In 1960, the Thomas Jefferson Center of the University of Virginia applied for a “massive” grant from the Ford Foundation. Although Buchanan, Nutter, and Coase had all received grants from Ford, it turned down their proposal because of the Center’s unified “point of view.” The chapter examines correspondence and private discussions of the events. Following the submission of their proposal, Buchanan, Nutter, and then-President of UVA Edgar Shannon met with representatives of the Ford Foundation, Tom Carroll and Kermit Gordon. Buchanan concluded that the “reaction of the Ford representatives must be considered to have been almost wholly negative.” The crux of the matter, in Gordon’s assessment, was the TJC’s supposed “single” and dogmatic “point of view,” an ideological perspective purportedly in line with early 1960s Chicago-style economics. Buchanan and his colleagues attempted to dispel this conclusion, arguing that the program focused on market activity as it reflected social consensus. Coase was particularly incensed by allegations of dogmatic ideological narrowness since he had close ties to the socialist Fabian Society.

The 1963 Geldard Report on the University of Virginia faculty described the early Virginia School economists as “neo-liberal” and asserted they failed to provide graduate students a modern education. Only an extract describing the economics department was known before so the evaluation could not be put into context. Had the authors of the report known modern economics, they would have remarked on Allais lectures at the TJC in 1957. Neo-liberal was then an unusual word. As it has come to be used, neo-liberalism supposes an idealization of efficiency and market activity. This differs from an earlier liberalism, which emphasized exchange and viewed democracy as government by discussion. Coase’s advice to the Fabian Society committee for broadcasting reform was to remove the BBC’s monopoly position by breaking it into competing services provided by the government, to allow taxpayers a wider choice of television and radio programs, with more points of view. Buchanan’s club theory is remarkable in this context because the distinction between market activity and public activity is fuzzy. The neo-liberal charge ignores the importance of the compensation brought about by logrolling.