No.23

The Making of Unemployment [1909]:
Three Concepts Blended
Atsushi KOMINE
January 2002

1

The Making of Unemployment [1909]:
Three Concepts Blended
Atsushi Komine
Key Words: Beveridge, labour exchanges, insurance against
unemployment, the National Minimum, 1903-1909,
JEL Classification (Journal of Economic Literature)(a) Primary: B31 History of Thought: Individuals
B Methodology and History of Economic Thought(b) Secondary: N33 Europe: Pre-1913, N3 - Labor, Demography,
Education, Income, and Wealth, N Economic History
Abstract
The aim of this paper is to re-examine Sir William Henry Beveridge’s(1879-1963) ideas on unemployment. What is lacking is a consideration of
positioning his Unemployment [1909] adequately in a history of economic
thought.
There were three processes in the evolution of Beveridge’s ideas. The
symbolic phrase of Period 1 (from September 1903 to December 1904) is‘from the unemployable to the unemployed’. The key expression of Period
2 (till June 1907) is ‘from the unemployed to unemployment’. The abstract
word of Period 3 (till January 1909) is ‘perfection of the labour market’. It
is the National Minimum principle that is of most significant inBeveridge’s basic idea (Figure 1). The sentence ‘one man at a living wage
is better than two at half wage’ is an emblem. The idea was continuously
revealed in all the periods.
Beveridge only accomplished a coherent package of remedies for
unemployment: labour exchanges with National Insurance on a basis of theliving wage principle. These three concepts, which were perfectly blended,
formed his original and unique standpoint.

2

Acknowledgements
A. First of all, I wish to express my gratitude to the Department of History
at the University of Exeter for inviting me to be an Honorary University
Fellow (1 September 2001 – 30 September 2002). In particular, Dr.
Alan Booth has helped me professionally and personally.
B. I would like to thank Niigata Sangyo University for delegating me as a
researcher abroad for a year with a research grant.
C. This paper was supported in part by a grant from the Zengin Academic
Research Promotion Foundation for Studies on Economics and Finance,
Tokyo (in 2000).
D. I am also grateful to the following institutions for permission to quotefrom papers: the British Library of Political and Economic Science(LSE) for the Beveridge Papers; Kings College Library, Cambridge fora letter of J. M. Keynes.
E. I benefited greatly from reading a portion of this paper in the annual
conference of History of Economic Thought Society of Australia at the
University of Tasmania on 13 July 2001. I wish to express my gratitude
to Dr. Michael Schneider (La Trobe University, Australia), who was thechair of the session, and to the attendants.
F. I am indebted to Mr. Hiroyuki Shimodaira (Yamagata University), Mr.
Kouji Hatta (Tokyo Metropolitan University), Mr. Ryo Hongo(Kwansai Gakuin University) and Mr. Atsushi Naito (Hitotsubashi
University) for their assistance in collecting some of the references andfor their valuable comments.
I am, of course, entirely responsible for any errors.

3

25 January 2002

The Making of Unemployment [1909]:
Three Concepts Blended
Atsushi KOMINE*
Preliminary version: not to be quoted
Abstract
Acknowledgements
Section 1 Introduction
Section 2 Period 1: September 1903 to December 1904
2-1 Background
2-2 Articles in Question and Summary
2-3 Empirical Attitude
2-4 Pauperism isolated
Section 3 Period 2: January 1905 to June 1907
3-1 Background
3-2 Articles in Question and Summary
3-3 A Discovery of Labour Exchanges
3-4 Penetration of Economic Thinking
3-5 Quasi-accomplished
Section 4 Period 3: July 1907 to January 1909
4-1 Background
4-2 Articles in Question and Summary
4-3 Insurance discovered
4-4 Final Development*

Visiting Research Fellow, University of Exeter, and Associate Professor, Niigata
Sangyo University. Correspondence may be by email; A.Komine@exeter.ac.uk, orkomine@econ.nsu.ac.jp
44-5 Living Wages
Section 5 Concluding Remarks
Appendix A: Book of Reference in 1905 (Beveridge’s original order)
Appendix B: Book of Reference in 1905 (Our arranged order)
Bibliography

Section 1 Introduction
Why has Sir William Henry Beveridge (1879-1963) not been recognised
as one who left his great mark on the development of economic thought?
What is more, why has the link - between his early economic doctrine andhis later idea of social security – not been amplified from the angle of thehistory of economic thought? Indeed, he is definitely one of the earliest
contributors to solutions to unemployment tackling it as early as 1904, long
before A. C. Pigou in the 1910s or J. M. Keynes in the 1920s. Furthermore,
Beveridge’s doctrine is sometimes beyond the orthodox economics of thosedays. Thus, we should be considered from a broader point of view.
As to the first question above, we have at least had two possible answers.
Firstly, as F. A. Hayek contemptuously said, Beveridge “was completely
ignorant of any economics whatever” and “never understood any
economics”1. This camp would say that Beveridge’s works do not deserve
any consideration, simply because he had never been an economist. Indeed,a majority of researchers2, including Roll [1954], Stigler [1965], Blaug[1978]3 and Creedy [1990], merely ignored Beveridge in the context both1

Hayek [1994] p.83 and p.88.
There is no name of Beveridge in the following books: Stark [1944]?, Taylor [1960],
Brems [1986]?, Landreth & Colander [1989], Loasby [1989], Ekelund & Hebert [1990],
Morgan [1990], and Mair & Miller [1991].
3This is the third edition of his Economic Theory in Retrospect, whose first edition was
published in 1962. From the fourth edition, Blaug began to refer to Beveridge.
However, that is in the context of public works only. See Blaug [1996] p.662.
2

5

of the economics of unemployment in the 1900s and 1910s, and of themeaning of the Welfare State in the 1940s. (There are a very few
exceptions that refer to Beveridge in the 1900s, such as Schumpeter [1954]4,
Hutchison [1953]5 & [1978]6 and Backhouse [1985]7.) Regarding thesecond answer, Beveridge is regarded that he had no other focus thanfrictional unemployment, or at best a rationale of administrative
difficulties8. Therefore, the general view of those who have published amajority of previous studies would be that “Beveridge’s own thinking on
unemployment was not particularly original”9, or that “Beveridge’s attitude
to unemployment … was not a new one”10.
Instead, we will present a third possible answer in this whole project of

4

Schumpeter referred to Beveridge’s Unemployment in the context of frictional
unemployment, “friction is no longer an obvious inadequate explanation … In particular,
the indictment should not have been directed against Pigou’s The Theory of
Unemployment [1933]. For this period, see especially Beveridge’s Unemployment[1909]” (Schumpeter [1954] p.944).
5
Hutchison took up Beveridge’s Unemployment (Hutchison [1953] p.415 and p.421)
because Hutchison made a point of controversies on public works in those days,
especially in 1909, when the Minority Report of the Poor Law Commission was
published.
6
Hutchison at this time connected the following events after 1909 together as ‘National
Development’ programme: Lloyd George’s People Budget, Labour Exchanges,
Unemployment Insurance, and Beveridge ‘monograph’ on unemployment (Hutchison[1978] p.160).
7
Backhouse noticed Beveridge’s Unemployment “went beyond their works [Booth andearlier Investigators] in looking at employment in a wider range of industries(Backhouse [1985] p.247). He also noticed two types of policy: labour exchanges andthe extension of unemployment insurance (Backhouse [1985] p.248). Besides,
mentioning even Beveridge’s Full Employment in a Free Society [1944], Backhouse said
that “Beveridge was thus embracing the Keynesian approach to demand management”
and “he saw as complementary to his earlier approach of encouraging the mobility oflabour” (Backhouse [1985] p.399).
8
See Hutchison [1953] p.415.
9
Casson [1983] p.25.
10
Freeden [1978] p.211.
6

our research on Beveridge: his contribution as an economist has been
overlooked (in a sense inevitably) because his doctrine superficiallyresembled the orthodox conclusion, that is to say, there is a preference forthe perfection of the labour market. However, if we untangle Beveridge’s
complex but coherent thought, which was sometimes implicit even in his
first book Unemployment [1909], then we can position his writings
properly in the history of economic thought. It is also high time to re-focus
on his other numerous articles before 1909.
Therefore, as a first step, in this paper, we examine the development of
the framework within Unemployment [1909] from September 1903 toJanuary 1909. In accordance with evolution of Beveridge’s ideas, we
divide the five years into three: Period 1: September 1903 to December
1904; Period 2: January 1905 to June 1907; and Period 3: July 1907 to
January 1909. Three periods can be described respectively as: the fateful
discovery of the unemployed, a zealous advocate for Labour Exchanges,
and the completion of a coherent remedial package on a basis of the
National Minimum principle.
This paper is organised as follows. Section 2, 3 and 4 argue the main
points of each period. The first part of each section is a rough sketch bothof social events and of Beveridge’s personal information. Section 5 is asummary and conclusion.

Section 2 Period 1: September 1903 to December 1904
This stage, which we refer to as Period 1 (from September 1903 to
December 1904), should be treated as a fateful encounter for Beveridgewith the problem of the unemployed. There are three aspects to this‘fateful encounter’. He recognised that unemployment extended beyond
the pauper class (and trade unionism) to the industrial workforce. He
developed an empirical approach. However, he had no concrete remedies
then. Before examining these elements in detail, we at first give a short7

sketch of his background at this stage.
2-1 Background
Even in 1902 and 1903 after graduating from Balliol College, Oxford,
Beveridge was still wondering whether his calling should be as judge or
jurist. Although his father strongly wanted him to be called to the bar, hefinally decided to live at and to work for Toynbee Hall as a sub-warden
from 1 September 1903.
Unlike Beatrice Potter, we should not think that Beveridge started his
career as a social worker from a philanthropic point of view. At the sametime, he was not merely a legal or ideal reformer in the mould of Jeremy
Bentham or Edwin Chadwick. Firstly, Beveridge expressed his dislike of‘slumming’ and ‘good works’, after staying at Toynbee Hall for two daysin his third year at Oxford11. He even avoided the term ‘social problems’,since it always suggested ‘slumming’ and drink 12. However hard he would
deny it, he certainly inherited this hatred from his father, who had a great
contempt for ‘horny-handed mechanics’ and ‘soup-kitchens for theproletariat’13. Secondly, Beveridge disposed of the shade of Bentham inparticular as a symbol of father’s power:
The last century has been one gigantic legal reformation; … Then there
is another class of legal reforms needed at the present day – vitally
important and resembling neither Bentham reforms nor the legal
emendation …A reform of the sort is rather social than legal; it … is amatter … for a combination of political philosopher, economist and …
lawyer. (Beveridge [1953] pp.17-18)
In short, his determination differs from those of 19th century reformers.

11

See Beveridge [1955] p.15.
See Beveridge [1955] p.14.
13
See Harris [1997] p.75.
128For a new type reformer with a macroeconomic perspective, Toynbee
Hall provided a suitable opportunity, because this settlement redeemed himfrom his identity crisis, the dissociation between a philanthropic missionary
and a cool social observer. On the one hand, the settlement in East London
was full of philanthropic atmosphere. Samuel Barnett (1844 - 1913), who
was Vicar of St. Jude’s, founded Toynbee Hall in Whitechapel in 1884 inmemory of Arnold Toynbee, ‘Apostle’ Arnold (1852-1881) 14. On the other
hand, Beveridge, who was scouted by Barnett, had plenty of free time witha not inconsiderable salary (£200)15, in addition to a generous scholarship(£120, later £200)16. Therefore, he could investigate actual conditions ofworker’s life, infer something from the minute data, attend numerous
meetings on poverty and the unemployed, project and execute relief works,
write articles in the Toynbee Record, and deliver addresses on social
problems. Beveridge was eager to “know something about human society
and working at some part of its machinery”17 and to experience the actual
working of the ‘Nation’18. Thus, his desire to do something for the sake ofsociety was almost satisfied in this period.
Above all, Beveridge’s first job enabled him to gain access to ‘theproblem of the unemployed’. Before the severe winter of 1903, Barnet andothers advocated a revival of the Lord Mayor’s Mansion House fund19 andorganised the Salvation Army20 in Essex on the basis of the raised fund.
14

He was the first historian to identify the British ‘Industrial Revolution’ in his Lectureson the Industrial Revolution in England, 1884.
15
See Beveridge [1955] p.16.
16
See Beveridge [1955] p.10, p.18. This scholarship, which sustained him for 7 years
till 1909, is the Stowell Civil Law Fellowship at University College, Oxford.
17
Beveridge [1955] p.14, a letter from W. H. Beveridge to his mother, 25 January 1903.
18
See Harris [1997] p.74.
19
In 1886, this fund swelled from £19.000 to £72.000 in the two days. The failure of
the fund, as a remedy for the unemployed, forced the Committee to be in a state ofsuspended during 1895-1903. See K.D. Brown [1971a] p.14. Percy Alden was also amember of the Committee.
20
William Booth, an independent revivalist, established the Salvation Army in the early
1890s. The movement soon became popular, not only because of an upsurge of9467 men were to set to work in labour (farm) colonies from December
1903 to March 1904. Their wives and children waited in London, receiving
the wage. The relief work was continuous but simple. After staying for a
few days or several weeks, they all left for London. The lack of funds
prevented the Mansion House Committee from providing subsequent relief
work. Young Toynbee Hall residents, such as Beveridge, H. R. Maynard(1873-?) and Harry Tawney (1880-1962)21, took part in this plan. Under
the guidance of Vicar Canon Barnet, they came to be involved in an urgent
issue, the unemployment problem. The Salvation Army (1903/1904) was
both a great experience and experiment for them. This new type of relief
work was labour colonies, unlike the earlier version of ‘money or fooddole’.
Beveridge was forced to resign the Committee in February 1904, owing tolong conflicts with a majority of other participants. The frictions arosefrom different attitudes towards workers. He disapproved of religious‘influence’ – or imposition – on workers during the relief work22.
Beveridge moved to another branch of the Mansion House Scheme.
2-2 Articles in Question and Summary
In Section 2, after reviewing five articles: Beveridge [1904a], [1904b],[1904c], [1904d] in the Toynbee Record and Beveridge & Maynard [1904]
in the Contemporary Review, we summarise this period as follows. Firstly,
Beveridge’s inference was based on numerous data and actual experienceof the Salvation Army. Secondly, his argument included both the discovery
that modern industry had a third and hidden class (i.e. casual workers), anda dislike for previous treatment of the unemployed in the 19th century.
Thirdly, his analysis naturally led to his deeper recognition about industrial
humanitarian sentiment, but of a fear of violent rioters. See K.D. Brown [1971a] p.14.
21
Economic historian and leader of the Fabian socialists. He came to Toynbee Hall as
resident.
22

See Harris [1997] pp.140-141.
10

fluctuations and the possibility of an economic role for the state.
2-3 Empirical Attitude
Unlike other philanthropists, Beveridge approached the problem of theunemployed in the manner of a natural scientist. He used the term ‘thescience of Society or Sociology’23. His attitude, derived from his respect
for Thomas Huxley24, could be seen in numerous hand-written charts andprofiles in his memorandum25 in this period. He collected those data bothfrom formal documents (such as the Labour Gazette and the reports ofLocal Government) and from actual experience (relief work). Equallyimportant, Beveridge inferred in both inductive26 and deductive ways, byusing strict logical steps on the basis of the collected information.
For example, let us pay attention to an article “The Making of Paupers”:
Beveridge [1904c]. He compared the yearly percentages of unemployed
trade unionists with the numbers of indoor paupers per thousand.
The unemployed

Peak
Trough1892-1894
1889

1897
1896

1899

23

This term was mentioned in Beveridge’s address “Economics as a Liberal Education”
at the London School of Economics in 1920. See Beveridge [1955] p.247.
24
Beveridge wrote that Huxley was his hero. See Harris [1997] p.68.
25
See the Beveridge Papers (microfilm), Part 2, Series 2: Part 1. Reel 1, Item 5. Early
Activities: Central (Unemployed) Body for London, conference reports, summaries ofworking colony schemes and related papers, 1905-1908.
26

Beveridge himself referred to his scientific method, saying “I wish to see economics… established as an inductive science of observation, nearer to biology than tomathematics or philosophy (Beveridge [1955] p.247).
11

Paupers
Peak
Trough1893-1895
1891

1898
1897

1900

Table 1 Peak and Trough of the Poor, made from Beveridge [1904c] p.28

The above table indicates his way of thinking.
In peak years,
unemployment or pauperism culminated and began to decrease. In troughs,
the number was the lowest and began to increase. At first sight, there
seemed to be no clear relationship among annual figures of the twovariables. Nonetheless indirectly, taking ups and downs per year into
account as in the above table, Beveridge could induce that “the two curves
do bear a very curious relation to one anther. The pauperism curve follows
the unemployment curve at a year’s interval”27. Furthermore, he deduced
and concluded:
Those who from time to time fall out of regular industry do not arrive at
the workhouse and the casual ward till after a consideration interval. In ayear of bad trade many will be dislodged from their positions in theindustrial army; a year later, … these people will reach the pauper level,
and the percentage of pauperism will rise. (Beveridge [1904c] p.28)
This article is an excellent example which shows a mixed method of
induction and deduction. Beveridge’s way of reasoning was certainly
empirical, but not merely statistical.
2-4 Pauperism isolated
The experience and experiment of the Salvation Army induced Beveridge
to discover the third or hidden class in modern industry: casual workers.
The recognition was possible only after he made careful classification of
the poor, or strictly speaking, after he was able to separate pauperism from27

Beveridge [1904c] p.27, emphasis in original.
12

his main analysis. The poor to be set to work in farm colonies weregrouped in three classes. Class A indicates regular work. Class B means“casual or irregular work. … Class C means out of work during the whole
period”28. In other words, Class A corresponds to the genuine workmen
normally in regular work; Class B also indicates the other genuine
workmen, though in irregular work; Class C corresponds to “the‘unemployable’, who have no place in the industrial army”29. What isnoted here is that Beveridge was not so interested in Class A and Class C,
mainly because the former were naturally protected by their trades unions,and the latter were less important for industry and fewer in number as awhole. Therefore, for Beveridge Class B were of great significance despite
having been ignored for a long time, “since the classes most concerned areneither trades unionists nor paupers”30. He ‘discovered’ the hidden class byclassifying the poor. The Mansion House Scheme resulted in developing
his idea.
This discovery stemmed from Beveridge’s dislike of predominanttreatment of the poor. In particular, he criticised the ‘dole’ type of relief
work:… the system of scanty or intermittent “doles” either of money or ofwork, which tend to perpetuate, while they do nothing to remedy, themisery and demoralisation of a casual and dependent existence. …
Experience has invariably proved that doles on a large scale mean doles
without discrimination. … they corrupt the worker by the open
encouragement of idleness and imposture.
(Beveridge & Maynard [1904] pp.635-636)
In short, unorganised “charity is worse than useless” 31, because the problem

28

Beveridge [1904b] p.13.
Beveridge & Maynard [1904] p.633.
30
Beveridge & Maynard [1904] p.635.
31
Beveridge [1904d] p.43.
29

13

of “unemployment is beyond the powers of charity and is wholly outside
the scope of a Poor Law dealing with destitution in general”32. In thisconnection, Beveridge mocked the classical recommendation of thrift or
sobriety33, simply because workers under the poverty line could not afford
to buy luxuries or save more. Again, we should say that he discarded theold-fashioned ideas such as thrift, self-help and self-respecting individuals.
In this period34, Beveridge was favourable towards labour colonies. There
are roughly speaking two reasons. Firstly, the colony system was cheaper
than prison. Farm colonies were self-supporting and self-contained since
they could produce their own food during the scheme. Secondly, they
could keep “men in the habit of labour”35. Actually, the main feature of theSalvation Army was “the offer of continuous work”36. Then, the colonysystem aimed “at training its inmates for the return to some regularindustry”37. Here again, for Beveridge, it is significant for ordinary people
to work on a regular basis. He preferred this system to either prison or dolemoney, because the latter two had no relation to work in industry.
Beveridge’s discovery and dislike, to which we have referred, graduallyenlarged his modern view on unemployment. The development of his idea
is summarised in three aspects.
Firstly, he reversed causality regarding the poor. Classical reformers had
claimed that defects of character automatically caused people to be always
unemployed. Namely, they had identified the unemployed with the
unemployable or the vagrants (such as vagabonds, beggars, anddebauchees). On the contrary, Beveridge maintained that “unemployment[was] creating ‘unemployable’”38. Indeed, “good conditions … produced a32

Beveridge [1904d] p.46.
Beveridge [1904d] p.46 and Beveridge [1904b] p.14.
34
A few years later, Beveridge changed his opinion, and came to be unfavourable to theSalvation Army.
35“The provision of relief work is better than cash payments “(Beveridge [1904d] p.44).
36
Beveridge & Maynard [1904] p.629.
37
Beveridge [1904a] p.104.
38
Beveridge [1904d] p.43.
33

14

marked improvement in the physique of the men”39 in the Salvation Army.
As we have discussed in 2-3, he concluded that in “a year of bad trade
many will be dislodged from their positions in the industrial army; a year
later … these people will reach the pauper level”40. Unemployment caused
by bad trade leads to paupers, not vice versa:… the problem of the unemployed – which is the problem of those able
and willing to take employment but at particular time and place, whether
for a definite or an indefinite period, superfluous.
(Beveridge [1904a] p.100, emphasis added)
The term ‘superfluous’ symbolises the second progress of Beveridge’s
economic thought, that is to say, the recognition that there were inevitablefluctuations and severe depressions in modern industry. For instance, thehigh rate of unemployment in the winter of 1903-1904 was not caused byseasonal factors, but cyclical41. The word ‘cyclical’, which was also
expressed as “chronic”42, was defined by Beveridge as “extending over
several seasons”43. We should note that he paid attention to “theacceleration of general downward tendency in trade”44. The duration inquestion is not a season (short-range), but over several seasons (middlerange). In the modern world, it was vital and indispensable for the poor tobe suffering from continuous depression:
It may be that this periodical extrusion of the weaker at times of stress isan essential part in the machinery of modern industry or of industry
however organised. (Beveridge [1904b] p.14)

39

Beveridge & Maynard [1904] p.631.
Beveridge [1904c] p.28.
41
See Beveridge & Maynard [1904] p.632 and Beveridge [1904b] p.10.
42
Beveridge & Maynard [1904] p.632.
43
Beveridge & Maynard [1904] p.632.
44
Beveridge [1904b] p.10.
40

15

Thirdly, Beveridge was able to point out the possibility that a legitimate
role of the state should be to salvage inevitable long depressions. At thesame time in this period (i.e. before December 1904), he could not propose
how to deal with the distress. He had surely been heading in the right
direction regarding solutions of unemployment when he said:
The problem of unemployment has thus been defined; how is theefficiency of unemployed workers to be maintained through period ofdepression? (Beveridge [1904c] p.29)
In other words, the “problem of maintaining the efficiency of workers
through periods of depression … [is the question] of preserving theunemployed as merely ‘unemployed’ not ‘unemployable’”45. However,
Beveridge had no concrete remedies for unemployment at this stage. He
merely claimed that “a scheme is obviously beyond the scope of voluntary
effort, and would need the co-operation of the central and local
authorities”46. Or, he maintained as follows:
The ultimate issue … must lie between the provision of public work by
the community, national or local, and the raising of all wages to a point
sufficient to admit of adequate thrifty provision against the fluctuations
incidental to each occupation, by practically universal trade unionism.
(Beveridge [1904d] pp.46-47)
In another context, the last part of the sentence quoted is quite important,because it involves in the idea of the National Minimum, which functions
as insurance against the contingency. However, there is no practicalsuggestion47, and no clear preference for national systems.

