No.22

Contemporary Unemployment [1909]:
Beveridge’s first programme
Atsushi KOMINE
October 2001

1

Contemporary Unemployment [1909]:
Beveridge’s first programme
Atsushi Komine
Key Words: Beveridge, unemployment, labour exchanges, Hobson, Pigou,
Contemporaries, 1900s

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 reexamine Sir William Henry Beveridge’s(1879-1963) ideas on unemployment. Previous studies have either ignoredor underestimated the importance of this topic. What is lacking is aconsideration of positioning his Unemployment [1909] adequately in ahistory of economic thought.
After summarizing Unemployment, We shall consider the ideas of fivecontemporaries (Alden, Rowntree, Chapman, Hobson and Pigou). We shallconclude that, despite numerous similarities with the others, Beveridge’s
rationale, or way of thinking, was unique and original. In this paper, we
refer to his comprehensive package of remedies for unemployment,
including Labour Exchanges and National Insurance, together with theunderlying principle of the National Minimum, as “The First Programme”.
This doctrine could also even be connected with his later programme in the
1940s.

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 Zengin Academic
Research Promotion Foundation, 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

14 November 2001

Contemporary Unemployment [1909]
Beveridge’s first programme
Atsushi KOMINE*
Preliminary version: not to be quoted
Abstract
Acknowledgements
Section 1 Introduction
Section 2 Summary of Unemployment
Section 3 Comparison with Contemporaries
3-1 Minister Alden
3-2 Reformer Rowntree
3-3 Stray Chapman
3-4 Heterodox Hobson
3-5 Orthodox Pigou
Section 4 Concluding Remarks
4-1 The Role of the Contemporaries
4-2 Beveridge’s Original Thought
Bibliography*

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Section 1 Introduction
The aim of this paper is to re-examine the ideas of Sir William Henry
Beveridge (1879-1963) on unemployment. From a social policy point ofview, the majority of the previous studies have simply ignored his earlier
contribution. In the history of economic thought, a minority of theprevious studies has considered his theory on a superficial level, by judging
his framework being within an old fashioned neoclassical doctrine1. We
maintain that these views are too simple to evaluate. Instead, here we shallconclude that, despite numerous similarities with his other contemporaries,
Beveridge’s rationale, or way of thinking, is unique and original. Besides,
his doctrine could also even be connected with his later programme.
Therefore, we ought to name his 1909 message as “The First Programme”.
This paper is part of larger project. The goal is to re-examine andposition Beveridge’s contribution on unemployment properly in a historyof economic thought. Following this plan, his career has been divided into
three periods: his youth (before 1919), his middle (around the 1930s) andhis later years2 (in the 1940s). Additionally, we have determined tosegment the early stage into three papers: the detailed investigation of
Unemployment [1909] itself, the comparison with contemporaries, and themaking of Unemployment [1909]3.
This paper is organized as follows.
Section 2 summarizes
Unemployment according to Komine [2001]. We can identify three major
characteristics. Section 3 analyzes five contemporaries of Beveridge. It isessential to compare him with other contributors to debates on
unemployment in Edwardian Britain to put his doctrine into a proper
context. It is indispensable to compare with representative persons in orderto determine Beveridge’s similarities and originalities from others. Section
4 is a summary and conclusion.

1

This point has been described in Komine [2001] p.4, Note 3.
Useful discussion on Beveridge and planning is given by Booth &Pack [1985] p.156.
3
The first is Komine [2001]; the second is this paper.
25Section 2 Summary of Unemployment
This section deals with the essence of Unemployment [1909]. Since wehave already discussed this point in Komine [2001], we shall merelysummarize it in three aspects: the changed title, the reserve of labour and acoherent package of remedies.
Firstly, it is important to trace the change in the title. Around 1905,
Beveridge wrote a draft challenging Alden’s book, the title of which was
The Unemployed: An Economic Question4. Around 1906, the title waschanged to Unemployment: A Problem of Industry. This change symbolises
the changed content. Beveridge completely excluded “the character andthe control of individuals”5 from analysis. He only dealt with the ablebodied who were in search of work, regardless of whether skilled or
unskilled. He keenly realized the necessity of a “modern” treatment of
unemployment.
Secondly, it was unique for anyone in this period to classify causes of
unemployment, rather than to categorize the unemployed. Beveridge
regarded the reserve of labour as tremendously meaningful. For substantial
reasons - such as poor communication between employers and employees,
irregular demand for labour, and numerous ‘hawking’6 workers -, there wasalways a chronic excess of labour. Most workers were forced to work onlyintermittently. This phenomenon was called the reserve of labour. People
were, so to speak, under-employed. He pointed out other causes: seasonaland cyclical fluctuations, and changes of industrial structure. These three

4

The Beveridge Papers (microfilm), Reel 2, Section 3, Item 12, "Plan for The
Unemployed: An Economic Question" (1905). See Komine[2001] p.4.
5
Beveridge [1909] p.133.
6This was the term Beveridge used to describe unemployed unskilled workers. See thenext sentence: “the prevailing method of selling labour is to hark it from door to door”(Beveridge [1909] p.197).
6

were deeply rooted in the contemporary industrial world.
Thirdly, it was crucial to submit a set of remedies. Beveridge said,“there is no one labour market but only an infinite number of separate
labour markets”7, a situation of complete disorder. “Mere mobility oflabour is not enough. It must be organised movement and backed up byorganised selection”8.
Based on his analysis, the remedy for
unemployment was a coherent mixture of three elements: first and foremost,the Labour Exchange was “to reduce to a minimum the intervals between
successive jobs” 9; second, insurance against unemployment “is required totide over the intervals that will still remain”; third and least important, there
would be a need of public works and a need of averaging of wages between
seasons10.
In short, from his analysis to diagnosis, Beveridge was quite consistentand comprehensive, even from a modern point of view.

