1 Note that, while [British] social administration has long been hailed as ‘the magpie subject’, its practitioners adhered to a highly insular set of ideas and assumptions about the nature, purpose and scope of ‘social policy’.

2 Deciding on which aspects of public policy ought properly to be termed ‘social’— and on whether the field of social policy was confined to the realm of the public and formal, as opposed to the private/informal or subsidized/semi‐formal etc — has been of consummate interest to some social administration professionals but not, seemingly, to other academics.

3 e.g. Beveridge’s gnomic assertion that it is not possible to construct a welfare state except on the basis of a ‘welfare society’.

4 By this yardstick, for instance, Sweden emerges as fully market‐orientated, in contrast to France, Germany, the USA and the USSR. See Titmuss, R., The Gift Relationship: From Human Blood to Social Policy, London, Men & Unwin, 1970 Google Scholar.

5 e.g. Rosenthal, A., The Social Programs of Sweden: A Search for Security in a Free Society, University of Minnesota Press, 1967 Google Scholar; Furniss, N. and Tilton, T., The Case for the Welfare State: From Social Security to Social Equality, Indiana, Indiana University Press, 1977 Google Scholar.

6 i.e. Public assistance or ‘welfare’: the lowest form of which is state/local general (wholly discretionary) assistance for those (e.g. the able‐bodied, single unemployed) not favoured with a federally sponsored categorical programme.

7 e.g. Buchi in Girod, R. and de Laubier, P. (eds), L’étude de la politique sociale, Berne, Commission Nationale Suisse pour L’UNESCO, 1974 Google Scholar; Cahnman, W. J. and Schmitt, C. M., ’The Concept of Social Policy (Sozialpolitik)’, Journal of Social Policy, Vol. 8, Pt. 1, 1979, pp. 47–59 Google Scholar; Offe, C., Contradictions of the Welfare State, London, Hutchinson, 1984 Google Scholar.

8 e.g. Marshall, T. H., Social Policy, London, Hutchinson, 1975 Google Scholar edition; Rodgers, B. N., The Study of Social Policy: A Comparative Approach, London, Allen & Unwin, 1979 Google Scholar.

9 Titmuss also suggested a third (or rather first) category: that of the ‘Residual Welfare Model’ whereby social welfare institutions are expected to step in only after market forces, on the one hand, and family/informal supports, on the other, have failed. However, while all modern Western societies possess some such forms of provision still, none of them rely upon these as their principal strategy any longer. Titmuss, , Social Policy: An Introduction, London, Allen & Unwin, 1974, ch. 2Google Scholar.

10 For instance, education and housing expenditure may or may not be accounted ‘social’, depending on the country or source concerned; while national ‘public expenditure’ figures do not always cover (compulsory) social insurance and may not include expenditure which is locally financed.

11 OECD, Revenue Statistics of OECD Member Countries, 1965–81, Paris, OECD Google Scholar.

12 OECD, The Tax/Benefit Position of Selected Income Groups in OECD Member Countries, 1974–79, Paris, OECD, 1980 Google Scholar; OECD, The Weyare State in Crisis, Paris, OECD, 1981 Google Scholar.

13 I am indebted to Bernard Cazes for drawing my attention to this point. See Jean‐Claude, Dutailly: ‘Les Prélèvements obligatoires sont‐ils progressifs en France?’, Commentaire, No. 25, Spring, 1984, 74–78 Google Scholar; also Coutire, Antoine: ‘Augmenter l’impôt sur le revenu: des mesures de portée ineégale’, Société’, No. 158, 09, 1983, 21–35 Google Scholar.

14 Rose, R., Understanding Big Government: The Programme Approach, London and Beverly Hills, Sage Publications, 1984, p. 106 Google Scholar.

15 See for instance Wilson, T. (ed.), Pensions, Inflation and Growth: A Comparative Study of the Elderly in the Welfare State, London, Heinemann, 1974 Google Scholar, for a useful comparative discussion of the various things this misleading term can imply.

16 Social assistance/aide sociale/Sozialhilfe: all forms of local backstop relief tend to be presented as a single, cash/care entity in national statistics. It is only the British who, from 1948, have regarded the cash/care ‘divide’ as being crucial.

17 Witness, for instance, the accumulated evidence on NHS usage in Britain.

18 Kohl, J., ‘Trends and Problems in Postwar Public Expenditure Development in Western Europe and North America’ in Flora, P. and Heidenheimer, A. (eds), The Development of Welfare States in Europe and America, New Brunswick and London, Transaction Books, 1981. See Fig. 9.1, p. 314 Google Scholar.

19 e.g. Gough, I., The Political Economy of the Welfare State, London, Macmillan, 1979 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

20 e.g. George, V. and Lawson, R. (eds), Poverty and Inequality in Common Market Countries, London, Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1980 Google Scholar; Walker, R., Lawson, R. and Townsend, P., Responses fo Poverty: Lessons from Europe, London, Heinemann, 1984 Google Scholar.

21 Kraus, F., ‘The Historical Development of Income Inequality in Western Europe and the United States’, in Flora, P. and Heidenheimer, A. (eds), op. cit. See Fig. 6.1, pp. 199–201 Google Scholar.

22 Kraus, F., op. cit., Fig. 6.4, pp. 199–201 Google Scholar.

23 OECD, The Welfare State in Crisis; Mishra, R., The Welfare State in Crisis: Social Thought and Social Change, Brighton, Wheatsheaf Books, 1984 Google Scholar; C. Offe, op. cit.