What do you think?
Rate this book
Mont Pèlerin 1947: Transcripts of the Founding Meeting of the Mont Pèlerin Society
Marking the 75th anniversary of the first meeting of the Mont Pèlerin Society, in 1947, this volume presents for the first time the original transcripts from this landmark event. The society was created by Friedrich Hayek as a forum for leading economists and intellectuals to discuss and debate classical liberal values in the face of a rapidly changing world and political trends toward socialism. Bruce Caldwell, a major scholar of Hayek, provides an informative introduction and explanatory notes to the source documents, drawn from the Hoover Institution Library & Archives, where they have been available to scholars. Now accessible to all, the transcripts reveal what was said on a wide range of topics, including free markets, monetary reform, wage policy, taxation, agricultural policy, the future of Germany, Christianity and liberalism, and more. They provide insights into the thinking of men such as Hayek, Milton Friedman, Aaron Director, Frank Knight, Walter Eucken, Karl Popper, and other leading figures in the classical liberalism movement, illuminating not only their ideas but also their distinctive personalities. A photo section shows rarely seen images from the meeting.
- GenresEconomics
215 pages, Kindle Edition
Published March 1, 2022
4 people are currently reading
38 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews
October 21, 2022
2022-10-06 Finished this a few days ago. Quite good. Excellent reference for showing the creation of the Mont Pelerin Society, the founders and original group and the members' views and aims.
Very surprising to me to see how wide the variance was in the views of the original group's members opinions on the best policies for a liberal society.
And also quite sad for me to see how the laissez faire views were such a minority of most of the members and how marginalized were the views of Ludwig von Mises and the other free market scholars and advocates.
Very surprising to me to see how wide the variance was in the views of the original group's members opinions on the best policies for a liberal society.
And also quite sad for me to see how the laissez faire views were such a minority of most of the members and how marginalized were the views of Ludwig von Mises and the other free market scholars and advocates.
March 22, 2023
Finally, we have the full transcripts of the pivotal 1947 meeting that F.A. Hayek set up, not only to save liberalism in an illiberal age, but to save Western civilization in an era of barbarism. This is an absolutely marvelous book for two reasons: 1) As we know, a lot of crusty mythology has built up around the Mont Pèlerin Society since its founding. Sadly, a lot of it is false or misleading. This is natural when people have little to go on, but now, instead of relying on hearsay and imagination, it is possible to actually go back to the original source to unearth the real motivations, goals, and agendas of the participants to the first meeting. Here they are, in plain sight, the complex reasons for the society's founding as a vehicle for liberal ideas. 2) The editorial work of Bruce Caldwell is superb. As as result, the book is very accessible and adorned with a lengthy and informative introduction. The chapters encompass the 19 meetings in a chronological order. The footnotes are modest but helpful. The list of participants and the index of names are handy. The binding of the book is excellent. One has to appreciate a document that feels good to look and browse.
Formally, the transcripts are "complete." However, this comes with a major caveat. (A fact which, responsibly enough, is repeated multiple times in the editorial sections of the book.) Namely, the transcripts are NOT word-for-word transcripts. Rather, they offer imperfect and often sketchy secretarial notes jotted down by Dorothy Hahn. This is more evident in some sections than others. Therefore, statements attributed to "Milton Friedman" or "Aaron Director" may be partially misattributed, or at least somewhat mangled, as a result of the laborious, indirect process of partial transcription. This point is absolutely crucial for any scholar wishing to quote the book. No doubt a lot of nuance is lost and there may even be a few substantive errors. However, Mrs. Hahn's handiwork, as the chosen secretary of Mr. Hayek, can be taken to be generally reliable.
