Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-24T01:38:11.457Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Economic Contradictions of Democracy

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 January 2009

Samuel Brittan
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The conjecture to be discussed in this paper is that liberal representative democracy suffers from internal contradictions, which are likely to increase in time, and that, on present indications, the system is likely to pass away within the lifetime of people now adult.

Type
Articles
Information
British Journal of Political Science , Volume 5 , Issue 2 , April 1975 , pp. 129 - 159
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1975

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Strictly speaking only statements can be contradictory, not events or procedures. The title of this paper represents a stretching of the term of the kind in which Marx indulged when speaking of the ‘contradictions of capitalism’.

2 It is, of course possible to define self-interest in such a way that it covers all the goals people can possibly seek, whether individually or collectively. Such an approach lies behind the modern formal ‘economic’ theories of democracy. For a recent attempt at a synthesis of such theories see Breton, Albert, The Economic Theory of Representative Government (London: Macmillan, 1974).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

3 I am indebted to Bertrand de Jouvenel for suggesting this term (in a private communication).

4 See Brittan, S., Steering the Economy (Harmondsworth, Middx.: Penguin Books, 1971), p. 420.Google Scholar

5 The weighted depreciation is calculated by the Treasury and appears in the Financial Times, London, daily except Sunday.

6 For data see Brittan, S., ‘Full Employment Policy: A Reappraisal’ in The Concept and Measurement of Involuntary Unemployment, ed. Worswick, D. and Thomas, D. (London: Allen and Unwin, 1975).Google Scholar See also Brittan, S., Second Thoughts on Full Employment (London: Centre for Policy Studies, 1975).Google Scholar

7 House of Commons Debate, 12 November 1974, issue No. 978, col. 241.

8 See Brittan, S., ‘The Need to make Cutbacks, But Without Hysteria’, Financial Times, 11 October 1974.Google Scholar

9 For an account of these events see Butler, D. and Kavanagh, D., The British General Election of February 1974 (London: Macmillan, 1974).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

10 For regular figures for these indicators see Department of Employment Gazette (London: HMSO, monthly).Google Scholar

11 Britain Today (London: National Opinion Polls, 09 1974).Google Scholar

12 My own view of what Western societies could and should attempt to achieve can be found in Brittan, S., Capitalism and the Permissive Society (London: Macmillan, 1973).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

13 Schumpeter, Joseph A., Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy, 4th edn. (London: and Unwin, 1952), Part IV, p. 269.Google Scholar

14 Plamenatz is probably right to argue that the ‘popular’ theory of democracy is a better name than Schumpeter's own term ‘classical’. See Plamenatz, John, Democracy and Illusion: an Examination of Certain Aspects of Modern Democratic Theory (London: Longman, 1973), p. 39.Google Scholar

15 For a discussion of this issue, see Butler, David and Stokes, Donald, Political Change in Britain: Forces Shaping Electoral Choice (Harmondsworth, Middx.: Penguin Books, 1971), Chap. 8 and 9 (pp. 217–64).CrossRefGoogle Scholar Also, for a confirmation of the low level of political awareness in the USA from the ‘Michigan School’, see Campbell, Angus, Converse, Philip E., Miller, Warren E. and Stokes, Donald E.,The American Voter (New York: Wiley, 1960), pp. 60–1, 151.Google Scholar

16 In the British general election of February 1974, the majority of voters were aware that the Conservative Party was more pro-Common Market than the Labour Party and opposed to nationalization. But they were pretty confused about the attitude of the two main parties towards the social services. Even on nationalization, nearly 10 per cent believed that the Conservatives stood for the state taking over more industries, and nearly 12 per cent ‘did not know’. If there was any random element in the responses, the true degree of misinformation or ignorance could have been a great deal higher. Voters were quite unable to place the Liberal Party on the Common Market, despite the fact that the Liberals had a more consistent pro-EEC stand on that issue than their two main rivals, and despite the attention the Liberals attracted in the media on account of their success in doubling their share of the opinion polls in the second week of the campaign. For further details see James Alt, Bo Sarlvikand Ivor Crewe,’ issue Positions, Party Identification, and Party Preference’, paper for American Political Science Association meeting at Chicago, 1974. For the development of Liberal strength before and during the February 1974 campaign, see Butler and Kavanagh, The British General Election of February 1974. In the subsequent election in the autumn of 1974, a statement of the Liberal view on pay and prices was attributed by more respondents to the Conservatives than any other party. See Poll, Orc, The Times, 7 09 1974.Google Scholar

17 The view that high budget deficits or the growth of the money supply, national or international, was the main culprit was held even by implication, by a mere handful of citizens, even though it was one of the main schools of thought in the public debate.

