DOCSLIB.ORG

Strengthening Employee Share Ownership in the UK

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Strengthening Employee Share Ownership in the UK Strengthening employee share ownership in the UK Scott Corfe James Kirkup SOCIAL MARKET FOUNDATION FIRST PUBLISHED BY The Social Market Foundation, February 2020 11 Tufton Street, London SW1P 3QB Copyright © The Social Market Foundation, 2020 ISBN: 978-1-910683-83-5 The moral right of the author(s) has been asserted. All rights reserved. Without limiting the rights under copyright reserved above, no part of this publication may be reproduced, stored or introduced into a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means (electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise), without the prior written permission of both the copyright owner and the publisher of this book. THE SOCIAL MARKET FOUNDATION The Foundation’s main activity is to commission and publish original papers by independent academic and other experts on key topics in the economic and social fields, with a view to stimulating public discussion on the performance of markets and the social framework within which they operate. The Foundation is a registered charity and a company limited by guarantee. It is independent of any political party or group and is funded predominantly through sponsorship of research and public policy debates. The views expressed in this publication are those of the author, and these do not necessarily reflect the views of the Social Market Foundation. CHAIR DIRECTOR Mary Ann Sieghart James Kirkup TRUSTEES Baroness Grender MBE Nicola Horlick Tom Ebbutt Rt Hon Dame Margaret Hodge MP Peter Readman Melville Rodrigues Trevor Phillips OBE Professor Tim Bale KINDLY SUPPORTED BY This report was funded by the Investment Association. 2 STRENGTHENING EMPLOYEE SHARE OWNERSHIP IN THE UK ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The SMF is grateful to the Investment Association for sponsoring this research project. The views in the report do not necessarily reflect those of the Investment Association. The Social Market Foundation retains full editorial independence with respect to its research. The authors are grateful to all those who participated in the two roundtable discussions held as part of the work. The SMF is grateful to all current and former members of staff, with particular thanks to Nicole Gicheva. ABOUT THE SOCIAL MARKET FOUNDATION The Foundation’s main activity is to commission and publish original papers by independent academic and other experts on key topics in the economic and social fields, with a view to stimulating public discussion on the performance of markets and the social framework within which they operate. The Foundation is a registered charity and a company limited by guarantee. It is independent of any political party or group and is funded predominantly through sponsorship of research and public policy debates. The views expressed in this publication are those of the author, and these do not necessarily reflect the views of the sponsors or the Social Market Foundation. ABOUT THE AUTHOR Scott Corfe Scott Corfe is the Research Director of the SMF, he joined in June 2017 as Chief Economist. Before joining, he was Head of Macroeconomics and a Director at the economics consultancy Cebr, where he led much of the consultancy’s thought leadership and public policy research. His expert insights are frequently sought after in publications including the Financial Times, the Sunday Times, the Guardian and the Daily Telegraph. Scott has appeared on BBC News, Sky News, Radio 4 and a range of other broadcast media. Scott was voted one of the top three forecasters of UK GDP by Focus Economics in 2016. 3 SOCIAL MARKET FOUNDATION CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................. 5 CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................11 CHAPTER 2: EVALUATING THE POTENTIAL OF EMPLOYEE SHARE OWNERSHIP ......................... 15 CHAPTER 3: THE STATE OF EMPLOYEE SHARE OWNERSHIP .................................................... 23 CHAPTER 4: INTERNATIONAL EMPLOYEE SHARE OWNERSHIP PRACTICES ............................... 32 CHAPTER 5: THE EMPLOYEE SHARE OWNERSHIP POLICY LANDSCAPE IN THE UK .................... 36 CHAPTER 6: INCENTIVISING EMPLOYEE SHARE OWNERSHIP ................................................... 46 ENDNOTES ............................................................................................................................ 55 4 STRENGTHENING EMPLOYEE SHARE OWNERSHIP IN THE UK EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report analyses the scope to promote wider individual employee share ownership in the UK, and the potential benefits of doing so. The report assesses the potential for employee share ownership to reduce inequality, tackle the UK economy’s productivity crisis, improve financial resilience and increase employee voice within companies. The importance of employee share ownership There is a growing literature in support of the view that that employee ownership often enhances long-term productivity and performance within companies; improves employee engagement and commitment; incentivises investment in staff and acts as a tool to retain workers; and could contribute to the financial resilience of employees. Financial inequality and sluggish UK-wide productivity growth are two of the most-discussed economic issues of our age, and employee share ownership offers potential to help tackle both of these. Furthermore, evidence suggests that employee ownership is viewed positively by the wider public and politicians alike. A survey of 1,000 listed company employees, commissioned as part of this research, found that: • 68% said that they like the idea of holding shares in the company that they work for. • 60% believe that employee shares/options would incentivise them to stay with their employer for longer than originally intended. • 58% agreed that share ownership would/does make them “more motivated to do well in my job”. This suggests that employee share ownership could improve workforce productivity. • 56% said that employee share ownership would make them more interested in other types of investment – suggesting that it can encourage individuals to engage more with savings and investment products. • 46% of those surveyed that held employee shares/options said that they did so because they expect shares to increase in value in the future. 