Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-mlc7c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-03T04:09:28.807Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Muddle or Mendacity? The Beveridge Committee and the Poverty Line*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2009

John H. Veit-Wilson
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The Beveridge Committee of 1942 is often assumed to have based its proposals for social security scales on a poverty line at the ‘human needs’ or social participation level. This is because of its ‘principle of adequacy of benefit in amount and time’. Using the Committee's working papers, this paper describes the discussions of the committee about the ideas of need and measures of poverty to be used. The evidence shows that the Committee knew very well that its proposed benefit levels were not enough for social participation. Because it consciously implemented the principles of minimum subsistence and less-eligibility in the face of inadequate wages, the proposed scales were arguably more austere even than Rowntree's ‘primary poverty’ standard which both he and Beveridge acknowledged was not sufficient to meet human social needs. Whether muddle or mendacity, this mystification has had serious consequences for the poor in Britain.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Social Policy , Volume 21 , Issue 3 , July 1992 , pp. 269 - 301
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1992

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Abel-Smith, B. (1959), ‘Social Security’, in Ginsberg, M. (ed.). Law and Opinion in England in the 20th Century, Stevens and Sons, London.Google Scholar
Atkinson, A.B. (1991), ‘A national minimum? A history of ambiguity in the determination of benefit scales in Britain’ in T. and Wilson, D. (eds), The State and Social Welfare, Longman, London.Google Scholar
Atkinson, A.B., Corlyon, J., Maynard, A.K., Sutherland, H. and Trinder, C.G. (1981), ‘Poverty in York: a reanalysis of Rowntree's 1950 survey’, Bulletin of Economic Research, 33, 59–71.Google Scholar
Atkinson, A.B., Maynard, A.K. and Trinder, C.G. (1983), Parents and Children: Income in Two Generations, Heinemann, London.Google Scholar
Beveridge, W.H. (1942), Social Insurance and Allied Services, Crad 6404, HMSO, London.Google Scholar
Bliss, W.D.P. and Binder, R.M. (eds) (1908), The New Encyclopaedia of Social Reform, Funk and Wagnalls Co, New York.Google Scholar
Bradshaw, J. (1988), ‘Welfare benefits’, in Walker, R. and Parker, G. (eds), Money Matters, Sage, London.Google Scholar
Briggs, A. (1961), Social Thought and Social Action: a Study of the Work of Seebohm Rowntree, Longman, London.Google Scholar
Jones, D. Caradog (1934), The Social Survey of Merseyside, University of Liverpool Press, and Hodder and Stoughton, London.Google Scholar
Cooke, K. and Baldwin, S. (1984), How Much is Enough? A Review of Supplementary Benefit Scale Rates, Family Policy Studies Centre, London.Google Scholar
Cutler, T., Williams, K. and Williams, J. (1986), Keynes, Beveridge and Beyond, Routledge and Kegan Paul, London.Google Scholar
Department of Employment (1988), Family Expenditure Survey 1986, HMSO, London.Google Scholar
Dilnot, A.W., Kay, J.A. and Morris, C.N. (1984), The Reform of Social Security, Clarendon Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
Field, F. (1982), Poverty and Politics, Heinemann, London.Google Scholar
Field, F. (1985), What Price a Child? A historical view of the relative costs of dependents, Policy Studies Institute, London.Google Scholar
Ford, P. (1934), Work and Wealth in a Modern Port, An Economic Survey of Southampton, Allen and Unwin, London.Google Scholar
Fox, A. (1979), ‘A note on industrial relations pluralism’, Sociology, 13:1, 106–9.Google Scholar
Gallup, G. (1966), ‘Poverty by consensus’, in Miller, H.P. (ed.), Poverty American Style, Wadsworth Publishing Co, Belmont.Google Scholar