Section 3 Comparison with Contemporaries
3-1 Minister Alden
Percy Alden (1865-1944) was, in a sense, an early investigator of the“unemployed problem”. After graduating from Balliol College, he becamefamous for his collective and progressive (or radical) opinion11 and his
status as Warden of Mansfield House University Settlement (CanningTown) and Member of the Mansion House Unemployed Committee. He
was also elected as an MP (1906-1918, 1923-1924) in addition to otherhigh-ranking posts, such as Commissioner to the Board of Agriculture for7

Beveridge [1909] p.70.
Beveridge [1909] p.87.
9Both sentences are from Beveridge [1909] p.229.
10
Beveridge [1909] pp.230-231.
11
For details of Alden, see Harris [1972] p.227, p.230, and Brown [1972] pp.21-22.
8

7

Cultivation of Vacant Lands. He was the head of a charity settlement aswell as a politician who had a wide acquaintance with liberal bureaucrats12.
He published many books: Housing [1907], The Unemployable andUnemployed (with Edward E. Hayward) [1908], Democratic England[1912] and Aspects of a Changing Social Structure [1937]. Among thesebooks, the most important was The Unemployed: A National Question[1905], not only because Beveridge reviewed it, but also because theimpact, whether positive or negative, seems to have been large. Let us
glance through Alden’s book in order to clarify Beveridge’s contribution to
study in this field.
Alden’s attitude towards the unemployed was consistent with one of the
progressive opinions of the time. He criticized laissez-faire policy whichwas “ignoring a great social disease”13 and claimed that “we must notforget the tendency of conditions and environment to create these evils”14.
He also mentioned:
There is a growing conviction that some form of State interference onbehalf of the unemployed is necessary. (Alden [1905] p.144)
The unemployed question is largely an economic question for whichcharity, however generous, is no solution. (Alden [1905] p.144)
On the other hand, probably because he was so prominent in the charity
movement, Alden never forgot to point out that in the long run the ethicaland co-operative factors were crucial. He said that “every effort is made to
improve and strengthen individual character”15. However, we should
underline Alden’s emphasis on an economic perspective and stateintervention. These were the very features that recurred in the work of

12

Alden expresses his gratitude to Llewellyn Smith (the Board of Trade) (Alden [1905]
preface p.6).
13
Alden [1905] p.144.
14
Alden [1905] pp.143-144.
15
Alden [1905] p.143.
8

Beveridge16.
Alden’s book was reviewed (probably by Beveridge17) in the Toynbee
Record, where the reviewer drew attention to Alden’s classification system.
In the book, Alden distinguished three sharply differentiating types of theunemployable (or unemployed): all able bodied men who are refused work,
all able bodied men who refuse to work, and the physically and mentally
deficient. For the third class, special care was needed. The second classwas “the vicious vagrant … who has not the slightest intention ofworking”18. Since the class was a danger to all peaceful citizens, thecorrect treatment was to keep them in detention in labour colonies19. The
first class was “the genuine unemployed man who is in search of work”20.
At the same time, they were “the genuine workers who are unable to findwork”21. Alden confined his argument to the first class only, which had
been unusual in the 18th and 19th centuries. He explained:… from the point of view of the whole nation and, strictly speaking,from the point of view of the economists, unemployment is the labourthat might be utilised in the production of wealth, that is not so utilised… , and is therefore wasted. (Alden [1905] p.32)
This viewpoint is almost the same as in Beveridge’s book. Both Alden and
Beveridge were concerned with ordinary people or workers who were
suffering badly from unemployment22, not with vagrants or the disabled ofwhom they judge the number to be relatively small. Alden certainly

16

For a discussion of labour and unemployment during 1904-1909, see Brown [1971].
Beveridge ? [1905a] p.76. Strictly speaking, this article is unsigned. Nonetheless,according to Harris’ study and taking the terminology into account, we determine thispaper as Beveridge’s. See Harris [1997] p.145, Note 25.
18
Alden [1905] p.18.
19
Alden [1905] p.18.
20
Alden [1905] p.18.
21
Alden [1905] p.32.
22
On this theme, see Ball & Sunderland [2001].
17

9

recognized that the unemployed – not unemployable – represented as
involuntary waste of the labour force.
The remedies were both interesting and important, because Alden, who
undertook an inspection tour in Holland and Belgium in the autumn of
1904, introduced a range of European institutions23. At least some of themmust have struck Beveridge in a very forceful way. In the concluding
chapter, Alden advocated: (1) the establishment of a Government
Department to deal especially with unemployment; (2) compulsory Labour
Bureaux; (3) relief stations and labour homes; (4) a graded system oflabour colonies; (5) Unemployment Committees; (6) the reclamation offoreshores and waste land; (7) the afforestation of waste land; (8) the
improvement of canals; (9) the re-organization of the London Port; (10)government grants to trade union unemployed insurance; (11) shorter
working hours for civil servants; (12) an abolishment of disfranchisement
as a result of receiving Poor Law Relief24.
Some of these measures surely influenced Beveridge. The evidence canbe seen if we categorize these twelve into six dimensions: (A) a necessityof administrative leadership … (1), (5); (B) Labour Exchanges … (2); (C)Public Works … (6), (7), (8), (9); (D) Unemployment Insurance … (10);(E) Workers’ Health … (11); (F) Reform of the Poor Law … (3), (4), (12).
As we have shown, Beveridge had intense sympathy with (A) and (B), andwould have agreed with (C), (D), (E) and (F), in judging that Alden’s book
had “many admirable qualities”25. Class (D) is worth noting. Alden only
suggested government grants to the unemployed insurance scheme run bysome trade unions. Beveridge almost certainly thought this inadequate, as
his later development of the concept of National Insurance against

23

There are German, Belgian, Danish, Dutch and New Zealand cases (Alden [1905]
p.21, p.23, p.25, p.26, p.30). H. V. Toynbee also refers to the German and Belgian
insurance system (Toynbee [1905] p.301), though there is no proof that Beveridge everreads this paper.
24
Alden [1905] pp.137-144.
25
Beveridge ? [1905a] p.75.
10unemployment shows. In sum, there are so many parallels, especially intheir approach to and remedies for unemployment. If this is true, how did
they differ?
There were two main points about which Beveridge complained. The
first was a lack of substantial “economic” arguments. He said that“perhaps the most fundamental criticism … is that … he has given so little
space to the economic side of the question, to the phenomenon of trade
fluctuations”26. He further classified the causes of genuine unemployment
into three: dislocation of an industry, a temporary depression, and seasonalor casual fluctuations. Beveridge considered the third as the most crucial.
Nevertheless, Alden gave only seven pages27 to this issue. Beveridge’s
dissatisfaction was with casual labour. The second complain is the gap
regarding neat cures for unemployment. Alden’s remedies were so hugethat readers would regard them as out of focus. At this stage, Beveridge
referred only to a coherent treatment of unemployment, by saying “he has
hardly mentioned the possibility of changes in the methods and tenure of
employment”28. As we have discussed in Section 2, he would come to finda more complete system in a combination of Labour Exchanges andNational Insurance against unemployment.
We can conclude that, despite Beveridge sharing a large part of Alden’s
argument, and being much influenced by Alden’s ideas, he himself still had
to develop his approach further.
3-2 Reformer Rowntree
B. S. Rowntree (1871-1954) is, like Charles Booth, a representative of
the Social Scientific Investigation of Poverty, and also a typical Edwardiansocial reformer. After studying chemistry, he undertook a ground-breaking
survey of poverty in York, published as Poverty: A Study of Town Life

