Poverty

There is an argument that poverty no longer exists in Britain today. Many people would say that the days when people died from lack of food, shelter or clean water ended, in this country, with the introduction of the welfare state (Chinn, 1995). Poverty, however, can be defined in two ways and depending on which definition one chooses to employ, it can be contested whether the balance of evidence shows that poverty actually does exist or not.

In this piece of work it will be argued that poverty does affect many people in our society and the lack of resources of poorer people in society is at the root of inequalities in health. Furthermore it will be shown that the discrepancy between the standards of living that better off people in society enjoy and the standards of living that poorer people endure can be something that is very difficult to alter. In conclusion there will be a discussion on the role that social care professionals may play in trying to reduce the negative effects suffered by some people as a result of poverty.

The first of the two identified forms of poverty is absolute or “subsistence level poverty” (Thompson and Priestly, 1996: 207). Income falls below a set level so that a person does not have the means to be able to secure the basic necessities for living, in terms of food, drink, shelter and clothing. Stephens et al (1998) argue that for some people in society, like rough sleepers, poverty in absolute terms is very real and that when older people die from hypothermia because they can’t afford to heat their homes adequately it is as a result of absolute poverty.

Poverty in this sense however has certainly diminished since the advent of the Welfare State. The second definition of poverty, relative poverty, is defined in terms of a ‘reasonable’ standard of living generally expected by the society in which a person lives. It identifies ‘needs’ as more than basic biological requirements, taking into account social and emotional needs. It is also about being excluded from taking part in activities which are widely undertaken by the rest of society.

In terms of resources, relative poverty is a higher standard of living than absolute poverty but it could be argued that many things that are not strictly essential for life nevertheless could be deemed as necessities by society in general. Thus whether you adhere to an absolutist or relativist definition of it, it is clear that there are certain people in society who suffer from poverty. Modern research into poverty combines both classifications.

Stevens et al (1988: 266) maintain: “it’s important to capitalise on the advantages of both definitions”. There have been several pieces of well-documented research into health inequalities, both by successive governments and independent bodies, for example, The Black Report in 1980; Margaret Whitehead’s ‘The health divide’ in 1987 (Stephens et al, 1998) and most recently the Acheson Report in 1998. This research underlines the correlation between poverty and ill health and the disparity that exists, depending on social class.

Measurements and comparisons are made in terms of morbidity and in terms of mortality. Research shows that if a person is born into poverty his/her chances of suffering ill health and a shortened life p are greater than if he/she was born into prosperity. Some of the most recent research has shown, for example that children in social class five (where five represents the least well off and one represents the most well off) are five times as likely to suffer accidental death than their peers from social class one (Roberts I. Power C, 1996). Further studies show that a baby boy from social class one can be expected to live for more than nine years longer than a baby boy from social class five (Office for National Statistics, 1998). The British Medical Journal (1999) states “Social class differences in health are seen at all ages, with lower socio-economic groups having the greater incidence of heart disease, stroke and some cancers”. The rate of pre-natal mortality is higher for women from lower socio-economic groups.

A poorer person is more likely to die in infancy, more likely to suffer ill health, as a child and as an adult, and more likely to die prematurely than someone who has greater access to resources. It has been stated that “the most significant factor [affecting health] in poverty is… the fact that poor people are denied access to possessions and services that are available to their better-off peers” (Moore, 1997). This could include: preventative medicine, early treatment when sick, a healthy diet, access to ‘keep fit’ leisure activities.

Other factors which could have a detrimental effect on poorer people could include things like poorly maintained housing, stress related illness and smoking, which is more prevalent among lower income groups (Office for National Statistics, 1998). Explanations for poverty tend to fall into two categories. There are individualistic explanations for poverty. That people who are in relative poverty are so because they are in some way lazy, irresponsible or ‘feckless’ and they could help themselves to escape poverty if they really wanted to.

Some people vocalise this way of thinking by, for example, telling the unemployed to ‘get on their bikes’ and find work. This type of argument can, and often is, applied to any ‘inappropriate’ or ‘wasteful’ use of resources for example, by criticising people for wanting to dress their children in more expensive clothes, or by condemning women for the number of children they choose to have. Another common reaction when confronted with arguments about poverty is to be reproachful when someone chooses to smoke instead of ‘spending their money wisely’.

These arguments however fail to take into account the way that society is structured and the effects that this has on people’s life chances. There is an element of victim blaming and consideration is not given to the fact that some people have far more power than others to alter aspects of their lives. Structural, as opposed to individualistic, explanations focus on “the political, economic and material environment in which people find themselves” (Howe, 1997: 173). A person who is born into poverty is more likely to stay poor and their children are likely to be poor.

In this way a life or poverty can be a self-perpetuating cycle of deprivation which people have very little power to change. This deprivation is exacerbated by the fact that it can be combined with other inequalities, such as those based on gender, ethnicity, and age. The fact that some people suffer from multiple disadvantages is attributable to structural inequality, which is inherent in our society. Anatole France wrote: “The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread. France (1894). Clearly there is no need for wealthier people ‘to sleep under bridges’ whereas there may be a justification or even a necessity for a homeless person to do it. The concept of a society where everyone has the same opportunities and all are equal is a fallacy when viewed from a structural perspective. This does not however mean that people are absolutely powerless to help themselves and assumptions should not be made that because someone is in poverty they will necessarily need the help of social care professionals.

