The uses of utilitarianism: Social justice, welfare economics and British socialism, 1931-48

History of Political Thought

Volumn 25, Issue 3, 2004, Pages 508-535

  Jackson, Ben ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 10644256367     PISSN: 0143781X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Review

References (160)

1. D. Jay, The Socialist Case (London, 1938), p. 352.
2. D. Parfit, 'Equality or Priority?', in The Ideal of Equality, ed. M. Clayton and A. Williams (Basingstoke, 2002), p. 106. For other examples, see A. Sen, 'Equality of What?', in Tanner Lectures on Human Values, ed. S. McMurrin (Cambridge, 1980), pp. 198-205; D. Miller, 'Arguments for Equality', in Midwest Studies in Philosophy, Vol. VII. ed. P.A. French, T.E. Uehling and H.K. Wettstein (Minneapolis, 1982), pp. 74-5; A. Swift, Political Philosophy: A Beginners' Guide for Students and Politicians (Cambridge, 2001), pp. 118-20.
3. D. Parfit, 'Equality or Priority?', in The Ideal of Equality, ed. M. Clayton and A. Williams (Basingstoke, 2002), p. 106. For other examples, see A. Sen, 'Equality of What?', in Tanner Lectures on Human Values, ed. S. McMurrin (Cambridge, 1980), pp. 198-205; D. Miller, 'Arguments for Equality', in Midwest Studies in Philosophy, Vol. VII. ed. P.A. French, T.E. Uehling and H.K. Wettstein (Minneapolis, 1982), pp. 74-5; A. Swift, Political Philosophy: A Beginners' Guide for Students and Politicians (Cambridge, 2001), pp. 118-20.
4. D. Parfit, 'Equality or Priority?', in The Ideal of Equality, ed. M. Clayton and A. Williams (Basingstoke, 2002), p. 106. For other examples, see A. Sen, 'Equality of What?', in Tanner Lectures on Human Values, ed. S. McMurrin (Cambridge, 1980), pp. 198-205; D. Miller, 'Arguments for Equality', in Midwest Studies in Philosophy, Vol. VII. ed. P.A. French, T.E. Uehling and H.K. Wettstein (Minneapolis, 1982), pp. 74-5; A. Swift, Political Philosophy: A Beginners' Guide for Students and Politicians (Cambridge, 2001), pp. 118-20.
5. D. Parfit, 'Equality or Priority?', in The Ideal of Equality, ed. M. Clayton and A. Williams (Basingstoke, 2002), p. 106. For other examples, see A. Sen, 'Equality of What?', in Tanner Lectures on Human Values, ed. S. McMurrin (Cambridge, 1980), pp. 198-205; D. Miller, 'Arguments for Equality', in Midwest Studies in Philosophy, Vol. VII. ed. P.A. French, T.E. Uehling and H.K. Wettstein (Minneapolis, 1982), pp. 74-5; A. Swift, Political Philosophy: A Beginners' Guide for Students and Politicians (Cambridge, 2001), pp. 118-20.
6. One further assumption that is required to generate an egalitarian distribution from utilitarian premises is that the stock of resources to be distributed is fixed. Clearly, this is an important simplifying assumption that limits the argument's application, but I will leave this to one side for the purposes of this article and focus on the static case. Introducing the effects of redistribution on the overall level of resources in the community raises a range of questions about productive efficiency and incentives that are distinct from the specific issues that this article addresses.
7. A. Sen, On Economic Inequality (Oxford, 1973), p. 16.
8. I b i d.
9. For a recent overview of the Labour government of 1929-31, see N. Riddell, Labour in Crisis: The Second Labour Government, 1929-31 (Manchester, 1999). For valuable discussion of the impact of the crisis of 1931 on subsequent discussions of socialist strategy, see D. Howell, British Social Democracy: A Study in Development and Decay (London, 1976), pp. 54-60; S. MacIntyre, A Proletarian Science: Marxism in Britain 1917-33 (Cambridge, 1980), pp. 184-8; and B. Pimlott, Labour and the Left in the 1930s (Cambridge, 1977), pp. 9-20.
10. For a recent overview of the Labour government of 1929-31, see N. Riddell, Labour in Crisis: The Second Labour Government, 1929-31 (Manchester, 1999). For valuable discussion of the impact of the crisis of 1931 on subsequent discussions of socialist strategy, see D. Howell, British Social Democracy: A Study in Development and Decay (London, 1976), pp. 54-60; S. MacIntyre, A Proletarian Science: Marxism in Britain 1917-33 (Cambridge, 1980), pp. 184-8; and B. Pimlott, Labour and the Left in the 1930s (Cambridge, 1977), pp. 9-20.
11. For a recent overview of the Labour government of 1929-31, see N. Riddell, Labour in Crisis: The Second Labour Government, 1929-31 (Manchester, 1999). For valuable discussion of the impact of the crisis of 1931 on subsequent discussions of socialist strategy, see D. Howell, British Social Democracy: A Study in Development and Decay (London, 1976), pp. 54-60; S. MacIntyre, A Proletarian Science: Marxism in Britain 1917-33 (Cambridge, 1980), pp. 184-8; and B. Pimlott, Labour and the Left in the 1930s (Cambridge, 1977), pp. 9-20.
12. For a recent overview of the Labour government of 1929-31, see N. Riddell, Labour in Crisis: The Second Labour Government, 1929-31 (Manchester, 1999). For valuable discussion of the impact of the crisis of 1931 on subsequent discussions of socialist strategy, see D. Howell, British Social Democracy: A Study in Development and Decay (London, 1976), pp. 54-60; S. MacIntyre, A Proletarian Science: Marxism in Britain 1917-33 (Cambridge, 1980), pp. 184-8; and B. Pimlott, Labour and the Left in the 1930s (Cambridge, 1977), pp. 9-20.
13. For evidence of the devastating impact of unemployment on working-class life in this period, see R. McKibbin, Classes and Cultures: England 1918-51 (Oxford, 1998), pp. 111-14, 151-60.
14. The most powerful exponents of this view were Harold Laski and John Strachey: see, inter alia, H. Laski, 'Some Implications of the Crisis', Political Quarterly, 2 (1931), pp. 466-9; and J. Strachey, The Coming Struggle for Power (London, 1932). The views of Marxist thinkers will not be examined in this article, since they did not discuss the specific issues under consideration here.
15. The most powerful exponents of this view were Harold Laski and John Strachey: see, inter alia, H. Laski, 'Some Implications of the Crisis', Political Quarterly, 2 (1931), pp. 466-9; and J. Strachey, The Coming Struggle for Power (London, 1932). The views of Marxist thinkers will not be examined in this article, since they did not discuss the specific issues under consideration here.
16. E. Durbin, The Politics of Democratic Socialism: An Essay on Social Policy (London, 1940), pp. 318, 319. See also D. Jay, 'The Economic Strength and Weakness of Marxism', in New Trends in Socialism, ed. G. Catlin (London, 1935), p. 122.
17. E. Durbin, The Politics of Democratic Socialism: An Essay on Social Policy (London, 1940), pp. 318, 319. See also D. Jay, 'The Economic Strength and Weakness of Marxism', in New Trends in Socialism, ed. G. Catlin (London, 1935), p. 122.
18. See R. Skidelsky, Politicians and the Slump (London, 1967); R. McKibbin, 'The Economic Policy of the Second Labour Government, 1929-31', in R. McKibbin, The Ideologies of Class (Oxford, 1990), pp. 197-227. Although Skidelsky and McKibbin hold different positions, both agree that Labour did not develop a distinctive economic strategy, in Skidelsky's view because socialist ideology prevented the acceptance of expansionist policies, and in McKibbin's because such policies were insufficiently intellectually developed, and in any case would not have commanded enough political support to succeed.
