The Political Earthquake of 1929: A Nation in Ruins
The Great Depression, starting in 1929, was more than an economic meltdown—a political earthquake that upended governance in the United States, catalysing an unprecedented government role in economic life. The seeds of the Depression were sown in the “Roaring Twenties,” marked by rapid industrial growth, speculative investments, and easy credit. During this period, consumer credit expanded by 55% between 1921 and 1929, fuelling widespread borrowing for luxury items, homes, and automobiles. The stock market became a venue for a wide range of investors, supported by an easy system of margin loans—requiring just a 10% initial down payment. This speculative bubble, propelled by the proliferation of investment trusts and lax regulations, led to unsustainable asset prices. In 1928, the Federal Reserve, concerned by these excesses, tightened monetary policy, which had the unintended effect of destabilising the market. The market collapse on Black Tuesday, October 29, 1929, erased $30 billion in stock value, nearly 10% of U.S. GDP, sending shockwaves through the economy.
In the aftermath, businesses rapidly reduced production, resulting in layoffs and bankruptcies across sectors, particularly manufacturing and construction, which faced declines of over 30%. Banks, overextended from risky loans, began failing, with roughly 9,000 closures from 1930 to 1933, wiping out millions in life savings. By 1933, the unemployment rate had surged to 25%, and national income plummeted nearly 50%. The sight of soup kitchens, bread lines, and shantytowns—dubbed "Hoovervilles"—underscored the era’s desolation and laid bare the failures of the laissez-faire economic approach.
This laissez-faire approach, which had defined 1920s U.S. policy, promised prosperity through minimal government interference, leaving economic growth to the private market. However, the Depression exposed significant failings in this hands-off ideology and the political institutions that enabled it, as unchecked financial practices flourished. Public trust in government and political leadership rapidly dwindled, sparking widespread calls for intervention. That transformation of public opinion gave room for President Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal, a policy that delivered a comprehensive federal response to an economic crisis facing the United States. New Deal programs were policies like the Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) and the Works Progress Administration (WPA), which enabled job creation and activated America's economy.
The revolutionary policies of the New Deal reflected the deepest ideological changes: they overturned free-market orthodoxy and laid down a governmental legacy of interventionism. The New Deal shaped the relations between citizens and the state and founded an irreversibly heightened expectation that the federal government would address economic and social welfare problems.
A Political Revolution: The Rise of the Democratic Party
One of the major political upheavals in U.S. history is marked by the decline of the Republicans after the Great Depression. For years, the Republican Party dominated the presidency and Congress based on its pro-business agenda that advocated free markets and government interference only as a last resort. The Roaring Twenties brought a consolidation of power behind Republicans since their policies were perceived to be at the heart of economic expansion. It was, however, the crash of 1929 that seriously exposed critical flaws in their model, particularly its emphasis on deregulation and minimal oversight.
The Herbert Hoover administration's failure to effectively respond to the crisis led voters to seek alternatives, turning toward the Democratic Party, which advocated for a more interventionist government role in addressing the Depression’s widespread suffering. The Democrats, under Roosevelt, did not merely promote an expanded government role; they crafted a novel political narrative that fused economic intervention with the idea of a government that proactively represented the needs of “forgotten Americans,” including marginalised groups and labourers. This inclusive narrative resonated powerfully in urban centres where joblessness and poverty were especially acute. Franklin D. Roosevelt became the leading figure of this political upheaval. His New Deal agenda promised relief, recovery, and reform, which stirred the hearts of people desperate to change circumstances.
The election of 1932 was a landslide for Roosevelt and a watershed moment in political transitions. Notably, Roosevelt’s victory was supported by a coalition that came to be known as the “New Deal Coalition,” a diverse alignment of interests that included urban working-class individuals, African Americans (who began to shift from the Republican Party), and ethnic minorities. This coalition’s stability helped the Democrats dominate American politics for the next several decades, effectively realigning voter loyalty along socio-economic rather than strictly regional lines.
The Democratic Party, which once represented the rural South, became the party of urban workers, minority groups, and the poorest victims of the Depression. New Deal coalitions under Roosevelt, labour unions, and progressive intellectuals remade the political landscape for generations. The realignment led to increased government intervention in economic and social problems, thus defining a new epoch in American politics. This shift effectively enshrined the expectation that the federal government had a duty to act not only in times of crisis but also to promote sustained economic stability and social welfare—a revolutionary expectation that endures to this day.