42% said they did so as another way to save/earn money, and 36% said they held shares to benefit from dividend payments. Expanding employee share ownership could generate significant financial returns to UK households, especially given the context of individuals currently holding excessive savings in current accounts and low-return instant access savings accounts. SMF research from 2017 showed that savers effectively lost around £8 billion in savings over the past five years due to holding savings in accounts where returns trailed behind inflation.1 In contrast, share ownership over the long-term has offered inflation-beating returns. The FTSE All Share Index has increased by on average of 3.6% per annum since 1997 (according to London Stock Exchange statistics). In addition to these capital gains, shareholders receive dividend income; data from the end of 2018 show a dividend yield of 4.5% for the FTSE All-Share. 2 Suppose a UK employee held a relatively modest £1,000 worth of employee shares i, and these increased in value by 3.6% per annum (as per the average of the FTSE All Share since 1997), with i The current median value of employee shares held is £5,000. We use a lower figure here to provide some conservative estimates of the benefits of broader employee share ownership. 5 SOCIAL MARKET FOUNDATION a dividend yield of 4.5%. This would generate a gross return of about 50% (£500) over a five- year period, if dividend income is reinvested in shares. Even after taking into account inflation of 2% per annum, this still leaves a healthy real return of 34% - that is 6% per year. Further, employee gains might be magnified if higher levels of engagement and productivity (through increase sense of involvement in the company) translate into higher rates of base pay. Low rates of employee share ownership despite benefits Despite these benefits and positive opinions, employee share ownership rates across the country are low. In the period 2014 – 2016, just 3.6% of the UK adult population (or approximately 1.9 million people aged 16 and over) held some form of employee shares. In part, this reflects the limited number of companies currently offering employee share ownership schemes at present; just over 13,000 companies in the UK operate some form of tax-incentivised employee share ownership plan. This is out of a total of 1.4 million private sector enterprises with at least one employee. People who were of working age were more likely to have employee shares than individuals who were over the State Pension threshold (4.2% versus 1.8%, respectively). Cost appears to be a significant barrier to wider rates of employee share ownership among UK households. According to the survey commissioned as part of this study, 38% of listed company employees that had been offered shares/options declined them because of a lack of spare income to purchase shares. This was the most commonly-cited reason for not holding shares, followed by concerns about shares declining in value (31%) and not being interested in participating (24%). Research by Oxera found that larger companies (by employees, turnover and capital) are more likely to offer employee share ownership –
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Which Way Now? Economic Policy After a Decade of Upheaval
    CAGE POLICY REPORT Which way now? Economic policy after a decade of upheaval A CAGE Policy Report Editor: Vera E. Troeger Production Editor: Diana Egerton-Warburton Foreword: Lord O’Donnell 1 Which way now? Economic policy after a decade of upheaval A CAGE Policy Report Editor: Vera E. Troeger Production Editor: Diana Egerton-Warburton Foreword: Lord O’Donnell Centre for Competitive Advantage in the Global Economy The University of Warwick, Coventry, CV4 7AL, UK SOCIAL MARKET FOUNDATION FIRST PUBLISHED BY The Social Market Foundation, February 2019 ISBN: 978-1-910683-41-5 11 Tufton Street, London SW1P 3QB Copyright © The Social Market Foundation, 2019 The moral right of the author(s) has been asserted. All rights reserved. Without limiting the rights under copyright reserved above, no part of this publication may be reproduced, stored or introduced into a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means (electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise), without the prior written permission of both the copyright owner and the publisher of this book. THE SOCIAL MARKET FOUNDATION The Foundation’s main activity is to commission and publish original papers by independent academic and other experts on key topics in economic and social fields, with a view to stimulating public discussion on the performance of markets and the social framework within which they operate. The Foundation is a registered charity and a company limited by guarantee. It is independent of any political party and is funded predominately through sponsorship of research and public policy debates. The views expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the ESRC or the Social Market Foundation.