19. See R. Skidelsky, Politicians and the Slump (London, 1967); R. McKibbin, 'The Economic Policy of the Second Labour Government, 1929-31', in R. McKibbin, The Ideologies of Class (Oxford, 1990), pp. 197-227. Although Skidelsky and McKibbin hold different positions, both agree that Labour did not develop a distinctive economic strategy, in Skidelsky's view because socialist ideology prevented the acceptance of expansionist policies, and in McKibbin's because such policies were insufficiently intellectually developed, and in any case would not have commanded enough political support to succeed.
20. This growth of interest in economics on the Left has been expertly discussed in E. Durbin, New Jerusalems: The Labour Party and the Economics of Democratic Socialism (London, 1985); see pp. 79-81, 93-132. See also S. Brooke, Labour's War (Oxford, 1992), pp. 231-68; N. Thompson, Political Economy and the Labour Party: The Economics of Democratic Socialism, 1884-1995 (London, 1996), pp. 87-133; and R. Toye, The Labour Party and the Planned Economy 1931-51 (Woodbridge, 2003), pp. 34-86. On Cole's difficult relationship with the discipline of economics, see A.W. Wright, G.D.H. Cole and Socialist Democracy (Oxford, 1979), pp. 176-207, and M. Cole, The Life of G.D.H. Cole (London. 1971), pp. 206-9.
21. This growth of interest in economics on the Left has been expertly discussed in E. Durbin, New Jerusalems: The Labour Party and the Economics of Democratic Socialism (London, 1985); see pp. 79-81, 93-132. See also S. Brooke, Labour's War (Oxford, 1992), pp. 231-68; N. Thompson, Political Economy and the Labour Party: The Economics of Democratic Socialism, 1884-1995 (London, 1996), pp. 87-133; and R. Toye, The Labour Party and the Planned Economy 1931-51 (Woodbridge, 2003), pp. 34-86. On Cole's difficult relationship with the discipline of economics, see A.W. Wright, G.D.H. Cole and Socialist Democracy (Oxford, 1979), pp. 176-207, and M. Cole, The Life of G.D.H. Cole (London. 1971), pp. 206-9.
22. This growth of interest in economics on the Left has been expertly discussed in E. Durbin, New Jerusalems: The Labour Party and the Economics of Democratic Socialism (London, 1985); see pp. 79-81, 93-132. See also S. Brooke, Labour's War (Oxford, 1992), pp. 231-68; N. Thompson, Political Economy and the Labour Party: The Economics of Democratic Socialism, 1884-1995 (London, 1996), pp. 87-133; and R. Toye, The Labour Party and the Planned Economy 1931-51 (Woodbridge, 2003), pp. 34-86. On Cole's difficult relationship with the discipline of economics, see A.W. Wright, G.D.H. Cole and Socialist Democracy (Oxford, 1979), pp. 176-207, and M. Cole, The Life of G.D.H. Cole (London. 1971), pp. 206-9.
23. This growth of interest in economics on the Left has been expertly discussed in E. Durbin, New Jerusalems: The Labour Party and the Economics of Democratic Socialism (London, 1985); see pp. 79-81, 93-132. See also S. Brooke, Labour's War (Oxford, 1992), pp. 231-68; N. Thompson, Political Economy and the Labour Party: The Economics of Democratic Socialism, 1884-1995 (London, 1996), pp. 87-133; and R. Toye, The Labour Party and the Planned Economy 1931-51 (Woodbridge, 2003), pp. 34-86. On Cole's difficult relationship with the discipline of economics, see A.W. Wright, G.D.H. Cole and Socialist Democracy (Oxford, 1979), pp. 176-207, and M. Cole, The Life of G.D.H. Cole (London. 1971), pp. 206-9.
24. This growth of interest in economics on the Left has been expertly discussed in E. Durbin, New Jerusalems: The Labour Party and the Economics of Democratic Socialism (London, 1985); see pp. 79-81, 93-132. See also S. Brooke, Labour's War (Oxford, 1992), pp. 231-68; N. Thompson, Political Economy and the Labour Party: The Economics of Democratic Socialism, 1884-1995 (London, 1996), pp. 87-133; and R. Toye, The Labour Party and the Planned Economy 1931-51 (Woodbridge, 2003), pp. 34-86. On Cole's difficult relationship with the discipline of economics, see A.W. Wright, G.D.H. Cole and Socialist Democracy (Oxford, 1979), pp. 176-207, and M. Cole, The Life of G.D.H. Cole (London. 1971), pp. 206-9.
25. This growth of interest in economics on the Left has been expertly discussed in E. Durbin, New Jerusalems: The Labour Party and the Economics of Democratic Socialism (London, 1985); see pp. 79-81, 93-132. See also S. Brooke, Labour's War (Oxford, 1992), pp. 231-68; N. Thompson, Political Economy and the Labour Party: The Economics of Democratic Socialism, 1884-1995 (London, 1996), pp. 87-133; and R. Toye, The Labour Party and the Planned Economy 1931-51 (Woodbridge, 2003), pp. 34-86. On Cole's difficult relationship with the discipline of economics, see A.W. Wright, G.D.H. Cole and Socialist Democracy (Oxford, 1979), pp. 176-207, and M. Cole, The Life of G.D.H. Cole (London. 1971), pp. 206-9.
26. M. Blaug, 'The Formalist Revolution or What Happened to Orthodox Economics After World War Two?', in From Classical Economics to the Theory of the Firm, ed. R. Backhouse and J. Creedy (Cheltenham, 1999), pp. 259-69, quote at p. 260. See also R. Backhouse, A History of Modern Economic Analysis (Oxford, 1985), pp. 275-6.
27. M. Blaug, 'The Formalist Revolution or What Happened to Orthodox Economics After World War Two?', in From Classical Economics to the Theory of the Firm, ed. R. Backhouse and J. Creedy (Cheltenham, 1999), pp. 259-69, quote at p. 260. See also R. Backhouse, A History of Modern Economic Analysis (Oxford, 1985), pp. 275-6.
28. S. Howson and D. Winch, The Economic Advisory Council 1930-9 (Cambridge, 1977), pp. 5-29; D. Winch, Economics and Policy: A Historical Study (London, 1969). pp. 329-30.
29. S. Howson and D. Winch, The Economic Advisory Council 1930-9 (Cambridge, 1977), pp. 5-29; D. Winch, Economics and Policy: A Historical Study (London, 1969). pp. 329-30.
30. There is a large literature on each of the different currents of economic thought identified above. For useful overviews of the evolution of Keynesian economics from a political perspective, see P. Clarke, The Keynesian Revolution in the Making 1924-36 (Oxford, 1988), and Winch, Economics and Policy. On the economic theory of socialism, see D. Lavoie, Rivalry and Central Planning: The Socialist Calculation Debate Reconsidered (Cambridge, 1985), and for the discussion of economic planning in a political context, see D. Ritschel, The Politics of Planning: The Debate on Economic Planning in Britain in the 1930s (Oxford, 1997).
31. There is a large literature on each of the different currents of economic thought identified above. For useful overviews of the evolution of Keynesian economics from a political perspective, see P. Clarke, The Keynesian Revolution in the Making 1924-36 (Oxford, 1988), and Winch, Economics and Policy. On the economic theory of socialism, see D. Lavoie, Rivalry and Central Planning: The Socialist Calculation Debate Reconsidered (Cambridge, 1985), and for the discussion of economic planning in a political context, see D. Ritschel, The Politics of Planning: The Debate on Economic Planning in Britain in the 1930s (Oxford, 1997).
32. There is a large literature on each of the different currents of economic thought identified above. For useful overviews of the evolution of Keynesian economics from a political perspective, see P. Clarke, The Keynesian Revolution in the Making 1924-36 (Oxford, 1988), and Winch, Economics and Policy. On the economic theory of socialism, see D. Lavoie, Rivalry and Central Planning: The Socialist Calculation Debate Reconsidered (Cambridge, 1985), and for the discussion of economic planning in a political context, see D. Ritschel, The Politics of Planning: The Debate on Economic Planning in Britain in the 1930s (Oxford, 1997).