The New Deal and Balancing the Scales: Government Intervention vs. Free Market Ideals
Roosevelt's New Deal shifted the course of American political history as it altered the face of the government in the lives of the citizens. Before the New Deal, under previous Republican governments, the federal government had less concern with the economy; instead, they practiced Adam Smith's theory of a free-forcing market with minimal intervention. However, that could not be the case, since millions of Americans were being denied employment, homes, and other necessities during the Great Depression.
As a result, Roosevelt's New Deal brought a series of relief, recovery, and reform measures. Initiatives such as Social Security provided monetary support to elderly and handicapped people, and the Works Progress Administration (WPA) was able to employ millions. Young men were provided with jobs in the field of conservation through the Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC). Apart from reducing the immediate pain, it was an initiative to prevent an economic crisis from recurring again by building the financial infrastructure differently. These were revolutionary at the time but provoked a furore nationwide. Advocates of the New Deal took the excuse of the crisis to justify governmental intervention to protect the people and reactivate the economy. Detractors—as vocally throughout the business leadership and most strenuously on the right—perceived these actions as an overreach, a step to stifle entrepreneurial spirit, disrupt the flow of the natural market, and establish a dangerous precedent for future governmental control of economic activity.
The New Deal represented a radical shift in the role of the federal government and away from laissez-faire economic policies that had till then been the hallmark of U.S. politics. Thus, during the pre-Great Depression periods, political thought was shaped by the ideology that less government interference would allow free market forces to promote growth and stability. This came from the theory of classical liberalism that described society as essentially individualistic and viewed markets as capable of self-regulation. However, the economic disaster brought about by the Great Depression broke up the public belief in these doctrines.
This tension became a core theme in U.S. political discourse, pitting those who supported greater government action in times of economic crisis against those who argued that a free market, unburdened by regulation, remained the best path to prosperity. Decisions continue to this day about balancing government activism against market freedom and whether New Deal policies paved a better way out of the Great Depression.
Rural America’s Struggle and the Populist Response
The Great Depression presented rural America with different and, in some ways, more serious economic problems than the cities faced. Throughout the 1920s, agricultural prices had been on a downward trajectory, largely due to overproduction following World War I and reduced demand from war-torn Europe. Crop prices were plummeting; farmers, who had borrowed much in anticipation of better times with increased production, were seeing their debts skyrocket.
Commodity prices fell still further. It became impossible for farm sales to cover the costs of production, and farmers had less than pennies on the dollar left over to repay their debts. Many small-scale farmers, without savings, experienced waves of bankruptcy and foreclosures. Farm income had shrunk by more than 60 percent by 1930, and by 1933, many families had reached a point of economic ruin. Foreclosures of their lands also added hardships, since entire communities suffered from this economic collapse.
Rural banks too suffered severely in the crisis. These little banks had loaned liberally to farmers but soon couldn't collect those loans because foreclosures mounted. Bank failures soared across the countryside, and credit access was closed tight, further worsening the plight of farmers in desperate need of credit to get them through the bad times. The last serious blow had, however, come from the Dust Bowl—an environmental disaster in the 1930s caused by severe drought and poor farming practices that led to massive dust storms, devastating millions of acres of farmland. This catastrophe forced mass migrations from rural areas into cities in search of work as farmers abandoned their land, unable to sustain agriculture.
To this rural distress of inequitable distribution and growing inequalities between individual farmers, populist movements sprang up, crusading for solutions to redress this disturbance. The first dramatisation of such sentiment was Huey Long, the flamboyant governor of Louisiana, whose "Share Our Wealth" plan consisted of capping personal fortunes and a guaranteed minimum income for all Americans—ideas that struck a deep chord in rural Americans who felt deserted by the federal government and the traditional political elites.
Despite his career having been cut off tragically by assassination in 1935, Long's populist movement has made such an indelible mark on American politics that it is impossible to remove. Long's campaign focused attention on the large gap existing between rural and industrial America. It underlined growing distaste for federal policies that at least seemed directed disproportionately toward urban and industrial sectors. Long's call for redistribution of wealth and economic reform provided a platform for further challenges to the status quo.
Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal tackled the matter by putting in place several programs meant to bring relief to farmers and resuscitate agriculture. The Agricultural Adjustment Act (AAA) was meant to stabilise farm income by reducing crop and livestock output while offering government subsidies to prevent low prices. The policy was highly criticised because it required farmers to reduce production, even in regions like Oklahoma, where people were already suffering from severe food shortages. Many felt destroying crops or limiting output was counterproductive when so many were going hungry. Critics argued that the programme, instead of alleviating suffering, seemed to worsen the plight of the starving populace, despite its intention to stabilise prices and revive the agricultural sector. Nonetheless, the AAA marked Washington’s much more in agricultural management.
Most other New Deal programs incorporated the Rural Electrification Administration (REA), establishing electricity in isolated farming communities. It represented the modernisation of rural infrastructure and was meant to improve the quality of life. Such measures represented unparalleled federal involvement in rural America, providing short-term relief while providing the foundation for later government intervention in agriculture.
Despite such measures, however, the New Deal did little to fundamentally stabilise agriculture during the Depression. These policies provided short-term relief but addressed not at all the underlying problems afflicting rural America since the 1920s—overproduction and price volatility. Nonetheless, New Deal agricultural policies established a foundation for greater federal involvement in the decades to come and cemented the government as an important manager of the country's rural economy.
Crop | 1929 Price (per unit) | 1933 Price (per unit) | Percentage Drop |
Wheat | $1.05 | $0.38 | -63.80% |
Corn | $0.80 | $0.32 | -60.00% |
Cotton | $0.18 | $0.06 | -66.70% |
Livestock | $12.50 | $4.25 | -66.00% |
Table 1: Agricultural Price Drops (1929–1933)
Temin, Peter. Did Monetary Forces Cause the Great Depression? W.W. Norton & Company, 1976.
The African-American Experience: A Double-Edged Sword
Economic contraction further exacerbated the systemic racial discrimination that African-Americans suffered. The South was, by far, the home state of most African Americans; racial segregation and disenfranchisement made relief difficult to access when available. Many were sharecroppers or tenant farmers with very little job security to begin with. Jobs simply disappeared, and entire families of coloured people went destitute during the Depression. In urban centres in the North, African-Americans faced “last hired, first fired” policies, making them more susceptible to unemployment as industrial jobs evaporated. National unemployment rates were staggering, but for African-Americans, these figures were nearly double, compounding their existing socioeconomic vulnerabilities.
The New Deal gave much-needed relief to African Americans, but it was far from perfect. Although thousands of African Americans were put to work through the WPA (Works Progress Administration) and CCC (Civilian Conservation Corps), the programs remained largely segregated, and the remuneration paid to African-American workers was lesser than that of Whites. In some cases, these relief jobs were designated as “low-skilled” positions to justify lower wages, effectively institutionalising racial wage gaps within federal programs. Some of the New Deal programs, such as the Agricultural Adjustment Act, made the situation worse for African American farmers by producing fewer crops and removing tenant farmers. As landlords received government subsidies to leave land fallow, many African American tenant farmers and sharecroppers were evicted without compensation, leaving them with few options for their livelihood.
Nonetheless, the New Deal brought into being a political realignment for African-Americans. Throughout most of American history, African-Americans had been the bulwark of the Republican Party—the party of Abraham Lincoln. However, as the Democratic Party began with Roosevelt to openly advocate for workers' rights and those of the poor, this greatly influenced African-Americans. The Democratic platform, while not explicitly addressing civil rights at the time, marked a departure from the open indifference shown by previous administrations. Roosevelt’s inclusion of African Americans within his “Black Cabinet,” an informal advisory group, fostered hope that the party was moving, albeit slowly, toward greater inclusivity. This realignment would eventually become the linchpin of part of the Civil Rights Movement as more and more African-Americans sought equality in both politics and society. The political shift initiated during the Depression ultimately set the foundation for African Americans to influence broader social and political reforms in the decades that followed, reflecting an enduring legacy of the New Deal’s impact on racial politics in America.
Labour Unions and the Fight for Workers’ Rights
The Great Depression also dealt a devastating blow to the American labour movement. As businesses filed for bankruptcy and unemployment soared, union rolls plummeted. Many entrepreneurs took the economic meltdown as an excuse to lower wages and working hours and manoeuvre in anti-union drives. Workers who were desperate to keep their jobs, could do nothing to resist these anti-worker proposals, and the power of organised labour thus reached a new low. In some regions, companies initiated aggressive campaigns, utilising tactics such as "blacklisting" known union members and hiring strikebreakers to dismantle any organising efforts, thereby eroding solidarity among workers.
