Now! Then! On the eve of the general election, a Times leader summarises the latest Rowntree report, which details startling reductions in absolute poverty in York under the welfare state

Excerpt

In 1936 nearly two persons in every 11 in the city of York, but in 1950 only two in every 118, were found to be in poverty. That is the outstanding conclusion of Poverty and the Welfare State. When Mr Rowntree compared the results of his second survey in 1936 with those of his first in 1899, the improvement recorded was encouraging. The further improvement from 1936 to 1950 can only be described as startling. The economic and social changes of 14 years (of which a third were occupied by a major war) have reduced the volume of poverty by at least 90%. In 1936 economic causes accounted for 70% of all poverty – over 40% being attributable to the inadequacy of earnings in various trades and occupations, and nearly 30% more to unemployment. Social causes, such as sickness, old age, or widowhood, accounted for only 30% of the poverty. Mr Rowntree estimates how much of the improvement in 1950 can be attributed to the reduction of unemployment, and how much to food subsidies and various welfare schemes; but he does not attempt to assess the influence of improvements in earnings, especially among the unskilled, outstripping the rise in living costs, although the inadequacy of such earnings was the biggest single cause of poverty in 1936. The transformation in the nature of what poverty remains is, however, unmistakable. Among the tiny minority still in want last year was to be found none of the few unemployed persons in York, though they might have been included had they not possessed resources other than unemployment benefit. Only 1% of the poor were in want through inadequate earnings. Nearly 70% were poor on account of old age, and more than 20% on account of sickness. Social factors – the insufficience of pensions, sickness benefit, family allowances, or assistance – accounted for the overwhelming portion of the residue of real poverty.

Order the book

Subscribe to the free daily email

To facilitate reading, the spelling and punctuation of elderly excerpts have generally been modernised, and distracting excision scars concealed. My selections, translations, and editions are copyright.
Abbreviations:

ER: East Riding
GM: Greater Manchester
NR: North Riding
NY: North Yorkshire
SY: South Yorkshire
WR: West Riding
WY: West Yorkshire

Comment

Report itself (Rowntree 1951). Labour politician Tony Crosland a few years later:

But was this more rapid progress due to specifically Labour policies, or to quite extraneous factors? Unfortunately, the first interpretation is often supported by an untenable argument. Many Labour spokesmen adopt Mr. Rowntree’s approach of first calculating how much additional poverty would be caused by the withdrawal of a particular welfare measure, and then attributing a corresponding degree of credit to that measure for its part in reducing poverty. It is said, for instance, that if food subsidies had not existed in 1950 a further 11% of the working-class population would have been below the poverty line, from which it is deduced that food subsidies deserve the entire credit for the rescue of that 11%.

But this is to assume that when food subsidies are raised or lowered, nothing else changes, and working-class incomes are affected by this one change alone. In fact, of course, things proceed differently, since the working class also pays large sums in taxation; and changes in subsidies will often be accompanied by changes in taxation. Admittedly if a cut in the subsidies were balanced by tax reductions accruing entirely to the middle and upper classes, the above calculation might be justified. But this is unlikely, in view of the fact that the working class now pays in taxation a sum larger than it receives in social benefits. It is therefore probable that some reduction in working-class taxation would occur; and the consequent increase in disposable money income would have to be set against the effect of lower subsidies in calculating the net result of the change.

The link between Labour policies and the reduction in poverty can, however, be more securely established. First, it can be shown that per capita personal consumption scarcely rose between 1938 and 1950, the large increase in output having been impounded for other and more urgent purposes (higher exports, investment, etc.). Yet average working-class consumption rose, owing to a significant vertical redistribution of income which was certainly connected, as the next section will show, with post-war economic policies; and this general rise in working-class standards helped greatly to reduce the incidence of poverty.

Secondly, although the working class as a whole paid for all the additional social services through higher taxation, it by no means paid in equal amounts. The additional taxation and social services, taken together, represented a large transfer of income within the working class; and the net beneficiaries were mainly those groups (the old, the sick, and large families) which have always been the most susceptible to poverty.