45

Beveridge [1904d] p.44.
Beveridge & Maynard [1904] p.635.
47
Although Beveridge suggested “the consideration … of a comprehensive remedy”
46

16

In brief, Beveridge succeeded in isolating the unemployable from themain analysis of the distress. Consequently, he could clarify the third class,casual workers, who were forced to be sometimes superfluous andinvoluntarily idle. Although this realisation was the right way to deepen his
understanding of ordinary people’s life, there were no proper remedies for
unemployment at this stage.
Section 3 Period 2: January 1905 to June 1907
This stage, which we refer to as Period 2 (from January 1905 to July
1907), should be treated as an elaboration term in theory and practice.
Beveridge rapidly deepened his economic rationales and zealously
advocated the labour exchanges.
3-1 Background
Although Beveridge resigned from the Mansion House Fund Committee,
he was getting to be more and more involved in the problem of
unemployment. The year 1905 was very crucial for him in three respects.
Firstly, Percy Alden’s book The Unemployed: A National Question was
published in January. Beveridge immediately reviewed it in February. As
we have shown in Komine [2001b], this book had a tremendous impact on
the reviewer. Secondly, The Royal Commission on the Poor Laws andRelief of Distress was announced in December, when the Balfour cabinet
was ready to resign. Through the Webbs, Beveridge came to be in touchwith the Commission, which in turn allowed him the opportunity to
become involved in bureaucracy. Thirdly, the Unemployed Workmen Billwas passed in December, as a parting gift of the Unionist Government.
This legislation was an indispensable basis both for the following social
reforms and Beveridge’s life.
The Unemployed Workmen Act of 1905, which enlarged the function of(Beveridge & Maynard [1904] p.629), he had no concrete plans.
17the Central Committee for the Unemployed (London) in 1903, “marked adecisive turning-point in national policy”48 as state responsibility for
unemployment. Originally, Walter Long, the President of the Local
Government Board, had a plan to combat the unemployment problem in
London. Joint committees were required to present a united front against
the urgent problem. The Distress Committees in each big town had to raisemoney from either charity or rates, and collect information about the
distressed. The concrete measures they proposed were labour colonies andLabour Bureaux. The Central (Unemployed) Body for London wasestablished under the Act.
Beveridge gradually made his mark as an able administrator or a specialist
on unemployment. For instance, in July 1905, he became Secretary to theCommittee on Unskilled Labour, set up by the Charity Organisation
Society. In March 1906, he served as Chairman of the Employment
Exchanges Committee of the Central (Unemployed) Body for London.
During the two appointments, Beveridge changed his work from Toynbee
Hall to the Morning Post in November 1905. Despite this surface
transformation (from ‘social worker’ to ‘journalist’), his real life wasunchanged, because he still had free time with a big enough salary toinvestigate ‘social problems’.
The year 1906 was also of great importance mainly in the history of social
policy. As a result of its return to power, the new Liberal government
immediately changed the previous hostile atmosphere to trade unions, by
passing two bills: the Disputes Act and the Workmen’s Compensation Act49.
The former restored the legal immunity of trade unions, which had lost it in
the Taff Vale case in 1901. The latter extended Chamberlain’s 1897 Act,by enlarging the range of employer’s liability for industrial injury from
specific industries to almost all wages-earners. Although at the beginning,
the Campbell-Bannerman cabinet was merely responsive to pressure fromthe working class, the year 1906 was the starting point of the Liberal
48
49

Bruce [1968] p.188.
See Hennock [1986] p.88, Hay [1983] p.52 and Bruce [1968] p.177.
18

Reforms.
Beveridge himself regarded this period as important because he met three“sets of people whom [he] was to owe much through most of [his] life”50.
They were Hubert Llewellyn Smith, Sidney and Beatrice Webb, and Jessy
Mair. The first was a progressive bureaucrat, then permanent head of theBoard of Trade. The second were Fabian socialists. The third would be
Beveridge’s wife many years later. His exchanges with wider groups were,in a sense, a proof of his eclecticism. Beveridge was taught by A. V. Dicey(1835-1922) 51 , a conservative or traditional lawyer at Balliol, Oxford. He
decided to move to the Morning Post, a conservative daily newspaper. On
the other hand, he was on friendly terms with members of the C.O.S. and
the Fabian Society at the same time. “This result is due to the fact that I
was put forward that I believe both by the C.O.S. and the Socialists!”52
The year 1907 was crucial because “the foundation of an alliance was laid
between the Webbs”53 and Beveridge. He persuaded them to adopt theidea of labour exchanges. They decided to summon him to theCommission as the first witness on unemployment in October. Before that,
Beveridge went to Germany in August 1907 to investigate the labour
exchanges and the contributory insurance against various causes.
3-2 Articles in Question and Summary
In Section 3, which deals with the second term, from January 1905 toJune 1907, we review 12 articles and some unpublished memoranda or

50

Beveridge [1955] p.34.
Dicey divided the nineteenth century into 3 phases: 'old Toryism' up to 1830;‘Individualism’; and 'Benthamism' up to 1870, succeeded by 'Collectivism'. He also
lectured at LSE from 1896-1899. See also the following judgement: “although
Beveridge never shared Dicey’s extreme political ‘individualism’, he was strongly
influenced by Dicey’s analytical, ahisotrical, ‘positivist’ approach to the law” (Harris[1997] p.485).
52
Beveridge [1955] p.39.
53
Beveridge [1955] p.61.
51

19

leaflets of Beveridge’s lectures for ordinary people. This elaborate
investigation results in a need for the further division of Period 2 into three
sub-periods. In Period 2-1, from January 1905 to around September 1905,
Beveridge found an excellent remedy for the unemployed, that is to say,labour exchanges. However, he was still wondering about a relationshipamong labour exchanges, relief work and economic reasoning. In otherwords, he had merely a weak rationale to prove that labour exchanges were
the best solution. In Period 2-2, till March 1906, Beveridge came to beconvinced that labour exchanges were strong weapons against
unemployment. He tried to shake off the previous thinking such as laws,
trade unions and philanthropy. In period 2-3, till June 1907, Beveridge hadalmost established his own doctrine on unemployment, by deepening his
economic thinking with the aid of Hobson’s books, for instance.
3-3 A Discovery of Labour Exchanges
Alden’s book, published in January 1905, was a big hint but merely one ofprompts for Beveridge. The Unemployed: A National Question had a great
implication because Alden was able to indicate several important elements,
such as a separation of paupers, foreign examples of labour bureaux, andthe importance of economic considerations. However, Alden’s influence
was limited, because he had no detailed economic argument. In particular,
he could not connect casual labour with labour exchanges.
At the same time, Beveridge was also wondering and wandering. We
have three sources that imply his wavering in this period. Firstly, there is asyllabus or leaflet of his lectures at Bristol University College in March
190554. He delivered three lectures on ‘The Problem of the Unemployed’

54

The Beveridge Papers in the Archive Section, British Library of Political Science,
London School of Economics and Political Science (hereafter as BP), Ⅸb 3 (1905). On
30 March 1905, Beveridge pointed out the “need for a new local authority” andconsidered “relation of public relief schemes to the general industrial system”, “the rightof the individual to labour” and “the responsibility of the State”.
20

on 16th, 23rd and 30th. In the syllabus, as remedies for the unemployed(not the unemployable), the first measure was Labour Registries or Labour
Exchanges. Their functions were to obtain and distribute information, andto organise casual labour. Nevertheless, relief work had the most detailed
description though it was at the bottom of the list. Secondly, his gradually
increasing addresses were still restricted within the perspective of law,trade unions or socialism, such titles as ‘Trade Union (History and Law)’,‘Municipal Trading’, ‘Socialism in Books and in Facts’55, ‘Crime andPunishment’56, ‘The Government of England’57, and ‘Labour and Law’.
Additionally, Beveridge wrote two papers on these topics: “the Question of
Disfranchisement” and “The Reform of Trade Union Law”58. Thirdly, inclose relation to the second, Beveridge had not read many economic booksby this time. This fact is revealed in a book list59 he left for a lecture
entitled ‘Labour and Law’ on 10th October 1905 at Toynbee Hall for
University of London (University Extension Lectures)60. Out of 20 books,
He listed up only three, which could be classified as economic affairs. The
books were: J. A. Hobson’s The Evolution of Modern Capitalism: A Study ofMachine Production [1894]; W. S. Jevons’ The State in Relation to Labour[1887]; and A. Toynbee’s Lectures on the Industrial Revolution in England[1884]. The other books were on legislation (including A. V. Dicey) or on

55

These three lectures were on ‘Social and Industrial Questions’ at Toynbee Hall in
Period 1; on 19 October, 23 November, and 7 December 1904. BP, Ⅸb 2 (1904).
56
This lecture was undated in 1905 for Toynbee Smoking Debah (?). BP, Ⅸb 3 (1905).
57
There were three lectures at Toynbee Hall on 24 January, 7 February, and 14 March
1905. BP, Ⅸb 3 (1905).
58
Beveridge [1905b] and [1905c]. The latter deals with the Taff Vale case in 1901.
Beveridge’s attitude to trade unions is very modest. It is neither conservative nor
progressive, when he referred to “the complete recognition of trade unions as bodies
within the law, with definite privileges and responsibilities, instead of relegating them”(Beveridge [1905c] p.149).
59
BP, Ⅸb 3 (1905), for the formal titles, see Appendix A and B.
60
BP, Ⅸb 3 (1905).

