The attention given by the World Bank (1994) regarding the sustainability of state spending on public pension schemes, as a result of increased longevity of retirees and a decline in the working age population, has meant that pensions are high on the agenda of every society around the world. While one response to this is to reduce social expenditure on pensions, but what happens in a situation where a country's social expenditure directed to public pension schemes – in stark contrast with other European countries – is already low; at face the lowest public pension provision of all 30 OECD (2007) countries? This is the case of Britain – hence the concern of this book: Britain's Pension Crisis.

The book provides a useful discussion of the policy process involved in developing pension provision in Britain through a collection of different perspectives (historical, feminist, comparative). The editors advocate that the history and policy of pensions are important to understanding, framing or rejecting certain paths for Britain's pensions. The central question is why and how this ‘crisis’ came about. The editing trio summarises in the introduction the components of this crisis, which include: the inadequacy of retirement income (esp. for women) and the complexity and the governance of Britain's pensions (p. 3).

The inadequacy of pension income was set in 1942 in the way that Beveridge's pension proposals were received. Harris (Chapter 2) highlights how Beveridge's proposal for higher contributions to be provided alongside the Basic State Pension (BSP) was met with reluctance by the Treasury Office. The BSP was financed through state subsidies and National Insurance contributions. However, the idea of a contributory link being made through this approach was misleading as it was the years of contribution rather than the amount that affected the final benefit received (Pemberton, Johnson). The contributory link was also a blow for women's pensions, since their participation in the labour market is not as continuance or stable as men's. Historically, women have been more likely to live on low incomes and have relied more on means-tested benefits. The chapter by Hollis and those by Thane and Ginn provide substantial arguments towards this thesis.

The low replacement level of the BSP made workers seek additional pension provision. At the same time, labour shortage played a crucial role in the creation of occupational pension schemes as a motivation to secure skilled and loyal workers (Hass). By the mid 1950s occupational pensions had flourished. The failure of the Labour party to gain Trade Union support over the Titmuss proposals (Glennerster) paved the ground for the Conservatives to establish the State Graduate Scheme in 1959. The latter epitomises for Pemberton (Chapter 3) the ‘short-term political horizon’ (p. 59) of all post-war British governments and their aim to create new schemes on top of the BSP instead of breaking contractual relationships already established between pensioners and pension providers (state, employers and financial services). Pemberton concludes that continual change is not allowing Britain's pensions to ‘lock-in’ (Pierson Reference Pierson2004), thus increasing complexity for beneficiaries and providers.

Far from continual change, it is my view that the development of Britain's pensions have been constantly changing, but always according to the same principles: a significant reliance on the market (esp. financial). Once Britain is placed within a comparative perspective, it is possible to see how the lack of industrial settlement or agreement played a crucial role in the development of pensions. In fact employers, as well as organised labour, remained segmented and no consensus regarding non-labour wage costs was reached at the peak bargaining level (Bornstein and Gourevitch, Reference Bornstein, Gourevitch and Gourevitch1984). This meant that Britain did not institutionalise any bargaining frameworks that would cope with changes in industrial policy and labour markets (see chapter by Ferrera for its importance in Italy). The reluctance of the Treasury and the City of London to create state-run funds, as well as the domination of the financial capital markets over industrial capital (Longstreth, Reference Longstreth1979), had a significant impact on the governance of pension reforms and pension funds; with pension funds not channelled to productive capital, but rather were invested in financial markets (Whiteside, Hinrichs).

It is in this context that one can understand the debate between Clark, Whiteside, Hills and Field regarding the development of occupational pension funds and the Turner Commission reports. The crisis now being faced relates to who gets to control the new savings. Clark (Chapter 10) warns of the closure of final salary schemes and the lack of substantial new money purchase schemes to channel savings into the pension funds. Whiteside (Chapter 8) rightly argues that there is a need to discuss ‘pension governance’ rather than ‘finance’ as the main concern for Britain's crisis. Within a European comparative perspective, the governance of pension reforms is delegated to ‘expert committees’ (Hinrichs). By not politicising debates on pensions we risk seeing this as a technical issue that is isolated from other policy issues.

Müller (Chapter 15) highlights the outcome of the ‘privatisation shock’ of pension schemes in Central and Eastern European and Former Soviet Union countries and the reliance on market mechanisms for pensions' governance; leading to increases in retirement poverty. Britain's pensions are already tightly linked with labour market performance and are run by private pension providers, while benefits depend on the volatile financial markets. Rather than ‘donating’ pension governance to the Bank of England as Frank Field (Chapter 9) suggests, there should be a limit to the marketisation of pensions and their treatment as a commodity. Instead, a move towards a higher flat rate universal pension that would prevent poverty in old age and the investment of funds into social and community development would acknowledge the social character of pensions – so recognising that pensions are a social right. However as the concluding editorial chapter shows, the recent White Paper is moving far from this direction. Britain's pensions are still in crisis and the contributions of this book set an agenda that will have to be addressed.

The editing of such a variety of approaches is inevitably a difficult task. As I read the book, I got the impression that the individual chapters were more ‘hosted’ than ‘guided’ by the editors. Different contributors often contrast with one another, which makes the book more of an open debate (see Chapters 8–12). More discussion in the concluding chapter would have been beneficial to the reader. That said, the editors did provide a brief and very informative concluding chapter that discusses the issues raised in the book alongside the 2006 pensions White Paper. It is actually in the last chapter that the editors transform all the knowledge of the past into critical examination of current policies. The book is a key source for students and academics and those laypeople who can tolerate with the complexity of Britain's pensions. For this reason alone the editors should be pleased with the outcome of this book.