Board of Trade Inquiry
The inquiry led by Lord Mersey was criticized for potential bias and inadequate scrutiny of the Board of Trade’s actions. The Board’s involvement in setting the inquiry’s scope restricted a full exploration of accountability at higher levels within the government and industry.
Responsibility and Scapegoating
The inquiry disproportionately shifted blame onto low-level figures, such as the crew of nearby ships like the Californian. The Board of Trade and White Star Line avoided substantial accountability, partly due to procedural issues and vested interests.
Systemic Industry Influence
Shipping industry representatives and politicians aligned with industry interests downplayed safety concerns in Parliament. The article argues that this “regulatory capture” prioritized commercial interests over public safety.
Comparative Analysis of Inquiries
Contrasts are drawn between the British and American inquiries into the disaster. The American Senate inquiry was more critical, particularly regarding Captain Smith’s speed in iceberg-prone waters and the influence of industry on regulation.
Legacy and Cultural Shifts
Despite post-Titanic regulations like the introduction of lifeboats for all, the article suggests that broader cultural and structural shifts in regulatory enforcement are necessary to prevent future disasters.
Find it on dx.doi.org
Encyclopedia Titanica is not responsible for the content of external sites, and the availability of links may change.
Citation:
Iain Mclean & Martin Johnes (2000) ‘Regulation Run Mad’: The Board of Trade and the Loss of the Titanic, Public Administration, Vol. 78, No. 4
About Research References on Encyclopedia Titanica
This item is not available to read on Encyclopedia Titanica, but we have included it as a reference, provided a brief summary of the key points, and linked to the original source to help readers interested in the finer details of the Titanic story.