British Welfare State - Essay Example

 The Beveridge Report in 1942 is often discussed as the main influence on the birth of the Classic Welfare State in Britain. The report sparked much debate and in the following years social policy was transformed. Within a few years the classic welfare state had been created through the Education Act, Family Allowance, National Insurance, National Assistance and the National Health Service. The general feature underpinning this was a government commitment to full employment. Before launching into a discussion about the nature of the legislation that was passed in the forties it is important to be clear about the meanings of revolutionary and evolutionary policy. Revolutionary refers to ways of thinking and behaving which are markedly new and introduce radical and extensive change. In respect to social policy revolutionary legislation would be vastly different from that immediately preceding, it would be based on new or drastic ways of thinking and it would involve changing policy. On the other hand something evolutionary is that which moves from one stage to another by steps. This essay will keep in mind these characteristics when examining social policy in the forties. The Nature of the State Response Firstly, the state response through legislation did not consist of measures that were in themselves revolutionary. Much of the legislation was the same as previous years just dressed up differently. Although the enormous public response to the Beveridge Report, which was a best-seller, and the landslide Labour victory in 1945 suggests that radically new and exciting ideas were being thrown around infact the general consensus among historians is that the final manifestation of the Welfare State was in fact a refinement of the Poor Law and the existing legislation concerning welfare. Fraser in Evolution of the British Welfare State develops the idea that the Beveridge Report was not as revolutionary as it first seemed because in reality, ‘It’s attractive symmetry and simplicity perhaps obscured the fact that the Beveridge plan was no more than a rationalisation of the existing insurance scheme, whose gaps in coverage had frequently been exposed.’ (Fraser, 200) Furthermore Lloyd George himself points out that the novelties of the changes in the first half of the twentieth century originated in the Poor Law. All the features of liberal social policy were actually already covered by the older law yet the reorganisation made using the services socially acceptable. ‘A person who was sick, hungry, unemployed or old could in fact turn to the Poor Law for help, and almost all the categories of social need for which the Liberals were now catering for were already being dealt with by the Poor Law Guardians.’ (Fraser, 162) Significantly Beveridge himself formulated his proposals around, ‘the pre-war system of contributory insurance … No other system … was seriously considered on the ground that it would be a ‘departure from existing practice’’. (Lowe, The Welfare State in Britain since 1945, 122) Chronological development before the Welfare State Moreover, the policy developments in the 1940s look like the result of the increasing intervention of the state in issues of welfare alongside the increasing awareness of poverty that had been taking place since the 1830s. The search for a replacement for the Poor Law began as early as the 1820s. In 1834 a report on the law was published investigating and suggesting solutions for the escalating problems of the Poor Law. Moreover in the 1840s a society of doctors envisaged a system of free health care. Movement later in that century began to provide assistance, outwith the Poor Law, for the sick and temporarily unemployed. This was through the Medical Relief Act (1885) and Chamberlain’s Circular (1886). Here were the beginnings of assistance from a source outside of the Poor Law. This is the drift which could still be recognised in 1940s policy. More legislation was passed at the beginning of the twentieth century including more and more people in welfare outwith the Poor Law. This included an Education Act, school meals, school medical inspection and the Children’s Charter. Overall the further legislative action in the forties takes existing ideas and reorganises and takes them into new territory. Legislative Change as a Result of Practical Solution and Political Astuteness Furthermore the legislation of the forties can be accounted for by reference to political pragmatism, compromise between parties and need for practical solution rather than sprouting from underlying utopian or revolutionary ferment. Fraser’s summary of the birth of the Welfare State focuses heavily on the administrative and the political features of the start of the century that must be grasped in order to fully understand the social policies of the forties. For example the Liberal government began to take seriously social policy around 1909 because of the threat that Labour posed not because of a commitment to welfare in itself. In addition, the depression and vast unemployment of the 1930s had an enormous impact on political behaviour. Politicians, in order to gain support, had to be seen to be addressing the issues that were important to everyone. It was vital to have an answer to economic