Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
History of social welfare essay
History of social welfare essay
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: History of social welfare essay
Trattner, W. I. (1999). From poor law to welfare state: a history of social welfare in America. New York: The Free Press, c1999. Pp 51-57
Question # 8-What is Meant by the “Principle of Less Eligibility?” As stated by the author, the “Principle of less eligibility,” meant that those receiving public assistance “should be worse than that of the lowest paid self-supporting laborer.” In a sense this meant if a person dug ditches or scooped human waste for a living, the situation of a public assistance recipient should be much worse. The author points out that in 1834, when the “Poor Law Reform Bill,” passed it enforced the negative attitudes about poverty. Essentially, if someone was poor it was viewed as their fault. Services should never lift a recipient out of poverty, but just provide meager assistance in a stigmatizing way. The author describes how impoverished individuals in England during the mid-1800’s, were viewed in negative, criminal ways if they received assistance. Furthermore, those described as “able bodied and on assistance were particularly maligned in the court of public opinion. Many of the homeless and
…show more content…
The text describes why many wanted to end public assistance programs. According to the author, American society in the mid-1800’s had the notion that if you gave someone assistance, it discouraged them from wanting to be self-sufficient. In addition, there was a societal thought that public assistance corrupted a person in some way. The author described several reasons why private giving was favored over public giving. First it would eliminate the poor’s sense of entitlement to benefits. Secondly, political pressures were harder when assistance came through private means. Lastly, a connection would now exist between the rich and the poor. If the public was not providing benefits, people would have to find work because private assistance was not something that was
When speaking about Welfare we try to avoid it, turning welfare into an unacceptable word. In the Article “One Nation On Welfare. Living Your Life On The Dole” by Michael Grunwald, his point is to not just only show but prove to the readers that the word Welfare is not unacceptable or to avoid it but embrace it and take advantage of it. After reading this essay Americans will see the true way of effectively understanding the word welfare, by absorbing his personal experiences, Facts and Statistics, and the repetition Grunwald conveys.
Between 1450 and 1700, attitudes toward the European poor changed dynamically, roughly following a three-part cycle. In the late 1400's, the poor were regarded with sympathy and compassion; generous aid from both public and religious institutions was common. By the 16th Century, however, the poor were treated with suspicion and harsh measures, to ensure that they were not becoming lazy, using welfare as a substitute for labor. Beginning in the 17th Century, the attitudes toward the poor again shifted, returning to more sympathetic views and responses, though many members of the upper-class still retained the negative outlook on the destitute of the 16th Century.
Aid was given to farmers and poor citizens through acts and agencies such as the Rural Electric Act, Red Cross, Salvation Army, and Taylor Grazing Act (“New” 9; Young 159). This government support helped alleviate the poverty resulting from the Great Depression. Over time, these programs assisted in forming a middle class, lowering the poverty rate and allowing a better quality of living for American citizens. In addition to providing assistance to the lower class, the New Deal formed government entitlement programs. Service organizations, such as Social Security and Financial Aid, were created (Brinkley 597).
Dolgoff, R. & Feldstein, D. (2003). Understanding social welfare (7th ed). New York, Allen & Bacon
O?Beirne, Kate. ?The State of Welfare: An old and tricky question resurfaces.? National Review 54.2 (February 11, 2002): 1--2. Online. Information Access Expanded
In fact, many believed the poor were just worthless idlers who were not even trying to better there own situations, but instead were taking the high roads away from taxes and worries (Document 11). There were many observed instances in which those in poverty, when given the opputinity to better their lives, chose to stay poor and recieve handouts. One such cause comes from William Turner, and English Physican for Lord Earl of Somerset when he recounts how poor folks often begged on the Earl's door but when Turner offered to help health wise, they chose to stay sick and beg (Document 6). Similar to modern day abusers of the American Wellfare system, officals became very angry with idlers who did nothing but feed off the wealth of the working class in the form of alms. They even believed that idlers should be expelled from their communites as they only bring economics down (Document 5). Many also thought that in order received any aid at all a person must be working. Reforms such as the Workhouse Test Act in 1723, though this occured later than the period of discussion, were a result of these opinions. This act, among others, required that people work a set amount of hours before they could receive any aid. Even the famous Cardinal Richelieu of France believed that the idlers were “good-for-nothings” who were restricting those who actually needed help from getting it while they were being lazy and greedy (Document 8). This opinion of certain poor indivudals being lazy and abusing resources remains amoung those in power even today in
Thesis The Progressive Era and the New Deal Era had a significant amount of similarities with policies and programs to reform the American society and improve lives and fight poverty in America. Although the Progressive and New Deal Era had many similarities, there were still differences between them. Both the Progressive and the New Deal Era’s main goal was to improve American society. Both of the Progressive and New Deal’s accomplishments were rooted in the economic depression and the need for change before the era, the Guilded age in the 19th century for the Progressive era, and the Great Depression for the New Deal era. As the Guilded Age was ending, and the Progressive Era was emerging, most American families had to live with the harsh reality of sweatshops, slums, child labor, corruption in government and businesses, disease, and racial prejudice.
