2004
DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-8446.2004.00111.x
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The Supervision of Convict Gangs in New South Wales 1788–1830

Abstract: Despite its significance as a mechanism for controlling and extracting productivity from a workforce, the nature and character of convict supervision has been largely ignored by historians. To redress this neglect, this article establishes the character of the supervision of male convicts employed in government labour gangs. It is concluded that supervision was, until at least 1822, a critically important strategy for the extraction of labour effort from convict gangs and that it was rationally designed, syste… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2

Citation Types

0
3
0

Year Published

2006
2006
2014
2014

Publication Types

Select...
3
2
1

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 30 publications
(3 citation statements)
references
References 1 publication
0
3
0
Order By: Relevance
“…In his review of recent labour history relevant to the convict system, David Roberts highlights a series of essays by Bill Robbins (2000Robbins ( , 2003Robbins ( , 2004Robbins ( , 2005Robbins ( , 2009 which examine convict work and work relations and focus on 'the ways convict labour was organized, managed and experienced and how it changed over time' (Roberts 2011:45). In his review of recent labour history relevant to the convict system, David Roberts highlights a series of essays by Bill Robbins (2000Robbins ( , 2003Robbins ( , 2004Robbins ( , 2005Robbins ( , 2009 which examine convict work and work relations and focus on 'the ways convict labour was organized, managed and experienced and how it changed over time' (Roberts 2011:45).…”
Section: Convict Historical Research Since 2001mentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…In his review of recent labour history relevant to the convict system, David Roberts highlights a series of essays by Bill Robbins (2000Robbins ( , 2003Robbins ( , 2004Robbins ( , 2005Robbins ( , 2009 which examine convict work and work relations and focus on 'the ways convict labour was organized, managed and experienced and how it changed over time' (Roberts 2011:45). In his review of recent labour history relevant to the convict system, David Roberts highlights a series of essays by Bill Robbins (2000Robbins ( , 2003Robbins ( , 2004Robbins ( , 2005Robbins ( , 2009 which examine convict work and work relations and focus on 'the ways convict labour was organized, managed and experienced and how it changed over time' (Roberts 2011:45).…”
Section: Convict Historical Research Since 2001mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…A further trajectory in recent convict historical research has been analyses of convict labour in particular works situations. In his review of recent labour history relevant to the convict system, David Roberts highlights a series of essays by Bill Robbins (2000Robbins ( , 2003Robbins ( , 2004Robbins ( , 2005Robbins ( , 2009 which examine convict work and work relations and focus on 'the ways convict labour was organized, managed and experienced and how it changed over time' (Roberts 2011:45). Roberts notes that Robbins' essays explore how convicts influenced their employment conditions, versus the tactics adopted by the state and employers to control labour and maximize output.…”
Section: Convict Historical Research Since 2001mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Such legal severity highlights the shortcomings of modern monetary theory's postulate that the state controls money solely by monopolizing its production; although of course such theories assume the modern state's rigorous enforcement of its own monopoly rights. Counterfeiters would have considered themselves lucky to be transported to New South Wales where, according to Robbins, the methods used to monitor convict labour from 1790 to 1830 long‐anticipated ‘modern work supervision theory’. Managerial staff set output levels; convict‐overseers extracted them from specialised work gangs, and were themselves incentivized by privileges and even promotions within a supervisory hierarchy.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%