No.21

Beveridge on Unemployment in 1909:
three inflows and outflows
Atsushi KOMINE
March 2001
March 2002, with corrections

1

Beveridge on Unemployment in 1909:
three inflows and outflows
Atsushi Komine
Key Words : Beveridge, unemployment, a perfect labour market, Pigou,
Lange, the New Liberalism, the Welfare State.
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(c)secondary: I31 General Welfare; Basic Needs; Quality of Life
I3 - Welfare and Poverty, I - Health, Education, and Welfare
Abstract
Sir William Henry Beveridge (1879-1963) is famous for being one of
the fathers of the modern Welfare State. Nevertheless, we must not forget
his first career as a specialist on unemployment. What is lacking is aconsideration of positioning his Unemployment [1909] in a history of
economic thought.
We focus on Beveridge's theory on unemployment from 1903 to 1909.
We shall make two conclusions: Firstly, a reciprocal effect - between
Beveridge's economic doctrine and his practical life - enables him to shape
the perfect labour market theoretically, legally, and practically. Secondly,
Beveridge's Unemployment is such an influential economic writing - moreso than it at first seems - that we should position it properly in a history of
economic thought, by making use of a perfect market model.

2

21st November 2000
21st February 2001(revised)
7th March 2001(with corrections)

Beveridge on Unemployment in 1909
Three inflows and outflows
Atsushi KOMINE*
Version 2.5
Section 1 Introduction
Section 2 The Theoretical Structure of Unemployment [1909]
2-1 Unique Approach
2-2 Classification of Unemployment
2-3 Remedies for Unemployment
Section 3 Three Inflows into Unemployment
3-1 From Toynbee Hall to the Morning Post
3-2 A New Generation
3-3 The Perfect Market Model
Section 4 Three outflows from Unemployment
4-1 The Board of Trade
4-2 An Influence on Pigou
4-3 A resembled idea with Lange
Section 5 Concluding Remarks
5-1 Spiral Development
5-2 An Impact on Economic Thought
Appendix The Beveridge Papers
Acknowledgements
References*

Niigata Sangyo University.
komine@econ.nsu.ac.jp

Correspondence may be by email;3Section 1

Introduction

Sir William Henry Beveridge1 (1879-1963) is very well known as oneof the fathers of the modern Welfare State, along with Sidney and BeatriceWebb, and John Maynard Keynes. Needless to say, over the past decades,
there have been a considerable number of studies of his general thoughts
about the social security system2. Those studies have focused on his
Social Insurance and Allied Services (1942), which is published as acompilation of his works during his last years.
Nevertheless, we must not forget his first job as a specialist inunemployment. After Oxford, he worked at Toynbee Hall to investigate theunemployed, then moved to the Morning Post to enlighten ordinary people
and promote the public awareness of Social Problems. Almost no otherresearchers have taken up this point as a main theme. Indeed, it is truethat many books and papers3 have only referred to his first book,
Unemployment [1909]. However, especially from an economic point ofview, little is known about his theories of unemployment in detail. Thus,though we have a splendid biography by Jose Harris, fundamental
questions remain unanswered.
What seems to be lacking is aconsideration of positioning his Unemployment in a history of economic
thought.
This paper is part of a larger project. The aim of the project is toreconsider Beveridge's contribution to the theory of unemployment.

1

Later, Lord Beveridge.
On this subject, see Hills, Ditch, and Glennerster (eds) [1994], particularly Abel-Smith[1994].
3
For instance, see Hutchison [1953] pp.415-416 and Backhouse [1985] pp.247-248.
Schumpeter simply referred to Beveridge in a single sentence, see Schumpeter.
[1994(1954)] p.944, footnote 57. There is no name of him in the index to Blaug[1978(1962)], the third edition. In the fifth one, Blaug referred to Beveridge's
Unemployment in the context of public works, see Blaug [1996(1962)] p.662. A recent
handy dictionary of economic thought treats him only in the 1940s, see Beaud andDostaler [1997(1995)] p.49, p.51.
2

4

Pursuing this aim, we will clarify the relationship between his theory of
unemployment in his youth, and that of national security in his later years.
Then, we will cast a new light on the history of the modern Welfare State from an economic point of view in particular. Recently, there has been arenewed interest in Keynes (and Ralph Hawtrey) concerning the UK
managed economy. Nonetheless, if we provisionally use the term "themodern Welfare State" in the sense of a hybrid between Keynes' managed
economy and Beveridge's social security system, do we need a wider
perspective of their combination than ever?
This paper deals with his early career4. Specifically, we focus on
Beveridge's theory of unemployment from 1903 to 1909. We shallconclude this paper in two phases. Firstly, a reciprocal effect - between
Beveridge's economic doctrine and his practical life - enables him to shape
the perfect labour market theoretically, legally, and practically. Secondly,
Beveridge's Unemployment [1909] is such an influential economic work more than it at first seems to be - that we should position it properly in ahistory of economic thought.
This paper is organised as follows.
Section 2 analyses
Unemployment. Section 3 describes the background behind the book.
Section 4 explains his influence on some of the later economic works.
Section 5 summarises the main arguments, then concludes as a whole.

Section 2 The Theoretical Structure of Unemployment [1909]
This section focuses on Beveridge's Unemployment [1909], from atheoretical point of view in particular. It is divided into three groups: thecharacter of his approach to unemployment, the classification of it, and theremedies for it.
2-1
4

Unique ApproachThis owes to Harris' subdivision, see Harris [1994] p.27.
5

His approach is unique because his recognition of the unemployment
problem was exclusively modern5. Here, "modern" means that his
analysis goes far beyond those typical of the 19th century.
The main title and sub-title of his book both symbolised theuniqueness of his viewpoint. Around 1908, Beveridge named his firstbook Unemployment: A Problem of Industry. When he prepared to
publish his book in 19056, the title must have been The Unemployed: An
Economic Question. Although, as Fujii [1988] has clarified, the centre ofgravity had then shifted from the problem of the unemployable to that of
the unemployed, we emphasise the second shift from the unemployed to
unemployment. Beveridge said:
The inquiry must be essentially an economic one. . . . With this inview the problem must be approached, not from the standing point of thePoor Law or of charitable administration, but from that of industry.
(Beveridge [1909] p.3)
This perception had never changed since 1905.
introduction to his memoranda:

He declared in the

The problem of the unemployed [is] economic; i.e. there are certain
economic and social forces tending to produce temporary or recurrent
involuntary idleness. Unemployment [is] not merely personal orsporadic in nature.7
In the 19th century, a very common view was that poverty was due to

