Self goes on to distinguish between ‘negative liberalism’, which is critical of all forms of collective action, and ‘positive liberalism’, which gives much more emphasis to the importance of sustaining bonds of sympathy and loyalty between members of a community. Such bonds are necessary to support civil institutions and, hence, a socially accepted framework within which markets can work. He not only draws on T. H. Green, J. A. Hobson and L. T. Hobhouse but also argues that the founders of modern liberalism—John Locke and Adam Smith—were much nearer this positive version of liberalism than modern market fanatics. These pioneers recognised the importance of social cohesion and of limits to inequality. Modern marketeers may be destroying the civil institutions that markets require to operate effectively—family and community, as well as national and local democracy. This section of the book is the most interesting and convincing.

Self then has a chapter on the erosion of welfare and the modern quest for minimum government. This is less convincing. It encompasses an attack on economic growth and on privatisation. The attack on growth and its dangers for the environment has been better done elsewhere. The attack on privatisation is too general. It has meant different things in different countries and the results vary from sector to sector. National governments have not been good at delivering services like air transport or gas or telecommunications. They found it difficult to create efficient pricing structures or affordable investment strategies. There is certainly place for a careful look at the balance sheet of privatisation now that the dust has settled, but this book does not attempt it.

Similarly, where he touches on markets for social services he has nothing new to say. Yet they are, perhaps, the most interesting case. There is a great deal of research now under way on the impact of quasi-markets in health, education and personal social services. Quasi-markets have been implemented differently in different countries. They have been more successful with some services and less so with others. There is substantial empirical work emerging which could have been considered. But almost none of it is referenced by Self, and what references there are somewhat dated.

One of the interesting points made by Julian Le Grand (Health Affairs, June 1999) is that whatever the theoretical merits for quasi-markets, public servants are not particularly good at becoming market entrepreneurs. There were exceptions in the National Health Service; GPs—essentially small business people—did approach the changes differently and to some effect. There have been problems with the structure of financial incentives that faced institutions like schools and hospitals. This could be put right. In short, the experiment with markets in public administration is a more complex story than the one Self presents in what is a particularly disappointing part of the book.

Self is on better ground dealing with the environmental issues which were his lifetime interest. Here, however, there is not a lot that is new and he doesn’t discuss at all seriously the potential for harnessing the market to deliver environmental objectives. Perhaps this is the most promising contribution that economics has made to environmental policy—pollution taxes or congestion charges, for example.

Ultimately, despite his grave reservations about the capitalist system on environmental and moral grounds, Self ends up seeking to reform it. He would have wanted to widen the ownership of wealth, extend the range of stakeholders who could influence modern economies and tax the land values created by social action. He wanted to include local communities more in the decisions that affected them. Many, including myself, would agree with all of that without being as dismissive of markets as a means of achieving social purposes.

This was Peter Self’s last book, completed just before he died. It will appeal to modern positive liberals concerned that market principles have been taken too far. I doubt it will be seen as his major contribution. His earlier work on town planning and his fierce attacks on economists’ attempts to rule the world of decision-making through cost–benefit analysis will probably last better. This is a balanced and coherent view of the world which many will end up agreeing with. But it does not deal with government failure or discuss how such legitimate criticisms of public action could be addressed most efficiently.

Peter Self was an engaging, wry and amusing commentator on public affairs as well as a warm human being. He was out of tune with the attacks on the public service ethic of the past two decades. He believed in the virtues of the messy world of political debate rather than the apparent certainties of the econocrat. Those qualities and points of view are in evidence in this final contribution he made.