George, R.F. (1937), ‘A new calculation of.the poverty line’, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, 1, 74–95.Google Scholar
George, V. (1973), Social Security and Society, Routledge and Kegan Paul, London.Google Scholar
Harris, J. (1977), Wiliam Beveridge: A Biography, Clarendon Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
Harris, J. (1982), ‘The Social Thought of William Beveridge’, paper presented to Conference on the Beveridge Report, University of Edinburgh (mimeo).Google Scholar
Hennock, E.P. (1987), ‘The measurement of urban poverty: from the metropolis to the nation, 1880–1920’, Economic History Review, second series, 40:2, 208–27.Google Scholar
Hennock, E.P. (1991), ‘Concepts of poverty in the British Social Surveys, from Charles Booth to Arthur Bowley’, in Bulmer, M., Bales, K. and Sklar, K. Kish (eds), The Social Survey in Historical Perspective, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Smith, H. Llewellyn (1934), The New Survey of London Life and Labour. P.S. King, London.Google Scholar
Lynes, T. (1962), National Assistance and National Prosperity, Codicote Press, Welwyn.Google Scholar
Lynes, T. (1977), ‘The making of the unemployment assistance scale’, in Supplementary Benefits Commission, Low Incomes: Evidence to the Royal Commission on the Distribution of Income and Wealth, Supplementary Benefits Administration Paper 6, HMSO, London.Google Scholar
Mack, J. and Lansley, S. (1985), Poor Britain, Allen and Unwin, London.Google Scholar
Mack, J. and Lansley, S. (1992), Breadline Britain in the 1990s, Harper Collins, London.Google Scholar
Macnicol, J. (1978), ‘Family allowances and less-eligibility’, in Thane, P. (ed.), The Origins of British Social Policy, Croom Helm, London.Google Scholar
Melling, J. (1991), ‘Reading Beveridge: recent research on pre-war social policy’, Social Policy and Administration, 25:1, 73–79.Google Scholar
Nicholson, J.L. (1975), ‘A synopsis of research relevant to determining the adequacy of supplementary benefit scale rates’, DHSS Economic Adviser's Office, 16 September 1975 (mimeo).Google Scholar
Owen, A.D.K. (1933), A Survey of the Standard of Living in Sheffield, Sheffield Social Survey Commission.Google Scholar
Rowntree, B.S. (1901), Poverty: a Study of Town Life. Macmillan, London.Google Scholar
Rowntree, B.S. (1903), The ‘Poverty Line’: A Reply, Good, London.Google Scholar
Rowntree, B.S. (1918), The Human Needs of Labour, Nelson, London.Google Scholar
Rowntree, B.S. (1937), The Human Needs of Labour, Longmans Green, London.Google Scholar
Rowntree, B.S. (1941), Poverty and Progress, Longmans Green, London.Google Scholar
Stevenson, J. (1977), Social Conditions in Britain between the Wars, Penguin, Harmondsworth.Google Scholar
Titmuss, R.M. (1950), Problems of Social Policy, HMSO and Longmans, London.Google Scholar
Tout, H. (1938), The Standard of Living in Bristol, Bristol university Press, Bristol.Google Scholar
Townsend, P. (1954), ‘Measuring poverty’, British Journal of Sociology, 5:2, 130–37.Google Scholar
Townsend, P. (1979), Poverty in the United Kingdom, Penguin, Harmondsworth.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Veit-Wilson, J.H. (1986a), ‘Paradigms of poverty: a rehabilitation of B.S. Rowntree’, Journal of Social Policy, 15:1, 69–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Veit-Wilson, J.H. (1986b), ‘Paradigms of poverty: a reply to Peter Townsend and Hugh McLachlan’, Journal of Social Policy, 15:4, 503–7.Google Scholar
Veit-Wilson, J.H. (1987), ‘Consensual approaches to poverty lines and social security’, Journal of Social Policy, 16:2, 183–211.Google Scholar
Veit-Wilson, J.H. (1989), ‘The concept of minimum income and the basis of income support’, memoranda in House of Commons Social Services Committee, Minimum Income, House of Commons Paper 579, HMSO, London.Google Scholar
Wynn, M. (1970), Family Policy, Michael Joseph. London.Google Scholar