Why has social reform come about? Discuss with reference to the 1834 Poor Law Amendment Act, the period of Liberal Reform 1880-1914, and post-war social reform 1945-50.
Why has social reform come about? Discuss with reference to the 1834 Poor Law Amendment Act, the period of Liberal Reform 1880-1914, and post-war social reform 1945-50.
The question of why has social reform come about has left itself wide open for debate for centuries. In order to examine this question and perhaps come up with an answer, one must first look at the history of social reform and trace it back to it's originating days before moving on to the period of post-war social reform 1945-50, exploring the reasons for the developments and changes of social reform and comparing each period of change. The debate that surrounds social reform must also be examined. The Government ideas that the welfare policy cares for the needy and discourages the sponger stands in juxtaposition to others ideas that social reform was brought in to preserve the inequalities in society, both are fundamental if one is to establish an opinion on the above question.
As far back as Henry the eighth, provisions were in place such as gleaning and tithe as a way of providing for the poor. Elizabeth the first introduced the first poor laws in Britain in 1601 and this system remained for a few hundred years. By the 1800s, Britain was becoming more urbanized, however in 1815 there was a huge slump and depression after the battle of Waterloo. In 1832 a Royal commission was appointed and put into place in 1834. This brought with it the introduction of Jeremy Bentham, "The New Poor Laws" and the Workhouses. Jeremy Bentham stated that he would end poverty and implemented strategies to discourage the sponger, or preserve the already existing inequalities in society, by making the conditions of the workhouse far worse than that of the lowest paid job. He called this "Less Eligibility". Caring for the needy was not paramount, keeping the rates down was paramount and the Government followed a system known as Laissez Faire, which means, "let the market rule". Caring for the poor was seen as a necessity to satisfy a need for social order. The workhouses worked on a deliberate ethos of harshness and brutality.
The 1834 Poor Law Amendment Act joined together about six parishes into a Union for the administration of the measures to deal with the poor under the national leadership of the Poor Law Commissioners. Several citizens in the parish, usually the wealthy were appointed to run them, they were called the Guardians. The Guardians served ratepayers interests not the paupers, they regarded poverty as the fault of the poor and they supported and carried out harsh treatment of the poor. The social stigma attached to being in the workhouse was so strong that many old people died of shame. Families and couples alike were separated and uniforms were given in exchange for clothes. The letter 'P' was sewn onto the uniforms for pauper (Owston, T. 2000.) The ideas behind the workhouse could be agued for by both sides. There is no question that the workhouse discouraged the sponger as the conditions were so terrible, only the desperate would entertain the idea of surrendering to life in the workhouse, however they certainly did not care for the needy and drove an even deeper wedge through society, thus preserving; if not deepening society's inequalities.
The years of the Great Stink in the 1840s led to the House of Lords being abandoned due to the smell and between 1848 and 1873, Public Health Acts began to be introduced, with cities competing with each other for the best system. England was the most powerful and richest country in the world in the 1880s and it has been argued that Jack the Ripper who was around at that time, was a great social reformer as he had the power to frighten people (Flaherty T, 2002.). 1899 saw Seebohn Rowntree's study of poverty in York, which ...
This is a preview of the whole essay
The years of the Great Stink in the 1840s led to the House of Lords being abandoned due to the smell and between 1848 and 1873, Public Health Acts began to be introduced, with cities competing with each other for the best system. England was the most powerful and richest country in the world in the 1880s and it has been argued that Jack the Ripper who was around at that time, was a great social reformer as he had the power to frighten people (Flaherty T, 2002.). 1899 saw Seebohn Rowntree's study of poverty in York, which showed that 1/3 of people in York alone were in poverty. Charles Booth's study of London followed and eventually went to seventeen volumes (Flaherty T, 2002.)
The Liberal reforms were Britain's first attempt at a national welfare system. The conditions of the workhouse were inhumane, thus leading to the Liberal reforms under Gladstone in 1905. Between 1906 and 1911 provisions such as school meals, school medical inspectors, old age pensions and the first national insurance scheme were introduced. This was a huge step forward from that of the workhouse, however there was still a long way to go. There still had to be a distinction between the deserving and the undeserving poor, therefore preserving the inequalities of society yet again. The liberal reforms catered for the needs of the poor better than the 1834 Poor Law, however they still had a great stigma attached to them, which made the division between rich, and poor greater still. The rich questioned the Governments right to take their money for the poor, thus creating a deeper resentment between the rich and the poor.
The 1920s and 1930s saw Britain in a major depression, with the rest of the world in a recession. When World War Two broke out in 1939, three million people were unemployed in Britain. The outbreak of war put a fence around the welfare system for a while due to British men fighting for their country, which in turn led to women slipping into men's roles at home. In the early 1940s the coalition Government began to map out plans for a welfare state system to implement at the end of the war. In 1942 William Beveridge was employed to devise a plan to help combat poverty in Britain. The plan was intended to cater for the needs of everyone as of right, thus the term "from cradle to grave" was born. Provisions needed to be in place for the end of World War Two to prevent a revolution. The problem of unemployment was a major factor as the rate was astronomical before the start of the war and was set to go back to that figure despite the loss of lives during in war. Beveridge, when talking about his plan stated, "This is the greatest advance in our history. There can be no turning back. From now on Beveridge is not the name of a man; it is the name of a way of life, and not only for Britain, but for the whole civilized world". (Timmins, N. 2001, p.43, quoting Beveridge to Harold Wilson, recounted in Wilson, The Making of the Prime Minister, 1986, p.64.) The coalition Government crumbled in 1945 as a result of the landslide general election and Labour came to power on the promise of implementing the Beveridge Plan.
