¹ The Economics of Full Employment (six Studies in Applied Economics, prepared at the Oxford University Institute of Statistics), Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1944, pp. vi, 213.Google Scholar These essays by T. Balogh, F. A. Burchardt, M. Kalecki, K. Mandelbaum, E.F.Schumacher, and G. D. N. Worswick present a more difficult but highly stimulating approach to the same group of problems.

² The British White Paper, Employment Policy, is Cmd. 6527 and was presented by the Minister of Reconstruction to Parliament in May, 1944. Its Canadian counterpart, Employment and Income with Special Reference to the Initial Period of Reconstruction, was presented to Parliament by the Minister of Reconstruction in April, 1945.

³ 79th Congress Ist Session S. 380.

⁴ For a discussion of the totalitarian solution and the lessons to be learned from it see K. Mandelbaum, “An Experiment in Full Employment. Controls in the German Economy, 1933-1938,” in the Economics of Full Employment prepared at the Oxford University Institute of Statistics. Similar problems are dealt with in Part III, “Full Employment in War,” of the work under review.

⁵ “Sir William Beveridge on Full Employment” (The Economic Journal, vol. LV, no. 217, 04, 1945, pp. 70–6).Google Scholar

⁶ “Beveridge on Full Employment” (The New Republic, vol. CXII, no. 8, 02 19, 1945, pp. 250–4).Google Scholar

⁷ Ibid., p. 253. Sir William, too, indicates this same view when he says “the immensely powerful economic system of the United States generated its own unparalleled depression” (p. 220).

⁸ A most interesting approach to this question is provided by Mr. E. F. Schumacher in Part IV of the Economics of Full Employment. There he points out that acceptance of the classical economics leads naturally to certain rules for public finance. If it is assumed that the economic system operates always to maintain full employment and that decisions to save produce an equivalent amount of investment, it follows that activity by the state reduces private activity. The inflation problem leads to the principles that budgets should be balanced, and, in the event that this is impossible, the government should finance the deficit by issuing long-term bonds. Further, since all taxes to some extent impinge on savings and thus impede the accumulation of productive capital, we have the principle that budgets should be kept small. And, going a step further, progress dictates that taxes should impinge mainly on consumption, and that all borrowing should be for productive purposes. Finally, it is observed that, while the internally held national debt is not a burden for the community as a whole, it does represent a wasted opportunity. Therefore, it should be paid off as quickly as possible by increasing taxation bearing on consumption. But all this changes when the classical approach is replaced by modern (Keynesian) theory. Then the attempt to save may produce not investment but more unemployment and state activity may be an addition to rather than a substitute for private activity. Taxes on saving and subsequent spending may increase consumption and thus may stimulate rather than retard investment. Under such circumstances, the theoretical basis behind each of the principles of orthodox public finance is destroyed. The adoption of full employment as a national goal demands a very different set of rules.

⁹ Ibid., pp. 122-3.

¹⁰ The Problem of Unemployment, issued by Lever Brothers and Unilever Limited.

¹¹ Employment and Income, p. 4.

¹² Ibid., p. 14.

¹³ Ibid., p. 21.

¹⁴ Ibid., p. 1.

¹⁵ Cmd. 6527, Sec. 74, p. 24.

¹⁶ Rather surprisingly that government's first budget failed to outline the longer-term plan to be followed. This is criticized by The Economist (vol. CXLIX, no. 5331, 10 27, 1945, pp. 585–6)Google Scholar, which takes particular exception to the Chancellor's notion that the budget should be balanced over a period of years. Similarly the budget address of April, 1946, appears to have been mainly concerned with immediate problems.

¹⁷ While it did appear possible that the Bill might go through in its original form, it was considerably altered before being passed. Instead of committing the United States to assuring that the “right” to employment could at all times be exercised, “it now guarantee severy-body out of work the right to seek a job if he can find one…” (Senate Majority Leader Barkley commenting on the Senate's version of the Bill as reported by Barron's National Business and Financial Weekly, 10 1, 1945, p. 1 Google Scholar).

¹⁸ 79th Congress 1st Session S. 380, Sec. 3(a)-(c), pp. 3-6.

¹⁹ The very considerable tax increases involved in a programme of full employment via redistributive taxation may lead us to question those who suggest this as a real possibility. But compare the more favourable attitudes of Messrs. Kalecki and Schumacher in the Economics of Full Employment.

²⁰ The Economics of Full Employment, pp. 44-6.

²¹ Ibid., see especially the remarks of Mr. Kalecki, pp. 45-6, 48, and those of Mr. Schumacher, pp. 94-6.

²² See, for example, the British White Paper, Cmd. 6527, Sees. 31-6 (pp. 13-15) and Sees. 55-6 (pp. 19-20), and also the Canadian White Paper, Employment and Income, pp. 18–19.Google Scholar

²³ “The Stability and Flexibility of Full Employment,” Part III of the Economics of Full Employment, especially pp. 63–71.Google Scholar See also Mr. Kalecki's remarks in the same volume, pp. 55-7.

²⁴ “The International Aspects of Full Employment,” the fifth essay in ibid., p. 171.

²⁵ Employment and Income, p. 7.

²⁶ Balogh, T., in the Economics of Full Employment, p. 155.Google Scholar

²⁷ See, for example, ibid., pp. 136, 156.

²⁸ For a vastly different attitude towards the philosophy underlying the Report (as well as a detailed criticism) see Simons, Henry C., “The Beveridge Program: An Unsympathetic Interpretation” (The Journal of Political Economy, vol. LIII, no. 3, 09, 1945, pp. 212–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar). The concluding paragraphs summarize some of the major philosophic disputes.