This is a book aimed particularly at students in Social Administration and Social Work, but academics and students in other fields, and for that matter the general reader, will certainly benefit from reading it. It is an account of what the main pre-twentieth century European political theorists, from Plato to T.H. Green, had to say about welfare. By welfare is meant primarily the satisfaction of basic material needs, such as food and shelter, and the provision of education. The book is concerned both with what these thinkers had to say about the extent to which society should deal with these issues and with what they said about who should be responsible for this, whether it should be the state, the family, private charity, etc. It is also very concerned with why they said what they did, which involves some account both of the historical context and of their general philosophical or religious positions, including in particular their views on human nature and on the various groups within society: there is rightly a special emphasis on their views regarding the position of women. The thinkers covered include all the usual suspects – Plato, Aristotle, Augustine, Aquinas, Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, Smith, Paine, Marx, Engels, T.H.Green; the surprising omissions are the Utilitarians, notably Bentham and Mill. Also included are people from later antiquity, such as Cicero and Seneca; Christian figures, such as St Francis, More, Luther and Calvin; and the early feminists, such as Mary Astell, ‘Sophia’ and Mary Wollstonecraft.

The main thing to be said is that this is a very good book indeed. Some readers will profit from it more than others, but even those familiar with some of the material will learn from it. In the first place, it is accurate: given how correct the author is on thinkers known to me, I feel it is safe to infer that he is equally reliable on the others! It is analytical, and not simply descriptive: the identification of four key Christian virtues – faith, love, equality and obedience – from the writings of the New Testament is one example. It sets ideas in historical context and in the context of a thinker's general social, religious and philosophical views, thereby making the reasons the person held those views intelligible, even if we now disagree with them. But it also puts the ultimate emphasis in the right place, on what the thinkers had to say which is either true, or partly true, or at any rate useful and illuminating. As said above, it casts the net wider than do the standard histories of political or social thought, and brings in many people who were either influential or had significant things to say, or both. Above all, it is clear, detailed and interesting, excellently free from jargon and convoluted prose, and a pleasure to read. The author gives his aim as ‘enabling the reader to view contemporary issues in welfare in a historical perspective’. He succeeds both in that aim and in the complementary aim of showing the relevance today of the work of thinkers of the past.

Since interpretations are always disputable, and no human enterprise is perfect, I will end with two questions and two complaints. The first question is whether the author exaggerates the dispute over the satisfaction of basic needs, and whether it can seriously be denied that these are a top priority? Certainly some people have sacrificed themselves for religion or for freedom; and certainly many people have argued that the accumulation of wealth beyond what is needed is undesirable. But the great mass of people surely need food and shelter as a top priority, and cannot be free or religiously observant without them.

The second question concerns a reverse issue. The author argues at the very end of the book that ‘welfare capitalism, today, is seen by the main political parties of advanced industrial societies as both the only possible as well as the most desirable socio-economic system’. It may well be true that everyone now agrees that one has to have a mixed economy of some kind, But there are vast differences over what the mixture should be − admittedly most acute as between groups never likely to be in power, such as those on the right of the Republican party in the US and on the left of the Labour party in the UK, but appreciable even as between more moderate positions; after all, Keynes and Hayek, both of whom still have their followers, also both supported some kind of mixed economy! So there is a question whether the agreement is much more than verbal.

Of the two complaints, my first is ‘What, nothing on the Utilitarians?’ Maybe the author would claim that on welfare they had nothing to say which is not said by one or more of the other thinkers, but I am not yet convinced. My second complaint is with the publishers. This book should not just be published as a hardback at £70 for university libraries: it should also be a paperback at a price people can afford, available for example as a course text, in political theory courses as well as social administration ones. I hope this may yet happen!