26

Beveridge ? [1905a] p.77.
The first is 21-page, the second is 28-page. See Chapter 5 and 6 of Alden [1905].
28
Beveridge ? [1905a] p.77.
27

11

[1901]. He collected copious and detailed data on the working class andestimated the poverty line. These investigations were significant in theunderstanding of poverty and unemployment. Rowntree’s work had an
impact on the Poor Law Commission (1905) and later on Beveridge’s book(1909). Afterwards, in turn, Rowntree wrote about unemployment, notpoverty, in 1911 (with Bruno Lasker), in Unemployment: A Social Study.
The latter book is worth study for the insight it gives into thinking on theunemployment problem around 1910.
At this stage, Rowntree shared several features with Beveridge. He
worked from concrete data. He counted up 1278 unemployed in York outof 82,000 inhabitants on July 7, 191029. He approached the problem from“economic conditions which affect the whole social structure”30. Although“the social conditions in the long run reflect the soul of a people”31, “it isquite a mistake to regard the unemployed problem as primarily one of thecharacter and efficiency of the workers”32. As well as the subtitle “A Social
Study”, the following passage shows his scientific attitude:… closer investigation gradually resolves them into distinct groups,
each afflicted with some definite social ill, and allows the social
physician to diagnose the causes of disease and to prescribe its treatment.
(Rowntree & Lasker [1911] p.311)
He even defined unemployment or the unemployed – not the unemployable– precisely as follows:
A person is unemployed who is seeking work for wages, but unable tofind any suited to his capacities and under conditions which arereasonable, judged by local standard. (Rowntree & Lasker [1911]

29

Rowntree & Lasker [1911] pp.301-302.
Rowntree & Lasker [1911] p.303.
31
Rowntree & Lasker [1911] p.303.
32
Rowntree & Lasker [1911] p.305.
30

12p.301 and preface p.13 , original in italics as a whole)
Here again, the object is ordinary workers who are involuntarily forced to
be unemployed. These features resemble Beveridge’s.
Rowntree had six remedies: (1) training for youth to affect morale andtechnical abilities; (2) public works to neutralize cyclical and seasonal
fluctuations; (3) afforestation; (4) decasualisation of labour (Labour
Exchanges); (5) Unemployment Insurance; (6) decentralisation of town
populations. He was also alive to potential difficulties with his remedies.
For instance, a central agency like the Labour Exchange is, on the one hand,“the most effective remedy for the evil”33. However, the system mustsqueeze out a good proportion of casual workers. Thus, it is necessary toabsorb this portion of the under-employed. What is more, insurance, which
mitigates the evil of unemployment, can do little to lessen deleterious
effects on a man’s character34. As to public works, it is likewise obviousthat he supported counter-cyclical measures.
It is useful to quote from a correspondence between Rowntree andBeveridge in 1913:
I have talked to Lloyd George and Churchill about dealing with thecasual labour problem. If you read George’s Middlesborough Speech
you would see that he definitely referred to it, … I think I can press thematter with two or three Ministers,… and the chance of getting
something done will depend very largely on our being able to supply him
with a policy when he is in the mood.35

33

Rowntree & Lasker [1911] p.309.
Rowntree & Lasker [1911] p.309.
35
S. B. Rowntree to W. H. Beveridge, 17 November 1913, the Beveridge Papers in theArchive Section, British Library of Political Science, London School of Economics andPolitical Science (hereafter as BP), Ⅱb 13. Although we have contacted both theJoseph Rowntree Foundation and the Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust in October
2001, we could not find the copyright holder of the above correspondence.
34

13

What the passage makes clear is that Rowntree was convinced of his large
influence over politicians, and that he was in partnership with Beveridge incombating casual labour. Again, in brief, Rowntree’s ideas36 are similar to
those of his contemporaries including Beveridge.
3-3 Stray Chapman
S. J. Chapman (1871-1951) could also be a touchstone of prevailing
economic thinking. Educated at Trinity College, Cambridge, he had been
Professor of Political Economy at the University of Manchester (19011917). Later he became a leading administrator as Secretary of the Boardof Trade (1918-1927). He was elected Vice-President of the Royal
Statistical Society (1916). His published books are numerous: Local
Government and State Aid [1899], The Lancashire Cotton Industry [1904],
etc. He was a success as both scholar and bureaucrat.
However, reconsidering his profile, he seems to waver between theory
and practice. We enter into his book (co-written with H. M. Hallsworth,probably his pupil) Unemployment: The Results of an Investigation made in
Lancashire and an Examination of the Report of the Poor Law Commission[1909]. At the beginning, he classified the problem into personal (human)and impersonal (economic or mechanical) elements. He insisted that the
unemployed problem “cannot be grasped without a comprehension of themechanism of economic functioning”37. The causes of unemployment
consisted “partly in friction … , partly in a mal-adjustment between
production and spasmodic demand … , and partly in other detailed
arrangements or disarrangements”38. Yet, the story cannot stop here. He
recognized at the same time the importance of the qualities of people inaddition to demand and supply relations. These qualities included worker’s

