It is named after the hamlet of Speen near Newbury in Berkshire, where, in 1795, the authorities approved a means-tested sliding-scale of wage supplements in order to mitigate the worst effects of rural poverty.
Unfortunately, it tended to aggravate the underlying causes of poverty in any particular parish. The immediate impact of paying this poor rate fell on the landowners of the parish concerned. They then sought other means of dealing with the poor, such as the workhouse funded through parish unions.
The transformation to a market system overturned this relationship, with the requirements of the capitalist market economy taking precedence, and with the expectation that the social costs imposed by the sovereignty of the marketplace would be paid in large part by the dislocated individuals.
The Speenhamlandsystem proved to be a cause of poverty rather than a cure, for a second reason; that is for a reason in addition to the high effective marginal tax rates that define the poverty trap.
It is a system that encourages the wasteful and inhumane social exclusion of the underworking group; a system that denies the economic sovereignty that is integral to citizenship.
The SpeenhamlandSystem was a method of giving relief to the poor, based on the price of bread and the number of children a man had.
Although this method of poor relief was not a national system it was particularly common in the so-called 'Swing' counties.
However, as time passed, contemporary writers, such as Thomas Malthus, said that the system tended to increase the population because it encouraged labourers to marry earlier than they might have done; it was also believed that it encouraged couples to have more children so the family could claim on the poor rates.
Feeds |
Contact