Social Insurance in Great Britain

AuthorThomas R. Adam
DOI10.1177/000271623517800125
Published date01 March 1935
Date01 March 1935
176
Social
Insurance
in
Great
Britain
By
THOMAS
R.
ADAM
I T
IS
sometimes
assumed
that
the
policies
represented
by
the
social
services
in
Great
Britain
are
the
prod-
ucts
of
postwar
economic
problems.
This
is
a
misunderstanding
that
in-
volves
real
dangers
when
the
British
system
is
studied
as
a
possible
basis
for
experiments
in
other
countries.
When
the
origins
and
development
of
this
system
are
examined
closely
it
becomes
evident
that
modern
trends
in
English
social
reform
are
based
upon
a
history
and
a
philosophy
peculiar
to
the
English
people.
Their
experi-
ments
in
social
service
all
spring
from
a
conviction,
deeply
rooted
in
their
national
history,
that
government
is
directly
responsible
for
the
mainte-
nance
of
the
physical
and
material
well-being
of
the
people.
This
definite
social
philosophy
is
older
and
more
fundamental
than
mere
political
expediency
necessitated
by
postwar
economic
difficulties.
Amer-
icans
are
inclined
towards
viewing
British
experiments
in
social
reform
as
the
work
of
one
political
party
or
as
the
expression
of
the
strength
of
or-
ganized
labor;
but
in
fact
it
is
the
social
conscience
of
the
English
people
as
a
whole
that
is
concerned.
In
this
sense
these
policies
are
native
to
the
soil
of
England,
and
cannot
be
readily
trans-
planted
in
their
present
form
to
foreign
shores.
There
is
no
such
thing
in
England
as
organized
opposition
to
the
general
principle
of
responsibility
of
the
com-
munity
for
its
less
fortunate
members.
Social
responsibility
is
the
essence
of
the
British
attitude
towards
social
re-
form.
Major
Walter
Elliot,
a
leading
Conservative
of
contemporary
Great
Britain,
is
probably
correct
when
he
claims
that
&dquo;the
principle
that
no
one
shall
be
allowed
to
go
hungry
was
en-
shrined
in
English
practice
and
theory
as
far
back
as
the
Norman
Conquest.&dquo;
1
However
divided
in
opinion
the
Eng-
lish
political
parties
may
seem
on
the
surface,
they
are
fundamentally
at
one
in
the
acceptance
of
the
general
prin-
ciple.
With
the
beginning
of
the
nine-
teenth
century,
economic
individual-
ism
was
held
to
be
the
only
road
to
social
harmony.
Actual
results
of
the
industrial
revolution,
however,
proved
this
a
mistaken
theory.
Severe
social
conditions
resulting
from
the
growth
of
mechanical
industry
made
some
program
of
social
reform
an
absolute
necessity.
CONSERVATIVE
HUMANITARIANISM
The
Conservative
or
traditionalist
party
challenged
the
Liberal
principles
of
laissez
faire
on
customary,
humani-
tarian
grounds.
Free
trade
was
part
of
a
philosophy
not
merely
of
free
im-
ports,
but
of
a
general &dquo;hands
off
the
community&dquo;
which
demanded
the
right
to
work
children
of
thirteen
and
upwards
for
longer
than
from
half
past
six
in
the
morning
till
eight
o’clock
at
night.
Lord
Shaftesbury,
England’s
outstanding
Conservative
reformer,
proved
willing
to
go
back
to
practical
reforms
and
to
the
philosophy
of
what
might
be
called
social
responsibility.
Disraeli
dramatized
social
suffering
with
his
colorful
descriptions
of
the
two
nations
in
England-the
rich
and
the
poor.
The
revived
Conservative
Party
pinned
its
flag
to
the
mast
of
traditional
humanitarianism.
1
Elliot,
Walter.
Toryism
and
the
Twentieth
Century,
London,
1927, p. 64.

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT