The Good Society

Three books have borne this title – by JG Galbraith, Walter Lippman and David  

Donnison respectively. Unfortunately Donnison’s book (about urban development 

published in 1980) is unavailable for downloading.
The Good Society Walter Lippman (1936) is a rather unpleasant book glorifying 

the idea that planning leads to totalitarianism. Its only redeeming feature is that it 

follows the old tradition of taking 15 pages to set out its argument chapter by 

chapter. Galbraith’s The Good Society – the humane agenda (1996) is a much 

more positive book -

Among the great nations of the world none is more given to introspection than the United States. No day passes without reflective comment by the press, on radio or television, in an article or book, in compelled and sometimes compelling oratoryon what is wrong in the society and what could be improved. This is also, if in lesser measure, a preoccupation in the other industrial lands Britain, Canada, France, Germany, elsewhere in Europe and in Japan. No one can deplore this exercise; far better and far more informative such a search than the facile assumption that all is well. Before knowing what is right, one must know what is wrong.

There is, however, another, less traveled course of thought. That is to explore and define what, very specifically, would be right. Just what should the good society be? Toward what, stated as clearly as may be possible, should we aim? The tragic gap between the fortunate and the needful having been recognized, how, in a practical way, can it be closed? How can economic policy contribute to this end? What of the public services of the state; how can they be made more equitably and efficiently available? How can the environment, present and future, be protected? What of immigration, migration and migrants? What of the military power? What is the responsibility and course of action of the good society as regards its trading partners and neighbors in an increasingly internationalized world and as regards the poor of the planet? The responsibility for economic and social well-being is general, transnational. Human beings are human beings wherever they live.

Concern for their suffering from hunger, other deprivation and disease does not end because those so afflicted are on the other side of an international frontier. This is the case even though no elementary truth is so consistently ignored or, on occasion, so fervently assailed. To tell what would be right is the purpose of this book. It is clear at the outset that it will encounter a difficult problem, for a distinction must be made, a line drawn, between what might be perfect and what is achievable. This task and the result may not be politically popular and certainly not in a polity where, as I shall argue, the fortunate are now socially and politically dominant. To identify and urge the good and achievable society may well be a minority effort, but better that effort than none at all. Perhaps, at a minimum, the comfortable will be afflicted in a useful way. In any case, there is no chance for the better society unless the good and achievable society is clearly defined.

Another book with “good society” in its subtitle is Barry Knight’s Rethinking Poverty – what makes a good society? (2017) which reminds us that an unequal society is a bad one. This, of course, was first spelled out in Kate Pickett and Richard Wilkinson’s The Spirit Level which is summarised in their short paper “The Spirit Level 15 years On” – for my money, however, the better book is Danny Dorling’s Injustice – why social inequality still persists (2015)