This essay will focus on exploring the changing approaches and attitudes to welfare since the Poor Law, thus establishing the measures introduced or policies implemented to enable society to lead a sustainable livelihood. In addition, it will identify the individuals who were influential in the creation of a welfare state by examining six different concepts, namely: the 1601 Elizabethean Poor Law, The Poor Law Amendment Act of 1834, New Liberalism, Fabianism, Thatcherism and Blairism.
The removal of monasteries and church welfare led the parliament to pass the first act for the relief of the poor. The 1601 Old Poor Law was a response to the issue of poverty by the state on a national scale, providing relief to the sick/elderly/disabled; able-bodied and children/orphans. Administered by parishes, it “sought to assist the 'settled' poor, who were expected to accept whatever work or relief the parish offered.” (www.victorianweb.org/history/poorlaw/elizpl.html) There is an implication that a safety net was provided for those who had fallen on hard times, however they had no freedom of choice regards the type of employment they took on, their dietary intake, clothing etc. They were reliant on relief and were susceptible to exploitation through cheap labour. “Each parish looked after their own poor and a poor rate was levied on householders” (Moore; 2000). The lack of uniformity in system suggests that treatment and rules differed from parish to parish, however, parishes were likely to be sympathetic/generous due to their religious beliefs. The parishes struggled to cope in the era of industrialisation and urbanization due to population increases which led to increases in those seeking assistance.
Consequently, in 1832 the government set up a Royal Commission to investigate the workings of the poor law and drastic changes were recommended which resulted in The Poor Law Amendment Act 1834. In contrast to the 1601 law, the system was centralised and inspired by utilitarian principles and the economic doctrine of laissez-faire. There was a “much harsher, more punitive approach to people in poverty,” (Moore; 2000:35). The government showed total disregard for the poor as they did not feel it was their duty to support the poor, resorting to degradation and abuse of people in an endeavour to get them to find means of fending for themselves and deterring reliance on poor relief. They were more interested in saving money as opposed to people’s livelihood. The mechanisms they used to measure eligibility or to distinguish between the deserving and undeserving poor like the correction houses, workhouse test, separation of families lacked objectivity. The Act proved to be unpopular, being described as “a cathecism of hell, unEnglish, pernicious and wicked.” (Laybourn; 1995:26).
As a result, in the 19th century, Charles Booth and Seebohm Rowntree undertook surveys into levels of poverty in Britain. In this respect, Booth and Rowntree’s work was very influential as it gave rise to humanitarian concern for the poor thus bringing poverty to the forefront. Consequently, “politicians and intellectuals alike made the connection that poverty could be alleviated by providing social and health services,” (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4070112.stm). This subsequently led to state intervention and introduction of welfare reforms when the Liberals took power in 1906. They “gradually moved from a laissez-faire approach to collective ideals,” (Alcock et al; 2000:23) passing legislations such as the Education Act 1906, Old Age Pensions Act 1908 and National Insurance Act 1911 which reduced the burden upon the poor law. The Liberal Government acknowledged it was the state’s responsibility to deal with poverty issues and were determined to “lay its ugly spectre.” (Jones; 2000:83). They went on to introduce measures such as income tax and the people’s budget; the latter weighed heavily on the rich. Their measures sort to address the gapping chasm between rich and poor, a central tenet of Liberal thought in addressing social inequality.
However, during the two world wars, the Liberals were gradually replaced by Labour who embraced social democracy. Attlee who became the Prime Minister introduced “many state welfare reforms that the Fabianists had been calling for throughout the intervening period.” (Alcock; 2003:5) The Fabian Society, founded in 1884 by the Webbs believed in fact-finding and functionalism. Their minority report on the poor law along with their associate, William Beveridge’s report of 1942, which aimed to tackle the “five giant evils which were; want, disease, ignorance, squalor and idleness,” (Moore; 2000:45) formed the basis for much of the Labour party’s legislation. Labour were proactive in addressing major issues such as unemployment, housing, health and poverty through the National Health Service Act 1948, which was free at the point of use and the Housing Act 1947. It is likely that these reforms were in response to the general public’s backing of the Beveridge Report and a ploy for popularity. However, it is apparent that their pragmatic and compassionate approaches were designed to try and close the gap between the rich and the poor and to enable society to live healthy and fulfilling lives. Unfortunately their huge social spending eventually led to an economic slump and collapse of the welfare state, subsequently leading to their downfall and “the emergence of a new right movement” (Moore; 2000: 50)
New right thinking on welfare was described as Thatcherism. Thatcher’s tenure signalled the return of a laissez-faire approach as the Conservatives “were opposed to universalist social security which created dependence on state aid,” (Jones; 2000:168) It was very apparent that the Conservatives were business centred, focusing mainly on free markets and privatisation. “Their most striking policy was privatisation in various forms,” (Adams; 1993:262) The privatization of a number of state controlled companies along with the raising of interest rates to reduce inflation and the dissolution of trade unions gave rise to unemployment. The right to buy property scheme could be described as revolutionary as it allowed council tenants to own their homes, however the downside was that it limited public housing, making it difficult for the poor to find affordable places to live and could potentially have resulted in homelessness or destitution. The Thatcher era was largely capitalist albeit some of its policies inadvertently shunned/oppressed the poor, particularly the Poll Tax Act of 1989. Thatcher’s measures seemingly contributed to widening the gap between the rich and the poor. Those who had been abandoned by Thatcher’s policies were able to access state aid through the resurgence of the welfare state when the new Labour came into power in 1997. “Known as the Third Way, they pursued a new, radical approach to social provision.” (Moore; 2000: 55) Although they adopted Thatcher’s policies on privatisation, “health, education and unemployment were rated a priority in New Labour.” (Jones; 2000: 205). Blair’s tenure saw the birth of a modern welfare state with an increase in spending on health and education, non increment of income tax, the introduction of National Minimum Wage Act 1998, tuition fees for higher education and expansion of the benefit system to include child tax credits, working tax credit and income support. The pensions act provided a safety net for the elderly who additionally received a winter fuel allowance. In this regard, the New Labour party strived to reduce poverty levels through diversity in social provision. Blair’s focus seemed to be on creating opportunities for betterment of the poor. In conclusion, poverty was and will continue to be a great challenge to governments of different persuasion. Since the 1600s, through to present day, poverty remains an issue and levels of poverty have continued to fluctuate. In addition, gaps between the rich and the poor persist. The perception of, attitudes and approaches towards welfare have varied due to the influences of different ideologies; namely laissez-faire, utilitarianism, collectivism, socialism, Fabianism and capitalism, some of which we are still reliant upon today. On the whole, poverty has undoubtedly been a dominant force in driving ahead social policy. Reference List http://ww.victorianweb.org/history/poorlaw/elizpl.htm Moore; S. et al (2000) Social Policy & Welfare Alive pp. 35 Moore; S. et al (2000) Social Policy & Welfare Alive pp. 36 Laybourn; K. (1995) The Evolution of British Social Policy and The Welfare State pp.26 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4070112.stm Alcock; C. et al (2000) Introducing Social Policy pp. 23 Jones; K. (2000) The Making of Social Policy in Britain pp. 83 Alcock; P. (2003) Social Policy in Britain pp. 5 Moore; S. et al (2000) Social Policy & Welfare Alive pp. 45 Moore; S. et al (2000) Social Policy & Welfare Alive pp. 50 Jones; K. (2000) The Making of Social Policy in Britain pp. 168 Adams; I. (1993) Political Ideology Today pp. 262 Moore; S. et al (2000) Social Policy & Welfare Alive pp. 55 Jones; K. (2000) The Making of Social Policy in Britain pp. 205