Advertisement

Honey I Shrunk the State

  • Mike KingEmail author
Chapter
Part of the CSR, Sustainability, Ethics & Governance book series (CSEG)

Abstract

What size the public sphere? This question goes to the heart of politics since the Quaker John Bright (1839–1922) was a parliamentarian as well known in the middle nineteenth century as Gladstone and Disraeli. Bright is important to the Quaker tradition for representing its ‘small government’ branch of political thinking, in contrast to George Cadbury (1811–1889), founder of the chocolate business, and whose legacy in political thinking leans much more to ‘big government’. This is partly a question of how we find the balance between private goods and public goods. This chapter suggests that it is useful to consider Karl Marx and Milton Friedman as respectively representing extremes of thought on this issue and that Quakers can help discern between the legacies of Bright and Cadbury by considering how close Cadbury’s legacy might be to Marxian thinking compared to how close Bright’s legacy might be to Friedmanite thinking. The state pension is used as an example of a public good to help explore this question.

References

  1. Burton N (2018) The Thatcher government and (de)regulation: modularisation of individual personal pensions. J Manag Hist 21(2):189–207Google Scholar
  2. Cadbury D (2010) Chocolate wars: from Cadbury to Kraft: 200 years of sweet success and bitter rivalry. HarperPress, LondonGoogle Scholar
  3. Cash B (2017) John Bright: statesman, orator, agitator. I. B. Tauris, LondonGoogle Scholar
  4. Engels F (2009) The condition of the working class in England. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  5. Friedman D (1973) The machinery of freedom. Open Court, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  6. Friedman M (2002) Capitalism and freedom. Chicago University Press, ChicagoCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Frisby D (2013) Life after the state. Paperback, UnboundGoogle Scholar
  8. Gardiner AG (1923) Life of George Cadbury. Cassell and Company, LondonGoogle Scholar
  9. Hayek FA (2008) The road to serfdom. Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar
  10. King M (2014) Quakernomics: an ethical capitalism. Anthem Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  11. Mazzucato M (2013) The entrepreneurial state: debunking public vs. private sector myths. Anthem Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  12. Nozick R (1980) Anarchy, state, and utopia. Blackwell, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  13. Peter G (2015) Wanting and having: popular politics and liberal consumerism in England, 1830–70. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  14. Pettifor A (2013) (interview with), Ann Pettifor on Austerity, Osbornomics and what Labour should be doing. http://www.primeeconomics.org/articles/2238. Accessed 3 March 2018
  15. Piketty T (2014) Capital in the twenty-first century. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MACrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Rand A (1966) Capitalism: the unknown ideal. Signet, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  17. Rowntree BS (1901) Poverty: a study of town life. Macmillan, LondonGoogle Scholar
  18. Smith A (2008) An inquiry into the nature and causes of the wealth of nations: a selected edition. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  19. Von Mises L (1981) Socialism: an economic and sociological analysis. Liberty Fund, IndianapolisGoogle Scholar
  20. Walvin J (1997) The quakers: money and morals. John Murray, LondonGoogle Scholar
  21. Wilkinson R, Pickett K (2009) The spirit level: why more equal societies almost always do better. Allen Lane, LondonGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.London Metropolitan UniversityLondonUK

Personalised recommendations