problems if you wanted to have any political appeal. It seems likely that similar measures would have come into being whichever party was elected. Lowe in The Welfare State in Britain since 1945 notes that both Labour and the Conservatives were committed to achieving high and constant employment. (99) The various acts which made up the welfare state came into being both before and after Labour came into power. The Labour government inherited the Education Act and Family Allowance. They continued to bring in legislation in the same line as these two suggesting that the legislation was less to do with individual politics or theories and more to do with inevitable natural progression. The evolutionary nature of government action is also apparent in that, ‘matters of style and symbolism loomed large.’ (Fraser, 207) A revolutionary plan would be more focused on content. Furthermore the policies were not representative of an underlying, single philosophy or ideal. Revolutionary action comes with a theoretical basis for a better way of doing something. Although the Beveridge Report provided a general idea for an all-encompassing welfare state the policies that were implemented did not adhere to the report but instead were a kaleidoscopic fashioning out of various ideas with input and pressure from many different sides. What is apparent is that the policies of the 1940s government were a mixture of a practical response and political compromise. This can be seen in that over time injustices became apparent. These could not be justified by a coherent theory but had come into being as immediate solutions to practical problems. Things were fixed on an ongoing basis. ‘Political achievement in social policy was always related to what was pragmatically practicable.’ (Fraser, 226) Were the ideas behind the Welfare State revolutionary if its policies were not? Although the actual policies manifested in the forties were not themselves revolutionary, but instead fitted into over a century of changes heading in the direction of state welfare, perhaps the assumptions behind this specific formulation of welfare were new and revolutionary. There were several important assumptions about the nature of the state, individuals, poverty and welfare. Firstly a new attitude to poverty emerged. Traditionally poverty had negative moral nuances. Those claiming assistance through the Poor Law were viewed as being morally inferior and somewhat to blame for their misfortune. Any welfare existed partly as a moral lesson to those who experienced destitution. At the end of the Victorian period, the overwhelming presence of hardship was impossible to ignore and people began to accept that poverty could be the result of environment or economy. This was influenced by the writings of Booth and the reports of Rowntree whose studies showed that 30% of the population lived in poverty. By the Second World War public health and poverty had become foremost in people’s thoughts particularly through evacuation which brought the problems of the city slums directly to the countryside. By the forties it was generally accepted that there were external causes of poverty. It has been argued that a notion of universalism sprang up partly due to the universal effect of war; bombs, rations and evacuations affected everybody and made neither class nor moral distinction. Whether or not the war is primarily a cause, the changing perception of poverty can be noted throughout the forties. For example Churchill was determined to keep morals out of his discussion of welfare. The moral responsibility of the poor was removed and the enormous percentage of those affected made it a primary issue. This shift in popular conception of poverty had an immediate effect on the state’s responsibility to welfare. Firstly, a true attempt to fight a war on poverty became apparent both in the language of politicians and in the production of numerous reports such as Rowntree’s study of towns, Lloyd George’s suggestions for pensions, Tawney’s answers on education and the Beveridge report. This is dramatically different from the aims of previous state intervention. Its main aim had been to make destitution undesirable and provide a motivation to work. Welfare had begun as a deterrent to pauperism never as an answer to poverty. Welfare had been important in relation to Empire. That is that healthy subjects would help expand it. Also people had been willing to pay poor taxes in order to ensure social stability and avoid any public disturbances. The dominant view had been that the best way for the state to help individuals was by forcing each man to help himself. The growing belief that poverty had external causes such as the economy made it impossible to continue this line. For the first time now welfare was seen as an end in itself. The new definition of poverty gave new meaning to welfare. Welfare was reworked. Where it had formerly been a deterrent it was now a right. A third factor fluctuated over this period was the role of the state against the place of the individual. A general movement from unobtrusive libertarian policies aimed at allowing the economy to run itself and individuals to have the chance to make themselves to state intervention in almost every aspect of life took place over a long period of time. The shift was never definite and consisted more of a battling out between the two positions. The overwhelming unemployment and economic decline gave evidence for newly emerging economic theories such as Keynes’ which promoted the intervention of the state in order to achieve full employment. Furthermore the pubic were loath to allow the government to do nothing and let market economics work itself out after the depression of the thirties. The Times newspaper discusses the benefits and the necessity for a new kind of governing and draws attention to the shift from negative freedom to positive freedom, ‘If we speak of freedom we do not mean a rugged individualism which excludes social organisation and economic planning.’ (Fraser, 265) This underlying change in the general idea of freedom is fundamental to the understanding of the policy changes in the forties. It is this that gives the government’s response to poverty a revolutionary flavour. This definition change happened partly because of the growing awareness of poverty but also because of the Second World War. Gladstone summarises it, ‘the experience of the Second World War produced both a ‘swing to the left’ politically and created the conditions that facilitated the construction of a solidaristic and universal welfare state.’ (Gladstone, The Twentieth Century Welfare State, 34) Although this has been argued with, some claiming that the war was not as universal an experience as assumed, it is clear that the war had an enormous influence on the contemporary mindset. In combination with the Industrial Revolution which made people feel reduced to part of the machinery and dehumanised it produced a new conception of human nature and freedom as we have seen above. Alongside this the war legitimised state intervention. During the war many private services came under temporary state ownership, the state took responsibility for food, housing and transport. In simple terms the war forced the government to take on the burden of welfare. Once the war finished this responsibility was retained. The main steps had been taken and the intrusion had an excuse so it was easier to continue with state intervention after it had already been experienced. Socialist Nature of 1940s Legislation Another feature of the government response to poverty which could be deemed revolutionary is its socialism. The 1880s experienced a rise in socialism and the Labour victory in 1945 suggests that a revolutionary change was taking place. The legislation itself had socialist characteristics for example providing free medical treatment to everyone without regard. In addition Labour’s housing policy in the forties has been described as being, ‘invested with a specifically socialist content’ (Gladstone, 44) and Lloyd George’s proposals have been described as, ‘frankly and deliberately redistributing wealth through taxation.’ (Fraser, 145) However these features belie the anti-socialist reasoning behind. Firstly the Liberal’s policies towards social reform were taken specifically to avoid socialism. ‘The National Insurance Act is sometimes hailed as a major step on a road to a socialist Britain, but just the opposite was intended.’ (Fraser, 151) For those in power it had the benefits of gaining socialist support but without sacrificing capitalism. Not only liberal politicians but both Lloyd George and Churchill encouraged social policy as a means of avoiding socialism and when labour came into power they were criticised for, ‘failing to introduce a distinctively socialist policy in the field of education.’ (Gladstone, 43). Conclusion The government response to poverty in the 1940s is the culmination of different attempts to overcome and replace the Poor Law since the 1820s. The legislation before the 1940s is similar in character to the legislation in the 1940s. It is so similar that most historians and even those bringing about the new laws have commented on the welfare state being just a socially acceptable version of the Poor Law. In addition the Acts passed can be shown to be a result of the political manoeuvrings and practical responses to the events of that decade. However there are some revolutionary aspects that lie behind the government’s response. These are the fundamental changes in the perception and understanding of the nature of mankind, the state and the relationship between them. The state took on a responsibility for welfare that involved a greater involvement in its citizen’s lives. Furthermore the general definition of poverty expanded to include everyone in need not just those who could not subsist. Beveridge’s report is revolutionary as being the first completely planned social document which envisages Disease, Idleness, Want, Squalor and Ignorance as being the state’s responsibility. References Fraser, Derek, The Evolution of the British Welfare State : A history of Social Policy since the Industrial Revolution, London, MacMillan Press, 1973. Gladstone, David, The Twentiet-Century Welfare State, Basingstoke, The MacMillan Press, 1999. Lowe, Rodney, The Welfare State in Britain since 1945, Basingstoke, The MacMillan Press, 1993. The Foundations of the Welfare State : Volume II, ed. By Goodin and Mitchell, Cheltenham, Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd., 2000. Read More