But the New Deal was a lifeline to the labour movement. Roosevelt's New Deal legislation included several pieces of legislation that strengthened workers' rights, the most notable being the National Labour Relations Act, or Wagner Act, which made sure that the workers could form unions and engage in collective bargaining. It prohibited employers from interfering with union activities. The Wagner Act not only guaranteed workers’ rights but also established the National Labour Relations Board (NLRB), a federal agency empowered to investigate and address unfair labour practices, marking a shift toward federal oversight of labour disputes.
Accordingly, union membership was increased once again in the middle 1930s, and new labour organisations emerged, such as the Congress of Industrial Organisations, to organise workers in sectors like steel, automobiles, and textiles. These unions adopted a more inclusive approach than previous craft-based unions, organising industrial workers irrespective of skill level—a move that catalysed widespread support from diverse segments of the working class.
The re-emergence of the labour movement simply did great and powerful things for American politics. The labour movement became a powerful force within the Democratic Party, and support from the labour sector helped secure Roosevelt's re-election in 1936. Union endorsements galvanised working-class voters, effectively making the labour movement a bedrock of Democratic support, which reshaped the party's platform to increasingly advocate for workers’ rights and social protection. New Deal gains for labour paved the way for future successes, such as the establishment of the minimum wage and the 40-hour workweek. This era set the precedent for the labour protections that would later become cornerstones of U.S. labour policy, reflecting a lasting shift toward government responsibility in safeguarding workers’ welfare.
Social Aftershocks of the Great Depression: Education, Health, Gender Dynamics, and Societal Transformation
The Great Depression of 1929 left deep scars, socially, across all sorts of life—education and health, the roles of both genders—and broad societal transformations. The economic damage plunged individuals and families into unprecedented travail, changing the social makeup of the nation in the most basic ways.
The hardest hit perhaps was education. With tax revenues crashing, funding to public schools was drastically cut back, with widespread school closings, job layoffs, and even a reduction in teachers' salaries. In the rural areas, many children could not return to school because their parents couldn't afford necessities, such as school supplies and transportation to get to school. A 1933 report by the U.S. Office of Education reported that 20 percent of school districts had shortened academic years primarily because of a lack of money. In many cases, children had to drop out of school entirely to contribute to family income, marking a sharp decline in educational attainment during the Depression. Higher education became something that many could no longer afford, and college enrolments fell 25 percent during these years, taking a heavy toll on the job prospects of an entire generation of young people.
The health sector was not immune to the ravages of the Depression. Widespread poverty and unemployment meant inadequate nutrition, medical care, and higher rates of disease. Malnutrition soared among children during the Great Depression, and cases of rickets and pellagra climbed dramatically. It resulted in a decline in hospital spending, which led to a lack of sufficient funding and, in some parts, a closure of health facilities. It translated into a lack of access to fundamental medical treatment among vulnerable sections of the population. Many families could not afford the basics of health care; hence, illness turned acute and severe and affected the general health of the public at large. An American Public Health Association study also divulges the increased infant mortality rates in most urban areas. Life expectancy went down by a cumulative five years from 1929 to 1933. Healthcare disparities expanded, and a poorer populace was hit even harder.
Economic pressures were not only felt economically but socially as well. Gender and family roles often changed drastically. Traditionally, men held the central breadwinner role, but mass unemployment had left millions of men unemployed and thus broke the core social expectations of masculinity when many men lost their work, felt emasculated, and subsequently developed depression and mental health problems. In contrast, the number of working women increased during the Depression, with women seeking to support their families through jobs such as domestic service, teaching, and clerical work, industries that were still considered "acceptable" for female employees. The Depression marked an important moment in the early feminist discourse, where many women’s groups pushed for labour rights and gender equality, arguing that the crisis revealed the need for women's economic independence. However, these efforts were met with resistance, as discriminatory employment practices persisted and wage disparities between men and women widened during the Depression. One such example is the National Recovery Administration, which did not afford any protection over women's rights in employment; it did however reflect the social biases on gender prevalent at the time.
African Americans and other minorities were hit severely more than other people. African Americans suffered an unemployment rate of nearly 50%, meaning that African Americans were twice as likely to be unemployed compared to their white counterparts. An endemic form of racial employment discrimination was compounded by the policy of being "last hired, first fired" in recessions. The schools for black children, already woefully segregated and underfunded, saw the situation worsen as well, thereby exacerbating the educational disparity between black and white students. What was worse, however, was that social services, already scarce for African Americans, were even harder to come by. As such, the community fared badly in health and economic living.