18 Butler, and Kavanagh, , British General Election of February 1974, p. 140.Google Scholar

19 The remark of David Butler and Denis Kavanagh in their book on that election, that ‘it was an unpopularity contest between two contenders widely seen as incompetent on the major issues’ is revealing (my italics). Butler, and Kavanagh, , British General Election of February 1974, p. 141.Google Scholar

20 Despite the NOP finding (Britain Today) that 83 per cent of a sample of voters considered the trade unions a ‘threat to democracy’ (59 per cent ‘a serious threat’) and 73 per cent that the unions had too much power (only 5 per cent thought that they had too little), the Labour Party, which was pledged to restore and strengthen union privileges, won the October 1974 election with an absolute majority in Parliament.

21 Butler and Stokes, Political Change, Chaps. 8 and 9. Only 50 per cent (to the nearest whole percentage) of one representative sample were consistent in opposing or supporting further nationalization in three interviews in 1963–1966. This was shown to be due to ‘mere uncertainty of response’ and not to genuine attitude changes.

22 Schumpeter, , Capitalism, Socialism, p. 233.Google Scholar

23 Downs, Anthony, An Economic Theory of Democracy (New York: Harper and Row, 1957).Google Scholar

24 Examples of American pluralists who argued in this way include Commons, Bentley, Truman and Latham. Continental sympathizers with various kinds of corporatism included Emile Durkheim, Pope Pius XI and Mussolini. References are given in Olson, Mancur Jr, The Logic of Collective Action: Public Goods and the Theory of Groups (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1965 and 1971), Chap. 5.Google Scholar For an account of the corporate strand in British Conservative thinking see Harris, Nigel, Competition and the Corporate Society (London: Methuen, 1972).Google Scholar

25 Olson, , The Logic of Collective Action. p. 124.Google Scholar

26 For a notable recent example, which contains references to nearly all the principal works of this school, see fn 2.

27 Above all that of Bon, Gustave Le, The Crowd (London: T. Fisher Unwin, 1896, rep. 1917).Google Scholar

28 Schumpeter, , Capitalism, Socialism, p. 263.Google Scholar

29 Schumpeter, , Capitalism, Socialism, p. 262.Google Scholar

30 ‘Psychological and Administrative Barriers to Voting’, Report of the President's Commission Registration and Voting Participation (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office 1963).Google Scholar Reprinted in Political Opinion and Electoral Behavior, Essays and Studies, eds. Dreyer, Edward and Rosenbaum, Walter A. (Belmont, Calif.: Wadsworth, 1966), pp. 174–80.Google Scholar

31 NOP, Britain Today, p. 6.

32 , NOP, Political Bulletin, September 1974.

33 See for instance Brittan, S., Steering the Economy (Harmondsworth, Middx.: Penguin Books, 1971)Google Scholar and Bruce-gardyne, J., Whatever Happened to the Quiet Revolution? (London: Charles Knight, 1974).Google Scholar

34 For a preliminary report, see Abrams, Mark, ‘This Britain: A Contented Nation?’, New Society, 21 February 1974.Google Scholar

35 A comic example of the extent of demands made on the government was Blackpool's insistence on official compensation because of the cancellation of the party conferences on account of the October 1974 election. Guardian, 20 September 1974, p. 8, col. 4.

36 These influences are discussed in Runciman, W. G., Relative Deprivation and Social Justice: a Study of Attitudes to Social Inequalities in Twentieth Century England (London: Routledge, 1966), Chaps. 2 and 4.Google Scholar

37 NOP, Political Bulletin, March/April 1974. There was little variation through the social and income groups. The proportion rose to 42 per cent for those earning above £4,000 per annum in the pounds of that period — a category not large enough to provide significant sums.

38 For an excellent brief explanation see Friedman, Milton, Monetary Correction (London: Institute of Economic Affairs, 1974).Google Scholar

39 See Brittan ‘Full Employment Policy’ and Second Thoughts on Full Employment.

40 His principal article on the subject is entitled ‘How inflation threatens: British democracy's last chance before extinction’ (The Times, 1 July 1974). Other relevant articles by Jay, are ‘Incomes Policy: cycles of failure’ (27 06 1973)Google Scholar and ‘The good old days of stop-go economics’ (5 December 1973). Times ‘leaders’ supplying useful background include ‘Social Democrats and Inflation’ (5 December 1973) and ‘The Great Priority’ (23 July 1974).

