Advertisement

Social Security

  • Rodney Lowe
Chapter
  • 25 Downloads

Abstract

Together with the maintenance of full employment, the provision of social security was the principal objective of both the Beveridge Report and the postwar Labour government. The concept of social security was novel to Britain in the 1940s — having been first formally acknowledged in the 1941 Atlantic Charter — and it means, in essence, the guarantee by government to all its citizens of an income sufficient to ensure an agreed minimum standard of living. In the 1940s the realisation of this guarantee depended largely on the expansion of various interwar insurance schemes; but, as argued in Section 2.1, the nature of these schemes was fundamentally changed by their being extended to the whole population, to cover all risks to an individual’s income and to provide — in theory at least — subsistence-level benefits.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes and References

  1. 13.
    T. Cutler et al., Keynes, Beveridge and Beyond (1986) p. 16; Cmd 6404, para. 459. For the relative cost of the new scheme, see paras 275–99. In 1962, when Britain first applied to join the EEC, the Treasury calculated that British employers paid some £1000m p.a. less than their continental rivals, given the latter’s liability to fund payroll taxes (Treasury papers 2P10/90/155/01, yet to be released to the Public Record Office).Google Scholar
  2. 18.
    A. Bullock, The Life and Times of Ernest Bevin, vol. 2 (1967) p. 242.Google Scholar
  3. 20.
    P. Baldwin, ‘Beveridge in the Longue Durée’ in J. Hills et al. (eds), Beveridge and Social Security (Oxford, 1994) p. 40.Google Scholar
  4. 22.
    K. G. Banting, Poverty, Politics and Policy (1979) p. 68;Google Scholar
  5. A. Deacon and J. Bradshaw, Reserved for the Poor (1983) p. 61.Google Scholar
  6. R. Lowe, ‘The rediscovery of poverty and the creation of the Child Poverty Action Group’, Contemporary Record, 9 (1995) 602–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 23.
    B. R. Rowntree, Poverty: a study in town life (1901) pp. 295–8;Google Scholar
  8. P. Townsend, Poverty in the United Kingdom (Harmondsworth, 1979) p. 31.Google Scholar
  9. 24.
    P. Townsend, ‘The meaning of poverty’, British Journal of Sociology, 13 (1962) 210–27;CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. G. C. Fiegehen et al., Poverty and Progress in Britain, 1953–73 (1977) p. 131;Google Scholar
  11. J. Veit-Wilson, ‘The National Assistance Board and the “Rediscovery of Poverty”’ in H. Fawcett and R. Lowe (eds), British Postwar Welfare Policy: the road from 1945 (1998) Ch. 6. Rowntree himself had embraced the ‘minimum participatory level’ in The Human Needs of Labour (1937).Google Scholar
  12. 25.
    P. Townsend, Poverty in the United Kingdom (Harmondsworth, 1979) Ch. 11.Google Scholar
  13. 26.
    B. Abel-Smith and P. Townsend, The Poor and the Poorest (1965) p. 17.Google Scholar
  14. 27.
    G. C. Fiegehen et al., Poverty and Progress in Britain, 1953–73 (1977) pp. 36–48. In some respects Rowntree (with his seeming obsession with the value of garden produce) and the assumption underlying the much-hated ‘household’ means test (that relations would support those in need) provided a more accurate picture of actual living conditions than statistics derived from government surveys.Google Scholar
  15. 28.
    A. B. Atkinson, Poverty in Britain and the Reform of Social Security (Cambridge, 1970) p. 35. Another source of bias, identified by Abel-Smith and Townsend in 1965, is that reported income tends to be understated by 10 per cent (because irregular earnings, for example, are omitted), whilst expenditure is overstated by 5 per cent (because, for example, respondents want to impress).Google Scholar
  16. 29.
    B. S. Rowntree and G. R. Lavers, Poverty and the Welfare State (1951);Google Scholar
  17. A. B. Atkinson et al., ‘National Assistance and low incomes in 1950’, Social Policy and Administration, 15 (1981) 19–31;CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. B. Abel-Smith and P. Townsend, The Poor and the Poorest (1965);Google Scholar
  19. I. Gough and T. Stark, ‘Low incomes in the United Kingdom’, Manchester School, 36 (1968);Google Scholar
  20. A. B. Atkinson, Poverty in Britain and the Reform of Social Security (1969) and ‘Poverty and income inequality in Britain’, in D. Wedderburn (ed.), Poverty, Inequality and Class Structure (Cambridge, 1974);Google Scholar
  21. P. Townsend, Poverty in the United Kingdom (Harmondsworth, 1979);Google Scholar
  22. G. C. Fiegehen et al., Poverty and Progress in Britain, 1953–73 (Cambridge, 1972);Google Scholar
  23. W. Beckerman and S. Clark, Poverty and Social Security in Britain since 1961 (Oxford, 1982);Google Scholar
  24. R. Layard et al., The Causes of Poverty (1978);Google Scholar
  25. R. Berthoud and J. Brown, Poverty and the Development of Anti-Poverty Policy in the UK (1981).Google Scholar
  26. 30.
    A. B. Atkinson et al., ‘National Assistance and low incomes in 1950’, Social Policy and Administration, 15 (1981) 24. This article provides the best comparison of the surveys of Rowntree and Abel-Smith and Townsend and, in particular, argues that generalisation from York is dangerous since it did not have a full range of low-paid industries. On the ‘scientific’ basis of the sample, Rowntree and Lavers wrote: ‘We took a list of all the streets in York and a man who has lived in the city for more than half a century… marked on our list every street where working-class families live’ (Poverty and the Welfare State, p. 2).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 32.
    L. Hannah, Inventing Retirement (Cambridge, 1986) p. 53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. A. W Dilnot et al., The Reform of Social Security (Oxford, 1984) pp. 14–15.Google Scholar
  29. 33.
    R. Lister, Social Security: the case for reform (1975) p. 67.Google Scholar
  30. 35.
    R. Hemming, Poverty and Incentives (Oxford, 1984) p. 81.Google Scholar
  31. 36.
    A. W. Dilnot et al., The Reform of Social Security (Oxford, 1984) p. 28.Google Scholar
  32. 37.
    R. Hemming, Poverty and Incentives (Oxford, 1984) p. 81.Google Scholar
  33. 38.
    A. B. Atkinson, Poverty in Britain and the Reform of Social Security (Cambridge, 1970) p. 58.Google Scholar
  34. 39.
    D. Donnison, The Politics of Poverty (1982) pp. 43–4, 92;Google Scholar
  35. A. Deacon and J. Bradshaw, Reserved for the Poor (Oxford, 1983) p. 111.Google Scholar
  36. 50.
    L. Hannah, Inventing Retirement (Cambridge, 1986) Ch. 9;CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. S. Harper, ‘The impact of the retirement debate on postwar retirement trends’, in T. Gorst et al. (eds), Postwar Britain (1989) pp. 95–108.Google Scholar
  38. 54.
    PEP, Family Needs and the Social Services (1961) p. 192.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Rodney Lowe 1999

Authors and Affiliations

  • Rodney Lowe
    • 1
  1. 1.University of BristolUK

Personalised recommendations