I do not wish to use this review to summarize the whole meeting (which would be a momentous undertaking anyhow!). But let me make some brief comments. Overall, it is clear that the "neoliberal thought collective" (as Mirowski et al. have called it) has been, since its inception, a deeply pluralistic, wide-ranging, globally divided, and internally contentious group. Although they share the joint appreciation for the values of individual freedom, robust property rights, open markets, limited government, an active government involvement in protecting the competitive order, in other issues, like foreign policy, democratic federalism, culture and religion, macroeconomics, welfare policy, and agricultural policy, the group was often struggling to find a univocal opinion. And indeed, its Statement of Principles, which it finally adopted, reflects, on a very abstract level, the shared GENERAL views of its members in the form of an "overlapping consensus" that respects this pluralism by abstaining from commenting on many PARTICULAR issues. At the same time, it is worth recognizing the remarkable consistency and shared passion, among the participants, for the general outlines of the new liberal program. This is best represented in Friedrich Hayek's initial distinction - which frames the whole conversation - between "laissez-faire liberalism" vs. the "competitive order." This framing reminds one of German Ordoliberalism but it was chosen, no doubt, to be equally palatable to the members of the Austrian and the Chicago schools of economics. And in providing a shared program, it mostly succeeded, as the transcripts show. Differences continue to pop up, sometimes to the point of strident disagreements, among the different schools (and the individual members of each school) on issues like anti-trust legislation, countercyclical fiscal policy, religious toleration, or the desirability of social insurance, the general framing of the Competitive Order as as alternative to both market fundamentalism and socialism was an immensely powerful framing that influenced generations of subsequent liberals.
Lastly, before concluding, since it is my current area of interest, I must comment on the session on welfare policy. I found this chapter fascinating for many reasons, both as a harbinger of what is to come (especially in Friedman's "Capitalism and Freedom" and Hayek's "The Constitution of Liberty") and as an interesting sign of the times. I was surprised to see that both Aaron Director and Milton Friedman, representing the Chicago School, were pushing for what later became known as Negative Income Tax, while Friedrich Hayek, who has been interpreted as a proto-UBI advocate (and not incorrectly based on some of his writings), was here actually suggesting a regimented military style labour service, albeit with an opt-out option, for the voluntarily unemployed! This seems like a solution in line with the Poor Laws and Victorian workhouses. (It should be noted that Hayek later somewhat modified his stated opinion and, in subsequent books, advocated for a guaranteed minimum income scheme, ideally paired with some conditionalities.) Karl Popper's laconic interjection has become my favourite takeaway from these transcripts: "Professor Friedman’s idea is an attractive alternative to socialism. But Professor Hayek’s idea is not." I will leave the discussion of whether a NIT, UBI, or a conditional minimum income is the best solution to poverty under conditions of the neoliberal Competitive Order for another occasion. (You can read my published articles, and upcoming book on Hayek and UBI, to learn more on this topic.)
Overall, this book is a gift to scholarship. It curates an important historical document, dealing with a historic moment, in an informative, accessible, and restrained way. It lacks heavy-handed or misinformed editorializing. Beside explaining the context and correcting for some errors in the transcripts, it lets them speak for themselves. Substantively, the event was a success. The participant list looks like a real who's-who of the key classical liberal (and adjacent) thinkers of the time. The resulting discussions are some of the most transformative and historic of the latter half of the 20th century. But the biggest influence of the meeting was what it spawned: a trans-generational society of scholars, devoted to liberal discussion of the highest caliber, that has lasted, with some modifications, to this day, and certainly expanded beyond its original shell. Despite the omissions in the transcripts, we get a wonderful picture of the substantive agreements, disagreements, and ongoing evolutions in the views of the neoliberal thinkers. Both sympathizers and detractors of the classical liberal project will find something valuable here. The fanciful mythologizers (of both the left and the right) will hopefully have a harder time confabulating their fake narratives when the real history, although it does not speak, is staring them in the face.
Formally, the transcripts are "complete." However, this comes with a major caveat. (A fact which, responsibly enough, is repeated multiple times in the editorial sections of the book.) Namely, the transcripts are NOT word-for-word transcripts. Rather, they offer imperfect and often sketchy secretarial notes jotted down by Dorothy Hahn. This is more evident in some sections than others. Therefore, statements attributed to "Milton Friedman" or "Aaron Director" may be partially misattributed, or at least somewhat mangled, as a result of the laborious, indirect process of partial transcription. This point is absolutely crucial for any scholar wishing to quote the book. No doubt a lot of nuance is lost and there may even be a few substantive errors. However, Mrs. Hahn's handiwork, as the chosen secretary of Mr. Hayek, can be taken to be generally reliable.
