Equalisation and civic duty in Keynesian social democracy

Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to analyse Charles Anthony Raven Crosland and Thomas Humphrey Marshall’s respective theories of equalisation and civic duty, and assesses the ethical criticisms made against these theories. Many of the ethical criticisms levelled against Crosland and Marshall argue that their theories focused exclusively on equalisation and social rights. In taking a morally neutral position, they neglected the duties that should be performed by citizens. This paper assesses the force of these ethical criticisms. Design/methodology/approach - The paper begins by identifying the cardinal points of Crosland and Marshall’s theories of equalisation and the duties that should be performed by citizens. The author ask whether it is reasonable to conclude that they took morally neutral positions and neglected these duties. The author then explore and assess the critique levied against Crosland and Marshall. Findings - Crosland took a passive stance on the intervention of the government in civic morality and did not develop a discussion of the duties that ought to be performed by citizens. Thus, in some respects, he cannot avoid the ethical criticism that he took a morally neutral position and neglected civic duty. Marshall did not discuss only equalisation and social rights, but also considered the duties that ought to be performed by citizens. Consequently, it is concluded that the ethical criticism of his theory is not valid. Originality/value - The paper makes an original contribution in the understanding of three areas: Crosland’s moral neutrality, Marshall’s discussion on civic duty, and the ethical criticism of Keynesian social democracy.