Within the book ‘The Student’s Companion to Social Welfare’, Noel Whiteside provides a detailed insight of his opinion on ‘The Liberal Era and Growth of State Welfare’ and allows us to summarise this period as valuable in shaping today’s society.
The Growth of the State Welfare was very significant in the 19th century majorly down to the Liberal’s help with recognising the causes of unwanted problems and then pushing reform into place. Firstly however, this became in the views of the government after the major influential industrialization of Germany, as Britain fell from being the sole industrial power, Germany gained more power and soon became Britain’s main competitor. German social legislation also set example to Britain as well as other countries as they promoted social security against the danger of mishap, sickness and old age. Soon after, other countries adopted these reforms, including Britain although this was only after several years of criticism of the system. According to Whiteside ‘The Threat of Economic Decline’ was a contributing factor in reforming Britain, the fears of major hardship throughout was severe and financial support from locals was on the rise. The roots of destitution and rising pauperism were credited to; no jobs with a large amount of people looking for work, poor eating habits, illness and congestion. Times of hardship due to these factors resulted in many regular workers losing their jobs with no more financial support than that of an incorrigible casual. According to the author, to make ends meet often these regular workers would be made do tougher jobs than usual, causing the paupers to feel unmotivated and testing their ability to work. Whiteside believed that if a decent jobless man is regarded as a pauper then he would become one. ‘Diagnostics and Analysis’ changed with the reform as social scientists moved from singular flaws to ecological and communal issues. A.L Bowely and Seebohm Rowntree defined these failing factors by differentiating shortage caused by oldness, illness or joblessness triggered by; alcoholism, unlawful propensities or idleness. These social factors which were based on hardship gave long-lasting groundwork for scarcity examinations. Bowely and Rowntree were not the only social scientists who put forth on their own diagnostics for the rise of destitution. Galton and Pearson believed that poverty was not only down to social factors, they believed that it was more to do with heritage and how ethical, moral and bodily disadvantages explained the larger part of destitution. These eugenicists believed that paupers who were deemed as unfit should be uncorrupted, if they wanted to be married and go on to have children Galton and Pearson believed that the paupers must go through an authorized examination before they are permitted. Although they put forth these ideas, they were strongly contested by Sidney and Beatrice Webb, the Webb’s believed that the answer to destitution was to apply the right treatment of specialized information to source the cause of poverty. They also believed that enforcing the Poor Law without any consideration of the pauper’s circumstances was a disheartening and unsuitable tool and that it should be eradicated. The Webb’s believed that instead of this, expert investigation should be compulsory and that the State should be responsible for the restoration of destitution. This would include; professional health care for the ill, housing for the frail and elderly, employment for the jobless and strict rehabilitation camps for the lazy paupers. After disagreements and different views on the problem at hand, officials came to the conclusion of a reform. The ‘Politics and Reform’ of Britain in the nineteenth century consisted of a bumpy start which slowly took control of its nation. According to Whiteside, the trade coalitions and socialist’s came together to create the Labour Representation Committee. By the 1900’s humanitarians saw that the