Paste youCritically analyse the motivating factors for state intervention in the 19th century in Britain.
During the 19th century, Britain was experiencing an industrial revolution. Previously, Britain was mainly agricultural, with most of its population living in rural towns and villages, and working with their families on small farms or in the marketplace . Following the development of machinery and the introduction if factories, work life intensified; hours increased, conditions worsened and children as young as eight years of age were forced to work long, gruelling shifts at dangerous factories. These factors became so out of control that the state eventually intervened by passing laws to limit working hours and control child labour. This essay will discuss the motivational factors for that state intervention in 19th century Britain. The main factors of working conditions, the economy, humanitarianism and public health can be analysed in order to ascertain the most important elements which acted as catalysts for state intervention.
Firstly, This paragraph will describe how worsening working conditions due to the industrial revolution was a key motivating factor for state intervention in the 19th century. Working conditions can be categorised in three ways: dangerous environment, working hours and child labour. The introduction of heavy machinery caused new problems and dangers to the health and safety of those operating and working close to them, as they were often fast moving and with little to no safety precautions which meant that workers frequently got injured or killed by the machinery. This may have caused the state to intervene as this was inhumane and may have lead to a workers uprising which would prove detrimental to the government. Therefore, they may have put measures in place to control public mood. On the subject of child labour, Fraser argues that although it existed before the industrial revolution in a family work setting, the appearance of heavy industry made child labour a more dangerous and therefore more controversial occurrence (Fraser, 2009). For example, Richard Oastler wrote in a letter to the Leeds Mercury “Ye live in the boasted land of freedom, and feel and mourn that ye are slaves…”(Fraser, 2009) suggesting that he felt child labour was comparable to slavery and that it too should be abolished (at the time there was a large anti slavery movement) which shows this as well may have been a contributing factor for the state to intervene in public welfare in the 19th century. In addition, inhumane working hours of often up to 18 hours made the working conditions of the industrial revolution in the 19th century a strong motivating factor for intervention by the state once awareness of this issue was raised by individuals such as Micheal Sadler (Fraser, 2009), who attempted to pass a bill through parliament in 1832 that aimed to limit working hours to 10 hours per day (Fraser, 2009). At that time the bill did not get through parliament, however it certainly started the conversation on factory working hours in the government and may have been one of the motivating factors for state intervention. On the other hand, a disadvantage of this viewpoint is that if the working conditions alone are the motivating factors for state intervention, This raises the question of why the state didn’t do something sooner – for example, why didn’t Michael Sadler’s bill get through in 1832? One possible reason for this may have been that the state did not see the economics benefits of state intervention until a few years after these conditions were discovered, and only then did they decide to take action and break the previously laissez-faire attitude to social and public policy.
So far, this essay has focused on the importance of working conditions in the industrial revolution as a motivating factors for state intervention in the 19th century. The following section will now discuss economic factors as a result of the industrial revolution, as these can be argued to be just as influential as the working conditions, if not more. Now that the economy was relying on worker’s production rates in factories, it became important for the state to look after these workers. If too many workers became sick, died or were unable to work due to poor living and working conditions, this could have a large negative impact on the economy . In order for the economy to continue to grow and be successful the state needed to put in place public welfare provision so that workers would stay healthy and also feel more positive towards the government and their work (Baldock et al., 2012). Therefore, when documents such as the Chadwick Report (Fraser, 2009) (which highlighted how poor sanitation and dirty water supplies were the causes of cholera epidemics) came to the government’s attention, they were obligated to put in place measures that improve public health, housing and working conditions in order to keep a healthy workforce that will benefit the economy. A strength of this argument is that it does make more logical sense than other more humanitarian arguments on why the state may have intervened in public affairs in the 19th century, as at the time there was an attitude of laissez-faire (Baldock et al., 2012) which this argument takes into account as the government may have intervened for the economy rather than for socially conscientious reasons. However, there may be other arguments that are more convincing, for example political pressure from humanitarians (discussed below) may have been a bigger motivating factor in why the state intervened in public welfare in the 19th century.
Moving on now to consider humanitarianism as a motivating factors for state intervention in the 19th century. At the time, it was seen as fashionable to have a social conscience (Fraser,2009), especially for the upper classes who opposed whig politics. The rapid development of rail during the mid 1800s had led to massive improvements in communication as well as the ability to travel and therefore many more members of ‘respectable society’ had been able to have first or second hand experience with the appalling conditions in the towns that the majority of the population were living in. This may have helped to raise awareness and fuel a humanitarian movement around Britain that called for more help to be given to those living and working in poor conditions. However, an alternative argument is that this may not have been the reason for state intervention as the government could have just been acting with the façade of humanitarianism when really the policies were just seen as economically beneficial as illustrated above. Therefore this factor may not have been as influential in the increase in state intervention in Britain in the 19th century. With that being said, a possibly more convincing argument may be that in some parts of society humanitarian beliefs rather than the traditional lassiez-faire attitude was becoming a more popular political position. Therefore, as the government wanted to stay in power they had to cater to these new attitudes in order to keep the seat in parliament so they brought more humanitarian bills through Parliament due to political pressure. This may then suggest that humanitarianism had an indirect rather than a direct influence on motivating the state to intervene in public welfare in the 19 century in Britain.
The next issue this essay will discuss as a motivating factor for state intervention in 19th century Britain is public-health. In the 19 century epidemics of diseases such as cholera and typhus were extremely common. This was due to poor sanitation and living conditions as well as a lack of medical knowledge and the difficulty for most people to access high-quality medical care. More common diseases such as typhus and TB usually only broke out amongst the workers, however, cholera was scaring the upper classes as they were starting to be affected by cholera as well and so the government was pressured into providing more state intervention into public health by improving standards of sanitation and improving living conditions in order to get rid of the risk of cholera. However, this argument can be criticised as Britain had come across epidemics that affected upper classes before such as the Black Death and the state had not intervened to provide better public health at that point so it does not explain why they would now.
Overall, the main motivating factors for state intervention in the 19th century in Britain are working conditions, the economy, humanitarianism, and public health. These four factors have been critically analysed in this essay to highlight the various advantages and disadvantages within each of these arguments. Working conditions in factories were
Bibliography
1) Baldock, J., Mitton, L., Manning, N. and Vickerstaff, S. (2012). Social policy. 4th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp.7-25.
2) Fraser, D. (2009) The Evolution of the British Welfare State Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan Fourth Edition
3) Hill, M. (1996). Social policy: a comparative analysis. 1st ed. Hertfordshire: Prentice Hall Harvester Wheatsheaf, pp.3-24, 292-310.
4) Midwinter, E. (1994) The Development of Social Welfare in Britain Buckingham: Open University Press
5) Offer, J. (2006) An Intellectual History of British Social Policy Bristol: Policy Press
r essay in here…