Search results

The system of government-run poor relief in England, dating from the sixteenth century, was not replicated in Europe until the mid- to late 1800s. In order to understand why, poor relief must be placed within the socio-economic framework of capitalism, a system of surplus appropriation which originated in the novel class relations of English agriculture. The English way of dealing with poverty was distinctive and this distinctiveness was rooted in the unparalleled expansion of capitalism in that country in the early modern era. Assistance to the poor in England emerged alongside a qualitative social change, wherein an economy rooted in custom was transformed into one based on the competitive social relations of capitalism. The main conclusion of this article is that the welfare state was not a product of industrialization but of the class structure of agrarian capitalism.

The purpose of this paper is to utilize illustrative examples from the industrialisation period in Sweden to analyse the interlace between poor legislation and school legislation.

It deals with how state regulation and societal transformations intervened in the lives of poor children and their parents. In particular, this article examines how collaboration between schools and poor relief resulted in normative judgements about their social inclusion and exclusion.

Overall, the article illuminates a new era in the history of social policy, an epoch when old assumptions were abandoned and fresh links were forged between industrialisation, national economics, education, gender relations, and social welfare. These changes are clarified not only by reference to nineteenth century sources but also to national and international research, and ideas about capital and gender relations associated with, among others, Hannah Arendt and Pierre Bourdieu.

The study illustrates how and why the official public spirit affects children and why understanding of this relationship needs to be broadened as well as deepened.

The insights of T. H. Marshall and Pierre Bourdieu are drawn upon, integrated and extended to show how social spending policies have been key sites for historical struggles over the boundaries and rights of American citizenship. In the 19th century, paupers forfeited their civil and political rights in exchange for relief. Rather than break definitively with this legacy, major policy innovations in the United States that expanded state involvement in social provision generated struggles over whether to model the new policies on or distinguish them from traditional poor relief. At stake in these struggles were the citizenship status and rights of the policies’ clients. Both the emergence of such citizenship struggles and their outcomes are explained. These struggles emerged when policy innovations created new groups of clients, the new policy treated clients in contradictory ways and policy elites formed ties to social movements with stakes in the status and rights of the policy's clients. The outcomes of the struggles have been shaped by the institutional structure of the policy and the manner and extent to which the policy became entangled in racial politics. Historical evidence for these claims is provided by a case study of the Works Progress Administration, an important but understudied component of the New Deal welfare state.

From 1782 to 1834, the English social legislation shifted from a safety net devised to deal with emergencies to a social security system implemented to cope with the threat of unemployment and poverty. In the attempt to explain this shift, this chapter concentrates on the changed attitudes toward poverty and power relationships in eighteenth-century British society. Especially, it looks at the role played by eighteenth-century British economic thinkers in elaborating arguments in favor of reducing the most evident asymmetries of power characterizing the period of transition from Mercantilism to the Classical era. To what extent did economic thinkers contribute to creating an environment within which a social legislation aimed at improving the living conditions of the poor as the one established in 1795 could be not only envisaged but also implemented? In doing so, this chapter deals with an aspect often undervalued and/or overlooked by historians of economic thought: namely, the relationship between economic theory and social legislation. If the latter is the institutional framework by which both individual and collective well-being can be achieved the former cannot but assume a fundamental role as a useful abstraction which sheds light on the multifaceted reality in which social policies are proposed, forged, and eventually implemented.

The Poor Law Report of 1834 occupies an important, perhaps pre‐eminent place in attempts to understand changes in the distribution of power, social relations, and social provision in the nineteenth century. Few other documents have set in progress such a multitide of far‐reaching changes. This is true even though the Poor Law Amendment Act of the same year, very closely related to the Report, diluted considerably its recommendations for policy ‐ as the Checklands say in the Introduction to their edition of the Report, “The Government, with the understandable intention of making things easier for itself and harder for its opponents, produced a Bill that was much less explicit than the Report” (1974, p. 42). The innovations flowing from the Report included: a specialist body at central level in London (the Poor Law Commissioners, given extensive powers to set in being general rules covering poor re‐lief); nationwide units of “local government”, the union, bringing into control as boards of guardians many new people, who gained their position through elections; more systematic construction of workhouses, which often dwarfed the other buildings in their towns or villages; and a circumscribing of the power in the hands of the Justices of the Peace, stalwarts of a less formal, more paternalistic and discretionary attitude to poor relief.

Within the interface between power and charity, the purpose of this paper is to enhance an understanding of the role of charities in the administration of poor in local government and to explore how accounting operates in such a context. In this investigation, the paper considers accounting, referring to both financial and non-financial information, inserted in a complex of technologies accomplishing the “government of poverty”.

The paper is based on a historical study referring to the case of MIA, an Italian charity, investigated during the sixteenth-seventeenth centuries, adopting Foucault's “governmentality” framework in a diachronic perspective. This approach, coordinating views coming from Anglo-Foucauldian scholars with alternative Foucault effects expressed in Dean's works, represents a novelty of this investigation.

The paper shows the interface of power (municipality) and charity (MIA) in the “government of poverty”, in a context of ancien regime, pointing out how this interplay was a key element within the “discourse of poor”. The pivotal function of MIA as an “agency of police” and the constitutive role of accounting as a technology of “government of poverty”, representing a social practice able to allow the preservation of the social equilibrium, emerge.

The research is based on a single case study and it shows the need for both comparative and interdisciplinary analysis in order to increase an understanding of the interface of power and charity in ancien regime contexts, as well as in contemporary situations of crisis or emergencies.