33. There is a large literature on each of the different currents of economic thought identified above. For useful overviews of the evolution of Keynesian economics from a political perspective, see P. Clarke, The Keynesian Revolution in the Making 1924-36 (Oxford, 1988), and Winch, Economics and Policy. On the economic theory of socialism, see D. Lavoie, Rivalry and Central Planning: The Socialist Calculation Debate Reconsidered (Cambridge, 1985), and for the discussion of economic planning in a political context, see D. Ritschel, The Politics of Planning: The Debate on Economic Planning in Britain in the 1930s (Oxford, 1997).
34. J. Tomlinson, 'The Limits of Tawney's Ethical Socialism: A Historical Perspective on the Labour Party and the Market', Contemporary British History, 16 (2002), pp. 10-11.
35. On the hostility of previous generations of socialists to academic economic orthodoxy, see A.M. McBriar, Fabian Socialism and English Politics 1884-1918 (Cambridge, 1962), pp. 49-57; Wright, G.D.H. Cole, pp. 180-1, 189; and Tomlinson, 'Limits of Tawney's Ethical Socialism', pp. 9-12. On the contrasting attitudes of later socialists, see Durbin, New Jerusalems, pp. 98-115, 265-79.
36. On the hostility of previous generations of socialists to academic economic orthodoxy, see A.M. McBriar, Fabian Socialism and English Politics 1884-1918 (Cambridge, 1962), pp. 49-57; Wright, G.D.H. Cole, pp. 180-1, 189; and Tomlinson, 'Limits of Tawney's Ethical Socialism', pp. 9-12. On the contrasting attitudes of later socialists, see Durbin, New Jerusalems, pp. 98-115, 265-79.
37. On the hostility of previous generations of socialists to academic economic orthodoxy, see A.M. McBriar, Fabian Socialism and English Politics 1884-1918 (Cambridge, 1962), pp. 49-57; Wright, G.D.H. Cole, pp. 180-1, 189; and Tomlinson, 'Limits of Tawney's Ethical Socialism', pp. 9-12. On the contrasting attitudes of later socialists, see Durbin, New Jerusalems, pp. 98-115, 265-79.
38. On the hostility of previous generations of socialists to academic economic orthodoxy, see A.M. McBriar, Fabian Socialism and English Politics 1884-1918 (Cambridge, 1962), pp. 49-57; Wright, G.D.H. Cole, pp. 180-1, 189; and Tomlinson, 'Limits of Tawney's Ethical Socialism', pp. 9-12. On the contrasting attitudes of later socialists, see Durbin, New Jerusalems, pp. 98-115, 265-79.
39. See A. Marshall, Principles of Economics (London, 8th edn., 1920 [1890]), pp. 92-101, 128-31; A.C. Pigou, Wealth and Welfare (London, 1912), pp. 401-2; and A.C. Pigou, The Economics of Welfare (London, 2nd edn., 1924 [1920]), pp. 76-84. For a more detailed discussion of these early economists and their approach to social inequalities, see Winch, Economics and Policy, pp. 28-46; and R. Cooter and P. Rappoport, 'Were the Ordinalists Wrong About Welfare Economics?', Journal of Economic Literature, 22 (1984), pp. 512-15.
40. See A. Marshall, Principles of Economics (London, 8th edn., 1920 [1890]), pp. 92-101, 128-31; A.C. Pigou, Wealth and Welfare (London, 1912), pp. 401-2; and A.C. Pigou, The Economics of Welfare (London, 2nd edn., 1924 [1920]), pp. 76-84. For a more detailed discussion of these early economists and their approach to social inequalities, see Winch, Economics and Policy, pp. 28-46; and R. Cooter and P. Rappoport, 'Were the Ordinalists Wrong About Welfare Economics?', Journal of Economic Literature, 22 (1984), pp. 512-15.
41. See A. Marshall, Principles of Economics (London, 8th edn., 1920 [1890]), pp. 92-101, 128-31; A.C. Pigou, Wealth and Welfare (London, 1912), pp. 401-2; and A.C. Pigou, The Economics of Welfare (London, 2nd edn., 1924 [1920]), pp. 76-84. For a more detailed discussion of these early economists and their approach to social inequalities, see Winch, Economics and Policy, pp. 28-46; and R. Cooter and P. Rappoport, 'Were the Ordinalists Wrong About Welfare Economics?', Journal of Economic Literature, 22 (1984), pp. 512-15.
42. See A. Marshall, Principles of Economics (London, 8th edn., 1920 [1890]), pp. 92-101, 128-31; A.C. Pigou, Wealth and Welfare (London, 1912), pp. 401-2; and A.C. Pigou, The Economics of Welfare (London, 2nd edn., 1924 [1920]), pp. 76-84. For a more detailed discussion of these early economists and their approach to social inequalities, see Winch, Economics and Policy, pp. 28-46; and R. Cooter and P. Rappoport, 'Were the Ordinalists Wrong About Welfare Economics?', Journal of Economic Literature, 22 (1984), pp. 512-15.
43. See A. Marshall, Principles of Economics (London, 8th edn., 1920 [1890]), pp. 92-101, 128-31; A.C. Pigou, Wealth and Welfare (London, 1912), pp. 401-2; and A.C. Pigou, The Economics of Welfare (London, 2nd edn., 1924 [1920]), pp. 76-84. For a more detailed discussion of these early economists and their approach to social inequalities, see Winch, Economics and Policy, pp. 28-46; and R. Cooter and P. Rappoport, 'Were the Ordinalists Wrong About Welfare Economics?', Journal of Economic Literature, 22 (1984), pp. 512-15.
44. S. Collini, Liberalism and Sociology: L.T. Hobhouse and Political Argument in England 1880-1914 (Cambridge, 1979), p. 117.
45. See ibid., pp. 115-20, 129-44; M. Freeden, The New Liberalism (Oxford, 1978), pp. 39-55, 118-28; M. Freeden, Liberalism Divided (Oxford, 1986), pp. 223-93; McBriar, Fabian Socialism, pp. 155-62; M. Stears, Progressives, Pluralists and the Problems of the State (Oxford, 2002), pp. 235-47. For comparative discussion of the principles of social justice advocated by these differing progressive groups, see B. Jackson, 'Equality of Nothing? Social Justice on the British Left, c. 1911-31', Journal of Political Ideologies, 8 (2003), pp. 83-110.
46. See ibid., pp. 115-20, 129-44; M. Freeden, The New Liberalism (Oxford, 1978), pp. 39-55, 118-28; M. Freeden, Liberalism Divided (Oxford, 1986), pp. 223-93; McBriar, Fabian Socialism, pp. 155-62; M. Stears, Progressives, Pluralists and the Problems of the State (Oxford, 2002), pp. 235-47. For comparative discussion of the principles of social justice advocated by these differing progressive groups, see B. Jackson, 'Equality of Nothing? Social Justice on the British Left, c. 1911-31', Journal of Political Ideologies, 8 (2003), pp. 83-110.
47. See ibid., pp. 115-20, 129-44; M. Freeden, The New Liberalism (Oxford, 1978), pp. 39-55, 118-28; M. Freeden, Liberalism Divided (Oxford, 1986), pp. 223-93; McBriar, Fabian Socialism, pp. 155-62; M. Stears, Progressives, Pluralists and the Problems of the State (Oxford, 2002), pp. 235-47. For comparative discussion of the principles of social justice advocated by these differing progressive groups, see B. Jackson, 'Equality of Nothing? Social Justice on the British Left, c. 1911-31', Journal of Political Ideologies, 8 (2003), pp. 83-110.
48. See ibid., pp. 115-20, 129-44; M. Freeden, The New Liberalism (Oxford, 1978), pp. 39-55, 118-28; M. Freeden, Liberalism Divided (Oxford, 1986), pp. 223-93; McBriar, Fabian Socialism, pp. 155-62; M. Stears, Progressives, Pluralists and the Problems of the State (Oxford, 2002), pp. 235-47. For comparative discussion of the principles of social justice advocated by these differing progressive groups, see B. Jackson, 'Equality of Nothing? Social Justice on the British Left, c. 1911-31', Journal of Political Ideologies, 8 (2003), pp. 83-110.
