Poverty, Public Health And The State - Social Welfare Reforms Flashcards
Introduction
In late 18th and most of 19th century, there was notable increase in reports, surveys, commissions & enquires focused on understanding poverty
Search for information about poor and challenges they faced led to many questions
These inquires often relied on anecdotal and qualitative evidence to support pre-existing beliefs about poverty surrounding personal character and lifestyle as the reasons
During this period, belief of utility gained popularity in policy management, especially when dealing with pauperism
This approach evaluated administrative activities based on their impact on well-being on greatest number of people
However, during the 19th century, there was a gradual shift in societies perspectives on poverty
By the early 20th century, there was growing beliefs that poverty could be dealt with by costly state intervention
Many investigators began using quantitative measurements and analysis
- they redefined poverty as a failure to meet an accepted minimum standard of living
The evaluation of these investigations eventually shifted towards addressing the root causes of poverty rather than simply reforming the paupers
Ultimately, during this time, the doctrine of utility was challenges and eventually faded as a philosophical foundation for threatening the poor
Why was there pressure for social reform in the years 1880-1914?
Henry Mayhew
Henry Mayhew, who was an early investigative journalist, organised as analysed interviews with the poor that were published in the Morning Chronicle
Despite the fact there’s were criticisms around his methods, findings and conclusions (saying there was a lack of systematic investigation ands use of unreliable statistics), his work, “London Labour and the London Poor”, significantly impacted the perception of poverty
Critics argued that Mayhew’s four on marginal occupations skewed the extent of poverty in London and that his journalism tendencies to provoke public interest through exaggeration may have affected the accuracy of this work
However, it is important that, despite the fact it was widely criticised, we don’t overlook Mayhew’s contribution in changing the way poverty was viewed
One of his main achievements was challenging the idea that the poor were solely responsible for their own poverty
He also highlighted the potential consequences of not doing anything to help
He laid down the groundwork for following investigations by figures such as Charles Booth and Benjamin Seebohm Rowntree
Charles Booth (1840-1916)
Booth was a wealthy entrepreneur
His social conscious drove him to investigate the nature of poverty in London
He employed a team of up to 35 workers over a period of 17 years to undertake a detailed study of the poor in London
Their findings moved the debate forward in Britain as Booth expressed his view that most of the poor were in distress through circumstances beyond their own control
Booth’s reasons for investigation
His association with intellectual and socially aware radical circled in London influenced his rejection of the belief that poverty was solely to blame on the poor people themselves
However, as he was an entrepreneur, he didn’t fully blame capitalism for the issues
Following his participant in the 1885 Mansion House Enquiry into Unemployment, he was motivated to surpass just describing living conditions of the poor
He wanted to look into the reasons for these living conditions, and explore structural explanations for poverty rather than only the solely moral ones
Booth’s enquiry
While Booth initially planned this investigation to take 3 years, it was extended to nearly 17 years
Throughout this time, he would periodically publish his findings
The team of investigators couldn’t sustain the project for the whole duration, Booth was always constantly participating
At any given time, he led a team of up to 35 people (men and women), most of which were university educated
Booth viewed his team as fellow collaborators, rather than his employees, and expected them to contribute ideas and right sections of the final work, whole he maintained control over their efforts
Booth’s findings
He and his team divided the population into classes
Although he acknowledged that they overlapped and there were no sharp distinctions that could be made, he firmly believed that appreciating the differences between the classes was fundamental to understanding the causes of poverty
He found the following:
- Class A considered of about 0.9% of the population who were at bottom of social hierarchy: semi-criminals, loafers and idlers and people who sometimes took on occasional work. Believes people born into it rarely escape. The class was the residuum - very dregs of society
- Class B consisted of a bout 7.5% who were very causal, low-paid workers. Most were dockers, employed on daily basis and had no secure employment. Believed these people were, because of mental, moral or physical state, incapable of bettering themselves
- Class C slightly better off than Class B but the irregular nature of their work meant life was a constant struggle for survival
- Class D has low incomes but work was regular so able to budget for survival
- Class E and F made up about 51.5% who were in regular employment that paid enough for comfortable lives
- Class G and Class H were the lower and upper middle classes who made up 17.8% of population
How reliable were Booth’s Findings?
Despite his extensive and thorough analysis presented in 17 volumes, Cristian arose
A major concern was the reliance solely on observation, as he didn’t consider income when defining poverty
A strong criticism came from Helen Bosanquet of the COS
She objected his social survey method, saying it lacked clear philosophy or principle
She disputed the reliability of “the poverty line” and questioned the accuracy of it based off the surgery methods
Also criticised statistical foundations of the research, saying it underestimated income levels of poor families
Bosanquet advocated for a family case-work approach of the COS
She therefore disapproved of the fact that Booth’s workers gathered most of their primary research from sources like school board members and teachers, rather than spending time in low income areas
This raised doubts about how reliable Booth’s wor was
Benjamin Seebohm Rowntree (1971-1954)
More commonly known as Seebohm Rowntree
Was a lifelong devout Quaker this belief was significantly influenced his perspective on society and approach to managing workforce
Advocated for democratic workplace, supporting idea that healthy and happy workers are more efficient
He also helped with ideas sucked as minimum wage, family allowances and old age pensions
Rowntree’s enquiries
Contacted 3 poverty surveys in York, aiming to determine number of people in poverty and nature of their conditions
Inspired by Booth’s, sought to refine the term “poverty-line”
Surveys took place in 1899 (published in 1901), 1941 and 1951
In first survey, focused on working class in York, defining them as families where the head of household earned wages and no servants were employed
Surgery included house-to-house visits and gathered info from various sources such as clergymen, teachers & voluntary workers
Approx 11,560 households (almost all wage-earning houses in York) visited
This provided info about 46,754 people, 2/3s do city’s total population