It is sometimes claimed by Conservatives that these changes would have occurred whatever government had been in power. No doubt some new social services would have been provided. But in the light of the high and, to Conservatives, repugnant levels of taxation involved, and their reiterated pledges to make drastic cuts in government expenditure, it is hard to believe that a Conservative Government would not have used the balance-of-payments difficulties as an excuse for contracting out of the more ambitious of these reforms.
(Crosland 1957)

Something to say? Get in touch

Original

Poverty To-day
In 1936 nearly two persons in every eleven in the city of York, but in 1950 only two in every 118, were found to be in poverty. That is the outstanding conclusion of Poverty and the Welfare State, just issued by Longmans, a book in which MR. SEEBOHM ROWNTREE and MR. G. R. LAVERS report the findings of the third survey of York (a city probably still representative of urban Britain as a whole). When MR. ROWNTREE compared the results of his second survey in 1936 with those of his first in 1899, the improvement recorded was encouraging, but the amount of hardship remaining left no room for complacency. The further improvement from 1936 to 1950 can only be described as startling. The economic and social changes of fourteen years (of which a third were occupied by a major war) have reduced the volume of poverty by at least 90 per cent.-a rate of progress about four times greater than was achieved during the thirty-seven years up to 1936. (It should be emphasized that these calculations are concerned only with stark poverty and say nothing about the relative ups and downs in the standard of life of the great majority.)
MR. ROWNTREE’s definition of poverty is, of course, stringent, The standard he uses allows no more than life on a “fodder basis,” even if every penny is most carefully spent. At the prices of 1950, for example, he would not consider a married couple with three children as poor unless, after paying rent and taxes, their income (including the value of school meals, subsidized milk, home-grown vegetables, and other receipts in kind) fell below £5 a week. It is immaterial, however, whether his standard is or is not too severe; what matters is the fact that he applied the same yardstick (allowing for price changes) in 1936 and in 1950, so that the changes between those years can be accurately assessed.
The book is too brief and selective for a full account of the ways in which this remarkable improvement-no less than the virtual abolition of the sheerest want – has been brought about. In 1936 economic causes accounted for seven-tenths of all poverty – over four-tenths being attributable to the inadequacy of earnings in various trades and occupations, and nearly three-tenths more to unemployment. Social causes, such as sickness, old age, or widowhood, accounted for only three-tenths of the poverty. MR. ROWNTREE estimates how much of the improvement in 1950 can be attributed to the reduction of unemployment, and how much to food subsidies and various welfare schemes; but he does not attempt to assess the influence of improvements in earnings, especially among the unskilled, outstripping the rise in living costs, although the inadequacy of such earnings was the biggest single cause of poverty in 1936. The transformation in the nature of what poverty remains is, however, unmistakable. Among the tiny minority still in want last year was to be found none of the few unemployed persons in York, though they might have been included had they not possessed resources other than unemployment benefit. Only one per cent. of the poor were in want through inadequate earnings. Nearly seven in ten were poor on account of old age (some 1,200 persons) and more than two in ten on account of sickness (some 370 persons, including dependents). Social factors-the insufficience of pensions, sickness benefit, family allowances, or assistance-accounted for the overwhelming portion of the residue of real poverty.
The welfare measures studied in this book are confined to food subsidies, the milk schemes, school meals, family allowances, and social insurance benefits. What part of the reduction in poverty since 1936 can be attributed to rent restriction, housing subsidies, the health service, and improvements in assistance cannot be gauged at all from the statistics. Of the part attributable to other factors, it looks as if the reduction of unemployment and improvements in real earnings together account for about a third, and the specified welfare measures for two-thirds. MR. ROWNTREE is somewhat more precise in assessing the importance of these welfare measures. Rather more than half the poverty they have prevented has been prevented by food subsidies-though he does not indicate whether these include or exclude school meals and the milk schemes -and rather less than half by all the social security schemes, including family allowances. Some 6,900 additional people. or 6.6 per cent. of York’s population, would have been thrown into poverty had food subsidies been abolished in 1950 – more than would have been affected either by the withdrawal of all the improvements in social security or by the return of unemployment at the 1936 rate.
This is at first sight strong support for the view that Britain could not, on social grounds, afford to reduce food subsidies. The facts are not, however, so simple. There were actually some 1,750 persons below the poverty line in York last year, and there would have been 6,900 more but for the food subsidies. This means that there were over 96,000 other people, all also enjoying the subsidies, who would have remained above the poverty line even without food subsidies. A welfare measure which saves sixty-six persons in a thousand from poverty only by paying equal benefits to 917 other persons more comfortably placed clearly invites scrutiny in times of national stringency. On the other hand, any policy of reducing food subsides must evidently make some sure alternative provision for preventing hardship where it would arise; and it is a pity that this study gives no account of the kind of families that compose the small minority to whom the subsidies are literally a defence against hardship.

928 words.

Now! Then! 2024! - Yorkshire On This Day

15 October 1951: On the eve of the general election, a Times leader summarises the latest Rowntree report, which details startling reductions in absolute poverty in York under the welfare state

Excerpt

Comment

Comment

Original

Tags

Similar

Search

Subscribe/buy

Donate

Music & books

Social