49. See ibid., pp. 115-20, 129-44; M. Freeden, The New Liberalism (Oxford, 1978), pp. 39-55, 118-28; M. Freeden, Liberalism Divided (Oxford, 1986), pp. 223-93; McBriar, Fabian Socialism, pp. 155-62; M. Stears, Progressives, Pluralists and the Problems of the State (Oxford, 2002), pp. 235-47. For comparative discussion of the principles of social justice advocated by these differing progressive groups, see B. Jackson, 'Equality of Nothing? Social Justice on the British Left, c. 1911-31', Journal of Political Ideologies, 8 (2003), pp. 83-110.
50. See ibid., pp. 115-20, 129-44; M. Freeden, The New Liberalism (Oxford, 1978), pp. 39-55, 118-28; M. Freeden, Liberalism Divided (Oxford, 1986), pp. 223-93; McBriar, Fabian Socialism, pp. 155-62; M. Stears, Progressives, Pluralists and the Problems of the State (Oxford, 2002), pp. 235-47. For comparative discussion of the principles of social justice advocated by these differing progressive groups, see B. Jackson, 'Equality of Nothing? Social Justice on the British Left, c. 1911-31', Journal of Political Ideologies, 8 (2003), pp. 83-110.
51. See Collini, Liberalism and Sociology, pp. 43-6; Freeden, New Liberalism, pp. 12-15; McBriar, Fabian Socialism, pp. 149-55; D. Weinstein, 'The New Liberalism and the Rejection of Utilitarianism', in The New Liberalism: Reconciling Liberty and Community, ed. A. Simhony and D. Weinstein (Cambridge, 2001), pp. 159-83; Jackson, 'Equality of Nothing?', pp. 95-7.
52. See Collini, Liberalism and Sociology, pp. 43-6; Freeden, New Liberalism, pp. 12-15; McBriar, Fabian Socialism, pp. 149-55; D. Weinstein, 'The New Liberalism and the Rejection of Utilitarianism', in The New Liberalism: Reconciling Liberty and Community, ed. A. Simhony and D. Weinstein (Cambridge, 2001), pp. 159-83; Jackson, 'Equality of Nothing?', pp. 95-7.
53. See Collini, Liberalism and Sociology, pp. 43-6; Freeden, New Liberalism, pp. 12-15; McBriar, Fabian Socialism, pp. 149-55; D. Weinstein, 'The New Liberalism and the Rejection of Utilitarianism', in The New Liberalism: Reconciling Liberty and Community, ed. A. Simhony and D. Weinstein (Cambridge, 2001), pp. 159-83; Jackson, 'Equality of Nothing?', pp. 95-7.
54. See Collini, Liberalism and Sociology, pp. 43-6; Freeden, New Liberalism, pp. 12-15; McBriar, Fabian Socialism, pp. 149-55; D. Weinstein, 'The New Liberalism and the Rejection of Utilitarianism', in The New Liberalism: Reconciling Liberty and Community, ed. A. Simhony and D. Weinstein (Cambridge, 2001), pp. 159-83; Jackson, 'Equality of Nothing?', pp. 95-7.
55. See Collini, Liberalism and Sociology, pp. 43-6; Freeden, New Liberalism, pp. 12-15; McBriar, Fabian Socialism, pp. 149-55; D. Weinstein, 'The New Liberalism and the Rejection of Utilitarianism', in The New Liberalism: Reconciling Liberty and Community, ed. A. Simhony and D. Weinstein (Cambridge, 2001), pp. 159-83; Jackson, 'Equality of Nothing?', pp. 95-7.
56. Sen, On Economic Inequality, p. 16.
57. The most celebrated English-language defence of logical positivism, A.J. Ayer's Language, Truth and Logic, was not published until 1936, but the broader point is that most philosophical discussions of ethics in this period, whether positivist or not, were inhospitable to the notion that philosophical argument might be able to yield determinate ethical conclusions. See J. Dancy, 'From Intuitionism to Emotivism', in The Cambridge History of Philosophy 1870-1945, ed. T. Baldwin (Cambridge, 2003), pp. 695-703; and R. Plant, Modern Political Thought (Oxford, 1991), pp. 4-22.
58. The most celebrated English-language defence of logical positivism, A.J. Ayer's Language, Truth and Logic, was not published until 1936, but the broader point is that most philosophical discussions of ethics in this period, whether positivist or not, were inhospitable to the notion that philosophical argument might be able to yield determinate ethical conclusions. See J. Dancy, 'From Intuitionism to Emotivism', in The Cambridge History of Philosophy 1870-1945, ed. T. Baldwin (Cambridge, 2003), pp. 695-703; and R. Plant, Modern Political Thought (Oxford, 1991), pp. 4-22.
59. The most celebrated English-language defence of logical positivism, A.J. Ayer's Language, Truth and Logic, was not published until 1936, but the broader point is that most philosophical discussions of ethics in this period, whether positivist or not, were inhospitable to the notion that philosophical argument might be able to yield determinate ethical conclusions. See J. Dancy, 'From Intuitionism to Emotivism', in The Cambridge History of Philosophy 1870-1945, ed. T. Baldwin (Cambridge, 2003), pp. 695-703; and R. Plant, Modern Political Thought (Oxford, 1991), pp. 4-22.
60. H. Dalton, Some Aspects of the Inequality of Incomes in Modern Communities (London, 1920), p. 27. See also H. Dalton, Principles of Public Finance (London, 1929 [1922]), pp. 86-7. Dalton paid a generous tribute in his memoirs to the influence of Pigou on his thought, noting that Pigou's book Wealth and Welfare 'helped me, more than any other, to formulate my own approach from ethics, through politics, to economics'. H. Dalton, Call Back Yesterday: Memoirs 1887-1931 (London, 1953), pp. 57-9, quote at p. 58. However, note that Tomlinson is sceptical of the extent to which Dalton actually drew upon the full range of Pigou's work: Tomlinson, 'Limits of Tawney's Ethical Socialism', p. 15, fn. 44.
61. H. Dalton, Some Aspects of the Inequality of Incomes in Modern Communities (London, 1920), p. 27. See also H. Dalton, Principles of Public Finance (London, 1929 [1922]), pp. 86-7. Dalton paid a generous tribute in his memoirs to the influence of Pigou on his thought, noting that Pigou's book Wealth and Welfare 'helped me, more than any other, to formulate my own approach from ethics, through politics, to economics'. H. Dalton, Call Back Yesterday: Memoirs 1887-1931 (London, 1953), pp. 57-9, quote at p. 58. However, note that Tomlinson is sceptical of the extent to which Dalton actually drew upon the full range of Pigou's work: Tomlinson, 'Limits of Tawney's Ethical Socialism', p. 15, fn. 44.
62. H. Dalton, Some Aspects of the Inequality of Incomes in Modern Communities (London, 1920), p. 27. See also H. Dalton, Principles of Public Finance (London, 1929 [1922]), pp. 86-7. Dalton paid a generous tribute in his memoirs to the influence of Pigou on his thought, noting that Pigou's book Wealth and Welfare 'helped me, more than any other, to formulate my own approach from ethics, through politics, to economics'. H. Dalton, Call Back Yesterday: Memoirs 1887-1931 (London, 1953), pp. 57-9, quote at p. 58. However, note that Tomlinson is sceptical of the extent to which Dalton actually drew upon the full range of Pigou's work: Tomlinson, 'Limits of Tawney's Ethical Socialism', p. 15, fn. 44.