5

For this reason, we disagree with Freeden's view; "Beveridge's attitude to
unemployment ... was not a new one ..." (Freeden [1978] p.211).
6
The Beveridge Papers (hereafter as BP), Reel 2, Section 3, Item 12, "Plan for The
Unemployed: An Economic Question" (1905).
7
BP, Reel 2, Section 3 Item 12, italics is underlined in original.
6

a labourer's own fault.
Being unemployed directly meant being
unemployable - rioters, vagabonds, or lazybones. As self-help institutions,such as cooperative societies, friendly societies, and labour unions wereorganised in the Victorian Era, the virtues of the middle class gradually
prevailed among even the labour class. Thus, even in the late 19th
century, self-help and saving were still virtues. For instance, the Charity
Organisation Society (COS) thought that relief should be restricted topeople having the desire to improve themselves8.
Trying to get rid of this old-fashioned thought, Beveridge constructeda modern theory to take its place.
In the first place, he excluded "the character and the control ofindividuals"9 from his main analysis for three reasons; firstly, the numberof the unemployable was not so great. Secondly, no improvement ofworkmen's personality would eliminate the other economic factors inunemployment10. To be sure, he admitted there was room for "improvementof human character as a remedy for unemployment"11. Nevertheless, it
was rather more practical to abolish industrial conditions that induced
people to idleness or slovenliness. Thirdly, the term "unemployable" wasfluid and indefinite12. The word "employable" was so volatile that, forexample, the best carpenter could be unemployable as a compositor. It
was not scientific to use such an ambiguous word. For him, it was
impossible to distinguish "can work" from "can't work".
In the second place, he paid more attention to economic or industrial
conditions surrounding workers, than to the workers themselves. Here, weshould note that Beveridge did not regard the distinction between theunskilled and the skilled as important. If a chronic excess of labour were8

See Thane [1996] p.23.
Beveridge [1909] p.133.
10Beveridge [1909] p.138. Here, he admits that if degenerate people could be
abolished, the volume of idleness would be diminished.
11
Beveridge [1909] p.138.
12
Beveridge [1909] p.136.
97

confined to unskilled work13, it might be due to personal lack of ability.
And if it were confined to skilled work, it might be attributed to tradeunions that force high wages. However, the fact was that both workers
suffer from unemployment. Thus, there must be other reasons. That isthe very situation he wants to analyse. It is a macroeconomic or industrial
problem.
Beveridge generalised a theory of unemployment in the 20th century
from a firm recognition that parasitic men might "logically be excluded"14.
In this sense, he confronted the problem for ordinary people in every
industry, regardless of being unskilled or skilled. On the other hand, theunemployment problem in the 19th century lay exclusively with that ofaged or lazy or disabled people - men who are ‘special’, so to speak. This
is why we name his theory "modern".
2-2Classification of Unemployment

One of the most notable features of Unemployment is his clear-cut
classification of unemployment. Unlike previous studies, he directlyclassifies the causes of unemployment themselves, not the types of theunemployed.
Both the old Poor Law system in 1601 and the new one in1834 tried to distinguish the able-bodied poor from others, or men subject
to indigence from men in poverty 15. These attempts, however, totally failed.
On the other hand, Beveridge abandoned this way because of its
impossibility, instead pointing out economic conditions leading to human
vices.
We can sum up by saying that these conditions consist of three factors:

13

Although Beveridge’s analysis seems to be restricted to the work of the London docks
and wharves, he is sure that the diagnosis is relevant to every industry. See Beveridge[1909] p.99.
14
Beveridge [1909] p.135.
15
See the following sentence, "The concept of classification lay at the heart of many ofthe debates over social policy during the nineteenth century" (Driver [1993] p.95).
8

fluctuations of industrial activity (seasonal fluctuations and cyclical ones),
the reserve of labour, and changes of industrial structure16. We shalldiscuss these in detail.
Firstly, fluctuations of industrial activity were further roughly divided
into two different types: seasonal fluctuations and cyclical ones. Indeed,most trades regularly had busy months and slack months. For instance,
the building trade was slack in winter for climatic reasons. In contrast,
Christmas is busy for wholesalers. Beveridge, however, did not put astress on the seasonal type. He regarded it as no acute distress. Thanks
to seasonal regularity, workers and traders can predict business situations
and somehow prepare for them. Therefore, "seasonal fluctuations becomesa question not of unemployment but of wages"17. It is sufficient forworkers to eliminate low wages. We should note here that this factor isindependent of the characteristics of individual workmen.
As to cyclical fluctuations, Beveridge's attitude was very prudent. He
mentioned three theories18 to explain good and bad trade. In the first type,the volume of metal currency led to industrial fluctuation, whichcorresponded to the rise and fall of prices. This inference could beunderstood as the Quantity Theory of Money, though he did not use theterm. The second type was the "over-production" theory. The third wasthe "under-consumption" theory advanced by J. A. Hobson19. According
to Beveridge, these three types seemed only to explain part of the facts.
They did not clarify cyclical changes. These theories "must be treated atbest as no more than hypotheses to be tested by the facts"20. This remark
indicated both his scientific prudence and his positivism. He pays
16

Beveridge [1909] pp.13-14.
Beveridge [1909] p.37.
18
Beveridge [1909] pp.57-58. He rejects the sun-spot theory advanced by W. S.
Jevons.
19
Beveridge refers to Hobson's The Problem of the Unemployed (1906) only. He does
not mention Hobson's other political or philosophical works. See Beveridge [1909]
p.58.
20
Beveridge [1909] p.64.
179attention to simple facts, not causes, of cyclical movements, saying that it"means discontinuity in . . . the demand for labour"21. Although his
attitude is obscure towards the causes of cyclical fluctuation, it is clear that
he is satisfied with the consequences of theories – that measures ofpalliation are needed.
Secondly and most importantly, almost all trades need a reserve
supply of labour. Beveridge discovered, from numerous charts, theexistence of the irreducible minimum of unemployment. Even at the heightof a boom, this never disappears. Why is there a chronic excess of labour?
The answer lies in the necessity of the reserve of labour. Three elements
can be pointed out: fluctuations in the total volume of work, the supply oflabour without free mobility from one direction to another, and theperpetual chance of work. As is typical in the dock and wharf industry,each centre has independent demands for labour which are subject toirregular fluctuations. For each separate employer at a dock who faces
irregular arrival and departure of ships, it is uneconomical to employ
workers on a regular basis. Besides this, if there is no or poor
communication between the employees and employers, they cannot prepare
themselves in good time for the supply of or demand for labour. This istermed "the friction of the labour market"22. Poor communication,
however, does not trouble employers, because numerous homogeneous
workers wait at the dock front in the early morning every day. This is thethird element. In short, casual employment prevails in London andelsewhere, owing to short engagements and chance in the competition for
employment. This peculiarity of the labour market leads to the necessity
for its reserve.
It is significant that Beveridge discovered the reserve of labour for
three reasons.
Firstly, his discovery is deeply associated with his further evolved
recognition of the nature of the labour market. He asked himself why the21
22