...th what little they have, however; why is it left to the poor to have to suffer the consequences of these political choices. The persistence of extreme poverty and social ills speak to a situation that bears for a different approach. It is clear that capitalism and free market solutions cannot spread wealth as advocated. American governments have shown their reluctance to admit this discrepancy through the strategic creations of welfare policies and welfare reform coupled with placing blame upon the citizens who possess little power to change market decisions that govern and effect their lives.
Swan, Richelle S., et al. "The Untold Story of Welfare Fraud." Journal of Sociology & Social
Blau, J. (2004). The dynamics of social welfare policy. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, Inc.
The new legislation wanted to put an end to out-relief and established 'workhouses' throughout Great Britain. The attitude following this was that the position of pauper could be an 'eligible' one especially when honest work was so difficult and parish hand-outs were ample. Source 1 is a prime example of this, a quote from Samuel Smiles Self-Help 1859. Samuel Smiles believed that growth as a nation had to start from within and that any external help (friendly-societies, charity organisation) was 'enfeebling in its effe... ... middle of paper ... ...
Day P. J., Schiele J. H. (2013) A NEW HISTORY OF SOCIAL WELFARE (7th ed.) Location: United States
In today’s America, there are many people who would either be disgusted at the very mention of Welfare or be highly grateful for its existence. I believe that in order for welfare to be more effective in America, there must be reform. From the time of its inceptions in 1935, welfare has lent a helping hand to many in crisis (Constitution Rights Foundation). However, at present many programs within the system are being abused and the people who are in real need are being cheated out of assistance. The year after the creation of welfare unemployment was just about twenty percent (Unemployment Statistics). The need for basic resources to survive was unparallel. Today, many people face the same needs as many did during the 30s. Some issues with
The Elizabeth Poor Law advocated and placed responsibility of the poor to the churches and government. If parishes could not meet the responsibilities, counties were required to assume relief-giving functions. The government became the chief enforcer of poor relief. However, the local parishes fulfilled their welfare responsibilities in several ways. They provided outdoor relief to persons in the homes; provided indoor relief to person in special institutions that came to be variously known as almshouse, poorhouses or workhouses; or required person to become indenture servants or apprentices. It also required relatives to care for their impoverished relatives. The poor were provided with unemployment relief, initiated works; regulated local prices to help poor persons; gave in-kind assistance such a as food, clothing, and wood, provided health care; and removed children from abusive households’ and gave legal protection . Many local jurisdictions possessed “laws of settlement” that entitled people to receive local poor law relief after a year’s residence.
When I first started to write about general welfare, I at first thought it might be a two, three maybe four part article, but it eventually morphed into TEN and now eleven parts, and I still did not cover all that I wanted to. I was however was able to cover the various arguments and circumstances surrounding the term “general welfare” in many respects. Throughout the discussion we have covered some of its first origins and uses, how it came to be part of the Constitution, and the debates about it after the Convention finished, and leading up to when the Supreme Court started to hear arguments over it [which is another entire discussion in itself]. The focus here has not been what Supreme Court has thought of the term in Article I Section 8 Clause 1, but how others thought of it before and shortly after it even became law. Why was it used, and what was its pedigree to those who decided to put it in the Constitution, and how it was viewed by those who ratified it.