Paper 3 Depth 4 Flashcards
How did the work of Charles Booth cause pressure for welfare reform?
background: he didn’t blame the capitalist system for creating poverty and rejected the hard-line approaches of the COS, believed in moral weakness and the principle of self help
Booth’s work: wanted to explore and describe conditions in which the poor lived and structural explanations for poverty, originally intended to last 3 years but took 17 years (longer than he intended but means he rigorously explored life of poor people)
- had a team of 35 people who contributed ideas and helped research (means he had intense research), divided population into classes
- acknowledged classes overlapped eachother and that understanding the differences were fundamental to understand causes of poverty
Booth’s classification: class A- 0.9% of the population, the bottom of any social hierarchy (semi-criminals and idlers), Booth believed people were born into this class and rarely escaped it (called the residuum)
- class B- about 7.5% of the population, casual low-paid workers with no security of employment- Booth believed this was because of their moral weakness and physical state which made them incapable of bettering themselves, class C was slightly better off than B (classes overlapped), also had irregular work
- class D- low incomes but regular work so were able to survive
- class E&F- together made up 51.5% who were in regular employment that paid them enough to lead comfortable lives
- class G&H- lower and upper middle classes who made up 17.8% of the population
how reliable were his findings? (effectiveness)
- Booth admitted he relied on observation only- he ignored income when defining poverty, subjective and unreliable measure limited his work
- was criticised by Helen Bosanquet from the COS, she objected to the survey method developed by Booth as it had no underlying principle or philosophy, believed his findings were flawed as facts on which it was based was produced by dubious survey methods
- his co-workers underestimated the income level of poor families, they were criticised because they relied on primary research findings
How did the work of Seebohm Rowntree cause pressure for welfare reform?
background: Rowntree was a sociological researcher who conducted three surveys on property in 1899, 1935 and 1951, his goals were to find out how many people were living in poverty and the nature of property
Rowntree’s work: in his first study he used a personal investigator to go on house to house visits to collect information, he visited w.c families whom he defined as houses where the patriarch was the main wage earner
- 11,560 houses were visited and info obtained from 46,754 people (almost all the wage earning families in York and 2/3 of the population of the city)
- found that 28% of the population of York were living in squalor and were in need of help- using this information, Rowntree calculated minimum wage needed for a family to live in physical efficiency, he called this the ‘poverty line’, found that 10% of people in York lived below the line and were unable to make ends meet (primary poverty) while 18% were teetering on the edge of the line with the bare necessities and no room for emergencies (secondary poverty)
- he discovered what he called the poverty cycle- childhood was spent in poverty, when children grew up and became wage earners they crept above the poverty line, then as they had children they would then slip below the line again, when their children reach earner’s age there is a period of prosperity and when they reach old age they slip into primary poverty again- found out the way poverty worked
effectiveness:
(negative)
- COS immediately attacked his findings, claiming he had overestimated the level of poverty by setting the poverty line too high
- Rowntree also saw shortcomings of his study, said it was mainly based on observation and how the study could be seen as subjective
(positive)
- it was consistent
- primary and secondary didn’t identify the poor, rather it described the nature of poverty
- the methods used were similar to those used by Booth and they can be compared
- the study helped to undermine the Victorian view that poverty was the outcome of individual character failings, and argued it was a mix of outside influences and events out of the individual’s control
How did the work of the Fabian Society cause pressure for welfare reform?
background: formed in 1834 by Beatrice and Sidney Webb
- held public meetings, published numerous pamphlets and lobbied politicians on a wide range of topics e.g Poor Law reform and advancing socialism
- aimed at promoting social justice and were more radical in their policy than the Liberal govt (could limit them as it may alienate people who didn’t agree with them)
- believed causes of poverty was not due to laziness/not working hard enough but it was due to rich people exploiting poor people in order to make profit (gave different ideas compared to most people at the time)
- wanted a minimum wage, health service for everyone and a citizen’s army with healthy people
effectiveness: (positive)
- went on to form the Labour Party in 1900
- set up London School of Economics in 1895
- formed the ‘Newstatesman’ magazine- read by lots of people
- high profile members- Emmeline Pankhurst (suffragettes), Annie Besont (created strikes), H.G Wells and George Bernard Shaw (authors)- had middle class influence which made it effective
How did the Boer War 1899-1902 cause pressure for welfare reform?
- farmers in South Africa didn’t want to be controlled by the British
- caused problems because Britain needed an army- thousands were rejected e.g in urban areas 2/3 were rejected for not being healthy enough, 25% of young men rejected in the North- Britain needed a healthy army and economic wealth was needed to make Britain healthier
- 1903-1904 Interdepartmental Committee on Physical deterioration found that overall health of the country wasn’t deteriorating but urban populations were bad,- there were pockets of poor health in industrial areas which were affected by poverty, ignorance and lack of education- made recommendations to improve health e.g free school meals, education of personal hygiene and medical inspections of school children
- national efficiency- debate about improving efficiency of the country to make it strong, wealthy etc- found that Britain wasn’t efficient, there was poverty and poor health which created demand for change
- it became a top issue in the early 1900s- social reform became a major issue
- Liberal party promised to improve conditions of w.c ti improve efficiency- looked to other countries e.g Germany and America for ideas for reform
What was the 1905-09 Royal Commission and what were the two main reports?