    [Show full text]
  • REGISTER of MEMBERS' INTERESTS As at 26 March 2007
    March 2007 Edition REGISTER OF MEMBERS’ INTERESTS as at 26 March 2007 Presented pursuant to the Resolutions of 22nd May 1974, 28th June 1993, 6th November 1995 and 14th May 2002 Ordered by The House of Commons to be printed 28 March 2007 PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY OF THE HOUSE OF COMMONS LONDON – THE STATIONERY OFFICE LIMITED 436 REGISTER OF MEMBERS’ INTERESTS INTRODUCTION TO THE MARCH 2007 EDITION This edition of the Register of Members’ Interests is the second to be published for the parliament elected in May 2005, and is up to date as at 26 March 2007. The Register was set up following a Resolution of the House of 22 May 1974. The maintenance of the Register is one of the principal duties laid on the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards by House of Commons Standing Order No. 150. The purpose of the Register is to encourage transparency, and through transparency, accountability. It is “to provide information of any pecuniary interest or other material benefit which a Member receives which might reasonably be thought by others to influence his or her actions, speeches or votes in Parliament, or actions taken in the capacity of a Member of Parliament”1. The Register is not intended to be an indicator of a Member’s personal wealth; nor is registration of an interest in any way an indication that a Member is at fault. Transparency is also promoted by the obligation on Members to declare in debates or proceedings of the House and dealings with other Members, Ministers or Crown servants, all pecuniary interests or benefits of whatever nature, including indirect, past and future interests, which are relevant to the business in hand2.
    [Show full text]
  • Labour Parties Ideas Transfer and Ideological Positioning: Australia and Britain Compared B.M
    Labour parties ideas transfer and ideological positioning: Australia and Britain compared B.M. Edwards & Matt Beech School of Humanities and Social Sciences, The University of New South Wales, Canberra School of Politics, Philosophy and International Studies, University of Hull, UK As part of this special issue examining policy transfer between the Labour Parties in Australia and Britain, this paper seeks to explore the relationship between the two on ideological positioning. In the 1990s there was substantial ideas transfer from the Australian Hawke‐ Keating government to Blair ‘New Labour’ in Britain, as both parties made a lunge towards the economic centre. This paper analyses how the inheritors of that shift, the Rudd/Gillard government in Australia and the Milliband and Corbyn leaderships in Britain, are seeking to define the role and purpose of labour parties in its wake. It examines the extent to which they are learning and borrowing from one another, and finds that a combination of divergent economic and political contexts have led to strikingly limited contemporary policy transfer. Keywords: Australian Labor Party; British Labour Party; Kevin Rudd; Julia Gillard; Ed Miliband; crisis In the 1990s there was substantial policy transfer between the Australian Labor Party and the Labour Party in Britain as they confronted the rise of neoliberalism. The ALP was in power from 1983‐1996 and introduced far reaching market liberalisation reforms complemented by a strengthened safety net. Due to the economic reforms of Thatcherism, Labour in Britain also remade itself to be more pro‐market, drawing considerably on policies of the ALP (Pierson and Castles, 2002).
    [Show full text]
  • Plutocracy: the Marketising of ‘Equality’ Within Neoliberalism
    City Research Online City, University of London Institutional Repository Citation: Littler, J. (2013). Meritocracy as plutocracy: the marketising of ‘equality’ within neoliberalism. New Formations: a journal of culture/theory/politics, 80-81, pp. 52-72. doi: 10.3898/NewF.80/81.03.2013 This is the published version of the paper. This version of the publication may differ from the final published version. Permanent repository link: https://openaccess.city.ac.uk/id/eprint/4167/ Link to published version: http://dx.doi.org/10.3898/NewF.80/81.03.2013 Copyright: City Research Online aims to make research outputs of City, University of London available to a wider audience. Copyright and Moral Rights remain with the author(s) and/or copyright holders. URLs from City Research Online may be freely distributed and linked to. Reuse: Copies of full items can be used for personal research or study, educational, or not-for-profit purposes without prior permission or charge. Provided that the authors, title and full bibliographic details are credited, a hyperlink and/or URL is given for the original metadata page and the content is not changed in any way. City Research Online: http://openaccess.city.ac.uk/ publications@city.ac.uk MERITOCRACY AS PLUTOCRACY: THE MARKETISING OF ‘EQUALITY’ UNDER NEOLIBERALISM Jo Littler Abstract Meritocracy, in contemporary parlance, refers to the idea that whatever our social position at birth, society ought to facilitate the means for ‘talent’ to ‘rise to the top’. This article argues that the ideology of ‘meritocracy’ has become a key means through which plutocracy is endorsed by stealth within contemporary neoliberal culture.