21

democracy and socialism (including the Webbs). In brief, Period 2-1 is theperiod that legal or general way of thinking was so dominant that
Beveridge only formed a weak link between labour exchanges andeconomic rationales.
3-4 Penetration of Economic Thinking
During the summer and autumn of 1905, two big events happened to him.
One was the passing of the Unemployed Workmen Bill on 7 August61. The
other was the change of jobs to the Morning Post in November. The Act
was a statutory ground that the jointed committees managed Labour
Bureaux. Beveridge flourished in the Central (Unemployed) Body for
London also established under the Act. Besides, his change of the job
expressed his firm determination to cut off from philanthropy.
In Period 2-2, from around September 1905 to March 1906, Beveridge
gradually recognised the right position of labour exchanges in a modern
economy. This realisation can be seen in four of his articles62.
Beveridge welcomed the Act when he said in October 1905:
The Act bears within the seeds of a great reform in the future. An
efficient system of labour exchanges would decrease the amount of
involuntary idleness, particularly in casual and irregular occupations,
enormously and permanently. ([Beveridge]? [1905d] p.10)
In the long run, it was necessary to establish “the organisation of the labour
market by means of labour exchanges, perhaps the most important
industrial reform”63. In November, Beveridge noted that the Labour
Exchange had the greatest utility because “its functions will be to increase
the fluidity of labour”, and “increase knowledge of the prevailing

61

K.D. Brown [1971b] p.317.
[Beveridge]? [1905d] [1905e][1905f][1906a]. See Note 67 below.
63[Beveridge]? [1905d] pp.11-12.
6222

conditions of employment”. He admitted that “considerable advance has
been made during the past twelve months”64.
‘Twelve months’ may
indicate the term from the unemployment conference on 14 October 190465,
at which Walter Long called all London guardians, to the passing andexecution of the Unemployed Workmen Act around the summer of 1905.
After the conference, the London Unemployed Fund was set up66. In
December 1905, Beveridge praised the report of the Fund, adding that a“Central Employment Exchange was established to act as a clearing-housefor the labour bureaux already at work”. In February 1906, he evenreferred to the “complete failure of many exchanges in the past”:
First, the various exchanges have worked in complete isolation from one
another. Each … had no communication with the exchanges in other
districts. … The Executive Committee of the London Unemployed Fundestablished a Central Employment Exchanges to act as a clearing-house67
between all the local exchanges in London. …
Second, the management of many of exchanges has been … perfunctory.
Third, … a confusion of Labour Exchanges with relief work … absolute
separation of the Labour Exchanges as a piece of industrial machineryfrom all administration of relief … is an essential element in thepossibility of success. It is … proved by the experience of Germany.
([Beveridge]? [1906b])
At this stage, Beveridge began to be convinced that “Labour Exchanges

64[Beveridge]? [1905e].
K.D. Brown [1971a] p.37.
66
The Fund was mainly based on volunteers, but sponsored by the Local Government
65

Board, see Harris [1997] p.141.
67

The four articles are again unsigned. However, we can observe the same terminology
in many words, especially ‘act as a clearing-house’ in the Toynbee Record and theMorning Post at the same time. There was no one except Beveridge that wrote for theboth media.
23cannot make work at times of depression … What they can do is todiminish the waste of labour, power and time, and consequent unnecessary
irregularity of employment involved in the unorganised search of isolated
workmen for work”. Then, he concluded that the “unemployed problem is… the problem of the casually employed”, and appealed for a remedy “byunifying the labour market”68.
Beveridge’s penetration into economic thinking, to some but crucial
extent, stemmed from Hobson’s books, though previous studies had failed
to grasp this point69. Beveridge definitely read Hobson’s Evolution of
Capitalism [1894] by September 1905, and possibly read his The Problemof the Unemployed [1904] by November 1905. These books involved infurther thinking of economic affairs. There are two aspects to prove ourpoint. In the first place, Beveridge realised that “cyclical fluctuation of
employment is an inevitable incident of modern industry”, which was a“result of periodic over-production followed by stagnation”70. Hobson[1894] and [1904] dealt with this theme, that is, a connection between overproduction and unemployment71. Beveridge must have obtained usefulsuggestions from reading the two books, which described severe
depressions accompanied with waste of labour-power as inevitable inmodern capitalism. In the second place, more important, Beveridge musthave borrowed a special phrase ‘labour exchanges act as a clearing-house’
from Hobson [1904]. This inference is highly possible because Beveridge
began to use this word from December 1905, while Hobson used it inNovember 190472. The word ‘clearing-house’ is very important in that68

[Beveridge]? [1906b].
Some studies truly point out the importance of the 1906 Conference at the LSE. See
Harris [1972] pp.22-23 and Phillips & Whiteside [1985] p.79. However, there is noreference to Hobson regarding a theoretical relationship with Beveridge in Harris[1997].
70
Beveridge [1907b] p.328 and p.329.
71
For instance, see Hobson [1894] pp.176-179 and Hobson [1911(1904)] p.54.
72
The title of Section 2, Chapter 8 of Hobson [1904] is ‘Labour Bureaux as ClearingHouses’. He admitted that a clearing house system for labour would increase fluidity
69

24

Beveridge was able to describe a central labour exchange as a metaphoricalsymbol which made the labour market organised like those of othercommodities. Hobson was at least one of the influences which broadened
Beveridge’s economic thinking.
We should here focus on special terms in Period 2-2, such as ‘casual’,‘fluidity’, ‘a Central Exchange’, ‘as a clearing-house’, ‘communication’, ‘aseparation from relief work’, ‘unify’, and ‘organised market’. These words
certainly point to his deeper economic consideration than in Period 2-1.
Beveridge was not satisfied merely with his discovery of a labour exchange
as a proper remedy for the unemployed. He also put most emphasis on
casual labour, which relief work could never eliminate. He keenly realised
a need of a Central Labour Exchange to combine other subordinate
exchanges. Communication, between not only employers and employees
but also labour exchanges, is the most crucial mechanism to arbitrate
disordered and isolated labour markets. To sum up, Beveridge deliberated
upon the necessity of Labour Exchanges in a modern vulnerable industrial
society.
3-5 Quasi-accomplished
In Period 2-3, from April 1906 to June 1907, Beveridge almost completed
his doctrine on unemployment. We can trace the process of his evolution
by classifying it in the following manner: economic reasoning in four
aspects; the perfection of the labour ‘market’ as an ultimate remedy; theNational Minimum as a hidden idea; one missing idea. Here economic
reasoning means: (a) demand for labour; (b) supply of labour; (c) economic
conditions in modern industry; and (d) economic remedies.
The conference at the LSE on 4th April 1906 was of great significance73.

and reduce waste of labour to a minimum (Hobson [1904] p.127). Hobson [1904] isthe second (and revised) edition of Hobson [1894]. Beveridge [1909] referred to thethird (and not revised from the second) edition (Beveridge [1909] p.58, Note 2).
73
We have discussed another importance as to this conference. See Komine [2001b]
25

There existed at least four characteristics which showed Beveridge’s
evolved idea.
First, the term ‘the reserve of labour’ was used for the first time toindicate “a constant margin of unemployment” “necessary to meet sudden
variations in demand”. It was “always available though only occasionallyemployed”74. Afterwards, this terminology, which referred to Point (a)above, became the key word for him. Second, Beveridge was able toclassify the industrial causes of unemployment. By contrast, we should
remember his argument in October or November 1904. In Beveridge[1904b] and Beveridge & Maynard [1904], his interest was to classify
people directly into three groups. This time in April 1906, his concern hadchanged, from the unemployed to unemployment. Anyway, the threecauses of unemployment were permanent changes in single trades (decay
or changes of organisation), temporary fluctuations in industry as a whole,and casual employment. For the first and third cause, “an organised systemof labour exchanges is essential”75. It required “a reform of the conditions
and method of employment in the industry itself”76. For the second cause
only, “the provision of temporary relief work [should be] designed to tideover a period of depression” 77. These three causes correspond to Point (c)and (d) above. Third, modern industry was always subject to overproduction. Beveridge marked production on a large scale as “production
for an anticipated demand”78. Competitive producers targeted the sameanticipated demand, and frequently resulted in periodic over-production,

Section 3-4.
74
Beveridge [1907b] p.325. The proceedings from the conference in 1906 waspublished a year later.
75
Beveridge [1907b] p.328.
76
Beveridge [1907b] p.330.
77
Beveridge [1907b] p.329. As to second causes, Beveridge also pointed out the other(less effective) measures: national business to counter the fluctuations of privatelycontrolled industry; the out-of-work pay (a grant).
78
Beveridge [1907b] p.328, emphasis in original.
26

“collectively the competitors must overshoot the demand”79. This is inaccord with Point (c) above.
The fourth aspect is most important because it stealthily includes the
National Minimum principle:
This gives the clue to the general principle of state policy in the matter ofthe unemployed. The ideal should … be … an industrial system in which
everyone who did find a place at all should obtain average earnings, atleast up to the standard of healthy subsistence. The greatest interest of anation lies in having all its citizens efficient, healthy and happy … The
acceptance of this ideal of minimum average earnings … marks merely
the distant goal of national policy. (Beveridge [1907b] p.327)
This passage is definitely a declaration of the Welfare State. We now know
‘the distant goal’ was established by Beveridge himself when he published‘the Beveridge Report’ in 1942. What is more, he clearly noticed that thegoal embraced full employment80:
Every place in free industry, carrying with it the rights of citizenship …
should be, so to speak, a “whole” place involving substantially full
employment and average earnings up to a definite minimum.
(Beveridge [1907b] p.327, emphasis added)
The citation reminds us of Beveridge’s Full Employment in a Free Society in
1944. The fourth point we have discussed should be regarded as a hidden
79

Beveridge [1907b] p.329. Hutchison [1953] referred to Beveridge [1909] as to an
explanation in terms of chronic over-capitalization (Hutchison [1953] p.387, Note 2).
We should note that the explanation dates back to 1906.
80
At the same time, Beveridge sharply distinguished the unemployable from the‘efficient’ (ordinary workers), or dependence from independence of the state. The
unemployable should be “removed from free industry and maintain adequately in public
institutions” with “the complete and permanent loss of all citizen rights” (Beveridge[1907b] p.327). His attitude towards the unemployable was severe at this stage.
27

idea that previous research has missed.
Beveridge [1906c]81 has quite an interesting title: “Insurance against
Unemployment: A Foreign Experiment”.
Nevertheless, we aredisappointed to find that the paper merely introduced a report on this topic.
There were no original comments. Thus, it suggests that Beveridge
probably had not yet thought of unemployment insurance thoroughlyaround 190682.
Beveridge [1906d] deals with rather a rare topic: not labour exchanges but
relief work. He admired the Mansion House Fund of 1903-1904, because
the fund “was used, not for charitable doles, but for the provision of
temporary work” 83. It was “the policy of giving regular and continuous inplace of irregular work”84. Besides, it was scientific in the sense that there
was an automatic test, “making the relief-work less attractive than ordinary
work, without making it either dishonourable or irregular and insufficient
to provide a maintenance”85. This test was possible because there was aseparation from workers in Essex and their wives and children in London.
Beveridge emphasised that the relief work should be less attractive bydistinguishing the role of private and public sector. Although his emphasis
reminds us of the principle of ‘less eligibility’ in 1834, the similarity is
only superficial and a difference exists: in this test of 1904, there was no
stigma. Beveridge considered relief work should co-exist with normal
economic activity in modern industry. Of course, he already noticed that“the problem has probably no solution while casual employment remains”86.
Furthermore, he evaluated positively other ideas such as a training colony,

81

This paper is again unsigned. As to this paper only, there might be a possibility that
another at Toynbee Hall wrote it.
82
An article of 16 February 1906 is an exception ([Beveridge]? [1906a]), though theauthor’s position is obscure. He was worrying about the funds, however “this exclusionof contributory insurance was accepted” (Beveridge [1955] pp.55-56).
83
Beveridge [1906d] p.74.
84
Beveridge [1906d] pp.77-78.
85
Beveridge [1906d] p.75.
86
Beveridge [1906d] p.78.
28

which may become “a channel for the permanent removal of individuals
from the chronically overcharged labour market of London”. Therefore,“the day of such [emergency] funds is probably over - for better or forworse” 87.
Two papers88 in the Economic Journal are regarded as the semi-final
version of Beveridge’s evolutionary ideas. We can show why this stage isalmost final, by summarizing it into four steps.
Firstly, Beveridge tried to implant the labour exchange system intobusiness world. For instance, he preferred the term ‘exchange’ to‘bureaux’ because “’exchange’ is a good business word suggesting theorganisation of a market for labour”89. Next he again described “a Central
Employment Exchange, [as] being the general controlling office for thewhole system, [and as acting] a clearing-house”90. Then, he said:
Labour exchanges have nothing to do with the relief of the unemployed;
they can only eliminate gradually the causes of under-employment. They
are business, not charity. They are prophylactic, not therapeutic, of
distress. (Beveridge [1906e] p.439)
Secondly, supply and demand analysis was remarkably developed at thisstage. This means that Beveridge first contemplated demand and supply
respectively, and then reflected them in the labour market as a whole. As
to demand for labour, there are “individual employers for a readily
available reserve of labour to meet sudden expansions and contractions in
the volume of their business”91. This phenomenon is “the overstocking of
the labour market by the unorganised demand of individual employers for87