Beveridge [1909] p.65.
Beveridge [1909] p.81.
10

supply of labour almost always seems to exceed the demand.
the central paradox of the unemployed problem:

This wasThe explanation of the paradox is really a very simple one - that
there is no one labour market but only an infinite number of separate
labour markets. (Beveridge [1909] p.70)
He claimed here that the labour market differed from those of otherordinary commodities.
Separate markets caused maladjustment ofefficient information and mobility.
"The greatest barrier to free23
movement in any area is ignorance" , custom, or distance24.
Secondly, his discovery immediately suggests remedies for
unemployment. As he asserted:
Mere mobility of labour is not enough. It must be organised
movement and backed up by organised selection. Separate preference
lists at each centre of employment are not enough; the lists must beamalgamated. (Beveridge [1909] p.87)
His key-word is "organisation". "Organisation among the men themselves
helps to unify the labour market and de-casualise demand"25. We will later
discuss concrete institutions in Section 2-3. Here again, it is worth notingthat he excluded individual factors from the causes of unemployment.
"The casual labourer . . . is neither unemployable nor superfluous. He is
what he is in response to an effective demand"26.
Thirdly, Beveridge associated successive changes of industrial
structure with the adaptability of labour. Modern countries such as
Britain developed faster. It was necessary and inevitable to replace old

23

Beveridge [1909] p.78.
Beveridge [1909] p.81.
25
Beveridge [1909] p.105.
26
Beveridge [1909] p.106.
24

11

machines with new ones, established processes with better ones, and labour
in one form with fresh combinations27. However, adding to advancing age,perpetual changes of industrial structure destroyed the adaptability of thelabourer. To quote him:
Changes of industrial structure or of individual firms place men out of
harmony with their environment. Ignorance and lack of adaptability
prevent them from recovering harmony. Unemployment results
because, though men may be required, they are no longer of the sortrequired. (Beveridge [1909] p.124)
Consequently, millions of workers with varying abilities were scattered in a
thousand towns. Moreover, an "unsatisfied demand for labour . . . does
co-exist with an unemployed supply"28.
The reserve of labour
corresponded to maladjustment, mainly of place. On the other hand, thisfactor coincided with that of quality.
Interestingly, at least around 1909, Beveridge did not lay much stresson industrial training, which would normally improve the quality of labour.
He claims that "its direct value as a remedy for unemployment is somewhat
limited"29. For "it cannot touch the causes of industrial fluctuation or inpractice prevent casual employment"30.
To sum up this section, the most important and unique point is
Beveridge's analysis of the reserve of labour. Although there are twoother phenomena (fluctuations and changes of industrial activity or its
structure), these fluctuations and changes result in the necessity of thereserve of labour31. The reserve then leads to casual employment.
Consequently, irregular demand for labour tends to bring about poverty.

27

Beveridge [1909] p.111.
Beveridge [1909] p.115.
29
Beveridge [1909] p.131.
30
Beveridge [1909] p.131.
31
Beveridge [1909] p.193.
28

12

Therefore, he attached value to regular employment, or to preventing
casual employment. How to organise the unified labour market was his
central concern in this period. We shall deal with remedies for
unemployment on the basis of his diagnosis.
2-3

Remedies for Unemployment

Based on his analysis, his remedy for unemployment was a close
combination between the Labour Exchange and employment insurance.
Although previous studies32 have ignored this, or at least treated it very
superficially, he himself realised this connection:
The Labour Exchange is required to reduce to a minimum the intervals
between successive jobs. Insurance is required to tide over the intervals
that will still remain. The Labour Exchange mobilises the reserve oflabour for fluctuations . . . Insurance is needed to provide for the
maintenance of the reserves while . . . waiting for re-absorption.
(Beveridge [1909] p.229)
First of all, Beveridge wanted to introduce an organisation into thelabour market, the same organisation which was common in other ordinarycommodities. There were definite places to which the would-be buyer
went, and at which the would-be seller was to be found33. It was the"market" or "exchange". It was necessary and convenient for them tocommunicate with each other. As for labour, however, it remainedcompletely different. Obtaining employment, or selling labour, still
depended on a method of personal application at the workplace. The
method was to hawk blindly from door to door. In other words, there

32

See, for instance, Freeden's argument; "Beveridge, on the contrary, dealt with the
problem of unemployment ... in detachment from other crucial issues of social
reform ..." (Freeden [1978] p.210).
33
Beveridge [1909] p.197.
13

existed no organisations such as centres or offices or exchanges in thelabour market. In Germany, there were already offices where able-bodied
workers "are required to register daily, and must accept any offer ofsuitable work at the current rate of wages"34.
A registration system was important as the workers' ability andwillingness could be tested and checked automatically. The new Poor
Law in 1834 had another type of test. There was a clear line between theclass of independent labourers and that of paupers. This distinction was
based on the deterrent logic of less eligibility, which meant that theeconomic situation of the relieved paupers should be below that of workers
without relief. In addition, out-door relief was in principle exhibited.
Thus, whether to apply to enter a workhouse or not was a self-acting test ofwhether a person needed true relief or not. Life in a workhouse was sosevere that only genuinely indigent people should have registered.
Nevertheless, this experiment failed completely35. On the other hand, theLabour Exchange could assist the unemployed cheaply and effectively
because the state was able to have direct supervision of the labour market36.
It was not the provision of temporary relief as in the Poor Laws, but theabolition of casual employment itself. He claimed:. . . the policy is one for the permanent and preventive treatment of the
problem; it is not concerned with what may . . . be the best available
palliatives for present distress. (Beveridge [1909] p.192)
This self-acting test was closely related to feasibility of insurance
against unemployment. As labour unions in the late 19th century could
directly check and test the needs of their members, the Labour Exchanges
could do the same thing if they had unified information about the
unemployed. Through this test, unions could pay unemployment benefit

34

Beveridge [1908], reprinted in [1909] p.245.
See Beveridge [1909] p.215.
36
Beveridge [1955] p.60.
35

14

to those who were really in distress; that is, those who registered every day.
Because the benefit fund depended on a union member's contribution,
unions had an incentive to use their money effectively. Thus, the "provisionof unemployed pay leads almost automatically to the development of a
trade union labour registry or labour exchange"37.
Insurance against unemployment and many further measures played aminor role, though the former was closely connected with the Labour
Exchange. For they "suffice to aim at preventing, not unemployment, but
the distress which it now involves"38.
Here we can confirm that decasualising employment is the most important aim for Beveridge. There
are two further minor measures: public work and elasticity of wages.
Firstly, public work may be able to counteract industrial fluctuation: it is
not for stimulating effective demand as a whole, but for balancing slack
and busy periods through the power of public authorities. Nonetheless,there remain only a few profitable works. Its "applicability therefore isstrictly limited"39. Secondly, greater elasticity of wages is worthwhile as
it serves to steady employment. If employers, for example in the building
trade, can even out wages between summer and winter, they can offer ahigher demand for labour in the winter.
In brief, organisation "among the men themselves helps to unify thelabour market and de-casualise the demand"40.
The abolition of this custom [of hawking] - in other words, thedeliberate organisation of the labour market - is the first step in thepermanent solution of the problem of unemployment.
(Beveridge [1909] p.198)