I do not wish to use this review to summarize the whole meeting (which would be a momentous undertaking anyhow!). But let me make some brief comments. Overall, it is clear that the "neoliberal thought collective" (as Mirowski et al. have called it) has been, since its inception, a deeply pluralistic, wide-ranging, globally divided, and internally contentious group. Although they share the joint appreciation for the values of individual freedom, robust property rights, open markets, limited government, an active government involvement in protecting the competitive order, in other issues, like foreign policy, democratic federalism, culture and religion, macroeconomics, welfare policy, and agricultural policy, the group was often struggling to find a univocal opinion. And indeed, its Statement of Principles, which it finally adopted, reflects, on a very abstract level, the shared GENERAL views of its members in the form of an "overlapping consensus" that respects this pluralism by abstaining from commenting on many PARTICULAR issues. At the same time, it is worth recognizing the remarkable consistency and shared passion, among the participants, for the general outlines of the new liberal program. This is best represented in Friedrich Hayek's initial distinction - which frames the whole conversation - between "laissez-faire liberalism" vs. the "competitive order." This framing reminds one of German Ordoliberalism but it was chosen, no doubt, to be equally palatable to the members of the Austrian and the Chicago schools of economics. And in providing a shared program, it mostly succeeded, as the transcripts show. Differences continue to pop up, sometimes to the point of strident disagreements, among the different schools (and the individual members of each school) on issues like anti-trust legislation, countercyclical fiscal policy, religious toleration, or the desirability of social insurance, the general framing of the Competitive Order as as alternative to both market fundamentalism and socialism was an immensely powerful framing that influenced generations of subsequent liberals.
Lastly, before concluding, since it is my current area of interest, I must comment on the session on welfare policy. I found this chapter fascinating for many reasons, both as a harbinger of what is to come (especially in Friedman's "Capitalism and Freedom" and Hayek's "The Constitution of Liberty") and as an interesting sign of the times. I was surprised to see that both Aaron Director and Milton Friedman, representing the Chicago School, were pushing for what later became known as Negative Income Tax, while Friedrich Hayek, who has been interpreted as a proto-UBI advocate (and not incorrectly based on some of his writings), was here actually suggesting a regimented military style labour service, albeit with an opt-out option, for the voluntarily unemployed! This seems like a solution in line with the Poor Laws and Victorian workhouses. (It should be noted that Hayek later somewhat modified his stated opinion and, in subsequent books, advocated for a guaranteed minimum income scheme, ideally paired with some conditionalities.) Karl Popper's laconic interjection has become my favourite takeaway from these transcripts: "Professor Friedman’s idea is an attractive alternative to socialism. But Professor Hayek’s idea is not." I will leave the discussion of whether a NIT, UBI, or a conditional minimum income is the best solution to poverty under conditions of the neoliberal Competitive Order for another occasion. (You can read my published articles, and upcoming book on Hayek and UBI, to learn more on this topic.)
Overall, this book is a gift to scholarship. It curates an important historical document, dealing with a historic moment, in an informative, accessible, and restrained way. It lacks heavy-handed or misinformed editorializing. Beside explaining the context and correcting for some errors in the transcripts, it lets them speak for themselves. Substantively, the event was a success. The participant list looks like a real who's-who of the key classical liberal (and adjacent) thinkers of the time. The resulting discussions are some of the most transformative and historic of the latter half of the 20th century. But the biggest influence of the meeting was what it spawned: a trans-generational society of scholars, devoted to liberal discussion of the highest caliber, that has lasted, with some modifications, to this day, and certainly expanded beyond its original shell. Despite the omissions in the transcripts, we get a wonderful picture of the substantive agreements, disagreements, and ongoing evolutions in the views of the neoliberal thinkers. Both sympathizers and detractors of the classical liberal project will find something valuable here. The fanciful mythologizers (of both the left and the right) will hopefully have a harder time confabulating their fake narratives when the real history, although it does not speak, is staring them in the face.
July 12, 2025
I was disappointed in this book, but that is more a reflection of my own interests than any failings of the distinguished editor.
My disappointment came from the paucity of material from Ludwig von Mises whose outburst, "You are all a bunch of socialists," Milton Friedman has made famous. It was also frustrating to see the lack of commitment to free market—laissez faire—principles.
Perhaps what we have here is a valuable book that helps explain the operational failure of liberalism in the face of organizations such as the World Economic Forum.
My disappointment came from the paucity of material from Ludwig von Mises whose outburst, "You are all a bunch of socialists," Milton Friedman has made famous. It was also frustrating to see the lack of commitment to free market—laissez faire—principles.
Perhaps what we have here is a valuable book that helps explain the operational failure of liberalism in the face of organizations such as the World Economic Forum.
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews