The aim of this book is ‘to outline a variety of ideological perspectives on welfare and to consider how these ideas are reflected in a range of social policies’ (p. 1). This is a familiar aim, title and approach. It draws heavily on the path-breaking work of George and Wilding (Reference George and Wilding1976, 2nd edition, 1985, Reference George and Wilding1994). This work has been reprinted many times and became a central point of reference in the field. An updated version of this text is very welcome. Taylor updates the material, adds historical material, and a valuable expansion with respect to services. However, he does not pay sufficient dues to George and Wilding, with only a handful of citations to the Reference George and Wilding1994 publication.

George and Wilding (Reference George and Wilding1976) divided their material into the anti-collectivists (Hayek, Friedman, Powell, IEA), the reluctant collectivists (Beveridge, Keynes, Galbraith), Fabian socialists (Tawney, Crosland, Titmuss) and the Marxists (Miliband, Strachey, Laski). Within each chapter, they examined social values, society and the state, the role of government and the welfare state. The 1985 ‘completely revised, expanded and updated’ edition kept broadly the same structure but added a few different representatives. George and Wilding (Reference George and Wilding1994) contains chapters on the new right, the middle way, democratic socialism, Marxism, feminism and greenism. Each chapter contains sections on the development of the welfare state, attitudes towards the welfare state, welfare and the ideal society, and assessment.

Taylor has chapters on liberalism, conservatism, social democracy, neo-liberalism, third way, and radical critics – Marxism, feminism and greens. Within each chapter, there are sections on economy, social values, state and welfare, and welfare and social policies. There are a number of differences to the George and Wilding texts. First, Taylor updates the material. Second, he adds historical material. George and Wilding (Reference George and Wilding1976: vii) state ‘We have confined ourselves to the twentieth century and we have chosen people we considered were important and interesting and who, in some cases, are under-considered in traditional social administration literature.’ Taylor works backwards, adding material on earlier roots of the perspectives. Third, in addition to the UK, he adds some international material from the US, with ‘some reference’ to certain policies in other European states, Asia and New Zealand. Fourth, he expands the material on the welfare state, with more depth given to individual services.

George and Wilding (Reference George and Wilding1976: vii) recognised that ‘any choice of authors for a discussion such as this is open to criticism’. Similarly, Taylor admits that ‘the term Liberalism can be used in a variety of ways and can attract people with extremely different views’. Under classical liberalism, he discusses Adam Smith, Tom Paine, Herbert Spencer and the ‘ever-changing’ John Stuart Mill. Social liberalism is represented by T. H. Green, L. T. Hobhouse, John Maynard Keynes and John Rawls. A standard attribute of typologies is that intra-group variance should be less than inter-group variance. I am not certain that some representatives may be better placed in another existing or a different classification. For example, George and Wilding regard (the also ever-changing) Beveridge as a ‘reluctant collectivist’. Here he is a ‘social liberal’, but has only one index entry (pp. 21–2). This may be a little like viewing the British welfare state as Hamlet without the Prince. Names come thick and fast: for example, Edmund Burke, Marx, William Morris and Edward Carpenter (p. 3). Many students will need to phone a friend, consult an electronic friend, or will simply reproduce poorly understood material in essays. There is no citation of excellent studies to place writers in a wider context such as George and Page (Reference George and Page1995) and Deacon (Reference Deacon2002). Some readers might be surprised to see Harold Macmillan and Eisenhower, Nixon and George W. Bush all grouped as ‘Conservatives’. Social democrats include Tawney, Crosland (a revisonist?), Marshall (a liberal?) and Bevan (a democratic socialist?), but there is no reference to Titmuss and little on ‘Fabian socialists’ such as Shaw and the Webbs. There is little on Charles Murray, but is he a neo-liberal or a conservative? For neo-liberalism, there is little on the Institute of Economic Affairs, and while the preference for private renting under Thatcher (p. 79) is discussed, rent decontrol in 1950s under (Conservative) Macmillan is not mentioned. It is difficult to consider Marxism without Rudolf Klein's coruscating ‘O'Goffe's tale’. The chapter on the third way is a welcome update, but Will Hutton is surely more of a critic than an advocate, there is little mention of countries such as the Netherlands, and Gerhard Schroeder is seen only as Blair's co-author, not meriting an index entry. This section is also a little dated, focusing on ‘old New Labour’ with partnerships in health care rather than Foundation Trusts, PFI, consumerism, pluralism and diversity.

It is, of course, easy to quibble about whether A should be mentioned, or whether B should be in section Y or Z. However, this relates to more fundamental problems of frameworks and trying to place quarts into pint pots. First, the book required a clearer conceptual template justifying and comparing perspectives (e.g. on the basis of different models such as Titmuss). Similarly, some material on the policy process would have been useful. Material on the ‘ideational turn’ might have shown how ideas from ‘academic scribblers’ in Keynes' words feed into policy. Second, George and Wilding originally covered four perspectives and the UK in a text of some 140 pages of text, rising to six perspectives in about 200 pages. Taylor attempts to cover eight perspectives in an international context, with historical material in 160 pages. Within the space constraints, Taylor does a very good job. He summarises a huge amount of diverse and complex material, and provides a useful discussion on different views of welfare states – limited, mediating, egalitarian, illusory – in a concluding chapter (pp. 155–7), but more depth was needed here as elsewhere. The author (or the publisher) was too ambitious in attempting to cover too much in limited space, resulting in a densely packed, brief, thin and at times unclear account. Although there is a great need for such a text, it must be seen as a missed opportunity.