41 A short account of business monopoly can be found in Utton, M.a., Industrial Concentration (Harmondsworth, Middx.: Penguin Books, 1970)Google Scholar which contains a useful bibliography. See also Nelson, R. L., Merger Movements in American Industry, 1895–1956(Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1959).Google Scholar

42 Employment Policy (London: HMSO Cmd. 6527, 1944).Google Scholar

43 See Brittan, , Steering the Economy, pp. 207–19 and 479–83.Google Scholar

44 Dicey, A. V., Law and Public Opinion in England (London: Macmillan, 1963), pp. 152–8.Google Scholar

45 Quoted in Halévy, E., A History of the English People in the Nineteenth Century, Vol. VI: The Rule of Democracy 1905–1914, Book II (London: Ernest Benn, 1952), p. 486.Google Scholar

46 Report of the Transport Workers’ Court of Inquiry (London: HMSO, Cmd. 936, 1970), Vol. I, p. 495.Google Scholar

47 Bagehot, W., The English Constitution (London: Fontana edition, with introduction by R. H. S. Crossman, 1963), pp. 267–310.Google Scholar

48 Froude, J. A., Address to the Liberty and Property Defence League, (London: Liberty and Property Defence League, 1887).Google Scholar

49 Schumpeter, , Capitalism, Socialism, p. 291.Google Scholar

50 Schumpeter, , Capitalism, Socialism, p. 294.Google Scholar

51 Schumpeter, , Capitalism, Socialism, p. 293.Google Scholar

52 Kristol, Irving, ‘When Virtue Loses her Loveliness’, Chap. 1 of Capitalism Today, ed. Kristol, Irvingand Bell, Daniel (New York: Mentor Books, 1971), pp. 13–27.Google Scholar

53 Kristol, , Capitalism Today, p. 19.Google Scholar

54 Hayek, F. A., The Constitution of Liberty (London: Routledge, 1960), Chap. 6, pp. 85–100.Google Scholar

55 Jouvenel, Bertrand De, Sovereignty (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1957), p. 284.Google Scholar

56 Jouvenel, De, Sovereignty, Chap. 16, pp. 184–7.Google Scholar

57 The important problems that would arise both for efficiency and for human freedom if there were an attempt to enforce a pattern of income differentials for different occupations, different from that of the market, are not discussed here. See Brittan, , Capitalism and the Permissive Society, pp. 103–9 and 124–40.Google Scholar

58 Goldthorpe, John, ‘Social Inequality and Social Integration in Modern Britain’, in Poverty, Inequality and Class Structure, ed. Wedderburn, D. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1974), Chap. 11, pp. 117–38.Google Scholar

59 Nozick, Robert, ‘Distributive Justice’, Philosophy and Public Affairs, III (1973), 45–126, p. 45.Google Scholar

60 Froude, Address.

61 Jouvenel, De, Sovereignty, p. 151.Google Scholar

62 Hayek, The Constitution of Liberty, Chap. 6.

63 Rawls, John, A Theory of Justice (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1972), p. 11.Google Scholar

64 There are many other objections to the theory, not all pedantic quibbles, but some quite fundamental. See for instance Barry, Brian, The Liberal Theory of Justice: A Critical Examination of the Principal Doctrines in ‘A Theory of Justice’ (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1973);Google ScholarHare, R. M., ‘Rawls’ Theory of Justice’, Philosophical Quarterly, XXIII (1973), p p. 144 and 241;CrossRefGoogle ScholarArrow, Kenneth J., Discussion Paper 287Google Scholar, Harvard Institute of Economic Research, 1973; Nozick, ‘Distributive Justice’; Nisbet, Robert, ‘The Pursuit of Equality’, The Public Interest, No. 35(1974), 103–20;Google ScholarFlew, Antony, A Theory of Justice (Reading: University of Reading, 1974).Google Scholar

65 Kristol, , in Capitalism Today, pp. 16–22.Google Scholar

66 Brittan, Samuel, Left or Right: The Bogus Dilemma (London: Secker and Warburg, 1968), p. 166.Google Scholar

67 Hume, David, Essay on the First Principles of Government (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1963), p. 29.Google Scholar

68 There are important distinctions, which I discuss more fully in the Prologue and Chap. 3 of Capitalism and the Permissive Society, a title I do not regret.

69 Abrams, ‘This Britain’.