    [Show full text]
  • Peter Hitchens on Whether the European Argues That Great Britain the Union Has Changed Britain Is a Nation in Decline Progressive Conscience
    DAMIAN GREEN MP PETER HITCHENS on whether the European argues that Great Britain The Union has changed Britain is a nation in decline Progressive Conscience From Global Empire to the Global Race: modern Britishness john redwood mp | professor tim bale | daniel hannan mep | stephen crabb mp Contents 03 Editor’s introduction 18 Daniel Hannan: To define Contributors James Brenton Britain, look to its institutions PROF TIM BALE holds the Chair James Brenton politics in Politics at Queen Mary 20 Is Britain still Great? University of London 04 Director’s note JAMES BRENTON is the editor of Peter Hitchens and Ryan Shorthouse Ryan Shorthouse The Progressive Conscience 23 Painting a picture of Britain NICK CATER is Director of 05 Why I’m a Bright Blue MP the Menzies Research Centre Alan Davey George Freeman MP in Australia 24 What’s the problem with STEPHEN CRABB MP is Secretary 06 Replastering the cracks in the North of State for Wales promoting British values? Professor Tim Bale ROSS CYPHER-BURLEY was Michael Hand Spokesman to the British 07 Time for an English parliament Embassy in Tel Aviv 25 Multiple loyalties are easy John Redwood MP ALAN DAVEY is the departing Damian Green MP Arts Council Chief Executive 08 Britain after the referendum WILL EMKES is a writer 26 Influence in the Middle East Rupert Myers GEORGE FREEMAN MP is the Ross Cypher-Burley Minister for Life Sciences 09 Patriotism and Wales DR ROBERT FORD lectures at 27 Winning friends in India Stephen Crabb MP the University of Manchester Emran Mian DAMIAN GREEN MP is the 10 Unionism
    [Show full text]
  • Michael Johnson
    Pointmaker COSTLY AND INEFFECTIVE WHY PENSION TAX RELIEFS SHOULD BE REFORMED MICHAEL JOHNSON SUMMARY Today’s incentives to save for retirement are These tax incentives are clearly flawed: essentially financial. They comprise: they are crude and mis-directed tax relief on contributions (cost: £26.1 (primarily towards the wealthy) billion in 2010-11) they lack any emotional resonance and a tax-exempt 25% lump sum at they do little to encourage a savings retirement (£2.5 bn) culture amongst younger workers. NICs relief on employer contributions The savings incentives framework should (£13 bn) and be radically realigned. This paper’s nine tax relief on investment income (£6.8 bn). proposals are listed overleaf, and include: combining the annual contribution limits Over the last decade, relief on income tax for ISAs and tax-relieved pension saving and NICs has totalled £358.6 billion, into a single limit of between £30,000 and (excluding tax foregone on the tax-exempt £40,000 (saving between £1.8 bn and 25% lump sum). £600 mn annually, respectively). The full Over the same decade, the Treasury’s cost of limit should be available for ISA saving; funding tax relief (i.e. the yield on gilts) shelving higher rate tax relief, thereby averaged a real 3.9% per annum, yet the saving £7 billion annually but, as a partial average real annual return on all UK pension quid pro quo, reinstating the 10p tax funds was a paltry 2.9%, i.e. 1% per annum rebate on pension assets’ dividends and less. Thus, the return on the Treasury’s co- interest income, at a cost of roughly £4 investment with people saving for retirement, billion per year; and through the medium of tax relief, has been replacing the 25% tax-free lump sum negative £17.5 billion.