63. H. Dalton, Some Aspects of the Inequality of Incomes in Modern Communities (London, 1920), p. 27. See also H. Dalton, Principles of Public Finance (London, 1929 [1922]), pp. 86-7. Dalton paid a generous tribute in his memoirs to the influence of Pigou on his thought, noting that Pigou's book Wealth and Welfare 'helped me, more than any other, to formulate my own approach from ethics, through politics, to economics'. H. Dalton, Call Back Yesterday: Memoirs 1887-1931 (London, 1953), pp. 57-9, quote at p. 58. However, note that Tomlinson is sceptical of the extent to which Dalton actually drew upon the full range of Pigou's work: Tomlinson, 'Limits of Tawney's Ethical Socialism', p. 15, fn. 44.
64. H. Dalton, Some Aspects of the Inequality of Incomes in Modern Communities (London, 1920), p. 27. See also H. Dalton, Principles of Public Finance (London, 1929 [1922]), pp. 86-7. Dalton paid a generous tribute in his memoirs to the influence of Pigou on his thought, noting that Pigou's book Wealth and Welfare 'helped me, more than any other, to formulate my own approach from ethics, through politics, to economics'. H. Dalton, Call Back Yesterday: Memoirs 1887-1931 (London, 1953), pp. 57-9, quote at p. 58. However, note that Tomlinson is sceptical of the extent to which Dalton actually drew upon the full range of Pigou's work: Tomlinson, 'Limits of Tawney's Ethical Socialism', p. 15, fn. 44.
65. On Hobson's view of the interpenetration of economics and ethics, see Freeden, Liberalism Divided, pp. 225-6; and J. Allett, New Liberalism: The Political Economy of J.A. Hobson (Toronto, 1981), pp. 47-69. For an overview of the gradual separation of the discussion of values from that of economic behaviour in late nineteenth- and early twentieth-century thought, see R. Tuck, 'The Contribution of History', in A Companion to Contemporary Political Philosophy, ed. R. Goodin and P. Pettit (Oxford, 1993). pp. 72-8.
66. On Hobson's view of the interpenetration of economics and ethics, see Freeden, Liberalism Divided, pp. 225-6; and J. Allett, New Liberalism: The Political Economy of J.A. Hobson (Toronto, 1981), pp. 47-69. For an overview of the gradual separation of the discussion of values from that of economic behaviour in late nineteenth- and early twentieth-century thought, see R. Tuck, 'The Contribution of History', in A Companion to Contemporary Political Philosophy, ed. R. Goodin and P. Pettit (Oxford, 1993). pp. 72-8.
67. On Hobson's view of the interpenetration of economics and ethics, see Freeden, Liberalism Divided, pp. 225-6; and J. Allett, New Liberalism: The Political Economy of J.A. Hobson (Toronto, 1981), pp. 47-69. For an overview of the gradual separation of the discussion of values from that of economic behaviour in late nineteenth- and early twentieth-century thought, see R. Tuck, 'The Contribution of History', in A Companion to Contemporary Political Philosophy, ed. R. Goodin and P. Pettit (Oxford, 1993). pp. 72-8.
68. J. Meade, An Introduction to Economic Analysis and Policy (Oxford, 1936), pp. 206-7; emphasis in original. To this book, wrote Douglas Jay, his own Socialist Case 'owed more than to any other printed work'. D. Jay, Change and Fortune: A Political Record (London, 1980), p. 63. See also J. Meade, 'The Economics of Utopia', unpublished section of Introduction to Economic Analysis and Policy, c. 1936, Meade Papers 2/12, British Library of Political and Economic Science, London, p. 3. One of the five objectives of Meade's ideal economy was 'so to distribute the national income among consumers that the marginal utility of incomes is the same to everyone, i.e. so that it would be impossible to increase total economic well-being by a further transference of income from one person to another.'
69. J. Meade, An Introduction to Economic Analysis and Policy (Oxford, 1936), pp. 206-7; emphasis in original. To this book, wrote Douglas Jay, his own Socialist Case 'owed more than to any other printed work'. D. Jay, Change and Fortune: A Political Record (London, 1980), p. 63. See also J. Meade, 'The Economics of Utopia', unpublished section of Introduction to Economic Analysis and Policy, c. 1936, Meade Papers 2/12, British Library of Political and Economic Science, London, p. 3. One of the five objectives of Meade's ideal economy was 'so to distribute the national income among consumers that the marginal utility of incomes is the same to everyone, i.e. so that it would be impossible to increase total economic well-being by a further transference of income from one person to another.'
70. J. Meade, An Introduction to Economic Analysis and Policy (Oxford, 1936), pp. 206-7; emphasis in original. To this book, wrote Douglas Jay, his own Socialist Case 'owed more than to any other printed work'. D. Jay, Change and Fortune: A Political Record (London, 1980), p. 63. See also J. Meade, 'The Economics of Utopia', unpublished section of Introduction to Economic Analysis and Policy, c. 1936, Meade Papers 2/12, British Library of Political and Economic Science, London, p. 3. One of the five objectives of Meade's ideal economy was 'so to distribute the national income among consumers that the marginal utility of incomes is the same to everyone, i.e. so that it would be impossible to increase total economic well-being by a further transference of income from one person to another.'
71. J. Meade, An Introduction to Economic Analysis and Policy (Oxford, 1936), pp. 206-7; emphasis in original. To this book, wrote Douglas Jay, his own Socialist Case 'owed more than to any other printed work'. D. Jay, Change and Fortune: A Political Record (London, 1980), p. 63. See also J. Meade, 'The Economics of Utopia', unpublished section of Introduction to Economic Analysis and Policy, c. 1936, Meade Papers 2/12, British Library of Political and Economic Science, London, p. 3. One of the five objectives of Meade's ideal economy was 'so to distribute the national income among consumers that the marginal utility of incomes is the same to everyone, i.e. so that it would be impossible to increase total economic well-being by a further transference of income from one person to another.'
72. W. Beveridge, 'Wages and Skill', BBC Radio Broadcast, 26 March 1935; printed in W. Beveridge, Planning Under Socialism and Other Addresses (London, 1936), p. 66.
73. W. Beveridge, 'Wages and Skill', BBC Radio Broadcast, 26 March 1935; printed in W. Beveridge, Planning Under Socialism and Other Addresses (London, 1936), p. 66.
74. Ian Little's seminal critique of welfare economics drew attention to the failure of early welfare economists to grasp the ethical import of their theoretical language: I. Little, A Critique of Welfare Economics (Oxford, 2nd edn., 1960 [1957]), pp. 75-83. The evidence presented in this article shifts the focus of this discussion to the way in which writers with a political agenda, some of whom were economists, found the ambiguous ethical status of the concept of 'welfare' a useful resource in constructing arguments that could legitimate egalitarian redistribution.
75. A. Lerner, The Economics of Control: Principles of Welfare Economics (New York, 1946 [1944]), p. 39.
76. J. Meade, Planning and the Price Mechanism: The Liberal Socialist Solution (London, 1948), p. 35.
77. Ethical principles do remain present in some texts of the period, though often in conjunction with the utilitarian argument. See for example H. Dalton, Practical Socialism for Britain (London, 1935), pp. 319-21, and G.D.H. Cole, 'Fifty Propositions About Money and Production', proposition no. 19, reprinted in Cole, Money: Its Present and Future (London, 3rd edn., 1947 [1936]), p. 360.
78. Ethical principles do remain present in some texts of the period, though often in conjunction with the utilitarian argument. See for example H. Dalton, Practical Socialism for Britain (London, 1935), pp. 319-21, and G.D.H. Cole, 'Fifty Propositions About Money and Production', proposition no. 19, reprinted in Cole, Money: Its Present and Future (London, 3rd edn., 1947 [1936]), p. 360.
79. See for example Jay, Socialist Case, pp. 192-3, 292-4; J. Strachey, A Programme for Progress (London, 1940), pp. 322-5; A.L. Rowse, Mr Keynes and the Labour Movement (London, 1936), pp. 13-15, 18-21, 41-2, 45-54. On Keynes's own views, see Freeden, Liberalism Divided, pp. 164-70.
