The “critique” in the title of Mark Bevir's analysis of New Labour refers not to criticism, but to an examination of the ideological commitments behind this apparently pragmatic political program. Bevir argues that New Labour is a response from within the tradition of social democracy to the policies and program of the New Right. That response, however, relies upon forms of social science that conceive of facts as existing independently of interpretation, thereby sustaining claims to expert knowledge and management. Bevir, by contrast, advocates an interpretive political science, one that historicizes intellectual and political developments so as to reveal their origins, content, and—crucially—contingency. Despite its rhetoric about the necessity of a “Third Way” response to globalization, then, in Bevir's analysis New Labour appears as just one possible response to the New Right from within the rich tradition of social democracy.

The book consists of three parts. Chapters 2 and 3 explore two forms of social science central to New Labour: institutionalism and communitarianism. The new institutionalism offers an alternative to the New Right's attempts to replace inept bureaucracies with efficient markets, emphasizing instead the value of networks and partnerships in providing services. Communitarianism laments a breakdown in shared values over the second half of the twentieth century, emphasizing individual responsibility within the contexts of family and work. Chapters 4 and 5 follow the translation of these ideas and values into specific policy domains. For instance, instead of exclusive reliance upon either the state (old Labour) or markets (New Right), New Labour's reforms to the welfare state emphasize networks, partnerships, and individual responsibility; New Labour's handling of the economy, meanwhile, amounts to what Bevir calls “supply side socialism.” Here, too, the state plays a central—but transformed—role, maintaining economic stability and providing personal training in a world being transformed by mobile capital and new technologies.

These two pairs of chapters are bookended by historical critiques of trends in political science (chap. 1) and social democracy (chap. 6). Chapter 1 traces the transition from narrative to scientism in social science in the first half of the twentieth century, a development that resulted in the triumph of “modernist empiricism.” Modernist empiricism conceives of facts about the social world as existing independently of interpretation. Bevir favors “interpretivism,” a theoretical stance recognizing that facts, beliefs, actions, and institutions must always be understood in relation to each another. Interpretivism thus bears some relation to poststructuralism, but Bevir is careful to distinguish his analysis from one that would implicitly reintroduce the assumptions of modernist empiricism by treating ideology, discourse, or language as objectified categories of their own; he also affirms his belief in the situated agency of individuals who confront specific problems in the context of particular traditions. The key point to emerge out of this chapter is that since both institutionalism and communitarianism rely upon forms of modernist empiricism, their promises to offer control in the present rely upon claims to expert knowledge that emerged in the recent past. If an interpretivist account can show that these claims emerged historically and stumble philosophically, Bevir suggests, space is then opened up for alternative forms of both political science and politics.

Chapter 6 outlines the possibilities for social democracy that follow from the foregoing critique. Bevir shows that New Labour stands in a political tradition that emphasizes representative democracy (instead of popular participation) and expert management (instead of decentralized pluralism). He believes that an interpretivist account, by contrast, points toward alternative forms of politics in at least two ways: by revealing the availability of other intellectual and political traditions, and by emphasizing the inclinations toward fellowship that follow the recognition of mutual interdependence. In other words—and despite New Labour's insistence to the contrary—alternatives to both the New Right and the “Third Way” are indeed available, pointing the way away from representative management and toward pluralist democracy.

In the context of this challenge to the assumptions and ascendance of New Labour, Bevir's final point is perhaps surprising: he urges social democrats who are critical of New Labour to continue to work within the party. “New Labour might not be what we want, but that is no reason to despair of the Party,” he concludes, “it is a reason, rather, to work through democratic processes to promote our alternative visions within the Party as well the wider society of which it is a part” (156). This affirmation of the Labour Party as a necessary and viable vehicle for the realization of social democratic ideals underscores an ironic effect of Bevir's critique. Rather than figuring as an expedient abandonment of its historical principles, Bevir shows that New Labour is best understood within the tradition of social democracy; and rather than constituting a tactical concession to the terms of governance established by Margaret Thatcher, Bevir shows that New Labour represents a formidable response to the program of the New Right. Bevir's critical analysis thus testifies to the moral sincerity and political substance of New Labour—attributes that commentators and historians alike (not to mention critics on both left and right) still remain reluctant to acknowledge. New Labour: A Critique is a provocative and compelling contribution to intellectual and political history, as well as to politics and government.