36

Rowntree mentions to Beveridge about the labour exchange, see Rowntree & Lasker[1911] p.138, note 1.
37
Chapman &Hallsworth [1909] p.30.
38
Chapman &Hallsworth [1909] p.30.
14

training, foresight, adaptability, initiative and resilience. He began byclaiming that the problem was so complex that intensive study was more
and more necessary39. When drawing his conclusion, he again referred tothe distinction between personal and economic causes, admitting that “theycannot be exactly divided”40. He was certainly puzzled when saying:
The removal of … unemployment may be brought about automaticallyin the course of economic evolution. … On the other hand, it may be
absolutely necessary to impose a cure … because ‘nature’ may bedilatory in finding her own remedy. By ‘nature’ here we intend all
those social forces acting independently of State interference.
(Chapman &Hallsworth [1909] p.151)
Chapman, first of all, a succeeded in distinguishing the economic causes of
unemployment from personal factors. Nevertheless, as soon as hemeditated upon the economic aspects within orthodox economics, he foundthat there was only one rationale left, that is, the friction or dilatoriness of
the labour market. In theory, there are no factors in the perfect labour
market that generate unemployment. By contrast in practice, he wellunderstood the necessity of appropriate remedies. Chapman had to be mostcareful in switching his way of thinking in accordance with inside or‘outside lecture rooms’. This is one of the reasons why he seems to give an
evasive answer on unemployment.
Anyway, he had three remedies: Unemployment Insurance, Public
Works, and the Labour Exchange. Chapman somehow appeared passive
about the first and second solutions. Of course, he admitted their potential
effectiveness. Firstly, insurance against unemployment could be “a chiefmeans of mitigating the distress due to”41 it. Secondly, public demand forlabour (public works) should “be made to vary inversely as the trade cycle,

39

Chapman &Hallsworth [1909] p.30.
Chapman &Hallsworth [1909] p.150.
41
Chapman &Hallsworth [1909] p.152.
40

15

being rendered most intense when market demand is slackest”42. All thesame, he hesitates to propose these means. He proposed a way for
unemployment insurance to continue to be supplied through trade unions
and friendly societies rather than through the state. Besides, he placed sucha high regard on personal savings that “encouragement of insurance andprovidence may be essential”43. He almost equated insurance with thrift inthat both must be necessary for a rainy day.
In contrast, Chapman valued Labour Exchanges highly. For such asystem was equal to other exchanges in “every modern community
wherever any commodity is dealt with in bulk”44: cotton, coal, iron, andcorn exchanges. Without these exchanges, complex business would havebeen impossible. Thus, labour exchanges could serve in industry. To be
sure, the system cannot alter the demand for labour. Nonetheless, “it would
bring it more rapidly into touch with supplies”45.
To-day the social time-lag intervening between the loss or voluntary
resignation, of one position and the discovery of another by ordinary
workman … is serious. This high time-lag means waste which
exchanges could reduce.
(Chapman &Hallsworth [1909] p.145, italics in original)
It is apparent here that Chapman believed that the institutional supports
provided by formal market arrangements were essential for the efficient
functioning of any market and that those arrangements were best if they
were national in scope.46
This inference prompts the following question: if orthodox theoreticalthinking resulted in a preference for Labour Exchanges to, in theory, reduce

42

Chapman &Hallsworth [1909] p.115.
Chapman &Hallsworth [1909] p.152.
44
Chapman &Hallsworth [1909] p.134.
45
Chapman &Hallsworth [1909] p.144.
46
Chapman &Hallsworth [1909] p.152.
43

16

the inefficiency of the labour market, was Beveridge’s thought also
confined within orthodox economics?
3-4 Heterodox Hobson
It is quite significant to mention J. A. Hobson (1858-1940) concerning
controversies on unemployment. He is not only an outstanding heretic, butalso an influence on Beveridge. In this part, we shall examine therelationship between the two, by examining the writings of both the 1890sand 1900s. Firstly, we briefly sum up Hobson’s analysis. Secondly, we
compare it with Beveridge’s points.
(a) Hobson
Hobson’s perspective was much broader than those of his
contemporaries. He claimed a coherent and consistent system from his
diagnosis to his remedies for modern capitalism. The problem of
unemployment was simply a portion of his whole heterodox economics and“organic” social science47.
We should first turn to his The Problem of the Unemployed [1896], notmerely because this was one of the earliest books48 that tackled“unemployment” from a modern angle, but because Beveridge later readand criticized the third impression of the book (1906)49, which had beenrevised in 1904.
Hobson’s method was straightforward and simple: It was first necessary

47

For this point, see Townshend [1990], for example, “the study of economics could beincorporated within his larger ‘organic’ project that facilitated the self-knowledge ofsociety”. Townshend [1990] p.44.
48
We should note the first academic treatment on unemployment is his article “The
Meaning and Measure of “Unemployment”” in 1895. Hobson recorded this paper in
The Problem of Unemployed as it was (with minor changes). See Hobson [1895].
49
The first edition is published in 1896, the second and revised is in 1904, and the thirdis in 1906 (no more revised). Beveridge refers to the third, see Beveridge [1909] p.58,
note 2.
17

“to relate ‘unemployment’ to waste of labour-power regarded from thesocial point of view”50. Next, unemployment was identified “as an aspectof Trade Depression”51. Then, trade depression was said to derive fromunder-consumption, that is, a deficiency in effective demand which would
generate profitable production. “Industry … is directly determined by theeffective demand of Consumers”52. Finally, according to Hobson, underconsumption came from the unfair distribution of income and wealth,mainly because the working classes must spend all the earnings, whereas
the rich can afford to save more. He concluded:This is the only rationale of the simultaneous unemployment oflabour, land, and capital which forms the problem of “unemployed”.
Under-consumption is the economic cause of unemployment. The only
remedy, therefore, which goes to the root of the evil is a raising of thestandard of consumption to the point which shall fully utilise theproducing-power… (Hobson [1896] p.98)
We note here that Hobson’s viewpoint is wider than most of thecontemporary scholars. For Hobson, unemployment, as well as otheridleness of land and capital, is simply a symptom of depression whether it
is temporary or chronic. Progressive reformers had some success indissociating individual character defects and the causes of unemployment.
However, Hobson went much further and recognized systematic movementfrom an economic point of view. According to this broader approach, his
remedy to conquer unemployment was not confined to the labour market
only, but devoted to capitalism in general, especially the distribution
system. Thus, Hobson is unwilling to concentrate merely on fluidity oflabour, in other words, Labour Exchanges, saying:50

Hobson [1896] pp.1-2, also Hobson [1895] p.415,
Hobson [1896] preface p.8.
52
Hobson [1896] preface p.8.
51

