MUDDLE OR MENDACITY - THE BEVERIDGE COMMITTEE AND THE POVERTY LINE

被引:12
作者
VEITWILSON, JH
机构
关键词
D O I
10.1017/S0047279400019954
中图分类号
C93 [管理学]; D035 [国家行政管理]; D523 [行政管理]; D63 [国家行政管理];
学科分类号
12 ; 1201 ; 1202 ; 120202 ; 1204 ; 120401 ;
摘要
The Beveridge Committee of 1942 is often assumed to have based its proposals for social security scales on a poverty line at the 'human needs' or social participation level. This is because of its 'principle of adequacy of benefit in amount and time'. Using the Committee's working papers, this paper describes the discussions of the committee about the ideas of need and measures of poverty to be used. The evidence shows that the Committee knew very well that its proposed benefit levels were not enough for social participation. Because it consciously implemented the principles of minimum subsistence and less-eligibility in the face of inadequate wages, the proposed scales were arguably more austere even than Rowntree's 'primary poverty' standard which both he and Beveridge acknowledged was not suffficient to meet human social needs. Whether muddle or mendacity, this mystification has had serious consequences for the poor in Britain.
引用
收藏
页码:269 / 301
页数:33
相关论文
共 48 条
[1]  
ABELSMITH B, 1959, LAW OPINION ENGLAND
[2]  
[Anonymous], 1901, POVERTY STUDY TOWN L
[3]  
[Anonymous], 1942, SOCIAL INSURANCE ALL
[4]  
[Anonymous], 1961, SOCIAL THOUGHT SOCIA
[5]  
Atkinson A. B., 1981, B ECON RES, V33, P59
[6]  
Atkinson A. B., 1983, PARENTS CHILDREN INC
[7]  
ATKINSON AB, 1991, STATE SOCIAL WELFARE
[8]  
Bliss William Dwight Porter, 1908, NEW ENCY SOCIAL REFO, Vsecond
[9]  
BRADSHAW J, 1988, MONEY MATTERS
[10]  
COOKE K, 1984, MUCH IS ENOUGH REV S