The Beveridge Plan was essential for public morale after the war. British people needed to have something to look forward to and greatly received the Beveridge plan. The leading writers of all the newspapers accepted it and The Times called it 'a momentous document' whose central proposals must surely be accepted as the basis of Government action (Timmins, N. 2001 p43.) Beveridge was fortunate in the timing of his inquiry, his plan would be virtually fool proof after the horrendous conditions of the Second World War (Brown, J. 1995.) A national welfare system began to develop to give the people of Britain hope.
Talks had already started during the war to reform the hospital services, which in turn meant that changes of the entire system of public and private health care had become avoidable. Post-war employment was extremely high on the agenda and eventually led to the 1944 White Paper, a debate on the need for family allowance was to follow. Beveridge's ability to see his plan as a whole was what made his report so unique and gave it claims to greatness. The 1909 Majority and Minority Poor Law Reports were the only similar precedents that held such power and even they did not quite measure up (Brown. J, 1995.) Beveridge defined five areas, which he called the Five Giant Evils, as the cause of poverty. Beveridge claimed that if theses evils were tackled, then poverty would be eradicated from society. His list of evils consisted of want, disease, ignorance, squalor and idleness. Beveridge began to implement antidotes for his Five Giant Evils over the period of the late 1940s.
Beveridge introduced the national insurance scheme as a way of combating the evil he labelled want. The national insurance scheme was the foundation to the rest of his plan as it would pay for old age pensions, family allowance, national assistance, supplementary benefits, income support and unemployment benefit. Beveridge claimed that 'want' could have been abolished before the war and that it was a needless scandal due to not taking the trouble to prevent it (Brown, J. 1995.) If every working person paid a national insurance contribution, then this would care for the needs of the less fortunate in society; or so Beveridge believed. This would not work if unemployment reached the heights of before the war.
His schemes were implemented, but it is important to remember that none of these were new ideas. Provisions had been in place for the poor for a long time and although this was a national welfare system it still singled out the poor and benefited the middle classes more. Family allowance and the NHS were available to the poor, however it was the middle classes who benefited the most, they earn more, therefore they got more and middle classes were far more likely to use the NHS or more importantly could pay for private health care, so received preferential treatment regardless, usually as a direct result of a better education.
Education is the most political of all subjects, for it is firmly about the future. It defines the sort of society people want to see (Timmins, N. 2001. P63.) Before the war, secondary education was only available in fee-paying private (upper class) or grammar (middle class) schools, with most leaving school at 14 to enter the world of work. The 1944 Butler Education Act was part of the post-war reforms. The birth of the tripartite system was a direct result of this. The system consisted of three types of schools; grammar schools for the most academic children, technical schools for the not quite as bright, but who had the ability to learn skills and secondary modern for the rest of society which boasted no nationally recognised qualifications. Very few technical schools were built and therefore left a great divide in society. Between 70-75% of children went to secondary modern. Was this therefore saying that 70-75% of children were a failure? This form of education certainly supports the idea that welfare preserves the inequalities in our society, although some may argue that the most academic of children, should not suffer or be distracted by the less bright. The post-war 'creaming off' system drove a gaping wedge in society, especially amongst the children themselves who frequently carry the cliché "the future".
When unemployment reached three million again in 1975, the welfare state could be held solely responsible for the fact that there was no revolution. The welfare state made people feel valued to a degree, after a long period of depression, recession and war. As time progressed things began to change again. Thatcher and Reagan's anti collectivist view of the 1970s supported the idea of individuals taking care of themselves and not relying on the welfare state. Labour eradicated the tripartite system and Britain went comprehensive. Beveridge's ideas were still in place, however the flaws began to show after its honeymoon period. The provisions for the poor simply couldn't shake the stigma and it became very apparent that it was in fact the middle classes who were benefiting the most from these schemes, therefore continuing to single out the poor and pushing them further down society's ladder, making social mobility ever more difficult.
Thus we can conclude that social reform, despite having been around for centuries is a very debatable topic. The evidence suggests that although the Government has implemented strategies to combat poverty, these do not come without a price and rarely care for the needy. Many of the provisions laid out for the poor over the centuries have certainly discouraged the sponger by making poor relief so basic or in the case of the workhouse; so horrific, that only the absolutely destitute would even entertain the idea of succumbing to this relief. However, these schemes have provided little care, instead they have made the gap between rich and poor greater. The post-war reforms gave hope to a nation in great need, however when one looks beneath the surface, there are many implications for the poor in society. The reforms of the 1940's and even to date, boast a stigma that is almost impossible to shake, thus preserving inequalities within our society and encouraging a begging culture of the working classes, closely followed by the blame culture of the upper and middle classes. Perhaps it is type to erase these ideas from our society and embark on a major rethink.
Brown, J. (1995). The British Welfare State: A critical History. Oxford. Blackwell Publishers.
Jorgensen, N. (1997). Sociology: An Interactive Approach. London. HarperCollins Publishers.
Kempshall, H. (2002). Risk, Social Policy and Welfare. Buckingham. Open University Press.
Owston, T. (2000). The New Poor Law - 1834 - Britain. http://freespace.virgin.net/owston.tj/newpoor.htm. (December 1, 2002.)
Timmins, N. (2001). The Five Giant Evils: A Biography of The Welfare State - New Edition. London. HarperCollins Publishers.
Titmuss, R. (1958). Essays on the Welfare State. London. George Allen & Unwin Ltd.
Author Unknown. (2000). An Introduction to Social Policy: The Welfare State. http://www2.rgu.ac.uk/publicpolicy/introduction /wstate.htm. (December 1, 2002.)