18

…no system of Labour Bureaux would materially assist to solve theproblem of the unemployed. The ability to fill gaps in employment
somewhat more easily will not considerably increase the net quantity of
employment. (Hobson [1896] p.127)
Instead, Hobson proposed two major solutions: First, “a direct andprogressive taxation of ground rents and values”53 because in the hands ofthe rich there exists a surplus of consumption power (unearned income).
Second, a higher wages policy for the working classes54. Both wereassociated with drastic political change, part of which was established by
Lloyd George’s People’s Budget in 1909/191055.
Hobson focussed the brunt of criticism on “the orthodox school ofEnglish economists”56. He maintained:[The official view of the Labour Department] recalls the “economicman” of the old economists, with infinite capacity for calculating
chances, an absolute freedom to select his employment, and a full power
to extort from his employer a higher wage … (Hobson [1986] p.4)
Now, no serious attempt has been made … to explain why … there
can be in existence more labour, more capital, and more land, than are
wanted. [They say] … this was a malady of misdirection, generalexcess of producing-power was impossible./This view has always been based upon an a priori assumption thatwhatever is produced can be sold and must be sold because it was
produced for other motive. (Hobson [1896] pp.59-60)
53

Hobson [1896] p.100.
Hobson [1896] p.103.
55
For Hobson’s influence on the Liberal members, see Murray [1980] p.35, pp.37-38,
and p.237. For instance, “the ideas of a New Liberalism, … headed by J .A. Hobson
and L. T. Hobhouse, began to penetrate the thinking of the Liberal leaders…”, Murray[1980] p.33.
56
Hobson [1896] p.59.
54

19

This argument is clearly identified with an attack on “rational economicman” and on Say’s Law. For Hobson, “the problem of the unemployed”
includes - or reflects- a protest against orthodox economics. What is more,
his criticism was also directed towards social reformers who are apt to
restrict their argument to within the labour market. Since they cannot see
the deep root of the disease, therefore, they cannot advocate reasonable
cures.
Then, what is Beveridge’s reply to Hobson’s challenge?
(b) Beveridge
There is little evidence of contact between Beveridge and Hobson57.
Anyway, among the few records of exchanges, we shall refer to thefollowing.
The first was a conference held by the Sociological Society at what waslater to be called the LSE, on 4th April 1906. Beveridge made an address
titled “the problem of the unemployed”, the same title as Hobson’s book.
Among the audience were Hobson, H. R. Maynard58 and A. L. Bowley59.
The proceedings were recorded in the Sociological Papers in 1907. Surely,
his address was itself impressive in showing the development of his ideas
at that time. Yet here, Hobson’s reply deserves quoting:… he seems to me to show a very commendable understanding of the
problem to a certain point. He has carried his analysis to the beginningof an understanding of the vitals of this issue. … the unemployedproblem is not a labour problem merely; it is a problem of the57

Hobson was educated at Derby School and Lincoln College, Oxford. Beveridge at
Charterhouse and Balliol College, Oxford.
58
Beveridge’s colleague in the Toynbee Hall. They wrote a paper together. See
Beveridge & Maynard [1904], Beveridge [1955] p.23, p.31, and Harris [1972] p.151.
59
He worked out statistical details of a policy proposal (counter-cyclical public works)of the Minority Report of the Royal Commission on the Poor Laws (1909). See
Hutchison [1953] p.414.
20

simultaneous unemployment of all the factors of production… What we,therefore, must seek for … is how to make the rate of consumption
increase automatically to meet every increase in the power of production.
(Emphasis added, Hobson [1907] pp.332-333)
These cited sentences are of great importance. The contrasting attitudes
towards the labour market are obvious. In particular, for Hobson, thetriangle of production elements (labour, land and capital) needed to be
discussed together, and thus Beveridge’s speech did not face up to the
profound origin of unemployment.
Beveridge in turn made a sharp rejoinder:
I quite agree with Mr. Hobson in thinking it is an industrial problem.
I know he possesses a peculiar economic theory which I am unable tofollow, that there is a sort of permanent under-consumption.
(Beveridge [1907] p.341)
This rejoinder is also crucial in two respects. Firstly, we can date when
Beveridge read Hobson’s book, which must have been before 4 April 1906,
and probably after August 1904. Secondly, his reply raises a doubt about
whether Beveridge was really unable to understand the under-consumption
theory.
The second exchange is evident in the reference to Hobson in
Beveridge’s Unemployment [1909]. Beveridge devoted 7 pages toreconsidering Hobson’s revised version of The Problem of the Unemployed[1906]. No other author was treated at such length in Beveridge’s book. As
we will infer, this version must impact upon his thought.
At first sight, Beveridge appeared to defend strongly “the competition
theory” in the face of Hobson’s attack. The theory meant that “the gluttingof the market becomes apparent. Prices fall, production is checked, and a
period of stagnation and unemployment ensues till accumulated stocks can21be cleared” 60. The under-consumption theory “in no way offends economic
doctrines as to the impossibility of general over-production”61. Beveridge
concluded as if he had been an orthodox theorist: “It is no doubt true in the
abstract, since commodities are only produced to exchange”62.
However, other angles should be noted since he pointed out significant
weak points. As previous studies have revealed, Hobson’s “defeats” –using the Keynesian framework – are that he wrongly identified savingwith automatic investment63, and that he could not grasp monetary aspects
in industry, or the possibility of hoarding64. On the other hand, Beveridge
was apparently conscious of the possibility of hoarding:… commodities exchange for one another not directly but only
ultimately and through the medium of money or credit, it seems quitepossible that as a quite temporary phenomenon there should be a glut inevery market, because every one is holding out for too high money
prices. (Beveridge [1909] p.61)
Although we must be careful of his expression “temporary”, we should notignore his assertion that it is dangerous to hold too much money lured by“high money prices”, which is equal to a high interest rate.
Another rejoinder is more interesting. In theory and in practice, saving,the means of production for the future, is realized as investment so that
previous material progress has been possible. Both the competition theory
and the under-consumption one share this recognition. Beveridge
recognized of Hobson that “his attack is not upon saving but over-saving”65.
Actually, “there exists at any given time an economically sound ratio
60

Beveridge [1909] p.60.
Beveridge [1909] p.60.
62
Beveridge [1909] p.60.
63
See Backhouse [1990] p.126, Townshend [1990] p.73. This defect includes causationthat investment is an outcome of saving.
64
See Backhouse [1990] p.134.
65
Beveridge [1909] p.62.
61

