ABSTRACT
WithintheEC,nationalstateshaverespondedinvariouswaystothis situationofcrisis;forexample,insomecasesthishasinvolveddeJureorde factonationalization,asinBelgiumandFrance;inothers,thesubsidization andencouragementofprivatecapital'srestructuringofsteelproduction,asin Germany.Suchresponsesandpoliciestowardssteelproductioncannotbe understoodinisolationfromthoseatthesupranationalEClevel,however. Forasaresultoftheprovisionsofthe1951TreatyofParis,whichestablished theEuropeanCoalandSteelCommunity(ECSC)andwereconfirmedinthe 1957TreatyofRome,thelegalbasisoftheEuropeanEconomicCommunity (seeVaughan,1976),theCommissionoftheEuropeanCommunities(CEC) hasformalpowersofcontroloverthesteelindustrywithintheECinrespect ofcapitalinvestment,financeandprices.TheCEC'sinitialresponsetothe crisiswasthe1977DavignonPlan(CEC,1977).Thisrepresentedanattempt toregulatetheECsteelmarketandtoavoidapricewar,whichhadthree broadaims:toreducecapacitythroughplantclosuresandproductionquotas, tobringaboutcoordinatedpriceincreases,andtoabolishsubsidies.ImplementationofthePlandependeduponvoluntarycooperationfromprivate capitalandnationalstates:asaresult,itseffectivenesswaspartialanduneven. Becauseofthisandthepersistenceanddeepeningofthecrisisinsteel,in
Introduction 203
been discussed elsewhere. Rather we wish to focus upon the different forms of opposition to specific steel closure plans in different regions and localities, on the different forms of expression of attachment to locality, region and class in the face of the destruction of what often was effectively the economic rationale of these areas; in brief, with the politics of region and class in opposing steel closures. These forms of opposition to closure are not to be regarded merely as a response to restructuring decisions taken by private capital and/or national states (see Carney, 1980), or indeed the embryonic supranational state of the EC, but rather as themselves an active and formative element in this process (see also Sadler, 1982a). The two cases that we have selected for further analysis here - northeast England and north and east France1 - have been chosen because they simultaneously represent very different forms of protest, yet at the same time are linked in various ways.
