the occasions for state action, economists, differ though they may on 
the question of its abstract desirability, will agree, I imagine, that in propor- 
tion as these are multiplied the tendency towards such action will increase. If 
we turn to what has already been said, it is clear beyond doubt that an unusual 
opening for such action is afforded in the circumstances enumerated. Thus the 
case of young industries in a new country has been admitted fairly generally to 
afford an argument for protection specifically different from those adduced in 
other instances. It is not merely the case of young industries, but, to repeat my 
words, of young industries in a new country. Again, the regulation of immi- 
gration is presented in a very particular form. Whatever may be thought of 
any particular policy of restriction—and everyone is aware that there are many 
and varying considerations to take into account—a country deriving a large 
part of its labour-supply from outside will naturally claim to exercise a super- 
vision over the nature of that supply not less than it exerts by education and 
other means over the labour supplied and trained within its confines. Again, 
in a country developing its resources and its latent natural wealth, and under 
considerable and inevitable pressure to move rapidly, a large field for State 
action opens out. But in addition State action in the circumstances of a new 
country is advantageously placed, inasmuch as it takes place early, when there 
is little to upset, and when action of any kind and by any body is most likely 
to achieve really tangible results. In other words, not only are the occasions 
many, but the opportunity for effective action is favourable. Furthermore, the 
exploitation of resources, hitherto untouched, by modern and scientific methods 
puts a powerful instrument at the disposal of the Government which was wholly 
wanting in former days, while, on the other hand, the knowledge of the results 
which have ensued in other lands from uncontrolled individual competition indi- 
cates the direction which action should take. To this are due the attempts 
made in some, at least, of these countries to regulate the relations of capital 
and labour. Certainly, in matters of this kind, those communities have initial 
advantages, when measures are undertaken in a comparatively early stage of 
growth—hbefore, that is, industries have assumed the intricate form usual in 
old lands. Nor does this exhaust the situation. A new country is inclined to 
novel methods of action, as is shown by the general favour with which fresh 
expedients are received. While a tendency like this is due in part to the innate 
