Welfare Reform

Social policy was defined by T. H. Marshall, British sociologist as the use of political power to supersede, implement, improve or modify operations of the economic system in order to achieve results which the economic system would not achieve on its own. Social policies are programmes and measures in an action-oriented and problem-oriented sense undertaken by governments to have a direct impact on the welfare of citizens by providing them with services or income. One policy that is analysed by social policy is the poor law 1834. This essay looks to explain why it was legislated for, who influenced it and if modern welfare system still have influences from the original welfare laws.

The history of the poor laws is divides into the Old Poor

The report disputed the thinking of collective responsibility of the poor and that individuals relied too heavily on welfare. Consequently the Poor Law Commission was set up to oversee the changes to welfare, the Commission reformed welfare around two principles. Firstly, “less eligibility” this principle means that none receiving welfare should be as well off or better off than those in work. This was enacted as a deterrence so that individuals would not choose a life on welfare. It also lowered the eligibility of people to claim meaning people had to be destitute before they could ask for help. This principle influenced conditions in the workhouse as it was deemed that the conditions in the workhouse had to be worse than conditions expected by employees outside. Secondly “the Workhouse test” this stated that anyone who wanted relief had to via a workhouse to work in exchange for relief. People that entered the workhouse endured hardships as designed by the principles. Examples of families being separated, individuals all wearing matching clothes working long hours and in cases like the Andover Workhouse scandal starvation. Paupers in the Andover work house were found to be fighting over the scraps of meat and marrow found on the rotting bones that they were tasked with crushing. The harsh conditions of the workhouse would act as a deterrent to the lower

He believed the current population growth was unsustainable moreover it was a punishment from God. Believing that the current Poor Law encouraged laziness and breeding; in particular illegitimate children that could often be left as the responsibility of the parish. His opposition to current welfare was supported in parliament by MPs including David Ricardo that in his own essays had suggested that Relief of the poor only benefited the rich moreover suppressed the wages of all workers across the classes. Opposition to these arguments came from the MP William Cobbett who claimed that the poor should be able to access relief from their home and that the only people that benefit from the changes are the landowners who would see a reduction in the taxes. Attacks on workhouses and scandals of the poor treatment of paupers although supported the desire to deter individuals claiming relief did not prevent further opposition. After thirteen years the Poor Law Commission was replaced by the Poor Law Board now integrated into central government. Although the powers of the board were the same as the commission the enforced principles were applied with a different resolve. Even allowing paupers a Christmas dinner something that had been refused in all previous