Definition
Laissez faire is a French term that literally means to ‘let do’ or ‘leave alone’. However, in English the term is used to describe governments who believe they should not get involved in people’s lives.
Explanation
Different governments have different beliefs and ideas about the role of the state in society. Some people believe the government should do as little as possible and leave people to live their lives without interference. This is often described as being a laissez faire attitude.
In history, it is most associated with the attitude of the governments in Britain during the 19th century. With growing scientific evidence of a link between living amongst filth and squalor and contracting diseases such as cholera, there were demands for the government to intervene.
The people who made these calls argued it was the government’s responsibility to remove the sewage and provide access to clean drinking water.
However, up until the Second Public Health Act was passed in 1875, the government’s approach to public health was described as laissez faire. The government argued it was an individual’s responsibility to ensure they lived in clean conditions and, if that individual wanted to live in filth, the government had no right to stop them.
Several factors led to British governments’ ending their laissez faire approach to public health.
Edwin Chadwick’s report in 1842 argued that the filthy conditions in Britain’s cities were making people sick and preventing them going to work - which was costing Britain money.
In 1854, John Snow proved the link between cholera and water. Before this, it was widely believed that the deadly disease spread through bad air or miasmas.
The long, hot summer of 1858 caused the river Thames to become so clogged with human sewage that it became known as the ‘Great Stink’. The smell was so overpowering that it forced Parliament to close.
In 1861, Louis Pasteur published his Germ Theory which provided a scientific explanation for the link between dirt and disease.
The enormous and rapid growth of the industrial cities in Britain meant, for the first time in history, millions of people were living together. It became clear that there needed to be a clear strategy to deal with the sewage produced by millions of people. In a small village, it was easy to avoid other people’s filth and to stay clean. In a city like London that had a population of nearly 4 million people in 1870, it was impossible.
The 1875 Public Health Act signalled the end of the laissez faire approach to public health in Britain. After that act was passed, clean water had to be provided to every house and underground sewers had to be built - by law. Rubbish also had to be collected and medical officers were appointed to inspect areas to ensure they were sanitary.
However, the term has also been used to describe attitudes to other public health matters, such as smoking tobacco. Those with a laissez faire attitude argue that, as grown adults, people should be free to smoke tobacco however they wish, despite its proven deadly dangers. Others argue that government measures, such as plain packaging and smoking indoors in public places, save lives.
The term laissez faire is not limited to public health matters. Several American presidents have been described as having a laissez faire attitude, most notably Calvin Coolidge who was president between 1923 and 1929.
Coolidge is viewed as having a laissez faire attitude towards the economy because he thought that the government should not interfere with business. He reduced government spending and introduced tax cuts so that businesses could use more of the money they earned to invest and expand.
He also stopped bills that would have given aid to farmers, Coolidge argued that farms, and businesses, should be free to succeed - or fail - on their own without being bailed out by the government.
Other American presidents who are commonly viewed as having a laissez faire approach to the economy are Warren G. Harding and Grover Cleveland.
Key Historical Facts
John Snow played a key role in establishing the link between cholera and water - which in turn helped defeat the arguments of those in favour of the government’s laissez faire. After a cholera outbreak in London’s Soho in 1854, Snow conducted house to house interviews to identify both the number of deaths and where they sourced their water. The map illustrated that the street pump on Broad Street was at the centre of the outbreak. None of the 70 workers at the brewery located next to the pump had contracted cholera because the brewery had its own water supply - further strengthening Snow’s argument.
Exactly how cholera was transported in the water remained unknown in 1854. This was still before Pasteur’s Germ Theory and Snow himself believed that cholera spread through miasma in the water.
The success of the sewer system built by Joseph Bazalgette was also important in bringing the government’s laissez faire attitude to an end. He oversaw the construction of over 130km of sewers beneath London that opened in 1865. The sewers removed around 2 million cubic meters of sewage every single day and helped to dramatically reduce the number of cases of diseases such as cholera and typhus.
Louis Pasteur categorically proved that the germs in human excrement are deadly dangerous - meaning the government could no longer ‘leave people alone’ to live in filth. Pasteur was not the first person to discover germs but he was the first to understand that some of the germs are responsible for sickness and can be deadly if ingested.
When the government introduced the idea of making the wearing of seatbelts in cars compulsory in the 1980s, people adopted similar laissez faire attitudes. They argued it was an individual's right to choose whether they wore a seatbelt or not and that the state had no right to interfere.
People sometimes incorrectly identify Herbert Hoover as a president with a laissez faire attitude. Hoover was the president at the time of the Wall Street Crash and at the beginning of the Great Depression.
Frequently Asked Questions
When did laissez faire attitudes come to an end?
They never really have. In terms of public health in Britain, you could argue that the second Public Health Act of 1875 signalled the end of the government’s laissez faire attitude. BUt the debate over how much the government becomes involved in people’s lives in ongoing. Broadly speaking, those on the right of the political spectrum are more likely to have a laissez faire approach to government whilst those on the left prefer more state intervention.
What was the most important reason for ending the British government’s laissez faire approach to public health in the 19th century?
Various different factors combined to change the attitude of the British government towards public health. These include working class men gaining the right to vote in 1867, the scientific breakthroughs of John Snow and Louis Pasteur and the arguments of people like Edwin Chadwick. Which was the most important is a matter of debate amongst historians but they were all important.
Did other countries have the same laissez faire attitude to public health as Britain in the 19th century?
Britain was probably more strongly in favour of a laissez faire approach than other similarly developed countries of that time.
In France, Paris was utterly transformed during Haussmann’s renovations during the 1850,60s and 70s. Much of the motivation for doing this was to clear the slums and build sewers to prevent cholera epidemics such as the one in 1832.
Public health was also taken very seriously in the German and Scandinavian states, where they invested heavily and took a coordinated approach.
However, the United States government did not become involved until very late in the 19th century and viewed public health as a local authority matter rather than something for the national, or federal, government.
Was the laissez faire policy of Republican governments responsible for the Wall Street Crash?
Most historians agree that, although the laissez faire approach of the Republican governments did not cause the Great Depression, they helped create the conditions for it and led to a slow response to it.
The lack of regulation or oversight led to banks making millions of unsafe loans. This led to people buying stocks ‘on the margin’ which created an enormous ‘bubble’ of overvalued shares.
The reluctance to get involved after the Wall Street Crash is also seen as leading to a deeper and longer Depression.
What is the opposite of laissez faire?
The opposite of laissez faire is often called interventionism - because the governments intervene in people’s lives. When people believe there is too much intervention by the government, they sometimes refer to the ‘nanny state’. This implies that people are being treated like children or babies by the government who are acting like a childminder or nanny.
Related Glossaries
Examiner-written GCSE History revision resources that improve your grades 2x
- Written by expert teachers and examiners
- Aligned to exam specifications
- Everything you need to know, and nothing you don’t
Share this article
written revision resources that improve your