37

Beveridge [1955] p.60, form the Morning Post in July 1907.
Beveridge [1909] p.220.
39
Beveridge [1909] p.231.
40
Beveridge [1909] p.105.
38

15

Section 3 Three Inflows into Unemployment
This section will deal with Beveridge's background behind
Unemployment [1909]. It is possible to separate it into three elements: his
actual experience, direct influence, and indirect connection. As to actual
experience, we will briefly follow his life from 1903 to 1908. Regarding
direct influence, we will take up the atmosphere of those days. And
concerning indirect connection, we will introduce a theoretical model in thelight of a developmental history of economic thought. These three
inflows constitute his doctrine of unemployment.
3-1

From Toynbee Hall to the Morning Post

Firstly, we shall briefly sum up Beveridge's official life. In 1903,
Beveridge was scouted by Samuel Bernet41 (1844-1913), and became amember of Toynbee Hall in the East End of London. In this residential
settlement house, we could superficially look upon him as a social worker.
However, we should regard him as a social reformer. The former works
with Christian pity in the face of and for the sake of real poor individuals.
On the other hand, the latter works for an invisible and abstract ideal. The
time at Toynbee Hall was very precious, partly because he became a wellknown specialist on unemployment, and partly because he was trained as ayoung journalist when he dealt with the Toynbee Record. Then, in 1905,
Febian Ware and Lord Glenesk, respectively editor and owner of theMorning Post, recruited him. As leader-writer, Beveridge enjoyed his free
time. Again, he kept in touch with official or volunteer activities such as
the London (Unemployed) Central Body and the Mansion House Relief
Committee.
Flextime and high-salary piecework enabled him to41

Bernet was Vicar in a very poor Whitechapel parish. He was also a founder of both
COS in 1869 and Toynbee Hall in 1884. He tried to connect the poor with the rich in a
residential settlement where everyone lived together. He scouted Arnold Toynbee(1852-1883) too. See Thane [1996] p.23 and Beveridge [1955] Chapter 2.
16investigate and study unemployment in the daytime. During the Morning
Post age, he went to Germany to inspect her Labour Exchange system.
After this journey, he was called as a witness to the Royal Commission on
the Poor Laws42. He reported on the Labour Exchange with the assistanceof Sidney and Beatrice Webb. After various experiences, he was finallyscouted by Winston Churchill to be a civil servant in the Board of Trade in
1908.
This period was fruitful for Beveridge, who was to make his debut as
an expert on unemployment, in three respects. Firstly, he could take aclose look at the real poor in the settlement house, and observes the facts of
unemployment. Consequently, he fully realised that an old-fashioned
temporary aid was not a true resolution, but simply a satisfaction to thecharitable. Secondly, due to flextime and high-salary piecework, heengaged in investigating unemployment, writing on various political issues,
lecturing, and leading official and informal meetings. The Toynbee
Record and the Morning Post enabled him to earn a living "by studying
social problems theoretic ally and practically and writing about it"43. In
short, he was a researcher, a journalist, a teacher, and an able leader ofofficial and volunteer groups. Thirdly, during this time, he learned the art ofjournalism; that is, how to persuade ordinary people by pen power.
Gathering all of the three, his chaotic - or eclectic - style resulted in themaking of a lecture on unemployment at Oxford in 1908, and of an
academic paper44 on the labour exchange in Economic Journal in March
1908. By this time, he had become a specialist on unemployment.
3-2 A New Generation
Beveridge was deeply in touch with the outcomes (policies) of the42

The dates were the 14th and 15th of October 1907.
43
Beveridge [1955] p.70.
44
The title is "Public Labour Exchange in Germany", reprinted in Beveridge [1909].
17

New Liberalism in the 1900s45. We do not wish to imply that he wasclearly conscious of strict logic of, for instance, Idealist philosophy orideology (Thomas Hill Green) 46, and holism or organicism (L. T.
Hobhouse and J. A. Hobson). Yet, we mean that he is on a ‘big tide’ ofthe New Liberalism47, and that he promotes - unlike the above threetheorists and like J. M. Keynes afterwards - a new conception of thefunctions of the State. There is enough evidence to show that our claim isrelevant.
In the first place, after he was disillusioned by the activities of social
workers, he could consider the poor problem from a broader perspective.
The scope of social workers on unemployment is too restricted. As hesaid:
I don't think social worker activities worth much study inthemselves, . . . but useful first and foremost as themselves means ofknowledge.48
He was sure that the area of agenda was too small in the 19th century.
The one thing in which I am interested wholly and completely is thegetting to know something about human society and working at some45

On this point, see Weiler's sentence; "By the first decade of the twentieth century, it
had become commonplace ... that government must attend to social problems previously
left to private charity" (Weiler [1982] p.23).
46
See the following comment; "his purposes were different from those Green, Toynbee,
and Barnett had articulated in the 1880s. ... in favour of objective opinion and policy, he
was declaring himself a member of the new generation of reformers..." (Meacham[1987] p.137). In addition, the New Liberalism, or Liberal collectivism, "requires thata social commitment be made to certain minimal objectives which are seen as acondition of existence for a liberal society" (Cutter et al.[1986] p.1). For further detail of
the New Liberalism, see Clarke [1988], Freeden [1978], Freeden [1986], Hobhouse[1911], Hobson [1938], and Weiler [1982].
47
For arguments against our judgement, see Freeden [1978] pp.210-211.
48
A letter to his mother, 1904. This citation is from Harris [1997] p.84.
18

part of its machinery. (Beveridge [1955] pp.14)
Then there is another class of legal reforms needed at the present day- vitally important and resembling neither Bentham reforms nor thelegal emendation . . . A reform of that sort is rather social than legal.
(Beveridge [1955] pp.17-18) 49
We should note the words "society", "social", and "machinery". These
indicate his bird's-eye view with scientist's glasses. As to respective
charity activities, he confesses that "slumming" and "good works" werediscouraging him when he stayed at Toynbee Hall as a visitor in his thirdyear of Oxford50. Beveridge had inherited part of his father's disposition.
His father disliked "horny-handed mechanics", "soup-kitchens for theproletariat", and maintained that it was in vain "trying to genial to people
with whom you have little in common"51. Although it seems to be aparadox at first glance that Beveridge did not intend to be a social worker
who was full of charity, it is reasonable to regard him as a social reformer
who is more interested in the actual working of the state.
In the second place, we must draw attention to the fact that, from 1903
to 1908, Beveridge was trained as a journalist of social problems. To
investigate unemployment itself advances the art of journalism:
So I was set to learn about the main economic problem of those days,
not from books, but by interviewing unemployed applicants for relief,
taking up references from former employers, selecting the men to behelped, and organising the relief work. (Beveridge [1955] p.23)
He had an ambition to reform society as a whole.