    [Show full text]
  • US Investors Continue to Pick London
    BUSINESS WITH PERSONALITY LISTEN UP SAJID NAUGHTY OR NICE? WE JAVID PUTS HIS RATE THE BIG BUDGET PARTY’S PITCH TO CHRISTMAS ADS P22–23 THE CITY P15 MONDAY 18 NOVEMBER 2019 ISSUE 3,502 CITYAM.COM FREE AFTER LABOUR’S NATIONALISATION PLANS FOR WATER, RAIL, ENERGY AND BROADBAND, A NERVOUS CITY ASKS... US investors continue to pick London JAMES WARRINGTON @j_a_warrington US VENTURE capital firms have pumped record amounts WH0’S NEXT? of money into London and UK companies this year as flourishing fintech firms continue to charm investors, new data has revealed. American investors have been involved in $4.4bn (£3.4bn) worth of deals into UK firms so far in 2019, with London businesses accounting for more than three-quarters of the investment, according to research from Pitchbook and London & Partners. City fintech darling Monzo attracted one of the largest cash injections of the year, pulling in $144m in a series F round led by Silicon Valley investment mainstay and promiment startup accelerator Y Combinator. UK data privacy firm Onetrust bagged a bumper STEFAN BOSCIA Labour’s nationalisation proposals He will confirm plans to cut business want now — and have wanted for some $200m series A round led by would “freeze investment”, she added, rates, reduce national insurance time — is certainty.” New York investor Insight @StefanBoscia saying the party did not seem to “value contributions for 500,000 employers and Labour leader Corbyn and Lib Dem Partners, while cybersecurity THE HEAD of Britain’s biggest business (any) of the contribution that business increase the scope of research and supremo Jo Swinson will also address company Snyk raised $70m group warned yesterday that Jeremy makes”.
    [Show full text]
  • Give and Take: How Conservatives Think About Welfare
    How conservatives think about w elfare Ryan Shorthouse and David Kirkby GIVE AND TAKE How conservatives think about welfare Ryan Shorthouse and David Kirkby The moral right of the authors has been asserted. All rights reserved. Without limiting the rights under copyright reserved above, no part of this publication may be reproduced, stored or introduced into a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means (electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise), without the prior written permission of both the copyright owner and the publisher of this book. Bright Blue is an independent think tank and pressure group for liberal conservatism. Bright Blue takes complete responsibility for the views expressed in this publication, and these do not necessarily reflect the views of the sponsors. Director: Ryan Shorthouse Chair: Matthew d’Ancona Members of the board: Diane Banks, Philip Clarke, Alexandra Jezeph, Rachel Johnson First published in Great Britain in 2014 by Bright Blue Campaign ISBN: 978-1-911128-02-1 www.brightblue.org.uk Copyright © Bright Blue Campaign, 2014 Contents About the authors 4 Acknowledgements 5 Executive summary 6 1 Introduction 19 2 Methodology 29 3 How conservatives think about benefit claimants 34 4 How conservatives think about the purpose of welfare 53 5 How conservatives think about the sources of welfare 66 6 Variation amongst conservatives 81 7 Policies to improve the welfare system 96 Annex one: Roundtable attendee list 112 Annex two: Polling questions 113 Annex three: Questions and metrics used for social and economic conservative classification 121 About the authors Ryan Shorthouse Ryan is the Founder and Director of Bright Blue.
    [Show full text]
  • Think Tanks, Television News and Impartiality
    Journalism Studies ISSN: 1461-670X (Print) 1469-9699 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rjos20 Think Tanks, Television News and Impartiality Justin Lewis & Stephen Cushion To cite this article: Justin Lewis & Stephen Cushion (2017): Think Tanks, Television News and Impartiality, Journalism Studies, DOI: 10.1080/1461670X.2017.1389295 To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/1461670X.2017.1389295 © 2017 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group Published online: 26 Oct 2017. Submit your article to this journal Article views: 605 View related articles View Crossmark data Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rjos20 THINK TANKS, TELEVISION NEWS AND IMPARTIALITY The ideological balance of sources in BBC programming Justin Lewis and Stephen Cushion Is the use of think tanks ideologically balanced in BBC news and current affairs programming? This study answers this question empirically by establishing which think tanks are referenced in different BBC programming in 2009 and 2015, and then classifying them according to their ideological aims (either left, right, centrist or non-partisan). We draw on a sample size of over 30,000 BBC news and current affairs programmes in 2009 and 2015 to measure how often these think tanks were men- tioned or quoted. Overall, BBC news reveals a clear preference for non-partisan or centrist think tanks. However, when the Labour Party was in power in 2009, left and right-leaning think tanks received similar levels of coverage, but in 2015, when the Conservative Party was in government, right-leaning think tanks outnumbered left-leaning think tanks by around two to one.