80. See for example Jay, Socialist Case, pp. 192-3, 292-4; J. Strachey, A Programme for Progress (London, 1940), pp. 322-5; A.L. Rowse, Mr Keynes and the Labour Movement (London, 1936), pp. 13-15, 18-21, 41-2, 45-54. On Keynes's own views, see Freeden, Liberalism Divided, pp. 164-70.
81. See for example Jay, Socialist Case, pp. 192-3, 292-4; J. Strachey, A Programme for Progress (London, 1940), pp. 322-5; A.L. Rowse, Mr Keynes and the Labour Movement (London, 1936), pp. 13-15, 18-21, 41-2, 45-54. On Keynes's own views, see Freeden, Liberalism Divided, pp. 164-70.
82. See for example Jay, Socialist Case, pp. 192-3, 292-4; J. Strachey, A Programme for Progress (London, 1940), pp. 322-5; A.L. Rowse, Mr Keynes and the Labour Movement (London, 1936), pp. 13-15, 18-21, 41-2, 45-54. On Keynes's own views, see Freeden, Liberalism Divided, pp. 164-70.
83. E. Durbin, 'The Response of the Economists to the Ethical Ideal of Equality', in T.H. Marshall, E. Durbin and H.J. Bridges, The Ethical Factor in Economic Thought (London, 1935), p. 20.
84. G.D.H. Cole, A Guide Through World Chaos (New York, 1934 [1932]), p. 125. See also G.D.H. Cole, 'Economics in the Modern World', Political Quarterly, 4 (1933), p. 220.
85. G.D.H. Cole, A Guide Through World Chaos (New York, 1934 [1932]), p. 125. See also G.D.H. Cole, 'Economics in the Modern World', Political Quarterly, 4 (1933), p. 220.
86. G.D.H. Cole, The Means to Full Employment (London, 1943), p. 48; Cole, Money: Its Present and Future, p. 148.
87. G.D.H. Cole, The Means to Full Employment (London, 1943), p. 48; Cole, Money: Its Present and Future, p. 148.
88. Cole, Guide Through World Chaos, p. 124.
89. G.D.H. Cole, The Simple Case for Socialism (London, 1935), pp. 15-18.
90. Jay, Change and Fortune, p. 62. The quote from Marshall is from his Principles of Economics (London, 7th edn., 1916), p. 471.
91. Jay, Change and Fortune, p. 62. The quote from Marshall is from his Principles of Economics (London, 7th edn., 1916), p. 471.
92. B. Wootton, Lament for Economics (London, 1938), p. 210.
93. Lerner, Economies of Control, p. 28.
94. A.C. Pigou, quoted in D. Jay, 'Review of Socialism versus Capitalism', Political Quarterly, 9 (1938), p. 147.
95. An accessible summary of the theoretical issues raised by this objection can be found in A. Sen, Development as Freedom (Oxford, 1999), pp. 67-86. For more detailed discussion, see Interpersonal Comparisons of Well-Being, ed. J. Elster and J. Roemer (Cambridge, 1991).
96. An accessible summary of the theoretical issues raised by this objection can be found in A. Sen, Development as Freedom (Oxford, 1999), pp. 67-86. For more detailed discussion, see Interpersonal Comparisons of Well-Being, ed. J. Elster and J. Roemer (Cambridge, 1991).
97. F.A. Hayek, 'The Nature and History of the Problem', in Collectivist Economic Planning, ed. F.A. Hayek (London, 1938 [1935]), p. 25.
98. L. Robbins, 'Interpersonal Comparisons of Utility: A Comment', Economic Journal, 48 (1938), p. 636.
99. L. Robbins, An Essay on the Nature and Significance of Economic Science (London, 1932), pp. 120-6, quote at p. 124; italics in the original.
100. See Robbins, 'Interpersonal Comparisons of Utility', p. 640; and L. Robbins, Autobiography of an Economist (London, 1971), pp. 147-9.
101. See Robbins, 'Interpersonal Comparisons of Utility', p. 640; and L. Robbins, Autobiography of an Economist (London, 1971), pp. 147-9.
102. An overview of the impact of this criticism on the discipline of welfare economics can be found in Backhouse, History of Modern Economic Analysis, pp. 160-70, 302-17. For a sample of the debate, see J. Hicks and R. Allen, 'A Reconsideration of the Theory of Value', Economica, 1 (1934), pp. 52-76, 196-219, and the following articles from the Economic Journal: R. Harrod, 'The Scope and Methods of Economies', 48 (1938), pp. 383-412; J.R. Hicks, 'Foundations of Welfare Economics', 49 (1939), pp. 696-712; N. Kaldor, 'Welfare Propositions of Economics and Interpersonal Comparisons of Utility', 49 (1939), pp. 549-52. One influential critical discussion of this literature is Little, A Critique of Welfare Economics, passim.
103. An overview of the impact of this criticism on the discipline of welfare economics can be found in Backhouse, History of Modern Economic Analysis, pp. 160-70, 302-17. For a sample of the debate, see J. Hicks and R. Allen, 'A Reconsideration of the Theory of Value', Economica, 1 (1934), pp. 52-76, 196-219, and the following articles from the Economic Journal: R. Harrod, 'The Scope and Methods of Economies', 48 (1938), pp. 383-412; J.R. Hicks, 'Foundations of Welfare Economics', 49 (1939), pp. 696-712; N. Kaldor, 'Welfare Propositions of Economics and Interpersonal Comparisons of Utility', 49 (1939), pp. 549-52. One influential critical discussion of this literature is Little, A Critique of Welfare Economics, passim.
104. An overview of the impact of this criticism on the discipline of welfare economics can be found in Backhouse, History of Modern Economic Analysis, pp. 160-70, 302-17. For a sample of the debate, see J. Hicks and R. Allen, 'A Reconsideration of the Theory of Value', Economica, 1 (1934), pp. 52-76, 196-219, and the following articles from the Economic Journal: R. Harrod, 'The Scope and Methods of Economies', 48 (1938), pp. 383-412; J.R. Hicks, 'Foundations of Welfare Economics', 49 (1939), pp. 696-712; N. Kaldor, 'Welfare Propositions of Economics and Interpersonal Comparisons of Utility', 49 (1939), pp. 549-52. One influential critical discussion of this literature is Little, A Critique of Welfare Economics, passim.
105. An overview of the impact of this criticism on the discipline of welfare economics can be found in Backhouse, History of Modern Economic Analysis, pp. 160-70, 302-17. For a sample of the debate, see J. Hicks and R. Allen, 'A Reconsideration of the Theory of Value', Economica, 1 (1934), pp. 52-76, 196-219, and the following articles from the Economic Journal: R. Harrod, 'The Scope and Methods of Economies', 48 (1938), pp. 383-412; J.R. Hicks, 'Foundations of Welfare Economics', 49 (1939), pp. 696-712; N. Kaldor, 'Welfare Propositions of Economics and Interpersonal Comparisons of Utility', 49 (1939), pp. 549-52. One influential critical discussion of this literature is Little, A Critique of Welfare Economics, passim.
106. An overview of the impact of this criticism on the discipline of welfare economics can be found in Backhouse, History of Modern Economic Analysis, pp. 160-70, 302-17. For a sample of the debate, see J. Hicks and R. Allen, 'A Reconsideration of the Theory of Value', Economica, 1 (1934), pp. 52-76, 196-219, and the following articles from the Economic Journal: R. Harrod, 'The Scope and Methods of Economies', 48 (1938), pp. 383-412; J.R. Hicks, 'Foundations of Welfare Economics', 49 (1939), pp. 696-712; N. Kaldor, 'Welfare Propositions of Economics and Interpersonal Comparisons of Utility', 49 (1939), pp. 549-52. One influential critical discussion of this literature is Little, A Critique of Welfare Economics, passim.
