Core ideas and debates
Each area is a debate. Open it for the question, where the traditions agree, and where they divide. This is the raw material of every essay.
Human Nature›
The debate: Egoistical individuals or developmental ones?
Where they agree
Both strands agree humans are rational, of equal moral worth, and capable of self-government. The 2020 MS lists individualism, freedom and rationalism as common ground. Both accept tolerance as a virtue and meritocracy as a goal. Both reject pessimist views held by conservatives. Both see individualism as the basis of liberal politics.
Where they differ
Classical liberalism takes egoistical individualism: humans are rational, self-interested and capable of running their own lives (Mill, Wollstonecraft). Modern liberalism takes developmental individualism: humans are still rational but need welfare, education and opportunity to develop their full potential (Rawls, Friedan). The 2024 mark scheme makes this the core split: 'classical liberals... egoistical individualism and negative freedom; modern liberals... developmental individualism and positive freedom.'
The State›
The debate: Necessary evil, or guarantor of freedom?
Where they agree
All liberals fear the state and see it as a 'necessary evil' (the 2023 MS makes this an explicit unifying point). All accept Locke's social contract: government by consent. All accept Mill's harm principle as the test for legitimate state action. All require the state to be bound by constitutional limits. The disagreement is about how much further the state should go, not whether it should exist.
Where they differ
Classical liberalism wants a minimal state - Mill's harm principle, Locke's social contract - doing only what is needed to prevent harm and defend property. Modern liberalism wants an enabling state - Rawls - that intervenes positively to deliver real freedom. The Sample MS describes these positions as 'diametrically opposed' on whether the state enhances or diminishes freedom. The 2023 MS adds that classical and modern liberals 'fear the state to different degrees' - they share the fear but draw different conclusions from it.
The Economy›
The debate: Laissez-faire free market, or Keynesian managed economy?
Where they agree
Both strands support a free-market economy and private property as foundational (Locke). The 2024 MS lists three areas of agreement: free market, private property, individual freedom. Both reject large-scale state ownership. Both see the individual as the engine of economic growth. The argument is over how to keep the market fair, not whether to have one.
Where they differ
Classical liberalism wants a laissez-faire free market with minimal state intervention (Mill): the invisible hand allocates resources best. Modern liberalism wants a regulated Keynesian economy: the state must intervene to protect vulnerable workers, fund welfare and ensure real equality of opportunity (Rawls). The 2024 MS identifies the role of the state in the economy and the provision of welfare as the two clearest divisions on this area.
Society›
The debate: Formal equality, or substantive equality of opportunity?
Where they agree
Both strands accept the priority of the individual, foundational equality (all humans of equal moral worth), tolerance and meritocracy. Both want a society where individuals can flourish and pursue their own conception of the good life. Both reject organic conservatism, communitarianism and any society that subordinates the individual to the group.
Where they differ
Classical liberalism wants a society of free individuals with foundational and formal equality - what matters is that the law treats people equally. Modern liberalism wants substantive equality of opportunity - real chances must be available to everyone, which requires state action (Rawls, Friedan). Friedan's argument that gender roles socialise women into limited lives is a Modern liberal claim about how society needs to change. The 2025 MS adds that modern liberalism's reach into 'social justice' is a 'significant departure' from classical ideas.