He also had the cool49

Both extracts are from Beveridge's letters to his father in 1903.
Beveridge [1955] p.15.
51
All three extracts are from a letter of Beveridge's father to him in 1903. See Harris[1997] p.75.
50

19

eyes of a natural scientist, like Thomas Huxley 52; he had a gift for statistics;
finally he had a career as a journalist. In short, he had distinguishedhimself as a specialist on unemployment by 1908. Beveridge states:
I should not have to write to order about extraneous subjects - but
simply to stick to social questions, formulate a policy, bring a scientificunderstanding of these questions home to the ordinary comfortablepublic53.
Journalism was the most important of his numerous facets, and was
responsible for opening his eyes to social problems.
In the third place, although Unemployment [1909] shows little
influence of ideological or political issues, Beveridge mentions J. A.
Hobson on many occasions, stating:Taxation of large incomes ... is, no doubt, also a good thing in so far
as money is needed for public purposes; ... a certain amount of wealth ...
might be more advantageously used in meeting immediate necessities(e.g., for education, for sanitation ...). (Beveridge [1909] pp.63n-64n.)
Beveridge does not wholly agree with Hobson's "under-consumption"
theory. In turn, he has a favourable impression of his political thought.
In conclusion, Beveridge had a new conception in the 1900s; he takes
it for granted that State intervention is necessary for protecting the Liberal
world54. In this sense, he has been in the midst of the New Liberalism,
though he does not write a strict theory of it. Additionally, his enthusiasm
for the Labour Exchange could be looked upon as being along the same52

"I think Huxley is the modern whom I am most inclined to make my hero". This
extract is form Harris [1997] p.68, a letter in 1902.
53
This quotation is from Harris [1997] p.96, a letter to his mother, 1905.
54"The essential contribution of the new Liberals to the Liberal tradition ... was theirreevaluation of the state ..." (Weiler [1982] p.17).
20

lines as the Webbs' "national efficiency" movement. The movementmeans that true freedom will be realised if corporate freedom, stateintervention, would be carried out.
3-3 The Perfect Market Model
When we come to consider a relationship between Beveridge' theoryof unemployment and prevailing economic thoughts in those days, werealise that his claim on the labour market has a double meaning. On the
one hand, his hidden idea behind the theory surely has intents both toreconstitute orthodox economic thought and to prove its completeness. On
the other hand, it has a power that might destroy one of the main pillars of
the plain, simple, but dominant economic way of thinking - classicaleconomics at the masses level -.
First of all, Beveridge has a firm belief in the market mechanism as awhole. From his assertion:
There are, no doubt, economic forces which tend in the long run toadjust supply and demand in regard to labour as in regard to all othercommodities. (Beveridge [1909] p.4)
. . . this general balance [between supply and demand] is alreadysecured by economic forces. (Beveridge [1909] p.193)
This way of thinking coincides with that of the orthodox thinking.
Moreover, he blames the unemployed of East End London in the following
manner:I remember asking myself what had gone wrong with economic laws
in East London; if there was no demand for these men why did not theyeither go away or starve and die? (Beveridge [1955] p.24)
Although economic laws are still valid, why are there always numerous

21unemployed people everywhere? This was the central paradox that
Beveridge had to confront.
The clue to solving this paradox lies in the uniqueness of the labour
market. In reality, there is no single and unified labour market that theclassical economics needs. Indeed, as the historian Karl Polanyi once
said55, One Big Market is necessary for the market mechanism to work
perfectly. Polanyi also claimed that after the Speenhamland system wasabolished and economic liberalism prevailed around the end of the 18th
century, the true class of labourer was born and the labour market wasorganised at last56.
However, Beveridge's explanation goes beyond the 19th-century
manner. He regards the labour market both in theory and in the real world
as incomplete. According to his claim, the adjustment between supply
and demand is not always secured. Past theories and practices neglected
the force of friction. They took the supply of labour for granted "as if itwere infinitely mobile and adaptable"57. Likely, they regarded the demand
for labour "as if it were single and concentrated"58. Nonetheless, the realmarket of labour does not act as such.
. . . there is no one labour market but only an infinite number of
separate labour markets. (Beveridge [1909] p.70)
The demand is, in fact, broken up by distinctions of place and quality,
and subject to perpetual change and fluctuation. The supply is rendered
immobile by ignorance and less adaptable by every year of age.
(Beveridge [1909] p.216)

55"These markets - and they are numberless - are interconnected and from One Big
Market" (Polanyi [1944] p.72).
56"Not until 1834 was a competitive labor market established in England" (Polanyi[1944] p.83). "The abolishment of Speenhamland was the true birthday of the modern
working class" (Polanyi [1944] p.101).
57
Beveridge [1909] p.216.
58
Beveridge [1909] p.216.
22

Therefore, for Beveridge, the appropriate measure to eliminate
unemployment lies in making the labour market a more complete one. Itsmeans is to organise the labour market, that is to say, to introduce theLabour Exchange. A place is needed where buyers and sellers could
gather and shout prices; finally, the equilibrium would be found. In thatplace, information prevails everywhere in the market, and all attendees
satisfy their utility and profit. If this complete market appears, the forceof friction and unemployment should reach the minimum level.
His claim is best understood if we borrow a model of the perfectmarket. As Leon Walras had suggested, the perfect market needs at least
the following three mechanisms. Firstly, one big, well-arranged market isnecessary where buyers and sellers gather (an auction place). Secondly,
an auctioneer is needed who shouts prices and acts as a gap between supply
and demand (perfect information). Thirdly, the gap is automaticallyeliminated in the timeless world (tatonnement process, price mechanism).
Beveridge's idea is so innovative because it is a reconstruction or an
expansion of the orthodox economic thinking - Laissez-faire -, whereas thisstrength would possibly weaken the other side of it. On the one hand, his
diagnosis and remedy for unemployment is to produce a perfect market for
labour. His proposal in the 1900s could be regarded as the final trial thatfailed around the 19th century. It was the movement that the workhousesystem had intended, by transferring pauper into labour power. As
Polanyi pointed out, labour is "the last of the markets to be organised under
the new industrial system"59. Thus, the theme remained until the 20th
century. Creating the new labour market is worthy of a mention in ahistory of the perfect market60. In this way, Beveridge believes in the

59

Polanyi [1944] p.77.
According to the Arrow-Debreu model, the complete market means that there exist
numberless markets of every commodity coinciding to every situation. Arrow and
Debreu also applied this economy even to the uncertain world where contingent
commodities existed and were completely arranged. See Debreu [1959] and Arrow
and Hahn [1971].
60

23

future of private ownership by applying a model of a free market to thelabour market. On the other hand, the measure he takes up in the next
step is exclusively different from the original Walras model. The
auctioneer is not an invisible price mechanism, but the visible State; that is,
the economic intervention by the government into private economy. Here,great innovation appears in a history of economic thought. His idea
should be understood by pointing out these twofold aspects.
We must have two reservations: firstly, we do not mean that
Beveridge is conscious of this model. Before 1909, he studied a numberof classical writings on political economy. However, "he found thembarren soil"61. It is not certain that he read (or understood) the works ofthe neo-classical school such as Walras and Marshall. We assert that his
idea reveals its uniqueness if we consider it through the perfect market
model. Secondly, his remedy is incomplete - though revolutionary – tomodern eyes. Even if the labour market is more and more efficient, there
are no jobs newly created. We must wait until Keynes would discover"the effective demand".