- 1905 the commission was set up to investigate the Poor Law- made up of 20 members including the COS, Poor Law Guardians, Beatrice and Sidney Webb, Charles Booth and trade union leaders
- visited 200 poor law unions and took evidence from 450 witnesses
- the commission was split in its findings
majority report:
- poverty was due to moral weakness e.g laziness
- the Poor Law should continue to help the poor but poor people were being helped too much
- workhouses did not stop able-bodied poor from going there- didn’t fulfill the principle of ‘if you can work you should’
minority report:
- poverty due to economic weakness e.g unemployment
- a Ministry of Labour should be set up to find poor people jobs and set up training
- detention colonies should be set up for people being lazy
- education committees set up to help children, pension committees to help elderly
What were similarities in the 195-09 Royal Commission reports and what was their significance?
similarities:
- agreed the current system of poor relief wasn’t working
- agreed that central govt didn’t do enough to make provision of welfare uniform and consistent
significance:
(negative)- govt did not feel pressured into making any changes because there was no agreement
(positive) - division of opinion produced support on both sides
- gave poverty great publicity and established principles on the treatment of poverty for the 20th century
- poverty was seen as not always the fault of the individual, govt should take responsibility for poor people, the existing relief system should be abolished and replaced by the Public Assistant’s Commission
- Liberal govt 1906 ignored findings of the report and started its own changes to abolish the poor law
What was the impact of 1909 Old Age Pensions Act? (liberal reforms)
what was it like before?
- people divided into deserving/undeserving poor
- 1895 Royal Commission on the Aged Poor reported no alterations were needed
- debate over whether pensions should be contributory or non-contributory
what did it do?
- pensions were non-contributory and funded from taxes
- paid to people over 70 through post offices, had to be British citizens living in Britain for over 20 years to qualify
- a single person received 5s a week and married couples got 7s 6d, later raised to 10s
- full pensions were only paid to those earning less than 8s a week, those earning between 8s and 12s had a reduced scale while those earnings over 12s did not qualify for a pension
- wasn’t paid to people who continually failed to find work, had been in prison in the last 10 years, who claimed poor relief in the last 2 years or who were drunkards
effectiveness:
(positive) - 600,000 people claimed pensions, roughly the same number of people claiming relief before the act so helped poor people
- threat of the workhouse and stigma of receiving poor relief was gone
- evidence of gratitude of the elderly poor for the freedom from anxiety that pensions gave
(negative)- didn’t reduce number of elderly people receiving relief in workhouses, elderly were often too frail and vulnerable to look after themselves even with money through pensions
What was the impact of 1909 Labour Exchanges Act? (liberal reforms)
what was it like before?
- 19th century attitude that unemployment was the worker’s fault, there was plenty of work and only the idle would fail to find it
what did it do?
- Liberal govt broke down the problem into two parts: finding work and insuring against the loss of work due to illness and employment
- set up a series of labour exchanges that would help the unemployed find any work that was available- in 1910 83 labour exchanges were opened, over 450 in England and Wales by 1914
- Beatrice and Sidney Webb wanted to make labour exchanges compulsory as they believed govt would be able to organise the labour market to benefit workers and the economy, then voluntary unemployment insurance would be necessary
- however Lloyd George and Churchill said that labour exchanges should be voluntary and unemployment insurance necessary in certain trades- they tackled poverty by relieving the unemployed rather than preventing unemployment
effectiveness: (positive)- passed through Parliament without much dispute
(negative) - some employers were afraid labour exchanges would provide an excuse to those unwilling to work because they were ‘still looking’, some workers were afraid they would be recruited as backleg labour in strikes
- not much impact- didn’t know people were unemployed unless they ‘signed on’ at a labour exchange
What was the impact of 1909 Trade Boards Act? (liberal reforms)
- created boards for specific sweated trades (where people would work for exceptionally low wages with poor conditions) e.g matchbox making, lace making and tailoring, boards would negotiate and set enforceable minimum wage criteria
effectiveness: (negative)- no attempt was made to define what was meant by minimum wage
(positive) - an important principle was met- wages were no longer agreed privately between employer and employee
What was the impact of 1911 National Insurance Act? (liberal reforms)
what was it like before?
- illness of the main breadwinner was a major cause for poverty, many families tried to insure themselves against this
- in early 1900s between 6 and 7 million people were insured BUT poorer people struggled to keep up with payments, poor people who couldn’t even afford contributions to Friendly Societies were in danger in times of illness
what did it do?
part 1: (attempted to support poor when main breadwinner got ill)
- applied to all workers earning less than £160 a year and manual workers aged 16-60
- employees contributed 4d, employers 3d and the state 2d per week into the scheme
- insured people received 10s a week for up to 13 weeks than 5s a week for a further 13 weeks in any one year
- payments made through approved societies
- maternity care was provided, one-off benefit of 30s
- free treatment given by a medical practitioner, all drugs and medicines free
part 2: (insurance against unemployment)
- employers, employees and the state each contributed 2.5d to the scheme
- workers could claim unemployment beneift of 7s a week for up to 15 weeks in any one year
- no claim could be paid if unemployment resulted from a person being dismissed for misconduct
effectiveness: (positive)- Lloyd George had idea to implement some health protection- friendly societies, trade unions and some insurance companies already developed idea of protecting against illness, accidents or death- could’ve rallied against Lloyd George but there was careful negotiation where designated approved societies would make payments- any opposition faded
- part 1 moved towards some universal healthcare provision, arguably laid groundworks for NHS
- 1913, 13 million workers in the scheme- provided a safety net
- insurance was compulsory and 2.25 million men were insured by end of 1912- established that relief of poverty was a national, not local, responsibility
(negative) - £1.5 million set aside for treatment of TB bur only available for contributors not their families- only got money for 26 weeks a year, maternity money was only one-off
- unpopular and people resented having to pay 4d a week from their wages
- it was a flat rate so the poorest were hit hardest, many regarded it as a wage cut because there was no guarantee they were going to be ill and gain any benefits