Beveridge [1906d] p.78.
Beveridge [1906e] and Beveridge [1907a].
89
Beveridge [1906e] p.437, Note 1.
90
Beveridge [1907a] p.66.
91
Beveridge [1907a] p.66.
88

29

workmen”92. Further, Beveridge specialized two variables in the supply
function of labour:
Ls = Ls (w, f)
Where w is mass and flow of work, f is its own fluidity, and Ls is supply oflabour93. Then, “supply of labour in every occupation is excessive justbecause it is insufficiently mobile”94. Mobility or fluidity means a “mobile
body of men directed hither and thither as required”95. Moreover, themodern workman has two distinct functions, firstly “that of labouring;
secondly that of finding a market for his labour”96. The double burdens
result in inefficiency in supply of labour. Thus, it is strongly necessary to
introduce labour exchanges to “bring into more immediate communication
employers seeking workmen and … employers – to make the supply more
fluid, to focus and organise the demand”97. Labour Exchanges are themedia to make the labour market most complete.
Thirdly, Beveridge well recognised the outcome of innovating labour
exchanges. On the one hand, most workers can work on a regular basis.
On the other, a small number of them inevitably become “a temporary
surplus completely without employment”98. He was so conscious of thewould-be defects of this system that he countered the criticism in advance:
first, he advocated emigration to reduce the surplus; second and more
important, to “increase the fluidity of labour is to increase its working

92

Beveridge [1907a] p.68.
Beveridge [1907a] p.71, equation above is our formation.
94
Beveridge [1907a] p.76.
95
Beveridge [1906e] p.438.
96
Beveridge [1907a] p.76.
97
Beveridge [1907a] p.68. These specialities took place against the background ofindustrial causes, whose content is the same as Beveridge [1907b] pp.325-326.
However, the terms are slightly changed: transformation of conditions; periodic
fluctuations; chronic under-employment (Beveridge [1907a] p.68).
98
Beveridge [1907a] p.80.
9330

efficiency”99. If this phase means increasing productivity of labour per
capita or per hour, the total amount of employment may increase by way of
increasing national income. There is a possibility to conjoin Beveridge’s
argument with later a Keynesian effective demand.
Fourthly and lastly, the National Minimum principle again made its
appearance when he said that “one man at a living wage is better than twoat half wage”100. Regular work or decasualisation is absolutely necessary tosecure the minimum wages. This rooted thought made Beveridge for argue
the abolition of casual work. That is why he was eager to implant theperfect labour market. The most efficient way to introduce the organised
labour market was to establish Labour Exchanges.
At this stage, Beveridge almost accomplished his deliberate doctrine on
unemployment. What was lacking was the relation between labour
exchanges and the other important device, National Insurance.
Section 4 Period 3: July 1907 to January 1909
This stage, which we refer to as Period 3 (from July 1907 to January1909), should be treated as a completion term. Beveridge ultimately createda coherent remedy package on a basis of the National Minimum. It was notpossible until he recognised the double functions of labour exchanges. His
final breakthrough occurred just before his investigation trip to Germany.
4-1 Background
By the end of March 1908, Beveridge got acquainted with several persons

99

Beveridge [1906e] p.438. See his other paper, “Provision of labour exchanges would
increase industrial efficiency by relieving the workman, whose primary duty is to work,
form the secondary function [searching for work, or hawking] thrust upon him bydeveloping industrial conditions, of also bringing his labour to market” (Beveridge[1907b] p.331).
100
Beveridge [1907a] p.81.
31

of renown in the political world, mainly through Beatrice Webb, who had
formed an alliance with him. They were, for example, Lord George
Hamilton (the Chair of the Royal Commission on the Poor Laws) before
1907101, Gerald Balfour (the ex-president of the Board of Trade) in October
1907102, and Winston Churchill (the later president of the BOT) in March
1908103. Beveridge also met Ramsay MacDonald (the Labour Party
Secretary) in February 1908104. He persuaded them either to abandon theirdisapproval, or be more convinced than ever, of labour exchanges. His zeal
resulted in his evidence to the Royal commission on the Poor Laws in
October 1907, his report on behalf of the BOT in November 1907, andfinally his appointment in the BOT as a permanent bureaucrat in July 1908.
When Campbell-Bannerman resigned and Asquith succeeded him, thepace of the Liberal Reforms quickened105. The Old Age Pensions Act inAugust 1908 was a typical example. This Act introduced a new principle
into social policy in that the payments were financed from national, notlocal, funds (general taxation) 106. The Act enabled ordinary persons107 over

101

Beveridge [1955] p.62.
“Can you come to dine to meet Mr Gerald Balfour next Monday, 14th, 7-30 morning
dress to discuss the question of Labour Exchanges and the organization of the
Unemployed?”, a letter from Beatrice Webb to Beveridge, October 1907, Mackenzie(ed.) [1978] p.274 (Letter 513).
103“My dinner last night was of course very interesting and mainly about Labour
Exchanges.” (a letter from Beveridge, 12 March 1908, Beveridge [1955] p.66). “March
11. Winston Churchill dined with us last night, together with Masterman, Beveridge,
Morton; we talked exclusively shop” (in Beatrice’s daily, Drake & Cole (ed.)[1948]
p.404).
104
They met at the Royal Economic Society. “He’s been one of the people who had
abused Labour Exchanges. Now he writes and says he had been thinking them over” (aletter from Beveridge, 13 February 1908, Beveridge [1955] p.65).
105
Aikin [1972] p.81.
106
See Bruce [1968] p.178 and Searle [1992] p.112.
107
If their incomes exceeded 31 pounds a year, they had no right to receive the pensions.
The payment was paid through the Post Office. The Act was “the first national service
and no offices existed to administer them (Bruce [1968] p.181).
102

32

the age of 70 to receive their pension as a right, which meant that thissystem was separate from the stigma of the Poor Laws108. In contrast to the
Labour Exchange a year later, there was no special office to handle thepensions. The pensions were non-contributory, though Beveridge strongly
opposed this type because the insurance that had no basis of individual
contributions, which invaded private areas (such as voluntary thrift). He
developed a campaign against non-contributory pensions in many leadersof the Morning Post in 1907-1908.
In July 1908, Beveridge began to work at the BOT, but he was allowed todeliver lectures on unemployment at Oxford. This draft109 directly bore
fruit into the book entitled Unemployment: A Problem of Industry. He
corrected all the proofs in November after the contract with Longmans in
September. He sent a copy to Beatrice Webb, who praised him upon the‘excellent’ work and wanted to quote from it as soon as possible110. The
book was finally published in February 1909111. In August 1909, theLabour Exchanges Act received the royal assent. The BOT was now incharge of managing the system. At the same time, he promoted himself as
Director of Labour Exchanges at a salary of £700112. The year 1909 was
also when the Trade Boards Act was passed. Representative Boards werecreated under the Act to negotiate minimum wages and maximum working
hours in certain ‘sweated’ trades113. We should note this type of108

See Fraser [1984] p.153.
In the Beveridge Papers, there is part of another draft entitled “The Organisation of
the Labour Market” in 1908 (BP Ⅸb 6 (1908)). This document corresponds directlywith a section of Chapter 9 in the published book (Beveridge [1909], the Labour Market,
pp.197-209).
110“Congratulations on your book which seems to me excellent. Will it be sufficiently
near publication by the beginning of January for me to quote you? It would be a small
advertisement of the book “, a letter from Beatrice Webb to Beveridge, 13 December
1908, Mackenzie (ed.) [1978] p.319 (Letter 554).
111
See Beveridge [1955] p.69.
112
Beveridge [1955] p.72.
113
See Hay [1983] p.52, Bruce [1968] p.196 and Phelps Brown [1959] p.309.
109

33

negotiation could possibly to interfere with freedom of contract. Real Acts
seemed to catch up with Beveridge’s new concept of the government roles.
State interference and his involvement in bureaucracy progressed more andmore, by affecting each other.
4-2 Articles in Question and Summary
In Section 4, which deals with the third term, from July 1907 to January
1909, we review about 10 papers and some unpublished memoranda or
leaflets of Beveridge’s lectures. July 1907 was the month just before hisjourney to Germany.
January 1909 was the month before his
Unemployment was published. This phase shows one outstanding feature:a final connection between labour exchanges with insurance against
unemployment on the basic idea of the National Minimum. Apart from thisfeature, his rationale had not changed since the second term. The book
Unemployment was almost complete during the Michaelmas Term inautumn 1908114.
4-3 Insurance discovered
A final break occurred to Beveridge in July 1907, just before he went toGermany in August to investigate for himself the system of labour
exchanges. In the signed articles of 20 and 23 July, he admired tradeunions’ treatment of unemployment, by describing it as “a great system of
insurance”. He first condemned the Poor Law because “it has no control orsupervision of the labour market”. By contrast, he pointed out that labour
registries of trade unions automatically played a crucial role in paying theunemployed. This role was possible because the registries could check themember’s power and willingness to pay the subscriptions, and because the114

Beveridge delivered nine lectures at Oxford, whose notes were published as a book.
The lecture title was ‘the Economics of Unemployment’. See Beveridge [1955] p.69
and BP Reel 2, Item 11.
34

central office could pay the proper persons at a proper time. If the Statewanted to solve the problem of unemployment, it was necessary to control
the labour market sufficiently to check unnecessary pay claims. Beveridge
concluded that “each Exchange might be made the centre of an insurance
system analogous to that established by the trade unions”. This marks the
final breakthrough to the complete version of Beveridge’s vision. He atlast combined labour exchanges with insurance against unemployment, or
precisely speaking, “insurance against industrial risks – whether of
unemployment, or disease, or death”115. The exchanges are subsistent not
only because of bringing employers and employed into communication, butalso because of an automatic industry test regarding unemployed benefits.
The State could solve the problem as a whole only if it was developed on
the same line as the trade unions. We should keep in mind that Beveridge’s
enlightenment was just before his journey to Germany in late August 1907,
not afterwards. This fact shows that his evolution was purely spontaneous,
not simply from external examples.
In turn, the journey of investigation intensified his conviction concerning
the necessity of the National Insurance. This intensification is confirmed inboth a series of articles in the Morning Post in September 1907 andsubsequent addresses and lectures.
Firstly, Beveridge wrote five articles116 in detail on the German system ofindustrial insurance as a special correspondent of the Morning Post. The“principal emergencies of industrial life – sickness, accident, infirmity,
unemployment – are always demanding public attention”117. The British
system was still incomplete, whereas the German one had been successful
thanks to the principle of compulsory insurance with labour registries. For
instance, insurance against infirmity and old age (founded in 1891) was
contributory in character. The funds came from three sources: from the115

All the quotations in this paragraph are from Beveridge [1907c]. The first is from thesubtitle of the 20th article, the others from 23rd.
116
Beveridge [1907f] and [1907g], signed articles from Berlin.
117
Beveridge [1907f], 12th September 1907.
35