Section 4 Three outflows from Unemployment
This section will deal with the influence of Beveridge's Unemployment[1909] on later economic thoughts or works62 and his own life. The
following three outflows are generated from his doctrine of unemployment.
4-1 The Board of Trade
61

Harris [1997] p.144.
Typically, see Hobhouse's words; "On all sides we find the State making active
provision for the poorer classes ... We find it ... helping them to obtain employment
through free Labour Exchanges, seeking to organize the labour market with a view tothe mitigation of unemployment ... " (Hobhouse [1911] pp.157-158). It is obvious thatthese sentences are affected by Beveridge's proposal, though Hobhouse does not
mention his name.
6224

When Unemployment was published in 1909 after the lecture and thepaper were reconstituted, Beveridge's crude belief (a flavour of the New
Liberalism) turned into a consistent creed. The creed is the pure doctrinethat deals with unemployment in a modern industrial world. In this stage,
the point lies in transmuting reality into pure theory. His earlier
ambiguous thought had been changed into a rigid conviction. He canwatch a clear and concrete target. That is a large-scale system combinedwith the Labour Exchange and Unemployment Insurance. Note here thatin this stage, economic intervention by the government does not contradicta free market - the core of classical economics - in his consciousness.
Beveridge's great fame eventually reached the ears of Ministers in
1908. Some ambitious men in the Liberal Party sought a man of ability
who could make popular policies. Winston Churchill, the minister of theBoard of Trade, appointed Beveridge as Special civil servant on
unemployment on the recommendation of the Webbs. The salary was£600 a year without pension gratuity or allowance for retirement63, higher
than that of the Morning Post (£500). In 1909, he was immediately
promoted to Director of Labour Exchanges at a salary of £700, rising by£25 per annum64. As part of the Liberal Reform, the Labour Exchange Act
and the National Insurance Act were passed in 1909 and 1911 respectively.
It is no exaggeration to say that he himself made the two acts. We canassert that these two laws indicate, in a way, an achievement point of thereciprocal effect between the theory and practice of Beveridge. Althoughanother story65 begins during and after World War 1, it will not be
discussed here, as another paper is to be prepared.

63

Beveridge [1955] p.73.
Beveridge [1955] p.72.
65
Mainly because the restrictions on unemployment insurance were lightened in the
1920s, a gap between an ideal system and reality was widened. Beveridge came todespair of this situation.
6425

4-2 An Influence on Pigou
An impact on A. C. Pigou is of great significance, though there has
been little study to prove this hypothesis. We shall offer three reasons or
aspects. To simplify the discussion, we wish to limit the sphere to his
Unemployment [1913]. This limitation66 can be justified by the fact thatboth books tackle the same theme at about the same time.
To begin with, the above hypothesis is best expressed by Pigou's own
words when he says:
The most elaborate English book devoted exclusively to the general
problem discussed in this volume is Mr. Beveridge's Unemployment, aProblem of Industry. It is a work deserving study by all interested in
the subject. (Pigou [1913] p.253)
As was usual in those days, references and notes are not numerous in thisbook. Nonetheless, Beveridge's book and article are cited at least threetimes, and his name is referred to at least five times67. Pigou advocates six
remedies in the concluding chapter. Two out of six are borrowed fromBeveridge's ideas as they are68.
Thus, we should conclude that
Beveridge's fame had reached an academic authority who had succeeded tothe chair of Professor at Cambridge in 1908. Besides, there is also
qualitative influence as well as a quantitative one.
Then, we should note Chapter 10 and 13 of the book. The titles are"the mobility of labour", and "insurance against unemployment"
respectively. Pigou says:66

His main work, Wealth and Welfare [1912], also spares a considerable quotations
from Beveridge's book, at least nine times in 428 pages. Nevertheless, since these aremainly confined to statistics or information about wage, we have concentrated on
Unemployment [1913].
67
Pigou [1913] p.154, p.159, p.217, p.218, and p.253.
68
Pigou [1913] pp.242-246.
26

Mobility means, ... to employ Mr. Beveridge's formula, not mere
fluidity, but organized and intelligent fluidity. (Pigou [1913] pp.150-151)
The modern Labour Exchange, ..., not merely a bureau of information,
but an actual centre of engagement, will itself take over the task ofsearching for work. (Pigou [1913] p.215)
Pigou understands the Labour Exchange correctly, taking 23 pages in its
explanation. He places high value on the neatness of the system, saying"the expenditure of public money in improving mobility would not merely
lessen unemployment, but would, at the same time, increase welfare as awhole"69. In addition, "the National Insurance ... which deals with
unemployment - is to be conducted in connection with ... the national
system of Labour Exchanges"70. In short, among "these palliatives themost important are ... the device of insurance against unemployment"71. A
direct influence of Beveridge on Pigou is manifest in these sentences.
Finally, we should not overlook Chapter 11, "direct state action tolessen unemployment". Pigou abandons the creed of Laissez-faire,declaring:
there is room also for direct attack through policies deliberately
designed to lessen the fluctuating character of the demand for labour.
(Pigou [1913] p.170)
We pay attention to the words "through policies deliberately designed".
These indicate the State interventionism.
The way to lessen

69

Pigou [1913] p.169. See also the following sentence, "Their efficacy is especiallygreat when they are organized as an interconnected national system" (Pigou [1913]
p.245),
70
Pigou [1913] pp.216-217.
71
Pigou [1913] p.246.
27

unemployment is through counter-cyclical distribution of public demands 72,
to use modern terms. Pigou and Beveridge share remarkable similarities
in that they realise a new realm of the State in order to solve theunemployment problem. To be sure, "deliberate design" might not have a
direct effect on Pigou. It is, however, an indirect influence or atmosphere,
which should be described as the outcome of the New Liberalism in the
1900s and 1910s.
4-3 A resembled idea with Lange
Next, we shall discuss an indirect connection between Beveridge and
Oskar Lange, though it might seem a little farfetched.
Lange, in the economic calculation controversy of the 1920s and1930s, asserts that even in a socialist economy "rational economic
accounting is possible"73. In a centralised socialist system, there exists a
market for consumer goods and for the services of labour, whereas there isno market for capital goods. Thus, the only difference from a private
ownership economy lies in the managers of production who "are assumed
to be public officials"74. In a competitive market, the problem of
equilibrium is solved by trial and error; to use Walras' term, tatonnements(a series of successive trials) 75. In contrast, the Central Planning Board, ormanagers, "certainly can and do influence prices"76, as if the parametricfunction of prices was retained. By adjusting a shortage or surplus ofgoods in question, the managers perform the function of the market.
Consequently, "a substitution of planning for the functions of the market isquite possible and workable"77.

