The Creation of the Welfare State
Source Based
At the beginning of the Second World War, welfare was quite expensive.
Pregnant women who were poor had to pay a '£2 deposit and another 10
shillings', free treatment was not given to poor women. There was an
antenatal and a postnatal clinic but the woman had not used it because
of lack of money. She didn't receive any help at all. This person also
said 'I had to walk down to the maternity home,' this tells us that
the government provide free ambulance for pregnant women. This woman
was quite poor, 'hole in my shoe,' this tells us that she had to save
up for her pregnancy which meant she had no money to take good care of
herself. Life for every woman wasn't the same some other poor women
must have saved more and went to clinics but he the woman who had
written this source did not get any help.
2. Does the evidence of source C support the evidence of sources A
and B about welfare at the beginning of the Second World War?
Explain your answer.
Source C does support sources A and B. All three sources have related
information about the lack of money and efficient hospital and medical
care, they were also all written in the same period of time.
Sources A, B and C are experiences from the 'early 1940's', which were
being talked about and recorded in the 1980's. In both sources A and C
they explain about how they did not get money to pay for health care,
for example in source A she mentions 'At the maternity home we had to
pay £2.00 deposit and 10 shilling when she came… I never went to the…
We got no help with anything.' Source C states 'Dad had small wage… it
was too much for him to be able to go to the doctors… and we lost
Dad.' Due to the lack of money many people died as results of poor
The WWII Proposal for the Provision of a Welfare State The proposals made during the Second World War for the provision of a Welfare State were made in order to eliminate poverty from the country. Various proposals were made that aimed to achieve this. One proposal, which was the main aim of the "Beveridge Report" was to abolish Want by providing social insurance for all: this meant providing various benefits and making people pay contributions, both depending on the class of the individual. Retirement pensions (over 60 for women, over 65 for men) and children's allowances would be provided. Employees would get benefits for unemployment and disability, and employers, traders, independent workers and people of working age without a job would get training benefit.
The prospect of the welfare state in America appears to be bleak and almost useless for many citizens who live below the poverty line. Katz’s description of the welfare state as a system that is “partly public, partly private, partly mixed; incomplete and still not universal; defeating its own objectives” whereas has demonstrates how it has become this way by outlining the history of the welfare state which is shown that it has been produced in layers. The recent outcomes that Katz writes about is the Clinton reform in 1996 where benefits are limited to a period of two years and no one is allowed to collect for more than five years in their lifetime unless they are exempted. A person may only receive an exemption on the grounds of hardship in which states are limited to granting a maximum of 20% of the recipient population. The logic behind this drastic measure was to ensure that recipients would not become dependent upon relief and would encourage them to seek out any form of employment as quickly as possible. State officials have laid claim to this innovation as a strategy that would “save millions of children from poverty.” However, state officials predict otherwise such as an increase in homelessness, a flooding of low-waged workers in the labour market, and decreased purchasing power which means less income from tax collections. The outcomes of this reform appear to be bleak for many Americans who reside below the poverty line. How does a wealthy country like America have such weak welfare system? Drawing upon Katz, I argue that the development of the semi-welfare state is a result of the state taking measures to ensure that the people do not perceive relief as a right and to avoid exploiting the shortfalls of capitalism ...
For many years, private charities, along with local governments, have cared for the poor through a multitude of economic security programs. These programs comprised the welfare state that sought to enact policies (after the Great Depression) in order to promote economic security for all Americans.
The Modern Welfare State of the 1906-1914 Before 1906, the British governments had little involvement in the everyday lives of the people: Gladstone in particular advocated the policies of ‘self help’ and Lassiez-faire’- the government should have minimal interference in the lives of citizens. However, from 1906 onwards, the British public began to benefit from a number of reforms such as pensions and childcare which they had never received before. Whether this could be described as the beginnings of the welfare state depends on the perspective: certainly government involvement increased but these reforms didn’t affect every citizen in all areas of life, suggesting that the changes weren’t as dramatic as they appeared.
The Nordic welfare state is famous around the world and especially social democrats cite Sweden when they try to push a new policy in their own country. It developed during the 20th century and started with ‘folkhemmet’ (the people’s home). A home in a good condition was seen as the basis for the well-being of the people and the state.
Living in the United States most people rely on the government to construct our society to better the people. The gap between rich and poor in our society significantly varies. In America, the government offers special programs to help those who fall below the poverty line. This is well known as welfare. The word welfare comes from a positive definition known as “well-being”, but most Americans would debate that welfare has become a disaster to our society as they increased welfare dependency, illegitimate babies, and family break-ups. In fact I agree with these clams, poverty programs have been abused by many Americans, causing more pressures and strains to American welfare.
