Prior to the late 19th century ‘Laissez-faire’ was the Governments policy towards poverty in Britain. “Laissez-faire” meaning to leave alone was the attitude of both the government and the public towards the issue of the poor who were living in poverty. The state was not to interfere in the lives of people or in the workings of market economy. Individuals had to look after themselves and their families. It was believed that poverty was the individuals own fault, due to their own personal defects and moral failures.
Many Americans attempted to reform the often harsh social and economic conditions fostered by rapid industrialization and urbanization and progressive movement was the response of the nation. The nations focus shifted from Industrialization and Immigration, Gilded Age to Progression. The Progression was focused on in the United States between the years of the mid-1890s and the early 1920s. Progressive Era was a period of rapid economic growth fueled by the changes brought about by industrialization. It was “a bridge to modern times” as its effects touched virtually all Americans and transformed the role of government in American society.
Why Was There A Revolution In 1905 The Revolution in 1905 happened for many reasons, some reasons are long term and some short term. A long-term cause of the 1905 Revolution was the continuing dissatisfaction of both peasants and landowners to the Emancipation Edict of 1861. Although this piece of legislation had brought an end to serfdom, peasants still remained tied to the village commune called the mir and were angry at the redemption payments they were expected to pay in return for the land they had received. They believed more, and better quality, land should have been given to them at no cost. Their anger was made evident during the peasant disturbances of 1902.
They focused on a lack of happiness in the workers lives. A decrease in the health of the average industrial laborer is probably the most notable issue raised by the Industrial Revolution. Public health reformer, Edwin Chadwick (Doc 6), wrote that The annual loss of life from filth and bad ventilation is greater than loss from &modern wars. Being a reformer, Chadwick may had been inclined to some degree to exaggerate, but because this excerpt was taken from a report it can be assumed that it is factual. If Chadwick did exaggerate and make the conditions sound even worse than they actually were, then his agenda was to persuade the government to change laws in order to improve health standards for factory workers and also to persuade workers to protest and become reformers.
In his essay he argues, even in the face of various disasters that have befallen some of the poorest citizens, no efforts to combat poverty have been successful. The author uses logos, pathos, and ethos to get his point across. Logos is basic logic and reason an author uses to convey their point. Mr. Keyssar does so by pointing out, over the years there have been multiple attempts at solving the issue of poverty, the biggest of which was “The New Deal.” This allowed poverty to be viewed as a “collective responsibility” as opposed to being an individual issue (Keyssar, 2005). This enabled Americans to realize poverty was a very real problem for a good portion of the population of the US.
A government policy of enclosure was implemented, which greatly upset traditional, rural societies. Tenant farmers would now only employ labourers to do short term work on the farms, for jobs such as hedging or ditching. There was now a surplus of labourer due to deflation after the French wars, a population increase alongside a non-agricultural employment decrease, and the development of agricultural machinery. It is easy to see why people protested against this, many men were jobless and unable to feed their families, and the little work there was was sparse and low paid. It was also due to political reasons that people protested during the Swing Riots.
The most important plan made was the Beveridge Report in 1942. This report highlighted the main causes of poverty in Britain as, WANT (poverty), DISEASE (bad health), SQUALOR (bad housing), IGNORANCE (poor education), and IDLENESS (unemployment). These causes were called ‘the Five Giants.’ In 1951, Labour was criticized for not keeping its promises, and many of their previous voters turned conservative. This caused Labour to lose the 1951 election, as they had focused more on peace throughout the country after the war, than building
Before the Liberal Reforms of 1905, poverty was an ever present endemic within the working-class of Britain. The general attitude towards those who suffered from poverty, as defined by ideas of Victorian Liberalism, gave the government little imperative to take any real action against poverty. However, after two major studies on the conditions of England had been conducted by Seebohm Rowntree and Charles Booth, the Liberal government introduced a series reforms aimed at improving the lives of the poor. Naturally there is a degree of importance to these two studies concerning how they led to government awareness of poverty; however a series of events around this era also served as possible catalysts for the introduction of social reforms, for example, the Boer War displayed the impact of poverty on war, which compromised the British concept of imperialism at the time. The main question is to what extent were the social reforms of the Liberal Government between 1905 and 1914 a response to more in depth knowledge about the extent and impact of poverty in British affairs.
Indian political leaders increasingly stressed these inequities and the more general loss to Indian people because of the drainage of Indian resources. The short comings of British rule were well apparent by the last decades of the 19th century. There was a decline in food production that led to famines, food shortages, and outbreaks of epidemic disease. British measures to control these situations came too little and too late. Indian politicians were frustrated by the Britain refusal to honor wartime promises.
In “What is Poverty?” Theodore Dalrymple argues that poverty has been redefined. In traditional poverty, poor people’s income levels are low, they are starving, or the medical care is not enough. However, this kind of poverty does not exist in industrial countries like England because of the welfare state. The welfare state redistributes wealth, provides free medical care and free houses for the poor. According to the author, this causes moral poverty.