72

See Pigou [1913] p.246.
Lange [1938] p.91.
74
Lange [1938] p.74.
75
Lange [1938] p.70.
76
Lange [1938] p.81.
77
Lange [1938] p.83.
73

28

What is more, a socialist economy is predominant over a capitalist one
for three reasons: firstly, the managers have "a much wider knowledge ...
than any private entrepreneur"78. Secondly, by redistributing incomes,
such a system can "attain the maximum social welfare"79. Thirdly, asocialist economy can "put all the alternatives into its economic
accounting"80, including a divergence between the private cost and thesocial one advocated by Pigou81. Lange concludes:
The formal principles are the same, but the actual allocation may bequite different. (Lange [1938] p.99, italics as in original)
What the passage makes clear is that both economies have the same
parametric function of prices, while a centralised economy is desirable
thanks to informed, intelligent officials.
Lange shares his essential view with Beveridge in that perfection of amarket should be achieved by the visible auctioneer. As discussed in
Section 3 (3-3), we again borrow a model of the perfect market. Threeelements are at least needed; a well-organised auction place, an auctioneer,
and tatonnement process. As to the second element, both dismiss theprivate entrepreneur, instead employing public officials. To be sure, as tothe third, Lange's analysis is far beyond Beveridge's because the former
comprehends the neo-classical formula of price mechanism. Moreover,Lange widens the realm of "the managers" to all markets, while Beveridge
limits his inference to within the labour market82. Nonetheless, both havethe same revolutionary idea that forces the diversion of the State role. We
can make this claim, when considering a model of the perfect market.
78

Lange [1938] p.89.
Lange [1938] p.99.
80
Lange [1938] p.104.
81
This line is also an indirect connection from Beveridge to Lange through Pigou. It ison the subject of an active State role.
82
The difference shows naturally their stance on the political system: socialism or thewelfare state.
7929

Section 5

Concluding Remarks

We can conclude now by summing up the previous sections at twolevels: Beveridge's actual life in chronological order, and his theoreticalsignificance including something of a meta-historical comparison.
5-1

Spiral Development

His life from 1903 to 1909 was particularly practical in two senses.
Firstly, in the area of the unemployment problem. On the one hand, hestresses the importance of labour mobility, that is, the perfect market oflabour. Its measure is to establish the Labour Exchange system all overthe nation. On the other hand, he had changed his job three times by 1908,
from Oxford to Whitechapel, to Fleet Street, and to Whitehall. Moreover,a higher salary accompanied these changes of occupation. We can safely
state that he puts his pure theory into actual practice in the labour market.
Secondly, it is in the phase of his journalistic activity. On the one hand,
he joins mass-media activity to inform ordinary people of the necessity ofsocial reform. On the other hand, the fact prevails that he is an able man,owing to his action as a journalist. Life as a writer and an editor is just a
medium that promotes him to a bureaucrat with a high salary.
Therefore, his doctrine (which includes economic theory, policy, andthought) and practical life have a spiral and multiple effect on each other.
Vague idea sharpens through precious experiences in the settlement houseand the daily Newspaper Company. He becomes a researcher as well as ajournalist, rather than an impressionable young man. His activities result ina book, Unemployment. In this book, the image is clear that free market
and policy intervention co-exist. He shows a side of a pure theorist among
his diversity. Finally, based on this analysis, Beveridge becomes a policymaker. In this way, Beveridge forms his ideal economic theory on
unemployment thanks to numerous observations of economic reality

30

around London. Then, he tries to realise this ideal - that is to say, thecomplete labour market - after he joins the Board of Trade.
We arrive at the conclusion that there exists a reciprocal effectbetween Beveridge's economic doctrine and his practical life, and that thisspiral development enables him to shape the perfect labour market
theoretically, legally, and practically.
5-2 An Impact on Economic Thought
Unemployment [1909] is important in a development of economic
thought. It is not only because the book, embodying the New Liberalism,tackles a modern unemployment problem, but also because the core idea of
Beveridge's influences other economic thoughts more than has beensuperficially assumed. In this paper, we have proved this influence,taking two cases as examples: Pigou and Lange.
Three elements constitute Unemployment [1909]: his experience asmentioned in 5-1, the New Liberalism (a scope for Society and the State
interventionism), and an idea of the perfection of a market supported by his
belief in economic laws or Laissez-faire. These elements are merged into
his elaborate book. Then, three outflows can be observed. As for his
experience, he engages in establishing the ideal labour market step by step.
It bears fruit in the Labour Exchange and Unemployment Insurance system.
The other two inflows are blended in Unemployment [1909]. Then the
hybrid pours into some of the significant works of economics in those days.
We have followed these inflows and outflows with the help of the perfectmarket model.
We arrive at the conclusion that Beveridge's Unemployment [1909] isso crucial and influential as an economic writing, more so than it at first
appears, that we should position it properly in a history of economic
thought.

31

Appendix The Beveridge Papers(a)The Beveridge Papers
in British Library of Political and Economic Science
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
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 abroad32

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 1: The Beveridge Committee Report on the Welfare State, Public Record 0ffice,Class PIN8 and CAB87/76-82, 35mm microfilm 26 reels, 1992.
Series 2: The Beveridge Papers.
Part 1: Early Working Papers on Welfare, Labour and Unemployment Insurance, 19021944, 35mm microfilm 24 reels, 1998.
Part 2: Politics, Economics Planning, Social Insurance, Health and the Welfare State,
1944-1963, 35mm microfilm 24 reels, 1999.
Series 2: Part 1.
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 6.

Early Activities

Copy letters between Fabian Ware, E. Peacock and Lord Glenester about managementof The Morning Post, 1906-1909.
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,
correspondence with Longmans and others, 1908-1913, and royalty statements, 1909-

33

1911.
Reel 2, Item 13.

Unemployment: A Problem of Industry (revised edition)

Correspondence with Longmans and others about a proposed new edition, 1919-1920;
royalty statements, 1918-1921.
Reel 3, Item 16.

Unemployment: A Problem of Industry (revised edition)

Pamphlets, articles and reports for use in the proposed revision.
Reel 4, Item 17.