Cultural Responses: From Hollywood to Literature
The Great Depression also profoundly affected the United States's cultural landscape since economic hardships affected millions of Americans, and most of the literary, artistic, and film expressions of the time echoed such developments. The most famous authors at that time were those who depicted the struggles of working-class Americans when resources were dwindling. Classic writer John Steinbeck came forth with his novel, The Grapes of Wrath. Many of Steinbeck's readers will be familiar with the tale of the devastated Joad family that has been forced off its Oklahoma farm, eventually making its way to California in search of work.
After all, Hollywood also did its share in shaping public opinion about the Depression. Films like It Happened One Night and Mr. Deeds Goes to Town were successful films that provided the audience with an escape from reality with a social critique while serving as a mirror to everyday American problems and strengths. The productions became very popular because they became the reflection of a national cry for hope and optimism, to some extent, in the face of adversity.
The cultural responses to the Great Depression were not strictly confined to the United States. In Europe, artists and intellectuals imbibed and absorbed the political and economic changes that transpired in that period. The rise of fascism in Germany and Italy, for example, was closely tied to the cultural and intellectual movements of the time, as writers and thinkers sought to make sense of the chaos and instability that characterised the interwar period.
Isolationism and Foreign Policy: A Shift in Priorities
Besides its ruinous effects within America's borders, the Depression fundamentally altered the country's foreign policy to become rather different. While the economic calamity grew, Americans turned inwards, with a major focus on recovery at home instead of abroad, which proved conducive to an isolationist mentality. When millions of American citizens were out of work and in depression-induced agony, the notion of embroiling the country into expensive foreign wars seemed a far cry from the public's needs. The trauma of economic devastation intensified a widespread reluctance to engage with foreign entanglements, a sentiment fuelled by memories of perceived economic setbacks from World War I and disillusionment with its aftermath.
This isolationist mood was manifested in legislation like the Neutrality Acts of the 1930s. These acts, enacted successively in 1935, 1936, and 1937, imposed arms embargoes and financial restrictions on belligerent countries in the desire to keep the U.S. neutral. They visualised feelings not to make the same mistakes as perceptively happened in World War I, which people perceived had little benefit to America. Such policies were supported by influential political figures, public opinion, and lobbying groups, including organisations like the America First Committee, which argued vigorously against U.S. involvement in European conflicts.
By the end of the 1930s, isolationism had won over the country's foreign policy: the U.S. drew further into its shell, retreating even more from world affairs with war clouds gathering in Europe and Asia. Despite Roosevelt's leanings towards supporting democratic allies, he faced strong congressional and public resistance that restricted his diplomatic latitude. This tension shaped a cautious approach, seen in strategies like the “cash and carry” provision of the Neutrality Act of 1939, which allowed the U.S. to aid allies while maintaining a stance of non-involvement.
However, as fascist regimes in Europe continued to strengthen, especially Nazi Germany, strict isolationism of America began to crumble. With widespread authoritarianism and global economies amid collapse, it became clear that the U.S. could no longer keep itself disengaged. The Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour in December 1941 ultimately shattered isolationist sentiments, compelling an interventionist approach that would reshape the global order. By 1941, isolationism, born as a reaction to crises at home, simply could no longer be sustained in an increasingly dangerous world abroad.
Global Ripples: Depression’s International Impact
The Great Depression of 1929 did not remain confined to America alone. It had its echoes in the world at large and altered the nature of political philosophies and state systems everywhere. In Europe, the Great Depression plunged economies into further devastation, deepening the economic wreckage from World War I. In Britain, unemployment rose to over 20%, and the country’s industrial production fell by almost a third between 1929 and 1932. France, though initially less affected, eventually experienced severe economic decline as international trade dried up and businesses shut down, leading to a significant drop in wages and living standards. Germany, however, bore the brunt of the collapse. Already burdened by reparations from the Treaty of Versailles, its economy shrank by nearly 40%, and unemployment soared to over 30% by 1932. This wreckage left European nations unable to respond effectively to the economic crisis, worsening social unrest, political instability, and public dissatisfaction with democratic governance.
