Search results

Liberal economists' attitudes towards the welfare state are examined to see how clearly neoliberalism can be distinguished from other forms of liberalism. Three questions are asked. First, how could Friedrich Hayek believe he could accommodate elements of the welfare state agenda set by William Beveridge and John Maynard Keynes into his thinking? Second, why did Hayek become increasingly critical of the welfare state? Third, how far did Lionel Robbins, John Jewkes, and Alan Peacock agree with him? All three might be regarded as neoliberals according to the litmus test set by Philip Mirowski and Dieter Plehwe: that is, membership of the Mont Pèlerin Society or a think tank associated with the Atlas Economic Research Foundation. Yet, Robbins, Jewkes, and Peacock are on a spectrum between Mirowski's definition of neoliberalism as a belief that freedom is to be found in the unfettered market, and classical and democratic liberals' belief that people have to be nurtured to become effective citizens and have to be protected from the market's disruptive effects. It is suggested that a nuanced approach is required in explaining why liberal economists came to believe the welfare state should make more use of markets and pricing systems for registering preferences and apportioning resources.

AbstractThis paper is a response to the British Chancellor of the Exchequer's consultation on closer integration of the operation of National Insurance contributions and income tax. Our historical research on proposals for a complete merger of the two systems enables people interested in tax reform to draw on experience and ideas of officials who grappled with issues similar to those facing us today. We show that officials identified the problem of maintaining increasing numbers of elderly people as long ago as 1950, and identify when and why the British government adopted a pay‐as‐you‐go basis for the National Insurance Fund. We conclude that the advantages of National Insurance contributions separate from income tax are not negligible, but that a merger would be fairer than the present system. Our principal concern is that the contributory principle may raise unrealistic expectations regarding state pensions as it encourages a mistaken belief that these are paid from contributions made by pensioners in the past. We therefore recommend that the government should produce an annual statement showing how state pension liabilities are to be met.