Unemployment: A Problem of Industry (revised edition)

Eight lectures on the Problems of Industry, given at LSE, 1921.
Reel 4, Item 18.

Unemployment: A Problem of Industry (revised edition)

Correspondence about problems of unemployment, 1921-1927.
Reel 4, Item 19.

Unemployment: A Problem of Industry (revised edition)

Plan of proposed revision, including working notes.
Reel 6, Item 24.

Unemployment: A Problem of Industry (revised edition)

Reviews of new edition, 1930-1934.
Reel 6, Item 25. Labour Exchanges
Letters of congratulations on appointment to the Board of Trade, 1908.
Reel 7, Item 36. The birth of labour exchanges
Miscellaneous papers, 1909-1915.
Reel 11, Item 55. Insurance for all and everything
Working notes and correspondence with T. W. Philips and others about the pamphlet,
1924.

Acknowledgements
I benefited greatly from reading an earlier version of this paper in thequarterly conference of the Rironshi-Ken (a study group of Economic
Theory) at Waseda University, Tokyo on 2nd December 2000. I wish to
express my gratitude to Professor Toshiaki Hirai (Sophia University) and34

Mr. Michiya Nozaki (Iwate Prefectural University), who were thecommentators of my report to the conference, and also to the attendants.
I wish to express my gratitude to Mr. Masazumi Wakatabe (Waseda
University) for valuable comments and criticisms. I would like to thankMr. Yukihiro Shimodaira (Yamagata University) and Mr. Kouji Hatta(Tokyo Metropolitan University) for their assistance in collecting some of
the references. I am indebted to the Syukutoku University (Chiba)
Library staff. The quotations of the Beveridge Papers are from microfilmreels at Syukutoku University.
I am, of course, entirely responsible for any errors.
References
Abel-Smith, B. [1994] "The Beveridge Report: Its Origins and Outcomes", in Hills, J.,
J. Ditch, and H. Glennerster (eds) [1994], pp.10-22.
Arrow, K.J. and F. H. Hahn [1971] General Competitive Analysis, San Francisco:
Holden-day Inc.

『一般均衡分析』福岡正夫・川又邦雄訳

岩波書店 1976。

Backhouse, R. [1985] A History of Modern Economic Analysis, Oxford: BasilBlackwell.
Beaud, M. and G. Dostaler [1997] Economic Thought since Keynes: A History and
Dictionary of Major Economists, London: Routledge, (First published by
Edward Elgar in 1995).
Beveridge, W. H. [1908] "Public Labour Exchange in Germany", The Economic
Journal, March 1908, reprinted in Beveridge [1909] pp.239-254.
Beveridge, W. H. [1909] Unemployment: A Problem of Industry, London: Longmans,
Green and Co.
Beveridge, W. H. [1930] Unemployment: A Problem of Industry (1909 and 1930),
London: Longmans, Green and Co.
Beveridge, W. H. [1931] Causes and Cures of Unemployment, London: Longmans,
Green and Co.
Beveridge, W. H. [1955] Power and influence, London: Hodder & Stoughton. 『ベヴァリジ回顧録

強制と説得』伊部英男訳

至誠堂

1975。

Blaug, M. [1978] Economic Theory in Retrospect, third edition, Cambridge:

35Cambridge University Press, 1978, (First edition, 1962). 『新版歴史』久保ほか訳

１〜４巻

東洋経済新報社

経済理論の1982〜1986。

Blaug, M. [1996] Economic Theory in Retrospect, fifth edition,

Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press, First edition, 1962.
Budd, A. [1996] "Unemployment policy since the war: the theory and the practice", inCorry [1996] (ed.), pp.89-135.
Clarke, P. [1988] The Keynesian Revolution in the Making 1924-1936,

Oxford:Oxford University Press.
Corry, B. (ed.) [1996] Unemployment and the Economists, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Corry, B. [1996] "Unemployment in the history of economic thought: an overview andsome reflections", in Corry [1996] (ed.), pp.1-29.
Cutter, T., K. Williams, and J. Williams [1986] Keynes, Beveridge and Beyond, London:
Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Debreu, G. [1959] The Theory of Value: an axiomatic analysis of economic equilibrium,
New Heaven: Yale University Press. 『価値の理論─経済均衡の公理的分析
─』丸山徹訳

東洋経済新報社

1977。

Driver, F. [1993] Power and Pauperism: The Workhouse System 1834-1884,
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Freeden, M. [1978]

The New Liberalism: An Ideology of Social Reform, Oxford:

Oxford University Press.
Freeden, M. [1986] Liberalism Divided: A Study in British Political Thought, 19141939,

Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Fujii Toru [1988], "The Formation of W. H. Beveridge's Unemployment, The Shogaku
Ronsyu (Journal of Commerce, Economics and Economic History at Fukushima
University), pp.99-116, 57-1, (in Japanese). 藤井透「ベヴァリッジ『失業』の成立」『商学論集』（福島大学）

pp.99-116 第 57 巻第１号

1988.8。

Harris, J. [1994] "Beveridge's Social and Political Thought", in Hills, J., J. Ditch, and H.
Glennerster (eds) [1994], pp.23-36.
Harris, J. [1996] "From sunspots to social welfare: the unemployment problem 18701914", in Corry [1996] (ed.), pp.52-68.
Harris, J. [1997] William Beveridge, revised paperback edition, Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 1997 (First published in 1977).

36

Hills, J., J. Ditch, and H. Glennerster (eds) [1994] Beveridge and Social Security,
Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Hobhouse, L. T. [1911] Liberalism, London: Thornton Butterworth Limited.
Hobson, J. A. [1938] Confessions of an Economic Heretic, London: G. Allen.
Hutchison, T. W. [1953] A Review of Economic Doctrines,

Oxford: Oxford University

Press, 1953.
Lange, O. [1938] "On the economic theory of socialism", in Lange, O. and F. M.
Taylor, On the Economic Theory of Socialism, New York: McGraw-Hill Book
Company, pp.57-143, 1938.
Meacham, S. [1987]

Toynbee Hall and Social Reform, New Haven, U.S.A: Yale

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, A. C. [1913] Unemployment, London: Williams & Norgate, reprinted in A. C.
Pigou Collected Economic Writings, Volume 4, London: Macmillan, 1999.
Polanyi, K. [1944] The Great Transformation,
1944.

New York: Rinehart & Company, Inc.,『大転換─市場社会の形成と崩壊─』吉沢ほか訳

東洋経済新報社

1975。
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). 『経済分析の歴史』東畑精一訳

１〜７巻

岩波書店

1955

〜1962。
Thane, P. [1996] Foundations of the Welfare State, second edition, London: Longman,first published in 1982.
Weiler, P. [1982] The New Liberalism: Liberal Social Theory in Great Britain 18891914, New York: Garland Publishing, Inc.

37