Imperial Treasury, the employers and the employees. Beveridge finallygathered from specified German facts that the workhouse test, which
formed the important pillars of the Poor Laws, had been so costly andinefficient to the ratepayer that the “only alternative … is an industrialtest”118. This new test should be executed in the central offices where
workers and employers all come together. These special telegrams show
his discovery that the German system of insurance should be a concretemodel for the British one.
Secondly, after September 1907, Beveridge began to include insurance
against unemployment or employment registries into his numerous
addresses or lectures. There are four examples119.
(1) On 15 October
1907, he delivered an address entitled ‘Labour Exchanges and Trade
Union’ at the Women’s Industrial Council. His emphasis on the role of the
trade unions is clearly different from that of around 1905120. This time, hefocused on trade unions because they held a key to how the labour market
might be organised. His interest in 1907 and afterwards was not on thelegal side, but on the economic. (2) He also gave a lecture on
unemployment in Germany. One of six classes, which began on 31
October 1907, was on ‘Unemployment Insurance’. Such a title is not seen
before September 1907. (3) On 5 November 1907, Beveridge delivered anaddress entitled ‘Employment Registries in Germany’ at Toynbee Hall. He
again introduced the German trade unions and their exchanges. “Union
men registering at exchanges and having unemployed benefits paid out totheir members”. Germany had organised labour markets through artificial
contrivances. (4) In March 1908, he published the third paper of the
Economic Journal. His conclusion is of great moment:
Unemployment cannot be met by insurance except in so far as a fairly
complete organisation of the labour market affords a direct test of118

Beveridge [1907g], 21st September 1907.
The first three examples are from BP Ⅸb-5 (1907).
120
See Section 3-3, especially Note 58.
11936

unemployment; industrial crises cannot safely be met by emergency
measures unless the State is provided with an accurate and automatic
indication of the beginning, existence and ending of the crises.
(Beveridge [1908b], reprinted in [1909] p.252)
A complete organisation is a presupposition of insurance or businessprospects by the government. Insurance against industrial risks should
depend naturally on the national basis.
4-4 Final Development
At this stage, Beveridge developed a few arguments. However, we should
judge that they are minor and minute evolutions, compared with the
combination of the two factors mentioned above. We take up five papers
or drafts.
Firstly, in ‘Employment Registries in Germany’ previously mentioned,
Beveridge interestingly compared a labour exchange with a corn or stock
exchange. He said:
An exchange is not the place for making work any more than a Corn
Exchange is a place for making corn. Nor for placing “unemployable”
any more than a Corn Exchange is a place for selling unsaleable corn. It
is, in fact a business organisation. … It is more surprising that hitherto
labour is the one thing for which no market exists121.
For him, labour exchanges are symbols of business organisation. At thesame time, they are managed and controlled by municipal or central
government. There are no contradictions in his thinking.
Secondly, Beveridge left a draft for addresses entitled ‘The Organisationof the Labour Market’122. This must be his favourite title. Indeed, in 1908
121
122

BP Ⅸb-5 (1907).
BP Ⅸb-6 (1908), undated in 1908. This is a proof sheet since Beveridge corrected37

he read the topic three times in Liverpool, Farringdon (London) andLondon. Besides, this draft would almost be appropriate for a section123 of
Unemployment [1909]. In this draft, the notice ‘Boy Wanted’ wasdescribed as stranger than the one ‘Boots Wanted’. It is because the notice‘Boy Wanted’ itself clarified there were no markets for labour. Then, the“chronic under-employment of the casual labourer is no inexplicable orexceptional phenomenon. It is the resultant of normal demand andsupply”124. This sentence means that even if supply and demand worknormally, there still remains some maladjustment. This statement deviatesfrom orthodox economics, and we might say it was a resultant of a hereticalinfluence such as from J. A. Hobson.
Thirdly, Beveridge’s paper entitled ‘Unemployment and its Cure: the firststep’ is the compact corpus of his arguments. A casual worker is a part ofindustry. There “is an effective demand for him … when standing idle heis in reserve rather than superfluous”. He is “not simply as unemployed,
but as a man badly employed, under-employed”125. To improve industrial
conditions, the “State having diagnosed the disease of under-employment… must lay upon employers the responsibility … of putting the State in aposition to prevent it”126. Personal solutions are impotent in front ofcomplicated modern industry.
Fourthly and lastly, in December 1908, Beveridge defined the term
‘insurance’ as “sacrificing a present advantage to guard against futurerisk”127. Then, inevitable depressions should be mitigated by public works
or by “a system of compulsory insurance against unemployment. Thismight be done by compelling all employers and workpeople to contribute
some of misspellings.
123‘The Labour Market’ in Chapter 9 ‘Principles of Future Policy’, Beveridge [1909]
pp.197-209.
124
See also Beveridge [1909] p.202.
125
The two citations are from Beveridge [1908a] p.388.
126
Beveridge [1908a] p.392.
127[Beveridge]? [1908d] p.48. The articles are unsigned. However, according toHarris’ remark, they are regarded as Beveridge’s (Harris [1997] p.165, Note 112).
38

to funds for the purpose”128. It is a tax upon wages. “We must imitate
Germany and organise … labour exchanges”129. Each body has its own
responsibility: workers and employers must contribute the funds of
unemployed benefits, and the State must create the system of well-behaved
labour market. During 1908, Beveridge accomplished his framework on
unemployment.
4-5 Living Wages
Pursuing these papers before 1909, we almost reach the core of the secretbackground of Beveridge’s doctrine on unemployment: that is to say, theNational Minimum 130, or to use his own word, ‘the living wage’. Again in
Period 3, he continuously argued that it was strongly necessary foreveryone to work on a regular basis. Why?
Because irregularity of earning resulted in such lower wages -- even than
the weekly servant working -- that workers could not afford to contributemoney to insurance against industrial risks. They were simply dependent
on other individuals. Although trade unions had introduced insurance, the“week allowance is never a ‘living wage’ even to start with”131. Thus,
insurance in its strict sense might be partly abandoned, and it was theState’s own turn. “The State might simply decide to give what money it
had to spend on the public aid of the able-bodied wholly in the shape of

128[Beveridge]? [1908d] p.22.
[Beveridge]? [1908d] p.21.
130
Of course, this term was first used precisely in the Webbs [1897]. The National
Minimum means “the prohibition of all such conditions of employment as areinconsistent with the maintenance of the workers in a state of efficiency as producers
and citizens” and “the requirement not merely of daily subsistence and pocket-money,
but also of such conditions of nature as will ensure the continuous provision, generation
after generation, of healthy and efficient adults” (Webbs [1898] p.771). By 1905,
Beveridge definitely read the Webbs [1897], see Appendix A & B.
131
Beveridge [1907c], 20th July.
129

39

their unemployment, irrespective of previous contribution”132. Furthermore,
Beveridge pointed out the importance of regular work:
Again, if the principle of the living wage means anything at all, it means
not simply a certain rate of pay, but also a minimum continuity of
employment. The best rate per hour is a mockery unless the average
number of hours per week and of weeks in a year keeps up to a certain
level133. (Emphasis added)
The last part of the quotation shows his criticism against a simple minimum
wage. The concept was argued in the process of passing the Trade Boards
Bill in 1909. A moment minimum wage was not enough unless it was
based on regular work.
‘The living wage’ is the key concept to understand Beveridge’s hidden
idea. He always put emphasis on improving industrial conditions. The
most important condition was to abolish casual work, though that type ofworking was inevitable in modern industry where crucial fluctuations wereregular and intense. The most efficient means to combat casual work was
to establish a system of the labour exchanges with insurance against
unemployment. The functions of the labour exchanges were twofold:
firstly, they facilitated communication between employers and employees(mobility of labour); secondly, they worked as a register to execute theindustrial test. The test checked the potentiality of the workers to pay
contributions or work honestly. After the labour exchanges were properly
established, casual workers could disappear and the living wage would beguaranteed. Out of the wages, workers could afford to contribute money.
The other devices were merely means to realise this end. Additionally, theprocess would not naturally develop. The State must first establish thelabour exchanges, then contribute a portion of the funds: the National
132

Beveridge [1907c], 23rd July.
‘The Organisation of the Labour Market’, p.9, BP Ⅸb-6 (1908). See also Beveridge[1909] p.207.
133

40

Insurance. The living wage was the final goal Beveridge sought. For
ordinary and independent citizens (not as pauperism) in the 20th century, it
was necessary to secure the minimum wage. The other devices were merelymeans to realise this end. In brief, Beveridge successfully connected thethree concepts: the living wage (or the National Minimum), the labour
exchanges and the National Insurance (especially against unemployment).
Each conception may originate with other pioneers. Nonetheless, thisconnection among three ideas is his unique doctrine on unemployment.

Section 5 Concluding Remarks
We arrive at a conclusion and subsequent suggestions.
There were three processes in the evolution of Beveridge’s ideas. The
symbolic phrase of Period 1 (from September 1903 to December 1904) is‘from the unemployable to the unemployed’. Beveridge encountered ‘thesocial problem’ when he was able to extract a third class, casual workers.
The first class was pauperism that the Poor Laws had dealt with. The
second was regular workers that trade unions had protected. However, thethird category had been omitted for a long time. He ‘discovered’ casuallabourers, by paying close attention to interminable fluctuations (especiallydepressions). At this stage, he preferred labour colonies. This new
alternative enabled the unemployed to work on a regular basis, and wasmore efficient than dole money. The key expression of Period 2 (till June
1907) is ‘from the unemployed to unemployment’. Beveridge came toelaborately analyse the industrial mechanism, by almost removing personal
elements from his consideration. Alden and Hobson were examples ofinfluences. Beveridge described labour exchanges as a saviour. The
system, which had a central bureau, sometimes acted as a commercial bodyand sometimes acted as a powerful governmental controller. The shorthand word of Period 3 (till January 1909) is ‘perfection of the labour
market’.
Beveridge decisively accomplished his doctrine on41unemployment. He was able to link labour exchanges to insurance against
industrial risks (unemployment in particular). It was a total package ofremedies for ordinary people in distress. The three steps were inevitable
for the theorist and pragmatist, who had to shed the old fashioned ideas ofthe19th century.

The National Insurance
The Labour Exchanges
Elasticity of wages

PublicWorks

The National Minimum

Figure 1 Beveridge’s Concepts

It is the National Minimum principle that is of most significance inBeveridge’s basic idea (Figure 1). The sentence ‘one man at a living wage
is better than two at half wage’ is an emblem. The idea was continuously
revealed in all the periods. Since previous studies did not spotlight thispoint134, it is natural that they underestimated his theory on unemployment
or did not combine his early economic ideas in the 1900s and his latersocial doctrine in the 1940s. Admittedly, most of Beveridge’s ideas
stemmed from other contemporaries, such as Alden (labour exchanges),

134

Harris [1997] correctly claimed that “the structure of Beveridge’s thought … can bepieced together in a coherent way” (Harris [1997] p.482, emphasis in original).
Nonetheless, the way was not the same as our emphasis. Ours is regarding the National
Minimum or the economic theory on unemployment.
42

Booth135 and Rowntree (casual work), Hobson (industrial fluctuations and aclearing house) and the Webbs (the National Minimum). Nevertheless,
Beveridge only accomplished a coherent package of remedies for
unemployment: labour exchanges with National Insurance on a basis of theliving wage principle. These three concepts, which were perfectly blended,
formed his original and unique standpoint. Further research should be inline with this viewpoint. Otherwise, we could not connect his early
position on unemployment and his later on social security.
Additionally, Beveridge’s doctrine in 1909 should impact on professional
economists, such as Pigou, Keynes, D. H. Robertson, L. Robbins and Oscar
Lange136. This point has not been researched yet. Briefly speaking, Pigou
decided to adopt ‘the unemployed problem’ into orthodox economics, after
reading Unemployment [1909]. Yet his treatment remained within pricemechanism. Thus the gap between the theory and remedies widened more
and more, and at last the orthodoxy collapsed. Keynes succeeded to Pigou
in order to reconstitute ‘the economics’. Keynes felt somewhat out of placewith Pigou’s treatment of unemployment as early as 1914. That was anoccasion when Beveridge reviewed Pigou’s Unemployment [1913]. Then,the phase ‘one man at a living wage is better than two at half wage’ reflects
both Beveridge’s strength and weakness. As to the defects, Beveridge hadno adequate solutions to employ the latter half of the completely
unemployed. Keynes finally gave an answer in the 1930s: an effective
demand. Anyway, after specifying these arguments, we shall position
Beveridge’ doctrine appropriately in the history of economic thought. This
paper serves the goal as a first step.

