Goodbye to Poverty ?
DIE politicians will find it difficult to resist misusing this bOok. It shows that the percentage of the total population existing below the poverty line was 17.7 in 1936 and only 1.66 in 1950. It shows that but for the extension of welfare legislation since 1936 the numbs( ,of persons below the poverty line in 1950 would have been eight times greater than it was in fact. It shows that unemployment and inadequate wages were the cause of 70.9 per cent, of the poverty in the City of York in 1936 as against 1.0 per cent. in 1950. The figures are based on a sample of on* in nine of the working-class families in York, experience in the Rowntree Survey of 1936 (when every working-class house was visited) having shown that this sample is adequate. The 1950 poverty line was defined—stringently--as £5 a week for a man, wife 'and three children. Mr. Rowntree's state- ment in Poverty and Progress (1936) that York is representative of the towns of Great Britain still holds good. In short there is nothing misleading about the facts given in this book on the single question with which it sets out to deal—" how far the various welfare measures which have come into force since 1936 have succeeded in reducing poverty." They have succeeded impressively—even when full allowance is made for the reduction 'of unemployment.
In a General Election the step from silie establishment of facts to the allocation of credit for those facts is so small that no really determined candidate will notice it. So let it be stated at once that the credit for the introduction of family allowances, school milk, cheap milk for infants and free school meals belongs to all parties. And the elevation of food subsidies to their present level is the achievement of no party. It was an accident arising out of the decision, early in the war, to limit wage claims by cooking the cost of living index. One consequence of the accident is that for every one person who must have the subsidies if he is to keep above the poverty line there are twelve who could manage without them, but who get them just the same. Anyone who wishes to claim credit for this accident may do so, but he need not be surprised if what he gets is blame. And so far as the book under review is concerned —an impartial and dispassionate book—he will get neither praise nor blame.
The previous Rowntree Surveys of York, in 1900 and 1936, were full social surveys. They were wider in scope than the present study, which is concerned only with certain economic questions. And there are times when the present study stops short, to the inevitable disappointMent of the reader, at the broader and even more illuminating problems of a society which has changed very substantially since 1936. For it is only in the light of broader studies that any balanced appraisal can be made of the consequences of the present arrest of poverty. For example, there is an indication in the chapter on the determination of the poverty line that when there is a margin available, after paying for bare necessities, there is an immediate increase in the variety of expenditure. This factor of freedom of choice is obviously of great psychological importance. To what extent has its restriction in the post-war period offset the benefits of higher incomes for the poorest classes ? Then there are the women who go out to work because " they want a higher stan- dard of living and are prepared to work for it." To what extent has consciousness of the connection between living standards and work been dulled ?. These are not matters of merely incidental interest. On the answers to them depends the possibility of holding the ground that has been gained by welfare services and improving the lives of the 98.34 per cent. of the population who live above
Previous page
