What is the Big Society? The very fact this question is still being asked demonstrates the concept's relative failure and, at the same time, its reluctance to disappear. It is also one of the reasons why this thought-provoking book from editors Armine Ishkanian and Simon Szreter, with its considered assessment of the Big Society as an emerging agenda for social policy, is to be welcomed. As Szeter and Ishkanian's introduction puts it: ‘The aim of this volume is to create a dialogue between history, policy and practice, and to provide readers with a historically grounded, internationally informed’ view of this agenda (p. 1). In doing so, this text makes three key points: that the Big Society is problematically ahistorical, that its unison with an age of austerity reduces it to rhetoric and that Big Society advocates either ignore, or manipulate, evidence.

Part I of the text is devoted to a consideration of historical examples akin to the Big Society. This is a unique contribution to the debate since, as Charlesworth's chapter points out, ‘what is increasingly evident in government pronouncements is that ministers have no knowledge of what went before’ (p. 50). The relevance of what went before is well substantiated in chapters concerning: the ‘old’ poor law (Charlesworth), charities (Hilton; Fries), mutualism (Weinbren) and volunteering (Bradley). These successfully demonstrate that Big Society advocates utilise an idealised view of voluntary action and philanthropy in the immediate post-war period. This not only overlooks the rise in volunteering and charitable giving over the last few decades but also marginalises a longer history of localised British welfare provision underpinned by the (‘Big’) state. Of note here is Harris’ chapter which discusses the history of the Big Society idea in the guise of the ‘Great’ society. Rather than build upon and develop such ideas, utilised by theorists as diverse as Smith, Comte, Wallas and Hayek (pp. 29–36), the Big Society has remained vague and poorly developed in its attempted claim for ‘newness’.

Perhaps this vagueness was Cameron's goal? As Albrow's chapter, which begins Part II on policy, argues, we are mistaken if we see the Big Society as a policy framework, since we should conceive of it solely as rhetoric: ‘David Cameron's gift to the chattering classes’ (p. 107). Like any effective political rhetoric its success resides in its ability to be ‘open to as many interpretations as there are ideological positions’ (p. 107). This rhetorical device does not need to explain how cuts in state funding will be replaced with social enterprises (Pharoah's chapter) or by foundations (Leat) but simply appear relatively appealing to enough voters to hide the fact that it is a ‘bid for the continuation and expansion of failed neo-liberal policies by other means’ (p. 24). This claim that the Big Society is simply a cynical ‘fig leaf’ or ‘Trojan horse’ for the cuts, shared by some contributors to this text and others (Atkinson et al., Reference Atkinson, Roberts, Savage, Atkinson, Roberts and Savage2012) is perhaps too simplistic. This text as a whole is instead a contribution to the debate concerning how Big Society policies in an age of austerity rely upon, and hope to produce, a flawed conception of individualism shared with neoliberal ideology (Kerr et al., Reference Kerr, Byrne and Foster2011, Gillies, Reference Gillies, Atkinson, Roberts and Savage2012), which is inevitably regressive (Levitas, Reference Levitas2012).

Not only are such policies flawed in an age of austerity, but rely on problematic evidence. Levels of volunteering have remained relatively stable and limited to certain groups, despite successive governments’ attempts to broaden their appeal (Ockenden, Hill and Stuart). Also, Britain, rather than being ‘broken’, maintains healthy levels of volunteering and charitable giving relative to other European nations (Ketola; Hilton). Indeed, more telling evidence can be found not in supposed ‘successes’ but in the failures of Big Society-esque policies. This can be seen in the admirable, but poorly resourced, voluntary support for victims of domestic violence in post-socialist nations (Ishkanian).

This text is a worthwhile contribution to a burgeoning field we may wish to call ‘Big Society studies’. The breadth of the discussion, not only regarding the topics covered but in encompassing both sociological and social policy perspectives, makes this text relevant to a variety of readers. The editors have delivered contributions with historical and contemporary claims, as well as providing space for critical writers seeing the Big Society as neoliberal rhetoric alongside those engaged in more detailed policy consideration. In doing so, they have also given cohesion to the volume as a unique and detailed perspective on the government's policy agenda. It may initially appear that the political environment is against this text, with the Big Society having largely disappeared from the mouths of coalition ministers in recent months. However, this overlooks one of this book's central claims: we should see the Big Society as part of a wider agenda for social policy. As Albrow's chapter discusses, by invoking conceptions of ‘fairness’, ‘unequal influence’ and ‘people power’ this agenda may well produce results unintended by its Conservative parents. Anti-tax avoidance protests groups and striking public sector workers may demonstrate how ‘“Big Society” may well turn out to be the sound bite that bites back’ (p. 115).