    [Show full text]
  • A Verifiable Success
    A Verifiable Success A Verifiable Success A Verifiable Success The future of identity in the UK Identity verification processes in the UK have not fully The future of identity in the UK kept up with either technological or social change. The future of identity in the UK The rise of e-commerce, online banking and social media has increased the necessity of being able to prove your identity online. Yet physical passports, driving licences and utility bills are not easily used on the internet. Around the world, forward-looking countries are embracing the opportunities offered by digital identity Scott Corfe authentication and verification. Estonia’s e-ID enables digital signatures, public service access and even internet voting for general elections. The UAE now has a smartphone “passport app”. The UK Government is also making it easier to verify identity online with the GOV.UK Verify service. This report examines the future of ID in the UK and shows how further developments can radically improve the way individuals access public services, engage in e-commerce and even travel overseas. The benefits of innovation are significant, including reduced risk of fraud, lower costs for government and much greater convenience for individuals. A world of “paperless passports” may not be very far away. Kindly supported by A Verifiable Success The future of identity in the UK Scott Corfe Kindly sponsored by: FIRST PUBLISHED BY The Social Market Foundation, August 2017 ISBN: 978-1-910683-29-3 11 Tufton Street, London SW1P 3QB Copyright © The Social Market Foundation, 2017 The moral right of the authors has been asserted.
    [Show full text]
  • June 1999 European Elections Part II the Fundamental Problem with The
    Chapter Five Nationhood and Strategy, June 1997 - June 1999 European Elections Part II The fundamental problem with the Conservative Party is that it doesn't have a strategy - and hasn't had one for at least four years and arguably for the best part of a decade (Cooper and Finkelstein, 1998, p.1). 5.1 Introduction This chapter will continue to examine the first half of Hague's tenure as Leader of the Conservative Party but focuses on the development of the party's European policy and the creation and implementation of its first formal strategy initiative, 'Kitchen Table Conservativism' (KTC).2o It will analyse Hague's goals, his approach towards the politics of nationhood and whether the leadership were united in support for that approach and the strategy. Hague used the issue of Europe to demonstrate that the party had moved on from the Major years by apologising for the ERM debacle and he also halted the domination of the issue by imposing a clear policy which was consolidated by the support of the membership, demonstrated by an internal ballot. Hague appealed to the Britishness of the electorate, claiming that the Conservatives were the only party seeking to protect British identity, nationhood and prosperity in the face of European integration. Hague adopted KTC simply because the party required a strategy. Neither the Shadow Cabinet nor Hague engaged with the strategy and it was abandoned when it failed to yield positive results. 20 The paper 'Kitchen Table Conservatives' which led to the KTC strategy was quickly supplemented with 'Conceding and Moving On' (CMO) and both papers together will be taken to constitute the basis of KTC.
    [Show full text]
  • Adam Smith and the Modern Left Introduction
    Adam Smith and the modern Left Lecture delivered at MZES/Facultät Kolloquium University of Mannheim, 15.06.2005 Iain McLean, Oxford University Iain.mclean@nuf.ox.ac.uk Introduction This lecture is in seven parts. Section 1 explains why I regard the question of Adam Smith and the modern Left as interesting and topical. Sections 2 and 3 provide background on Adam Smith and the Scotland of his time. I argue that most Smith commentators have ignored the huge cultural and political differences between 18th- century Scotland and England; those who are aware of them tend not to draw out the implications for Adam Smith and his social science. Section 3 explores the consequences for Smith and David Hume of living under a weak state and a weak church. Section 4 explains why I regard Smith’s The Theory of Moral Sentiments (1759; substantially revised 6th edition 1790) as one of the most radically egalitarian works of philosophy up to that date. Section 5, likewise, draws attention to the egalitarian assumptions and implications of Smith’s Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations (1776). Among other things, I argue that we need to pay attention to the full title of the book, not merely to its conventional abbreviation. Section 6 introduces the famous ‘Adam Smith-Problem’, so named because of the work of various 19th-century German writers who believed they had found a fundamental inconsistency between TMS and WN.1 Like both Gordon Brown and Smith’s Glasgow editors, I believe that the Adam Smith-Problem is a pseudo-problem and a distraction; but as some scholars continue to argue the contrary, I must make my case.
    [Show full text]