In further examining the relations between ministers and their official advisers, this history explores the growing influence of economists in Whitehall."--Jacket.

This authoritative history of the Treasury provides a new perspective on public policy-making in the twentieth century as it explores the role and functions of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the consequent implications for the changing role of the Treasury. As the central department in British government, the Treasury plays a key role in decisions on public expenditure, and on raising taxes and loans. Professor Peden traces the development of the Treasury's responsibility for managing the national economy and looks at how it became increasingly involved in international relations from the time of the First World War. In further examining the relations between ministers and their official advisers, this history explores the growing influence of economists in Whitehall.

This pamphlet studies the debate between John Maynard Keynes and the Treasury from 1919-1946, and discusses the implications of recent research. The traditional picture of Keynes as a Cassandra with the right solutions to unemployment and inflation has been challenged both by new documentary evidence and by economic historians using quantitative methods. Problems in the managed economy since the 1970's have also cast an undeserved shadow on Keynes's reputation. His ideas, and those of the Treasury, can now be looked at in historical perspective.

The relationship between the British government and the City of London has become central to debates on modern British economic, political and social life. For some the City's financial and commercial interests have exercised a dominant influence over government economic policy, creating a preoccupation with international markets and the strength of sterling which impaired domestic industrial and social well-being. Others have argued that government seriously constricted financial markets, jeopardising Britain's most successful economic sector. This collection of essays was the first book to address these issues over the entire twentieth century. It brings together leading financial and political historians to assess the government-City relationship from several directions and by examination of key episodes. As such, it will be indispensable not just for the study of modern British politics and finance, but also for assessment of the worldwide problem of tensions between national governments and international financial centres.

Nobody doubts that politicians ought to fulfil their promises – what people cannot agree about is what this means in practice. The purpose of this book is to explore this issue through a series of case studies. It shows how the British model of politics has changed since the early twentieth century when electioneering was based on the articulation of principles which, it was expected, might well be adapted once the party or politician that promoted them took office. Thereafter manifestos became increasingly central to electoral politics and to the practice of governing, and this has been especially the case since 1945. Parties were now expected to outline in detail what they would do in office and explain how the policies would be paid for. Brexit has complicated this process, with the ‘will of the people’ as supposedly expressed in the 2016 referendum result clashing with the conventional role of the election manifesto as offering a mandate for action.

This title was first published in 2002: There are few students of European economic history who will not have come across the writings of Derek H. Aldcroft. His contributions to the field of economic and social history are vast and distinguish him as one of the most prolific economic historians of the 20th century. This volume honours Derek's contribution to the literature of economic and social history and its contents reflect his wide-ranging interests, particularly on issues relating to transport history and the growth and structural change in economies. From transport in the Industrial Revolution to late 20th-century international financial architecture, the essays in this book, contributed by leading economic historians, are a tribute to a remarkable scholar.

This volume identifies and compares 'fiscal squeezes' (major efforts to cut public spending and/or raise taxes) in the UK over a century from 1900 to 2015. The authors examine how different the politics of fiscal squeeze and austerity is today from what it was a century ago, how (if at all) fiscal squeezes reshaped the state and the provision of public services, and how political credit and blame played out after austerity episodes. The analysis is both quantitative and qualitative, starting with reported financial outcomes from historical statistics and then going behind those numbers to explore the political choices and processes in play. This analysis identifies some patterns that have not been explained or even recognized in earlier works on retrenchment and austerity. For example, it identifies a long term shift from what it terms a 'surgery without anaesthetics' approach (deep but short-lived episodes of spending restraint or tax increases) in the earlier part of the period towards a 'boiling frogs' approach (episodes in which the pain is spread out over a longer period) in more recent decades. It also identifies a curious reduction of revenue-led squeezes in more recent decades, and a puzzle over why blame-avoidance logic only led to outsourcing painful decisions over squeeze in a minority of cases. Furthermore, the volume's distinctive approach to classifying types of fiscal squeezes and qualitatively assessing their intensity seeks to solve the puzzle as to why voter'punishment' of governments that impose austerity policies seems to be so erratic.