107. An overview of the impact of this criticism on the discipline of welfare economics can be found in Backhouse, History of Modern Economic Analysis, pp. 160-70, 302-17. For a sample of the debate, see J. Hicks and R. Allen, 'A Reconsideration of the Theory of Value', Economica, 1 (1934), pp. 52-76, 196-219, and the following articles from the Economic Journal: R. Harrod, 'The Scope and Methods of Economies', 48 (1938), pp. 383-412; J.R. Hicks, 'Foundations of Welfare Economics', 49 (1939), pp. 696-712; N. Kaldor, 'Welfare Propositions of Economics and Interpersonal Comparisons of Utility', 49 (1939), pp. 549-52. One influential critical discussion of this literature is Little, A Critique of Welfare Economics, passim.
108. Kaldor, 'Welfare Propositions of Economics', p. 551.
109. Cole, Money: Its Present and Future, p. 149.
110. Meade. Introduction to Economic Analysis, p. 210. See also Wootton, Lament for Economics, pp. 192-3.
111. Meade. Introduction to Economic Analysis, p. 210. See also Wootton, Lament for Economics, pp. 192-3.
112. Jay, .Socialist Case, p. 21.
113. B. Wootton, Plan or No Plan (London, 1934), p. 113.
114. Lerner, Economics of Control, p. 25.
115. Jay. Socialist Case, p. 26. Jay had earlier accepted an ordinalist reading of the doctrine of marginal utility: Socialist Case, pp. 8-14. See also Barbara Wootton's review of Jay's book, which expressed broad approval for Jay's argument here: 'Review of The Socialist Case', Economic Journal, 48 (1938), pp. 95-7.
116. Jay. Socialist Case, p. 26. Jay had earlier accepted an ordinalist reading of the doctrine of marginal utility: Socialist Case, pp. 8-14. See also Barbara Wootton's review of Jay's book, which expressed broad approval for Jay's argument here: 'Review of The Socialist Case', Economic Journal, 48 (1938), pp. 95-7.
117. Jay. Socialist Case, p. 26. Jay had earlier accepted an ordinalist reading of the doctrine of marginal utility: Socialist Case, pp. 8-14. See also Barbara Wootton's review of Jay's book, which expressed broad approval for Jay's argument here: 'Review of The Socialist Case', Economic Journal, 48 (1938), pp. 95-7.
118. Jay. Socialist Case, p. 26. Subsequent critics of Robbins have mounted a broadly similar line of argument to that of Jay et al.: see Little, A Critique of Welfare Economics, pp. 54-6, and R. Goodin, Utilitarianism as a Public Philosophy (Cambridge, 1995), pp. 18-21.
119. Jay. Socialist Case, p. 26. Subsequent critics of Robbins have mounted a broadly similar line of argument to that of Jay et al.: see Little, A Critique of Welfare Economics, pp. 54-6, and R. Goodin, Utilitarianism as a Public Philosophy (Cambridge, 1995), pp. 18-21.
120. Jay. Socialist Case, p. 26. Subsequent critics of Robbins have mounted a broadly similar line of argument to that of Jay et al.: see Little, A Critique of Welfare Economics, pp. 54-6, and R. Goodin, Utilitarianism as a Public Philosophy (Cambridge, 1995), pp. 18-21.
121. Jay, Socialist Case, pp. 26-30.
122. Ibid., p. 31.
123. Ibid., p. 32. Jay excluded from consideration 'psychological or moral states necessary to happiness which may be difficult to attain but whose possession by one person does not imply the impoverishment of someone else'. Jay, Socialist Case, p. 31.
124. Ibid., p. 32. Jay excluded from consideration 'psychological or moral states necessary to happiness which may be difficult to attain but whose possession by one person does not imply the impoverishment of someone else'. Jay, Socialist Case, p. 31.
125. Cooter and Rappoport, 'Were the Ordinalists Wrong About Welfare Economics?', pp. 513-16 and passim.
126. Jackson, 'Equality of Nothing?', pp. 94-9.
127. For a useful discussion of this point, see T. M. Scanion, 'The Moral Basis of Interpersonal Comparisons', in Interpersonal Comparisons of Well-Being, ed. Elster and Roemer, especially pp. 38-44, and, for the most influential recommendation of the shift to interpersonal comparisons on the basis of an index of goods, see J. Rawls, 'Social Unity and Primary Goods', in Utilitarianism and Beyond, ed. A. Sen and B. Williams (Cambridge, 1982).
128. For a useful discussion of this point, see T. M. Scanion, 'The Moral Basis of Interpersonal Comparisons', in Interpersonal Comparisons of Well-Being, ed. Elster and Roemer, especially pp. 38-44, and, for the most influential recommendation of the shift to interpersonal comparisons on the basis of an index of goods, see J. Rawls, 'Social Unity and Primary Goods', in Utilitarianism and Beyond, ed. A. Sen and B. Williams (Cambridge, 1982).
129. Jay, Socialist Case, p. 33.
130. Ibid., p. 34.
131. J. A. Hobson, 'The Socialist Case', Manchester Guardian, 15 October 1937, p. 6.
132. G.D.H. Cole, 'Socialism for Radicals', New Statesman, 20 November 1937, p. 846. It should be noted that more formidable technical economists than Jay or Wootton were less intimidated by Robbins, and in particular Abba Lerner produced a refutation of Robbins based on the idea that an equal distribution would maximize total probable satisfaction. See Lerner, Economics of Control, pp. 29-32. Lerner's argument has been the subject of a number of technical discussions and proofs by welfare economists. For a brief survey and discussion of the literature, see Sen, On Economic Inequality, pp. 83-5, and Sen, 'On Ignorance and Equal Distribution', in A. Sen, Choice, Welfare and Measurement (Oxford, 1982). Meade also expressed support for Lerner: J. Meade, 'Mr Lerner on the Economics of Control', Economic Journal, 55 (1945), pp. 48-9, although Meade did not take up Lerner's argument in his own work.
133. G.D.H. Cole, 'Socialism for Radicals', New Statesman, 20 November 1937, p. 846. It should be noted that more formidable technical economists than Jay or Wootton were less intimidated by Robbins, and in particular Abba Lerner produced a refutation of Robbins based on the idea that an equal distribution would maximize total probable satisfaction. See Lerner, Economics of Control, pp. 29-32. Lerner's argument has been the subject of a number of technical discussions and proofs by welfare economists. For a brief survey and discussion of the literature, see Sen, On Economic Inequality, pp. 83-5, and Sen, 'On Ignorance and Equal Distribution', in A. Sen, Choice, Welfare and Measurement (Oxford, 1982). Meade also expressed support for Lerner: J. Meade, 'Mr Lerner on the Economics of Control', Economic Journal, 55 (1945), pp. 48-9, although Meade did not take up Lerner's argument in his own work.
134. G.D.H. Cole, 'Socialism for Radicals', New Statesman, 20 November 1937, p. 846. It should be noted that more formidable technical economists than Jay or Wootton were less intimidated by Robbins, and in particular Abba Lerner produced a refutation of Robbins based on the idea that an equal distribution would maximize total probable satisfaction. See Lerner, Economics of Control, pp. 29-32. Lerner's argument has been the subject of a number of technical discussions and proofs by welfare economists. For a brief survey and discussion of the literature, see Sen, On Economic Inequality, pp. 83-5, and Sen, 'On Ignorance and Equal Distribution', in A. Sen, Choice, Welfare and Measurement (Oxford, 1982). Meade also expressed support for Lerner: J. Meade, 'Mr Lerner on the Economics of Control', Economic Journal, 55 (1945), pp. 48-9, although Meade did not take up Lerner's argument in his own work.
135. G.D.H. Cole, 'Socialism for Radicals', New Statesman, 20 November 1937, p. 846. It should be noted that more formidable technical economists than Jay or Wootton were less intimidated by Robbins, and in particular Abba Lerner produced a refutation of Robbins based on the idea that an equal distribution would maximize total probable satisfaction. See Lerner, Economics of Control, pp. 29-32. Lerner's argument has been the subject of a number of technical discussions and proofs by welfare economists. For a brief survey and discussion of the literature, see Sen, On Economic Inequality, pp. 83-5, and Sen, 'On Ignorance and Equal Distribution', in A. Sen, Choice, Welfare and Measurement (Oxford, 1982). Meade also expressed support for Lerner: J. Meade, 'Mr Lerner on the Economics of Control', Economic Journal, 55 (1945), pp. 48-9, although Meade did not take up Lerner's argument in his own work.
