Introduction

In his obituary of Titmuss, Michael Young suggested that he was ‘more renowned outside his country than within, having a royal following in the United States’. When Abel-Smith and Kay Titmuss prepared the posthumously published Social Policy: An Introduction, meanwhile, they remarked that Titmuss's works were ‘widely read in the United States and elsewhere’. They had thus sought to ensure that ‘British institutions are readily intelligible to North American and other students of social policy’. And, as previous chapters have shown, Titmuss engaged strongly with American scholars and federal agencies, especially from 1957 onwards. He thus commented directly, on occasion, on American welfare initiatives, while also commending, in particular, the NHS to American audiences. He was, therefore, at the heart of transatlantic policy networks, wherein those on the liberal left sought to promote social welfare in the pursuit of a better society. These interactions were also personal, with Titmuss acquiring loyal friends and admirers in North America, just as in Britain. He clearly derived considerable satisfaction from virtually all aspects of these transatlantic contacts. So what was his impact on American ways of thinking about welfare, allowing that ‘impact’ is intangible and difficult to measure? Why was it that Ida Merriam, in her obituary, claimed that ‘Richard Titmuss was one of the great human beings of our time’? The aim here is to give a sense of how Titmuss was perceived by Americans working in the same field.

‘I hope you know the extent of your influence here’

A number of American associates commented directly on Titmuss's influence, or potential for influence. We saw in Chapter 21 that when Yale's Eugene Rostow issued his invitation to Titmuss in the mid-1950s, he suggested that his ‘testimony could have far-reaching effects on American thinking’. This was a prescient remark in that the Sherrill Foundation Lectures on the NHS which Titmuss delivered at Yale were among the first of his many contributions to the debate on healthcare reform in America, and complementary to his mission to enlighten US audiences on the true nature of Britain's version of socialised medicine.