22

between spending and saving”66. Nevertheless, this excuse is not enoughbecause “there is no criterion for saying beforehand what is over-saving
and what is not”67. Hobson has not defined the way to calculate the proper
ratio. This criticism is sound so that we can judge that Beveridge has founda discrepancy in under-consumption theory. The contradiction is: If saving
increases, then investment rises (in a classical world). Thus, sinceinvestment is one of the ingredients of effective demand, it should obviate
any tendency to over-saving under-consumption if the interest rate works
accordingly to classical principles.
We should conclude that Beveridge’s term “unable to follow” did notmean that “he failed to understand”, but that “he won’t accept” or “he was
unconvinced”. He understood more than had been expected. We must, ofcourse, discount his thought in that he himself does not establish any
explanation about the ratio. Nonetheless, pretending to defend thecompetition theory, he further recognizes structures of both theories.
Then, was Beveridge only a propagandist or a popularizer of orthodoxy?
3-5 Orthodox Pigou
The relationship between A. C. Pigou (1877-1959) and Beveridge is ofgreat significance, though it has been little studied. We shall offer at least
three aspects, however superficial they seem at first sight. Firstly, in his
first book on unemployment, Pigou paid a great deal of respect to
Beveridge’s book. This respect is clearly evident in Pigou’s proposed
remedies for unemployment. Secondly, Beveridge reviewed Pigou’s
Unemployment [1913] in the Economic Journal. Thirdly, in this comment,
J. M. Keynes wrote an extremely important letter. We shall examine thesethree phases in detail.
(a) Three impacts
66
67

This passage is from Hobson [1922] p.8.
Beveridge [1909] p.63, italics in original.
23

To begin with, the impact of Beveridge’s Unemployment [1909] on
Pigou’s Unemployment [1913] is large68. Pigou's own words made thecase:
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 times69. Pigou advocates six
remedies in the concluding chapter. Two of the six are directly borrowed
from Beveridge's ideas70. We should naturally conclude that Beveridge's
fame had reached an academic authority who had succeeded to the chair ofat Cambridge in 1908. In fact, Beveridge calls Pigou “my old friend”71. Weshould not overlook their relationship any more.
Second, we should note Chapter 10 and 13 of the book. Besides theabove quantitative influence, there is also a qualitative dimension. The
titles are "the mobility of labour", and "insurance against unemployment"
respectively. Pigou says:
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,
68

To simplify the discussion, we wish to limit the sphere to his Unemployment [1913].
This limitation68 can be justified by the fact that both books tackle the same theme atabout the same time.
69
Pigou [1913] p.154, p.159, p.217, p.218, and p.253.
70
Pigou [1913] pp.242-246.
71
Beveridge [1955] p.293. Pigou celebrated Beveridge’s appointment in 1941 as a fulltime official in charge of the Military Service Department of the Ministry. Theirfriendship continued over for 30 years.
24but an actual centre of engagement, will itself take over the task ofsearching for work. (Pigou [1913] p.215)
Pigou devoted 23 pages to the Labour Exchange. He placed high value on
the neatness of the system, saying "the expenditure of public money in
improving mobility would not merely lessen unemployment, but would, atthe same time, increase welfare as a whole"72. In addition, "the National
Insurance ... which deals with unemployment - is to be conducted inconnection with ... the national system of Labour Exchanges"73. In short,among "these palliatives the most important are ... the device of insurance
against unemployment"74. A direct influence of Beveridge on Pigou is
manifest in these sentences.
Finally, we should not overlook Chapter 11, "direct state action to lessen
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 State intervention. The way to lessen unemployment isthrough counter-cyclical distribution of public demands75, to use modern
terms. Pigou and Beveridge shared remarkable similarities in that theyrealized a new realm for the State to solve the unemployment problem. In
this sense, the two were surely in the tide of progressive atmosphere in the
1900s and 1910s.

72

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),
73
Pigou [1913] pp.216-217.
74
Pigou [1913] p.246.
75
See Pigou [1913] p.246.
25

(b) Book review
Secondly, although Beveridge greatly admired Pigou, he raised serious –however modest – queries about his core analysis.
In reviewing Pigou’s Unemployment, Beveridge showed sympathy withthe spirit on the one hand. Pigou had stated:
What distinguishes economists from … practical philanthropists is not
the sprit, but the method, of their work. (Pigou [1913] p.10)
This volume is the work of an economist, … The book is addressed toa public consisting, for the most part, of persons who are in no way
familiar with economic analysis. (Pigou [1913] p.11)
Beveridge judged that “this object has been very fully achieved”76.
Additionally he approved Chapter 277, which dealt with the definition ofunemployment, on the grounds that Pigou’s treatment is the first step torecognize “the recurrent idleness of the dock labourer at all time, of thebricklayer in winter”78.
On the other hand, however, Beveridge criticized the essence of Pigou’s
analysis. Pigou had said in Chapter 5:…wage-rates at any moment and in every part of the industrial field
can be so adjusted to the demand for labour of various grades that no
employment whatever can exist. In other words, it has shown thatunemployment is wholly caused by maladjustment between wage-rates
and demand. (Italics in original, Pigou [1913] p.51)
Quoting the above last two lines, Beveridge disapproved of Pigou’s
perception because it was “a paradox of the lecture-room hardly worth

76

Beveridge [1914a] p.250.
The title is “the meaning and measurement of unemployment”.
78
Beveridge [1914a] pp.250-251.
77

26

putting into a work for the ordinary citizen”, thus “there is apparently no
demand for their services at any price at all”79. In this context, Beveridge
doubted whether a policy of “securing plasticity of wage-rates”80 could be
effective. In short, it is safe to say that Beveridge definitely denied theorthodox core of economic thinking, however superficially Chapter 5 and681 were glorified as “the most valuable in the book”82.
(c) Keynes’s letter
Finally, in relation to the second point (Beveridge’s book review),
Keynes left a very interesting correspondence with Beveridge:
Thanks also for the review. I am glad you criticise Pigou’s treatmentof the plasticity of wages theory. I entirely agree with what you say
about it. I do not think he commits himself to an actual
recommendation to the working classes to allow great plasticity. But
the natural suggestion of what he says is misleading83.
This letter gives an important insight into the thinking of both Keynes andBeveridge as a problem of a key point in the intellectual development ofboth men.
22 years before the General Theory [1936], Keynes was definitely awarethat orthodox economics could not properly handle unemployment.

79

Beveridge [1914a] p.251.
Beveridge [1914a] p.252.
81“Unemployment in a stationary state” and “the plasticity of wage-rates”.
82
Beveridge [1914a] p.251.
83
J. M. Keynes to W. H. Beveridge, 25 March 1914, the Beveridge Papers in theArchive Section, British Library of Political Science, London School of Economics andPolitical Science (hereafter as BP), Ⅱb 13. Sentences before the above quoted are:“Thanks for your article, which is exceedingly interesting. I am getting it into print at
once, although I am not at all certain to have space for it in the next number of the
Journal”. “Your article” means “A Seventeenth-Century Labour Exchange”, Economic
Journal, September 1914. See Beveridge [1914b].
80

27

Besides, he was also conscious of a split between Pigou’s chivalry (hispassion to save the poor) and economics logic, or remedies and analysis.
Of course, at this stage, Keynes himself had no theory to cope withreluctant idleness of labour. He began a long struggle to slough off theorthodox thought. Previous studies, for example Hayasaka [1983], havealready noticed this point. Nonetheless, the question is the date84. We
definitely regard this letter as one of the earliest sign of the beginning ofKeynes’s long journey.
Previous analyses of Unemployment [1909] have tended to portray it asneoclassical writing in tone85. They have inferred that Beveridge has nological structure except a frictional unemployment. However, the above
review in the Economic Journal and correspondence disclose the difference
between Pigou (the real orthodox) and Beveridge (the less committed).
The former naturally thought of the price mechanism. The latter somehow
considered that automatic wage adjustment was dispensable for even theorganized labour market. In this sense, Beveridge’s remedy was moreconsistent than Pigou with his doctrine, which employed an artificial
framework such as the Labour Exchange system, instead of the natural
price mechanism.

Section 4 The First ProgrammeThis section, as a conclusion, explains that there is something special in
Beveridge’s first programme. These special features set Beveridge apartfrom his contemporaries, though at other points there are innumerable

84

Hayasaka [1983] explain Keynes’ complaint over Pigou from a letter to Kahn. The
date is 20 0ctober 1937: “As in the case of Dennis [Robertson], when it comes topractice, there is really extremely little between us. Why do they insist on maintaining
theories from which their own practical conclusions cannot possibly follow?” (Keynes[1973] p.259)
85
See Hutchison [1953] pp.415-416 and Backhouse [1985] pp.247-248.
28

similarities. We maintain that the peculiarities are the clue to untangling
Beveridge’s complex ideas in this period.
4-1

The Role of the Contemporaries

There is no difference between Beveridge and his five contemporaries
with regard to the explanation of a “modern” treatment of unemployment.
Here “modern” means the following: scientific or statistical approaches,
objection to laissez-faire, preference for State intervention, adherence toimpersonal or economic, not personal, factors, similar remedies such ascounter-cyclical Public Works, mitigating Unemployment Insurance, someregional Grand Plan, and Labour Exchanges which reduce inefficiency ofthe labour market. In short, with a scientific and economic perspective86,
they all have a new concept for an economic role of the State. Therefore,
we cannot distinguish Beveridge from the other on those points. It is now
necessary to look in more detail.
Alden, roughly speaking, influenced Beveridge in three ways. Firstly,
the classification between the social and economic was vivid. The
distinction shifted Beveridge’s thought from the unemployable to theunemployed or unemployment. Secondly, Alden used many foreign
examples, which broadened Beveridge’s perspective, not only on Labour
Bureaux, but also insurance against unemployment. This was a big chancefor Beveridge to link the two institutions. Thirdly, treatment of casuallabour was lacking in Alden’s argument. This recognition induces
Beveridge to contemplate the real economic problem, that is, industrial
fluctuations and casual labour. By pointing out Alden’s weakness,
Beveridge deepened his own thinking. In the above sense, Alden was an
influence.
Rowntree and Chapman were contrasts for Beveridge. Rowntree had apersonal connection with Beveridge, whereas his argument on
unemployment was not so outstanding. Rather, it would be preferable to86

For the case of Webbs, see Webb [1907].
29

suggest that Beveridge’s book in 1909 had a great effect on Rowntree. Of
course, his Poverty [1901] influenced everyone. Rowntree’s theoretical
impacts were restricted to an indirect or general level. In contrast, Chapman
has no personal connection with Beveridge as far as we have been able toascertain87; his logic was, however, of great significance. Like Pigou,
Chapman had two faces: of an eager social reformer, and of a calm
economic theorist. This left him in an uncomfortable position; on the one
hand, he built his hopes on natural forces of supply and demand in thelabour market. On the other, he recognized well that proper cures for
unemployment were urgently needed. Consequently, Chapman realized
only a frictional unemployment or a time-lag explanation. Then, what was
Beveridge’s position?
First of all, Hobson is one of the tests. Beveridge seemed to defend “thecompetition theory” against the heretic Hobson. Actually, he rejected “theunder-consumption theory”; not because he could not understand or heperfectly believed in orthodox economics, but because he became impatientwith Hobson’s theoretical defects. Firstly, he recognized that in a realmonetary economy there was a strong possibility of hoarding. Uselessmonetary stock (hoarding) generates overproduction – though temporarily– in a different way from Hobson’s theory. Secondly, he criticized thecausality - or identity at the same time - of savings and investment.
Although he did not have alternative economic theories at that time,
Beveridge could criticize Hobson’s decisive points. Beveridge would infer
as follows: if saving increases, does it mean expanding effective demand as
a result as much as increasing investment? Therefore, unlike his own
modest words, Beveridge well understood both heterodoxy and orthodoxy.
Lastly, Pigou is another touchstone. From Beveridge, Pigou absorbed
numerous new ideas, such as the necessity for investigating unemployment,
for State intervention and for commonly accepted remedies (Labour

87

Chapman is Assistant Secretary of Board of Trade in 1918-1919. At the same time,
Beveridge is the same status before he resigns to take up his post as director of the LSE
in October 1919. See Beveridge [1955] p.158, Harris [1997] p.257.
30

Exchanges and Unemployment Insurance). He digested them into his own
manner and fed them into Welfare Economics. In this sense, therelationship is of great substance. Simultaneously, there existed a very
obvious difference between them concerning wage movement and labour
market clearing. Beveridge, on the basis of personal study of theunemployed, appreciated that the price mechanism would not really workin the labour market. Hence, he refused an orthodox treatment regarding
prices and advocates an artificial and national labour exchange andinsurance against unemployment. Pigou still persists in orthodox modes ofthought.
4-2

Beveridge’s Original Thought

Then, one final question remains; what is Beveridge’s original idea atthis stage, after comparison with his contemporaries?
The clue lies in the following passage:
It should be its object … to reduce to a minimum the involuntary
idleness … This gives the clue to the general principle of state policy inthe matter of the unemployed. The ideal should [be] … an industrial
system in which everyone who did find a place at all should obtainaverage earnings, at least up to the standard of healthy subsistence. …
Every place in free industry … should be … a “whole” place involving
substantially full employment and average earnings up to a definite
minimum. (Beveridge [1907b] p.327)
These sentences clarify his final target for national policy. That is torealize the national minimum. As we have shown, his broader and final
aim is to abolish casual labour for ordinary people (citizens). If the Labour
Exchange system is established as an ingenious device, most of theunemployed – or strictly speaking, the under-employed casual labour –should obtain regular work. This means that the earnings of most people31should be raised up to at least a minimum level. Even in that case, there
are always strong possibilities or contingencies to interrupt their earnings.
Then, National Insurance was necessary as a safety net. Indeed, Beveridge
confessed that “from Germany with direct knowledge of social security …
I had to wait thirty-five years to use in writing the Beveridge Report what I
had learned in 1907”88.
If we reconsider Beveridge’s intention in this manner, it is unjust to
judge his theory on unemployment as merely a neoclassical one (frictional
unemployment)89. His stress on perfection of the labour market should beunderstood, not by perfect competition, but by a broader angle; that is tosay, a comprehensive remedy set of Labour Exchanges and National
Insurance, in the connotation of the National Minimum. His first and final
target is to save ordinary people who are below the poverty line, andalways suffer from irregular earnings. Thus his focus is an abolition ofcasual labour. The most efficient means is to bring together more
efficiently employees and employers. Insurance should cope with residual
difficulties, though Beveridge did not fully consider the ways of absorbing
the rest, the completely unemployed90. Nevertheless, this ambitious grandplan was, we should say, Beveridge’s “First Programme” in the 1900s.
Later, he developed his idea in social security theory along lines
indicated in this “First Programme”; however, the central argument
gradually shifted from Labour Exchange to Social Insurance, when heconfronted the subsequent difficulties in unemployment insurance. Finally,
he combined his social security theory with Keynes’ employment theory in
the 1940s. We should note, however, that the germ of his “Final
Programme” (the Welfare State) already existed in 1909.

88

Beveridge [1955] p.58.
For instance, see the next judgement: “Beveridge’s own thinking on unemployment
was not particularly original” (Casson [1983] p.25).
90
Of course, this is his default at that time. Although he thinks of emigration andincreasing productivity of labour (Beveridge [1907a] p.135) as absorption, it is not until
the 1940s that he would combine Keynes’ idea that effective demand should be created.
8932

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
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. Miscellaneous33

a. 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 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, 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.]?91 [1905a] “A National Question”, The Toynbee Record, 75-77,
Volume 17, No.5, London: The Toynbee Hall, February 1905.

91[ ]? Means that the papers are unsigned. Taking the terminology into account,however, we can determine this paper as Beveridge’s.
34

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] “Labour Exchanges: Past and Future”, The Morning Post,
28 February 1906.
[Beveridge, W.H.]? [1906b] “Insurance Against Unemployment: a foreign experiment”,
The Toynbee Record, 112-113, Volume 18, No.8, London: The Toynbee Hall, May
1906.
Beveridge, W.H. [1906c] “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. [1906d] “Labour Bureaux”, Economic Journal, 436-439, Volume
16, London: Royal Economic Society, September 1906.
Beveridge, W.H. [1907a] “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. [1907b] “The Problem of the Unemployed”, Sociological Papers
1906, 323-331, Volume 3, London: Macmillan.
Beveridge, W.H. [1907c] “Labour Exchanges and the Unemployed”, Economic Journal,
66-81, Volume 17, London: Royal Economic Society, March 1907.
Beveridge, W.H. [1907d] “Social Reform: How Germany Deals with It, 1&2&3&4”,
The Morning Post, London:, 12&17&18&20 September 1907.

35

Beveridge, W.H. [1907e] “Humanisation of the Poor Law: the Workhouse and it's
Alternation”, The Morning Post, 21 September 1907.
Beveridge, W.H. [1907e] “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
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. [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. [1955] Power and influence, London: Hodder & Stoughton.
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.
Hobson, John A. [1895] “The Meaning and Measure of “Unemployment””, The
Contemporary Review, 415-432, 67, March 1895.
Hobson, John A. [1911(1896)] The Problem of the Unemployed: An Enquiry and an
Economic Policy, London: Methuen & Co. Ltd. (First published in 1896).
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).

36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.
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.
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.
Webb, Beatrice [1907] “Methods of Investigation”, Sociological Papers 1906, 347-354,
Volume 3, London: Macmillan.

(3) Secondary Writings
Backhouse, R. [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: Routlege.
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.
Brown, Kenneth D. [1971] Labour and Unemployment 1900-1914, Newton Abbot, UK:
David & Charles Publishers Ltd.

37

Casson, Mark [1983] Economics of Unemployment: An Historical Perspective, Oxford:
Martin Robertson.
Davidson, R. [1985] Whitehall and the Labour Problem in Late-Victorian and
Edwardian Britain, London: Croom Helm.
Dearle. N.B. [1909] “Review of Unemployment: A Problem of Industry by W. H.
Beveridge”, Economic Journal, 224-228, Volume 19, London: Royal Economic
Society, June 1909.
Freeden, Michael [1988] (ed.) J. A. Hobson: A Reader, London: Unwin Hyman.
Freeden, Michael [1990] (ed.) Reappraising J. A. Hobson: Humanism and Welfare,London: Unwin Hyman.
Harris, Jose [1972] Unemployment and Politics: A Study in English Social Policy 18861914, Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Harris, J. [1994] "Beveridge's Social and Political Thought", in Hills, J., J. Ditch, and H.
Glennerster (eds) [1994], pp.23-36.
Harris, J. [1997] William Beveridge, revised paperback edition, Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 1997 (First published in 1977).
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).
Hills, J., J. Ditch, and H. Glennerster (eds) [1994] Beveridge and Social Security,
Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Hutchison, T. W. [1953] A Review of Economic Doctrines, Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 1953.
Komine, Atsushi [2001] “Beveridge on Unemployment in 1909: three inflows andoutflows”, Niigata Sangyo University Discussion Paper Series, No.21, March
2001.
Murray, Bruce K. [1980] The People’s Budget 1909/10: Lloyd George and Liberal
Politics, Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Tomlinson, J. [1990] Public Policy and the Economy since 1900, Oxford: Clarendon
Press.
Townshend, Jules [1990] J. A. Hobson, Manchester: Manchester University Press.

38