William Beveridge’s “mock trial of economists”

  • David M. LevyEmail author
  • Sandra J. Peart


The 1933 Mock Trial of Economists is occasionally noticed and then interpreted as a representation of popular discontent with the economists’ “crime” of “conspiracy to spread mental fog.” William Beveridge’s papers in the London School of Economics archives contain the written record of the performed composition and an unperformed frame for the Trial. Both are reproduced below. The performance singles out J. M. Keynes for his changing points of view. The unperformed frame provides evidence of Beveridge’s defense of diverse viewpoints in light of his worries about totalitarian repression. Long after he had left LSE, F. A. Hayek called attention to Beveridge’s worries about the fate of multiple viewpoints under socialism.


Beveridge J. M. Keynes F. A. Hayek-Mock trial Brainwashing Experts 

JEL codes

B2 B3 P5 Z1 



First and foremost, we are grateful to the rights holders, including the London School of Economics Archives and the daughters of A. R. “Pat” Adams, for permissions to reproduce. Without their generosity there would be no paper. Susan Howson told us about the Adams caricatures. An earlier version was presented at the 2011 meeting of the Summer Institute for the Preservation of the History of Economics where we benefited from the discussion. We are responsible for remaining mistakes, including those of transcription. Jane Perry helped to reduce those and provided valuable editorial assistance. We thank Peter Boettke for his encouragement to think of the Mock Trial as the first “rap video.” Finally we thank the RAE reader for suggesting we explain the link to F. A. Hayek.



  1. London School of Economics. (1933) William Beveridge Collection, V 13 # 41: The Mock Trial of the Economists June 13, 1933.Google Scholar
  2. London School of Economics. n.d. [R. A. “Pat” Adams Collection.] LSE History Project Photographs / 16.Google Scholar

Published works

  1. Beveridge, W. (1936). Soviet Communism. The Political Quarterly, 7, 346–367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Beveridge, W. (1953). Power and influence. London: Hodder and Stoughton.Google Scholar
  3. Beveridge, W. (1960). London School of Economics and its problems 1919–1937. London: George Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
  4. Beveridge Committee. (1951). Report of the Broadcasting Committee, 1949. London: His Majesty’s stationery office.Google Scholar
  5. Brandenberger, David. (2009). Editor. Political humor under Stalin: An anthology of unofficial jokes and anecdotes. Bloomington, IN: Slavica. Google Scholar
  6. Coase, R. H. (1950). British Broadcasting: A Study in Monopoly London: London School of Economics. Coatman, John. 1950. The future of the B. B. C. The Political Quarterly, 21, 27–79.Google Scholar
  7. Cohen, S. F. (1980). Bukharin and the Bolshevik revolution. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Conquest, Robert. (1990) 2008. The great terror: A reassessment. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Davis, J. S. (1975). The world between the wars, 1919–1939: An Economist’s view. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Economists on Trial. (1933) June 17, 1933. The Economist 4686: 1291–292.Google Scholar
  11. Fabian Society. (1950). The future of broadcasting. London: Fabian Society.Google Scholar
  12. Fear the Boom and Bust. (2010) Accessed 26 Aug 2019.
  13. Harris, J. (1977). William Beveridge: A biography. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  14. Hayek, F. A. (2011). The constitution of liberty: The Definitive Edition. Edited by Ronald Hamowy Volume 17 of The Collected Works of F. A. Hayek. Chicago: University of Chicago PressGoogle Scholar
  15. Levy, D. M., & Peart, S. J. (2006). The fragility of a discipline when a model has monopoly status. The Review of Austrian Economics, 19, 125–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Levy, David M. and Sandra J. Peart. (2008). Socialist calculation debate. In: Blume, L., Durlauf, S. (Eds.). The New Palgrave’s Dictionary of Economics. Second edition. New York: Palgrave.>doi:10.1057/9780230226203.1570
  17. Levy, David M. and Sandra J. Peart. (2014). Ronald Coase and the Fabian Society: Competitive discussion in Liberal ideology. Accessed 26 Aug 2019.
  18. Levy, D. M., & Peart, S. J. (2017). Escape from democracy: The role of experts and the public in economic policy. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Levy, D. M., & Peart, S. J. (2020). Towards an economics of natural equals: A documentary history of the early Virginia School. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Low, David. (1933) 3 April 1933. Underappreciated acrobatics. LSE1924Google Scholar
  21. Low, D. (1956). Low’s autobiography. London: Michael Joseph.Google Scholar
  22. Mock Trial of Economists. (1933) June 14, 1933. The Times, p. 11, c. 5.Google Scholar
  23. Peart, S. J., & Levy, D. M. (2005). The vanity of the philosopher’: From equality to hierarchy in post-classical economics. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Perelman, Michael. (2009). Economists on trial. Economist’s View Accessed 26 Aug 2019.

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Center for Study of Public ChoiceGeorge Mason UniversityFairfaxUSA
  2. 2.Jepson School of Leadership StudiesUniversity of RichmondRichmondUSA

Personalised recommendations