The recent discussion of the State Earnings Related Pension Scheme in Britain in terms of the unfavourable demographic position early next century has highlighted how little attention is normally paid by British politicians and social policy analysts to population size and structure. Further, the attention is normally confined to the question of how policy should adapt to demographic change, rather than how to modify it, although Britain has an implicit policy of restricting family size. Britain is not alone in this but many countries show more concern about the future of their population and some wish to increase it. Among these is France. This article compares Britain and France: first, over the priority given to demographic issues by statesmen and academics; and second, over the advantages and problems seen in different demographic futures. It argues that family policy needs to be seen in a demographic context.

Arguments about the harmful effects of government intervention in welfare issues, which seemed peripheral to the rapid expansion of state welfare in the twentieth century, have recently achieved the status of a new orthodoxy. This article examines the historical development of economic, administrative and ideological criticisms of state welfare in Britain and America, in order to identify the roots of this new orthodoxy. It finds that economic and administrative criticisms are neither necessary nor sufficient to explain the rise of this new view, which ultimately rests on specific ideological beliefs about the propriety of state welfare.

The growing awareness of the importance of lifestyle factors in the prevention of ill-health has stimulated a number of policy studies. But of the main causes of preventable ill-health alcohol misuse has been comparatively neglected, in spite of the fact that it also has wider implications for a range of other social problems. This article attempts to fill this gap by charting the development of alcohol policy and the alcohol issue over the last three decades. The main intention is to explain why the policy has taken its present form. At the same time it sheds some light on why a more comprehensive alcohol policy has been rejected by successive UK governments. As a framework, three potential explanations for this rejection are outlined: opposition by powerful interest groups; the hostility of voters and politicians; and opposition by government bureaucracies. The analysis thus provides an opportunity to test the relevance of these theories in an area of policy which has wide implications for social welfare.