For the first time in the accounting history literature, the work presents an extension of “governmentality” analysis into the domain of the “government of poor” through a series of Municipality Orders and their operationalisation by a charity, which adopted accounting to realise a control on people and resources contributing to reach local government equilibrium aims. The work also offers a reference within the contemporary accounting literature in relation to the debate about the role of charities or similar non-profit organizations in the context of the current financial crisis affecting the world, or in situations of emergencies.

The purpose of this paper is to analyse the justifying arguments of various Birmingham organisations between 1870 and 1914 in classifying and treating the unemployed. Using a capability approach, the paper will examine how employment policies in Birmingham during this period promoted or limited capabilities of work, life and voice. Finally, implications for labour market policies today will be discussed.

The theoretical framework for this paper will draw on the capability approach to a person's well‐being, developed by Amartya Sen and on theoretical and empirical developments of the capability approach by other authors such as Bonvin and Salais. This paper is based on historical archival research and analysis.

Birmingham was an exemplar of municipal social reform in late nineteenth century England, with the development of a range of public services such as education, electricity and public transport. However, the city's vision of civic reform was closely connected to the Liberal market logic of individual responsibility, and moral judgements of the unemployed served to multiply the categories and punitive treatments of the “undeserving”, separating the valid from the invalid citizen.

This case study of municipal employment policies in Birmingham at the turn of the twentieth century demonstrates the implications of moral judgements, classifications and treatments of the unemployed for people's capabilities in work and life, drawing connections to discourses of responsibility and citizenship today.

This paper aims at analyzing the determinants of access to relief under social assistance programs among rural households during COVID-19 outbreaks in India.

The study is based on the data of COVID-19-Related Shocks Survey, which covered 5,200 rural households across 6 states of India namely Andhra Pradesh, Bihar, Jharkhand, Madhya Pradesh Rajasthan, and Uttar Pradesh. The access to relief has been assessed as relief-in kind (RIK) as a free special package of wheat, rice, and pulses, supplied through the public distribution system; and direct benefit transfer (DBT) in cash under the Pradhan Mantri Kisan Samman Nidhi (PM-KISAN) Yojana and the Pradhan Mantri Jan-Dhan Yojana (PMJDY). The association between demographic profiles of rural households and access to relief has been analyzed using the chi-square test. Further, marginal effects have been estimated to assess the determinants of rural households' access to relief.

The results show a significant association between types of relief vis-à-vis demographic profiles of the rural households. A significant difference in access to relief among rural households is also evident across the states. Further, the analysis of the marginal effects indicates that female-headed households belonging to lower social class, depending on non-agricultural occupation with lower income, belonging to below poverty line families and seeking wage employment, are more likely to access relief as food grains; whereas male respondents with lower age, belonging to lower-income quartile with memberships in Self Help Groups are more likely to access the cash benefit transfers.

The COVID-19 pandemic has affected the food security and livelihood of many across the globe, which necessitated provisioning a package of support to everyone, particularly rural poor households. The World Bank undertook the COVID-19-Related Shocks Survey to provide a quick policy response for managing the risk of COVID-19 outbreak effectively. The results of this study provide timely insights for developing an effective relief strategy for rural households during a crisis.

There is limited investigation on access to relief by rural households during the COVID-19 outbreaks and factors affecting the access to relief in terms of cash and kind. This study has utilized a reliable data source to analyze the access of relief packages by the rural communities during the coronavirus outbreak.

The peer review history for this article is available at: https://publons.com/publon/10.1108/IJSE-10-2021-0632.

The first Poor Laws date back to the 16th century. One would have to go back to 1495 and 1531 to locate the first legislation (displaying above all a repressive character), in which vagabonds were punished, all public begging was outlawed and the poor were required to participate in public works. But an initial 1535 provision stipulated that the local authorities were required to provide for the subsistence of the sick poor. The laws of 1572, 1575, 1597 and 1601 (Tawney & Power, 1924, Vol. 2, pp. 328–329, 346–354) marked a decisive step towards the extension of assistance to the ‘deserving poor’ within the context of the parish. Throughout the whole of the 17th century, the coercive aspect continued to dominate. The law on place of residence (the Act of Settlement and Removal) of 1662 added new constraints to the old provisions attaching the poor to their respective parishes. The creation of workhouses beginning in the mid-17th century (via parliamentary decrees in 1647 and 1649) represented the most important stage in the establishment of these repressive measures. The objective was to make the poor more useful and less costly to society; the 18th century would see an increase in the number of workhouses, reaching a total of approximately 200 by the end of the century. Beginning in 1722, the parish authorities were able to create workhouses and conclude agreements with the central government for the upkeep of the poor; those who refused to participate in these institutions lost all rights to assistance.

Social policy in early modern Ireland, like England, was primarily orientated towards the perennial problem of poverty. Despite the effect of war and famine, trade began to prosper in sixteenth century Ireland and continued to do so until after the Napoleonic Wars, albeit, interspersed with occasional depressions and minor famines. The effect of this growth in trade on population was explosive. Between 1672 and 1791 population more than tripled from 1.1 million to 3.8 million. England, as a result of the establishment of the Elizabethan Poor Law, in 1601, had achieved a relatively sophisticated poor relief system based on a crude categorisation according to abilities and needs, the introduction of a carceral system of discipline for the able‐bodied poor, and the compulsory levying of a poor rate. Ireland relied primarily on a system of punishments supplemented by proselytization, and tended to treat the poor as a unitary category, with the exception of children.