136. G.D.H. Cole, 'Socialism for Radicals', New Statesman, 20 November 1937, p. 846. It should be noted that more formidable technical economists than Jay or Wootton were less intimidated by Robbins, and in particular Abba Lerner produced a refutation of Robbins based on the idea that an equal distribution would maximize total probable satisfaction. See Lerner, Economics of Control, pp. 29-32. Lerner's argument has been the subject of a number of technical discussions and proofs by welfare economists. For a brief survey and discussion of the literature, see Sen, On Economic Inequality, pp. 83-5, and Sen, 'On Ignorance and Equal Distribution', in A. Sen, Choice, Welfare and Measurement (Oxford, 1982). Meade also expressed support for Lerner: J. Meade, 'Mr Lerner on the Economics of Control', Economic Journal, 55 (1945), pp. 48-9, although Meade did not take up Lerner's argument in his own work.
137. Influential contemporary discussions of these questions include Sen, 'Equality of What?'; R. Dworkin, Sovereign Virtue: The Theory and Practice of Equality (Cambridge, MA, 2000), pp. 11-119; and G.A. Cohen, 'On the Currency of Egalitarian Justice', Ethics, 99 (1989), pp. 906-44.
138. Influential contemporary discussions of these questions include Sen, 'Equality of What?'; R. Dworkin, Sovereign Virtue: The Theory and Practice of Equality (Cambridge, MA, 2000), pp. 11-119; and G.A. Cohen, 'On the Currency of Egalitarian Justice', Ethics, 99 (1989), pp. 906-44.
139. Meade, Introduction to Economic Analysis, pp. 208-10, quote at p. 209.
140. Ibid., pp. 208-9, quote at p. 209. Cf. the example of the tennis player and the gardener used by Kymlicka to illustrate the shortcomings of Rawls's difference principle: W. Kymlicka, Contemporary Political Philosophy: An Introduction (Oxford, 2nd edn., 2002), pp. 72-4.
141. Ibid., pp. 208-9, quote at p. 209. Cf. the example of the tennis player and the gardener used by Kymlicka to illustrate the shortcomings of Rawls's difference principle: W. Kymlicka, Contemporary Political Philosophy: An Introduction (Oxford, 2nd edn., 2002), pp. 72-4.
142. Meade, Introduction to Economic Analysis, p. 209. For a further example of the recognition of these points in the economic literature of this period,
143. Meade, Introduction to Economic Analysis, p. 209. For a further example of the recognition of these points in the economic literature of this period, see P. Samuelson, Foundations of Economic Analysis (Cambridge, MA, 1947), pp. 224-5.
144. Meade, Introduction to Economic Analysis, pp. 210-11.
145. O. Lange, 'On the Economic Theory of Socialism Part IF, Review of Economic Studies, 4 (1936-7), p. 125.
146. Cole, Money: Its Present and Future, p. 149.
147. For further discussion of this point, see M. Freeden, Ideologies and Political Theory (Oxford. 1996), pp. 36-40, 68-75.
148. C.A.R. Crosland, 'Review of A Critique of Welfare Economics', Universities Quarterly, 5 (1951), pp. 180-3; C.A.R. Crosland, The Future of Socialism (London, 1956), pp. 205-6; Little, Critique of Welfare Economics, pp. 247-9. See D. Reisman, Anthony Crosland: The Mixed Economy (Basingstoke, 1997), p. 9; D. Reisman, Crosland's Future: Opportunity and Outcome (Basingstoke, 1997), p. 127; and S. Crosland, Tony Crosland (London, 1983), pp. 45-6.
149. C.A.R. Crosland, 'Review of A Critique of Welfare Economics', Universities Quarterly, 5 (1951), pp. 180-3; C.A.R. Crosland, The Future of Socialism (London, 1956), pp. 205-6; Little, Critique of Welfare Economics, pp. 247-9. See D. Reisman, Anthony Crosland: The Mixed Economy (Basingstoke, 1997), p. 9; D. Reisman, Crosland's Future: Opportunity and Outcome (Basingstoke, 1997), p. 127; and S. Crosland, Tony Crosland (London, 1983), pp. 45-6.
150. C.A.R. Crosland, 'Review of A Critique of Welfare Economics', Universities Quarterly, 5 (1951), pp. 180-3; C.A.R. Crosland, The Future of Socialism (London, 1956), pp. 205-6; Little, Critique of Welfare Economics, pp. 247-9. See D. Reisman, Anthony Crosland: The Mixed Economy (Basingstoke, 1997), p. 9; D. Reisman, Crosland's Future: Opportunity and Outcome (Basingstoke, 1997), p. 127; and S. Crosland, Tony Crosland (London, 1983), pp. 45-6.
151. C.A.R. Crosland, 'Review of A Critique of Welfare Economics', Universities Quarterly, 5 (1951), pp. 180-3; C.A.R. Crosland, The Future of Socialism (London, 1956), pp. 205-6; Little, Critique of Welfare Economics, pp. 247-9. See D. Reisman, Anthony Crosland: The Mixed Economy (Basingstoke, 1997), p. 9; D. Reisman, Crosland's Future: Opportunity and Outcome (Basingstoke, 1997), p. 127; and S. Crosland, Tony Crosland (London, 1983), pp. 45-6.
152. C.A.R. Crosland, 'Review of A Critique of Welfare Economics', Universities Quarterly, 5 (1951), pp. 180-3; C.A.R. Crosland, The Future of Socialism (London, 1956), pp. 205-6; Little, Critique of Welfare Economics, pp. 247-9. See D. Reisman, Anthony Crosland: The Mixed Economy (Basingstoke, 1997), p. 9; D. Reisman, Crosland's Future: Opportunity and Outcome (Basingstoke, 1997), p. 127; and S. Crosland, Tony Crosland (London, 1983), pp. 45-6.
153. C.A.R. Crosland, 'Review of A Critique of Welfare Economics', Universities Quarterly, 5 (1951), pp. 180-3; C.A.R. Crosland, The Future of Socialism (London, 1956), pp. 205-6; Little, Critique of Welfare Economics, pp. 247-9. See D. Reisman, Anthony Crosland: The Mixed Economy (Basingstoke, 1997), p. 9; D. Reisman, Crosland's Future: Opportunity and Outcome (Basingstoke, 1997), p. 127; and S. Crosland, Tony Crosland (London, 1983), pp. 45-6.
154. Crosland, Future of Socialism, pp. 190-1; quote at p. 191.
155. See for example R. Jenkins, 'Equality', in New Fabian Essays, ed. R.H.S. Crossman (London, 1952), p. 71.
156. C.A.R. Crosland, 'Inequalities of Wealth', in C.A.R. Crosland, The Conservative Enemy (London, 1962), p. 40. See also Douglas Jay's later defence of 'social justice' as the socialist objective: Socialism in the New Society (London. 1962), p. 9.
157. C.A.R. Crosland, 'Inequalities of Wealth', in C.A.R. Crosland, The Conservative Enemy (London, 1962), p. 40. See also Douglas Jay's later defence of 'social justice' as the socialist objective: Socialism in the New Society (London. 1962), p. 9.
158. Most obviously, the early Fabians, who developed a Ricardian theory of rent that was at least to some extent indebted to Jevons' marginal utility value theory. However, as McBriar points out, this interest in 'abstract' economics was short-lived, and soon gave way to empirical social investigation: Fabian Socialism, pp. 29-57.
159. J. Rawls, A Theory of Justice (Oxford, 1999 [ 1971]), pp. 102-68; Dworkin, Sovereign Virtue, pp. 65-119.
160. J. Rawls, A Theory of Justice (Oxford, 1999 [ 1971]), pp. 102-68; Dworkin, Sovereign Virtue, pp. 65-119.