135

Harris [1997] pointed out that the evidence of Charles Booth to a Committee was an
influence on Beveridge in 1905 (Harris [1997] p.144).
136
Robertson reviewed the new edition of Unemployment [1930]. As to Lange, see
Komine [2001a].
43Appendix A: Book of Reference in 1905137 (Beveridge’s original order)
W. Cunningham: “Growth of English History and Commerce.”

Vols. Ⅱ and Ⅲ:

138

Modern Times. (2)Arnold Toynbee: “The Industrial Revolution.” (15)Shulze-Gaevernitz: “Social Peace.” (14)
G. Howell: “Capital and Labour.” (6)J. A. Hobson: “Evolution of Capitalism.” (5)H. W. Macrosty: “Trusts and the State.” (12)
S. and B. Webb: “Problems of Modern Industry.” (17)W. S. Jevons: “The State in Relation to Labour.” (10)
S. and B. Webb: “Industrial Democracy.” (16)
S. and B. Webb: “History of Trade Unionism.” (18)
G. Howell: “Trade Unionism, New and Old.” (7)Brentano: “Gilds and Trade Unions.” (1)G. Howell and H. Cohen: “Trade Union Law and Cases.” (9)“The Case for the Factory Acts.” Ed. by Mrs. S. Webb. (19)Harrison and Hutchins: “History of Factory Legislation.”
Mona Wilson: “Our Industrial Laws.” (20)
G. Howell: “Handyboook of the Labour Laws.” (8)A. H. Ruegg: “Law of Employer and Workman in England.” (13)A. V. Dicey: “Law and Opinion in England.” (3)T. Mackay: “Public Relief of the Poor.” (11)Appendix B: Book of Reference in 1905 (Our arranged order)(1) Brentano, Lujo [1870] On the History and Development of Gilds, and the Origin ofTrade-Unions, etc., London :Tru?bner & Co.
(2) Cunningham, William [1???] “Growth of English History and Commerce.” Vols. Ⅱ

137
138

BP, Ⅸb 3 (1905), see also Note 59.
The figures with round brackets are our additions which correspond to Appendix B.
44

and Ⅲ: Modern Times.
(3) Dicey, Albert Venn [1905] Lectures on the Relation between Law and Public
Opinion in England during the Nineteenth Century, London: Macmillan.
(4) Hutchins, B. Leigh and Amy Harrison [1903] A History of Factory Legislation, witha preface with Sidney Webb, London: King.
(5) Hobson, John Atkinson [1894] The Evolution of Modern Capitalism: a study ofmachine production, London: Walter Scott.
(6) Howell, George [1878] The Conflicts of Capital and Labour Historically andEconomically Considered: being a history ... of the Trade Unions of Great Britain:
London:.
(7) Howell, George [1891] Trade Unionism, London: Methuen.
(8) Howell, George [1895] 139 A Handy-Book of the Labour Laws, Third edition, revised,
London: Macmillan.
(9) Howell, George and Herman Cohen [1901] Trade Union Law and Cases: A text
book relating to trade unions and to labour, London: Sweet & Maxwell: London.
(10) Jevons, W. Stanley [1887] The State in Relation to Labour, London: Macmillan.
(11) Makay, Thomas [1901] Public Relief of the Poor: Six lectures, London: John
Murray.
(12) MaCrosty, Henry W. [1901] Trusts and the State: a sketch of competition, London:
Grant Richards.
(13) Ruegg, Alfred Henry [1905] The Laws Regulating the Relation of Employer andWorkman in England: A course of six lectures, etc. London: William Clowes & Sons.
(14) Schulze-Gaevernitz Gerhart von [1893] Social Peace: a study of the Trade Union
movement in England, with a preface to the English edition. Translated by C. M.
Wicksteed, and edited by G. Wallis, London: Swan Sonnenschein & Co.
(15) Toynbee, Arnold [1884] Lectures on the Industrial Revolution in England: Popular
addresses, notes and other fragments, together with a short memoir by B. Jowett,
London: Rivingtons.
(16) Webb, Sidney and Beatrice [1897] Industrial Democracy, London: Longmans
Green & Co.
(17) Webb, Sidney and Beatrice [1898] Problems of Modern Industry, London:
139

The book Beveridge referred to might be the first edition of the book [1876].
45

Longmans, Green and Co.
(18) Webb, Sidney and Beatrice [1902] The History of Trade Unionism, London:
Longmans.
(19) Webb, Beatrice (ed.) [1901] The Case for the Factory Acts, with a preface by Mrs.
Humphry Ward, London: Grant Richards.
(20) Wilson, Mona [1899] Our Industrial Laws: Working women in factories,
workshops, shops and laundries, and how to help them, edited, with a preface, by Mrs.
H. J. Tennant, London: Duckworth & Co.

Bibliography(1) Beveridge’s Original Writings(a)The Beveridge Papers
in British Library of Political and Economic Science (LSE)compiled by Mrs. G. A. Falla, 1981.
Section 1. Personal and Family
a. familyb. private and personal papers
c. diaries
d. honors and degrees
e. homes and household affairs
f. personal financeg. photographs and miscellaneous
Section 2. Lettersa. family
b. general and personal
Section 3. Unemployment and labour exchanges
Section 4. World War 2

46

Section 5. Universities
Section 6. Politics
Section 7. Other interests and activities
Section 8. Reports
Section 9a. Published works
Section 9b. Other works
Section 10. "Varia" (pamphlets and offprints)
Section 11. Visits abroad
Section 12. Press cutting
Section 13. Miscellaneousa. general index
b. index of letters
Section 14. Proceedings of the conference,social security 50 years after Beveridge, York, 1992(b) Microfilm
State Provision for Social Need (Adam Matthew Publications)
Series 2: The Beveridge Papers.
Part 1: Early Working Papers on Welfare, Labour and Unemployment Insurance, 19021944, 35mm microfilm 24 reels, 1998.
Reel 1, Item 5. Early Activities
Central (Unemployed) Body for London, conference reports, summaries of working
colony schemes and related papers, 1905-1908.
Reel 2, Item 11. Early Activities
Notice and syllabus of nine lectures on "the Economics of Unemployment" given at
Oxford, 1908.
Reel 2, Item 12. Early Activities
Papers relating to first three editions, 1907-1913. Includes preface (draft), 1908,47

correspondence with Longmans and others, 1908-1913, and royalty statements, 19091911.
(c) Published papers
Beveridge, W.H. [1904a] “The Vagrant and the Unemployable”, The Toynbee Record,
97-105, Volume 16, No.7, London: The Toynbee Hall, April 1904.
Beveridge, W.H. [1904b] “Unemployment in London 1”, The Toynbee Record, 9-15,
Volume 17, No.1, London: The Toynbee Hall, October 1904.
Beveridge, W.H. [1904c] “Unemployment in London 3: the Making of Paupers”, The
Toynbee Record, 27-29, Volume 17, No.2, London: The Toynbee Hall, November
1904.
Beveridge, W.H. [1904d] “Unemployment in London 4: the Preservation of Efficiency”,
The Toynbee Record, 43-47, Volume 17, No.3, London: The Toynbee Hall,
December 1904.
[Beveridge, W.H.]?140 [1905a] “A National Question”, The Toynbee Record, 75-77,
Volume 17, No.5, London: The Toynbee Hall, February 1905.
Beveridge, W.H. [1905b] “Unemployment in London 5: the Question of
Disfranchisement”, The Toynbee Record, 100-102, Volume 17, No.6, London: The
Toynbee Hall, March 1905.
Beveridge, W.H. [1905c] “The Reform of Trade Union Law”, The Economic Review(for the Oxford University Branch of the Christian Social Union), 129-149,
Volume15, No.2, London: Rivingtons, April 1905.
[Beveridge, W.H.]? [1905d] “The Unemployed Workmen Act – and After”, The
Toynbee Record, 9-12, Volume 18, No.1, London: The Toynbee Hall, October
1905.
[Beveridge, W.H.]? [1905e] “Queen’s Unemployed Fund: Mr. Long’s Committee
Report”, The Morning Post, 16 November 1905.
[Beveridge, W.H.]? [1905f] “The London Unemployed Fund”, The Toynbee Record,
36-38, Volume 18, No.3, London: The Toynbee Hall, December 1905.
[Beveridge, W.H.]? [1906a] “Old Age Pension: Views of the Prime Minister and Mr.

140

The mark ‘[ ]?’ means that the papers are unsigned. Taking the terminology into
account, however, we can determine this paper as Beveridge’s.
48Asquith”, The Morning Post, 16 February 1906.
[Beveridge, W.H.]? [1906b] “Labour Exchanges: Past and Future”, The Morning Post,
28 February 1906.
[Beveridge, W.H.]? [1906c] “Insurance Against Unemployment: a foreign experiment”,
The Toynbee Record, 112-113, Volume 18, No.8, London: The Toynbee Hall, May
1906
Beveridge, W.H. [1906d] “Emergency Funds for the Relied of the Unemployed: a noteon their historical development”, Clare Market Review, 73-78, Volume 1, No.3,
London: London School of Economics and Political Science, May 1906.
Beveridge, W.H. [1906e] “Labour Bureaux”, Economic Journal, 436-439, Volume
16, London: Royal Economic Society, September 1906.
Beveridge, W.H. [1907a] “Labour Exchanges and the Unemployed”, Economic Journal,
66-81, Volume 17, London: Royal Economic Society, March 1907.
Beveridge, W.H. [1907b] “The Problem of the Unemployed”, Sociological Papers
1906, 323-331, Volume 3, London: Macmillan.
Beveridge, W.H. [1907c] “Trade Unions and Unemployment: A Great System of
Insurance” and “Insurance against Unemployment: The Possibility and Conditions of
Its Extension, The Morning Post, 20 & 23 July 1907.
[Beveridge, W.H.]? [1907d] “The Cost of Old Age Pensions: £11,000,000 to start alimited scheme”, The Morning Post, 2 August 1907.
Beveridge, W.H. [1907e] “Metropolitan Employment Exchanges of the Central(Unemployed) Body”, The Toynbee Record, 132-137, Volume 19, No.10, London:
The Toynbee Hall, July & September 1907.
Beveridge, W.H. [1907f] “Social Reform: How Germany Deals with It, 1&2&3&4”,
The Morning Post, London:, 12&17&18&20 September 1907.
Beveridge, W.H. [1907g] “Humanisation of the Poor Law: the Workhouse and it's
Alternation”, The Morning Post, 21 September 1907.
Beveridge, W.H. [1907h] “Settlements and Social Reform”, The Oxford and Cambridge
Review, 108-117, No.2, London: Archibald Constable & Co. Ltd., Michaelmas Term,
1907.
Beveridge, W.H. [1908a] “Unemployment and its Cures: the First Step”, The
Contemporary Review, 385-398, No. 93, London: Horace Marshall & Son, April

49

1908.
Beveridge, W. H. [1908b] "Public Labour Exchange in Germany", The Economic
Journal, March 1908, reprinted in Beveridge [1909] pp.239-254.
[Beveridge, W.H.]? [1908c] “Old Age Pensions”, The Morning Post, 29 July 1908.
[Beveridge, W.H.]? [1908d] “Unemployment: A Symposium of Platitudes”, The
Toynbee Record, 20-26; 46-48, Volume 21, No.2 & No.3 London: The Toynbee Hall,
November & December 1908.
Beveridge, W. H. [1909] Unemployment: A Problem of Industry, London: Longmans,
Green and Co.
Beveridge, W.H. [1914a] “Review of Unemployment by A. C. Pigou”, Economic
Journal, 250-252, Volume 24, London: Royal Economic Society, June 1914.
Beveridge, W.H. [1914b] “A Seventeenth-Century Labour Exchange”, Economic
Journal, 371-376, Volume 24, London: Royal Economic Society, June 1914.
Beveridge, W.H. [1949] “The London School of Economics and the University of
London”, 41-53, in Margaret Cole (ed.) [1949] The Webbs and Their Work, London:
Frederick Muller Ltd.
Beveridge, W. H. [1955] Power and influence, New York: The Beechhurst Press, (First
published by London: Hodder & Stoughton in 1953).
Beveridge, W. H. and H. R. Maynard [1904] “The Unemployed: Lessons of theMansion House Fund”, The Contemporary Review, 629-638, No. 86, London:
Horace Marshall & Son, November 1904.