In Europe, the Great Depression hastened the decay of liberal democracies and led to the enthronement of authoritarian regimes. Governments, unable to address the crisis, lost the confidence of their people. In Germany, the Weimar Republic, already weakened by political fragmentation and economic instability, saw its legitimacy further eroded as the depression deepened. The inability of the government to stem rising unemployment, hyperinflation, and widespread poverty led to a loss of confidence in democratic institutions, and extremist parties gained ground. Adolf Hitler’s National Socialist Party (Nazi Party) capitalised on the public's disillusionment, offering a vision of a strong, centralised authoritarian regime that promised economic recovery and national rejuvenation. By 1933, Hitler rose to power, dismantling democratic structures and establishing a totalitarian state.
Similarly, in Italy, Benito Mussolini’s fascist regime gained increased traction. While Mussolini had come to power earlier, the economic collapse allowed him to consolidate control as his government provided an authoritarian alternative to the perceived inefficacy of democratic governance in solving Italy’s economic woes. Fascism, with its emphasis on nationalism, militarism, and state control of the economy, appeared to offer a solution to the despair caused by the depression, and public support for the regime grew.
In Latin America, the economic crisis led several countries to shift towards more interventionist economic policies from laissez-faire capitalism. The governments in the region started nationalising all essential industries and adopting import substitution industrialisation (ISI) in a move to reduce dependency on unstable global markets by nature. Countries like Brazil, Argentina, and Mexico became pioneers of this economic model. In Brazil, under the leadership of Getúlio Vargas, state intervention increased in sectors such as steel, oil, and electricity, while Argentina adopted policies to support domestic industries through protective tariffs and government subsidies.
The depression was also catastrophic enough to make the British Empire abandon its free trade and, for the first time, impose tariffs under the Import Duties Act of 1932. The decision to impose tariffs was aimed at protecting domestic industries from foreign competition in a time of economic vulnerability, marking the rise of economic protectionism worldwide.
Global economic dislocation provided the impetus behind the eventual establishment of international institutions such as the IMF and the World Bank, established after World War II as a concerted effort to stabilise international financial systems and forestall another such, perhaps worse catastrophe. It reflects the shift of global political ideologies to a more state-managed economy and abandoning the laissez-faire orthodoxy.
Country | 1929 GDP (billions) | 1933 GDP (billions) | Percentage Decline |
United States | $103 | $56 | -45.60% |
United Kingdom | $20 | $15 | -25.00% |
Germany | $18 | $12 | -33.30% |
France | $12 | $9 | -25.00% |
Japan | $9 | $7 | -22.20% |
Table 2: Global GDP Decline during the Great Depression (1929–1933)Lowe, Norman. Mastering Modern World History. 5th ed., Palgrave Macmillan, 2013.
Conclusion: Lasting Political Legacy of the Great Depression
The Great Depression of 1929 drastically changed and reshaped the political order in the United States and further beyond. The material catastrophe caused by the crisis catapulted a shift in American politics, where citizens increasingly demanded accountability for restoring the nation's woes with innovative solutions. It was at this time when general discontent at the ruin caused by the Great Depression swept the country that the Democratic Party, under Franklin D. Roosevelt, came forward with a program of a new national vision, pegged on huge government intervention and welfare institutions. The New Deal was not a panacea for all the nation's ills, but it became the springboard for expanding the welfare state and a militant government.
From a broader lens, the Great Depression serves as a reminder of the inherent instability of free-market capitalism and the crucial role that the government must play in maintaining both economic and social balance. Today, as we grapple with new forms of inequality and political polarisation, the lessons of the Depression remain ever-relevant. The crisis showed that political responses to economic devastation can either deepen inequalities or create pathways to reform. As we navigate the 21st century, understanding the political shifts of the 1930s may offer valuable insights for addressing our current global challenges.
By Tamoghna Chowdhury
Tamoghna Chowdhury is a second-year student currently pursuing a B.A.(H) in Economics from Hindu College, University of Delhi. His areas of interest include (but are not limited to) sustainable economics, economics of growth and trade policy, and public policy research and consulting.
References
Kennedy, David M. Freedom from Fear: The American People in Depression and War, 1929-1945. New York: Oxford University Press, 1999.
Leuchtenburg, William E. Franklin D. Roosevelt and the New Deal, 1932-1940. New York: Harper & Row, 1963.
Lowe, Norman. Mastering Modern World History. 5th ed. London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2013.
Rauchway, Eric. The Great Depression and the New Deal: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008.
Schlesinger, Arthur M. The Age of Roosevelt: The Coming of the New Deal. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1958.
Temin, Peter. Did Monetary Forces Cause the Great Depression? New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 1976.
留言