The United States is sometimes described as a “reluctant welfare state.” I agree with this statement. Too often there are programs created by our government that, although may be lined with good intentions, end up failing in their main purpose. The government may, and hopefully does, seek to help its citizens. However, by applying unreasonable qualifying or maintenance criteria, or too many restrictions that bar people from even receiving aid at all, they end up with many more problems than solutions. Three examples of policies that do this are: Medicare, No Child Left Behind, and TANF, or the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families.
Since the Welfare reform law was introduced in 1996 it has impacted American society greatly. The new welfare policy, named the Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF), replaced the Aid to Family and Dependent Children (AFDC) program; they have five known differences that only affect the ones who need the assistance. Critics argue that the TANF has negatively impacted the society while some argue that it has not. Linda Burnham, author of “Welfare Reform, Family Hardship & Woman of Color,” asserts that “welfare reform has increased the hardship faced by many women leaving welfare for work and their movement into low-wage jobs, exposes them to higher level of housing insecurities, homelessness, food insecurity, and hunger.” She also argues that women of color “are especially vulnerable to the negative impact of welfare reform” (38).
The United States is often referred to as a ‘reluctant welfare state.’ There are various reasons for this description. One of the primary reasons for this is the differences and diversity of the political parties which are the motivating forces that control government. The Liberal Party, for instance supports government safety nets and social service programs for those in need. “Liberals believe in government action to achieve equal opportunity and equality for all.” ("Studentnews," 2006) They believe it is the responsibility of government to ensure that the needs of all citizens are met, and to intervene to solve problems. The responsibility of government is to alleviate social ills, to protect civil liberties and sustain individual and human rights. Liberals support most social and human service programs; such as TANF, including long-term welfare, housing programs, government regulated health care, Medicare, Medicaid, social security, and educational funding. Their goal is to create programs that promote equal opportunity regardless of gender, age, race, orientation, nationality or religion, along with many others. Liberals believe that government participation is essential and a means to bring about fairness and justice to the American way of life.
The poor are everywhere it seems. They are on the street corner, in the local 7 Eleven, and in the plaza. Sometimes I get sick of them and even angry with them when they pester me for money. I ask myself, "Is the best way to deal with poor, to give them money from my pocket?" It's obvious that other people have given them money from their pockets at different times. If no one had ever given them money, then these people wouldn't be standing here asking for money. The fact is, many poor people ask for money because they know they can get money that way. For most of the last 70 years our government has indirectly given the poor money from our pockets, through taxes and welfare. Not surprisingly, people have continued to ask for money. For most of those 70 years welfare fed the mentality that the best way to get money was to ask. I believe welfare as it was first started, failed miserably and created millions of dependents in poverty instead of independents above poverty. The welfare reform of 1996, I believe has helped the poor escape from the trap of poverty and is a more beneficial way of dealing with the poor.
Welfare is a public assistance program that provides at least a minimum amount of economic security to people whose incomes are insufficient to maintain an adequate standard of living. These programs generally include such benefits as financial aid to individuals, subsidized medical care, and stamps that are used to purchase food. The modern U.S. welfare system dates back to the Great Depression of the 1930’s. During the worst parts of the Depression, about one-fourth of the labor force was without work. More than two-thirds of all households would have been considered poor by today's standards. With a majority of the capable adult population experiencing severe financial misfortune, many Americans turned to the government for answers. In response, U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt led a social and economic reform movement attacking the Depression. Part of his newly enacted “New Deal” program was the Social Security Act, enacted by Congress in 1935. This act and established a number of social welfare programs, each designed to provide support for different segments of the population.
The welfare of the people in America is put in the hands of the public administrators and political leaders of the United States. These public administrators and political leaders are voted into office to promote new bills and come up with solutions that will be in the best interest of the public’s welfare. When the subject of welfare is debated the first thought that comes to mind is giving underprivileged and disadvantaged people money to help them get out of a financial predicament and/or temporary unemployment. The welfare of the middle and upper class is not as common because the fact that people collect financial support from their employment. There are several biased assumptions about the welfare program in America that leave the subject open for discussion. Such as food stamps, and how low-income Americans are given our taxpaying money to provide food for their households. I’m against the Supplement Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) and what toll it’s putting on the taxpayers of America.
Social welfare is an expansive system proposed to maintain the well being of individuals within a society. This paper will explain the progression from the feudal system and church provisions for the poor before the Elizabethan Poor Law to the gradual assumption of the responsibility for the poor by the government. A responsibility assumed not out of humanity and concern for the poor, but as a process of standardizing the ways in which the poor were to be managed. The history of social welfare reflects differences in values as they relate to social responsibility in taking care of the needy. Our society has been influenced by values like Judeo-Christian humanitarianism and the economic doctrine of laissez faire. Our present social welfare structure is also influenced by these values.
The idea behind the welfare state was to relieve poverty, reduce inequality, and achieve greater
pretensions of aristocracy. She is now as poor as Stanley and Stella, but she cannot help but