(2) Other Primary Writings
Alden, Percy [1905] The Unemployed: A National Question, London: King & Son.
Barnes, G. N. [1908] The Problem of the Unemployed, London: Independent Labour
Party.
Chapman, S. J. & H. M. Hallsworth [1909] Unemployment: The Results of an
Investigation made in Lancashire and an Examination of the Report of the Poor
Law Commission, Manchester: Manchester University Press.
Dearle. N.B. [1909] “Review of Unemployment: A Problem of Industry by W. H.
Beveridge”, Economic Journal, 224-228, Volume 19, London: Royal Economic

50

Society, June 1909.
Drake, Barbara & Margaret I. Cole (ed.) [1948] Our partnership; by Beatrice Webb,
London: Longmans.
Hobson, John A. [1894] The Evolution of Modern Capitalism: A Study of Machine
Production, London: Walter Scott Ltd.
Hobson, John A. [1895] “The Meaning and Measure of “Unemployment””, The
Contemporary Review, 415-432, 67, March 1895.
Hobson, John A. [1896] The Problem of the Unemployed: An Enquiry and an
Economic Policy, London: Methuen & Co. Ltd.
Hobson, John A. [1911] The Problem of the Unemployed: An Enquiry and an
Economic Policy, the Fifth Edition (the same as the Second Edition of 1904), London:
Methuen & Co. Ltd.
Hobson, John A. [1922] The Economics of Unemployment, London: George Allen &Unwin Ltd.
Hobson, John A. [1976(1938)] Confessions of an Economic Heretic, Sussex, UK: The
Harvester Press (First published by George Allen & Unwin Ltd in 1938).
Keynes [1973] The General Theory and After: Part Ⅱ, Defence and Development,
The Collected Writings of John Maynard Keynes, Volume 14, London: Macmillan
Cambridge University Press for the Royal Economic Society.
Mackenzie, Norman (ed.) [1978a] The Letters of Sidney and Beatrice Webb, Volume 2:
Partnership 1892-1912, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Mackenzie, Norman (ed.) [1978b] The Letters of Sidney and Beatrice Webb, Volume 3:
Pilgrimage 1912-1947, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Pigou, A. C. [1912] Wealth and Welfare, London: Macmillan, reprinted in A. C. Pigou
Collected Economic Writings, Volume 2, London: Macmillan, 1999.
Pigou, Arthur C. [1913] Unemployment, London: Henry Hold and Company.
Rowntree, B. Seebohm [1901] Poverty: A Study of Town Life, London: Macmillan.
Rowntree, B. Seebohm & Bruno Lasker [1911] Unemployment: A Social Study, London:
Macmillan.
Toynbee, H. V. [1905] “The Problem of the Unemployed”, The Economic Review (forthe Oxford University Branch of the Christian Social Union), 291-305, Volume15,
No.3, London: Rivingtons, July 1905.

51

Webb, Sidney & Beatrice [1898] Industrial Democracy, the Second Edition, London:
Longmans, Green and Co (first published in 1897).
Webb, Beatrice [1907] “Methods of Investigation”, Sociological Papers 1906, 347-354,
Volume 3, London: Macmillan.

(3) Secondary Writings
Adelman, Paul [1972] The Rise of the Labour Party 1880-1945, London: Longmans.
Aikin, K. W. W. [1972] The Last Years of Liberal England 1900-1914, London: Collins
Educational.
Backhouse, Roger E. [1985] A History of Modern Economic Analysis, Oxford: BasilBlackwell.
Backhouse, Roger E. [1990] “J. A. Hobson as a macroeconomic theorist”, in Freeden[1990], 116-136.
Ball, Michael & David Sunderland [2001] An Economic History of London 1800-1914,
London: Routledge.
Blaug, Mark [1978] Economic Theory in Retrospect, the Third Edition, Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1978, (First published in 1962).
Blaug, Mark [1986] Great Economists before Keynes: an introduction to the lives andworks of one hundred great economists of the past, Brighton: Wheatsheaf Books.
Blaug, Mark [1996] Economic Theory in Retrospect, the Fifth Edition, Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, (First published in 1962).
Booth, Alan [1989] British Economic Policy, 1931-49: Was There a Keynesian
Revolution? London: Harvester Wheatsheaf.
Booth, Alan & Melvyn Pack [1985] Employment, Capital and Economic Policy: GreatBritain 1918-1939, Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Brems, Hans [1986] Pioneering Economic Theory, 1630-1980: A Mathematical
Restatement, Baltimore, the U.S.: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Brown, John [1969] “The Appointment of the 1905 Poor Law Commission”, Bulletin of
the Institute of Historical Research, London: University of London; The Athlone
Press, Volume 42, 239-242.
Brown, John [1971] “The Poor Law Commission and the 1905 Unemployed Workmen

52

Act”, Bulletin of the Institute of Historical Research, London: University of London;
The Athlone Press, Volume 44, 318-323.
Brown, Kenneth D. [1971a] Labour and Unemployment 1900-1914, Newton Abbot, UK:
David & Charles Publishers Ltd.
Brown, Kenneth D. [1971b] “The Appointment of the 1905 Poor Law Commission – a
Rejoinder”, Bulletin of the Institute of Historical Research, London: University of
London; The Athlone Press, Volume 44, 315-318.
Bruce, Maurice [1968] The Coming of the Welfare State, the Fourth Edition, London:
B. T. Batsford Ltd. (First published in 1961).
Casson, Mark [1983] Economics of Unemployment: An Historical Perspective, Oxford:
Martin Robertson.
Cormack, U. [1953] The Welfare State: The Royal Commission on the Poor Laws,
1905-1909 and the Welfare State, Loch Memorial Lecture, 1953, London: The Family
Welfare Association.
Creedy, John (ed.) [1990] Foundations of Economic Thought, Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Davidson, R. [1985] Whitehall and the Labour Problem in Late-Victorian and
Edwardian Britain, London: Croom Helm.
Ekelund, Robert B. Jr. and Robert F. Hebert [1990] A History of Economic Theory andMethod, the Third Edition, London : McGraw-Hill.
Fraster, Derek [1984] The Evolution of the British Welfare State, the Second Edition,
New York: Palgrave.
Freeden, Michael [1978] The New Liberalism: An Ideology of Social Reform, Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Freeden, Michael (ed.) [1988] J. A. Hobson: A Reader, London: Unwin Hyman.
Freeden, Michael (ed.) [1990] Reappraising J. A. Hobson: Humanism and Welfare,London: Unwin Hyman.
Gilbert, Bentley B. [1966] The Evolution of National Insurance in Great Britain: theOrigin of the Welfare State, London: Michael Joseph.
Harris, Jose [1972] Unemployment and Politics: A Study in English Social Policy 18861914, Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Harris, Jose [1994] "Beveridge's Social and Political Thought", in Hills, J., J. Ditch, and
H. Glennerster (ed.) [1994], pp.23-36.

53

Harris, Jose [1997] William Beveridge, revised paperback edition, Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 1997 (First published in 1977).
Hay, J. R. [1983] The Origin of the Liberal Welfare Reforms 1906-1914, the Second
Edition, New York: Palgrave (First published in 1975).
Hayasaka, Tadashi [1983] “The Economic Thought, Theory and Policy of Keynes”, in
Chapter 2 of Hayasaka (ed.) [1983] Re-examination of a Kenysianism, Tokyo:
Taga-Syuppan (in Japanese, titles are our translation).
Hayek, Friedrich August von [1994] Hayek on Hayek : An Autobiographical Dialogue,edited by Stephen Kresge and Leif Wenar, London: Routledge.
Henneock, E. P. [1986] British Social Reform and German Precedents: The Case of Social
Insurance 1880-1914, Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Hills, J. J. Ditch, and H. Glennerster (ed.) [1994] Beveridge and Social Security,
Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Hutchison, Terence Wilmot [1953] A Review of Economic Doctrines, Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 1953.
Hutchison, Terence Wilmot [1978] On Revolutions and Progress in Economic
Knowledge, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Komine, Atsushi [2001a] “Beveridge on Unemployment in 1909: three inflows andoutflows”, Niigata Sangyo University Discussion Paper Series, No.21, March
2001.
Komine, Atsushi [2001b] “Contemporary Unemployment [1909]: Beveridge’s First
Programme”, Niigata Sangyo University Discussion Paper Series, No.22, October
2001.
Landreth, Harry and David C. Colander [1989] History of Economic Theory, the Second
Edition, Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Loasby, Brian John [1989] The Mind and Method of the Economist: A CriticalAppraisal of Major Economists in the 20th Century, Aldershot: Edward Elgar.
Mair, Douglas & Anne G. Miller [1991] A Modern Guide to Economic Thought: An
Introduction to Comparative Schools of Thought in Economics, Aldershot: Edward
Elgar.
Morgan, Mary [1990] The History of Econometric Ideas, Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.

54

Murray, Bruce K. [1980] The People’s Budget 1909/10: Lloyd George and Liberal
Politics, Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Phelps Brown, E. H. [1959] The Growth of British Industrial Relations: A Study fromthe standpoint of 1906-14, London: Macmillan & Co Ltd.
Phillips, Gordon & Noel Whiteside [1985] Casual Labour: The Unemployment Question
In the Port Transport Industry 1880-1970, Oxford: Claredon Press.
Roll, Eric [1954] A History of Economic Thought, the Third revised and enlarged Edition,
London: Faber.
Schumpeter, J. A. [1994] History of Economic Analysis, with a new introduction by
Mark Perlman, London: Routledge, 1994, (First published by Allen & Unwin
Ltd., in 1954).
Searle, G. R. [1992] The Liberal Party: Triumph and Disintegration, 1886-1929,
London: Macmillan.
Stark, Werner [1944] The History of Economics in its Relation to Social Development,
London: Kegan Paul.
Stigler, George J. [1965] Essays in the History of Economics, Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
Taylor, Overton H. [1960] A History of Economic Thought: social ideals and economic
theories from Quesnay to Keynes, London: McGraw-Hill.
Tomlinson, J. [1990] Public Policy and the Economy since 1900, Oxford: Clarendon
Press.
Townshend, Jules [1990] J. A. Hobson, Manchester: Manchester University Press.
Watts, Duncan [1995] Whigs, Radicals and Liberals 1815-1914, London: Hodder &Stoughton.

55