People can often make changes to make their lives better, to suggest otherwise would be to disempower people. Social care professionals should be aware of the effects of poverty and the relative powerlessness of some people but not to such an extent that the power imbalance is made greater by the workers inability to treat the client as an individual. Anti-oppressive practice is “a form of social work that addresses social divisions and structural inequalities … by responding to people’s needs regardless of their social states” Dominelli (1993).

This argument is further developed by Dalrymple and Burke (1995) when they talk about giving the client access to records so that any information is shared. Ensuring inclusion and consultation can lessen the power imbalance between social care worker and client. Government policy is geared to combating inequalities, in light of the findings of the Acheson Report. In particular it recognises the needs of those who may have multiple disadvantages, for example women, children, people with disabilities, older people and people from ethnic minority groups.

Social care workers should have an awareness of combined inequalities and should have a commitment to reduce them. “Many social workers invest considerable efforts to maximise the welfare benefits of their clients and search through charitable resources to alleviate some of their acute hardships” (Jones, 1997: 121). Social care workers can work in partnership with other agencies to ensure that they refer people to organisations who are able to help, when it is not within the social carer’s remit.

For example, referrals could be made to: agencies who advise on health matters, or work to increase benefits, or help people back into work, or give advice on housing matters. “The best way to get rid of poverty – absolute or relative – is to forge a more genuinely equal society” Stephens et al (1998: 258). This is something that is beyond the capabilities of any one profession. In conclusion, social care workers can help to reduce the negative effects of poverty to a certain extent but, for any major improvements to be made, there needs to be a radical change (through governmental policy) in the distribution of both power and wealth.

Australians are committed to a ;fair go’ and that they belong to a classless society? Since Australia opened its doors to the rest of the world it has been widely regarded as a land of ‘golden opportunity well endowed in resources with a small population; it appeared to be an escape from the rigid aristocratic ruling of European nations (Furze, 2008: 349). For such a long time many Australians have been reluctant to recognize that social classes do in fact exist within our society and that these classes perpetuate inequality.

To claim that all Australians are committed to a fair go’ would be ignorant, and I will explore in this discussion the barriers that prohibit Australians from being equal. I will begin by providing an understanding of class constructs and stratification, I will then go on to highlight the Inequalities Inherent in different spheres of Australian society and how these Inequalities are products of a class hierarchy. I have chosen to concentrate on healthcare; education and the legal system for these are resources that all citizens should have equal access to.

Class is a significant force in all societies, understanding class is crucial if we are to see how groups of people within our society have different experiences. Social stratification refers to the way society is organized within hierarchical layers (Furze, 2008:320). It is impossible to live in Australia without coming to realize that these different social classes are employed in deferent types of Jobs, live in different suburbs, attend different schools, receive different incomes and experience crucial differences in privilege and inequality (McGregor, 1997: 2).

As we begin to investigate how social, lattice and economic resources are distributed the disparities between groups becomes apparent- the nature of stratification creates a systematic and enduring pattern of Inequality. (Habits & Walter, 2009:2) The Inequalities that arise from class differences are largely based on constraints to access of resources; one of these resources is healthcare. It is evident that health disparities within Australia are linked to different income groups.

Lifestyle factors attributed to ill health such as poor diets, drugs and alcohol are most prominent in low income groups and minorities such as the Indigenous. These groups are socially disadvantaged and therefore have limited access to resources such as housing, health information and education. For these reasons, studies have found that pregnant aboriginal women are at a high risk of birthing underweight babies- contributing to a higher infant mortality rate, high rates of morbidity with 20 years less life expectancy than non Indigenous Australians and higher rates of alcohol abuse and self harm (Furze, 2008: 314).

Health risks are not just limited to minority groups however, blue collar workers also experience significant occupation related Issues; mining and Intensive Barbour as well as exposure to toxic substances Is likely to cause subsequent Illness. Contested due to its inaccessibility. The Federal, State and Territory governments share the responsibility of publicly funded healthcare and also provide Medicare- a healthcare system that all wage earners pay a levy toward. Recently however, there has been a growth in private health care investment illustrated by a rise in private hospital beds from 24439 in 2003 to 26988 in 2006 (Furze, 2008:317).

Citizens are being encouraged to take out private health care for better and quicker treatment, forever, this causes an ethical debate as public waiting lists are profoundly long and yet private health care is unaffordable by many. It is evident then, that class placement determines opportunity and creates barriers to achieving equal access to healthcare. Another sphere of Australian society divided by class stratification is . In many ways education and knowledge are the keys to a prosperous and successful life; however it is not possible for everyone to access this valuable resource (Habit’s and Walter, 2009:149).

The shift of government funding room public schools to private schools means that a child’s class background easily distorts their educational path. As private schools began to emerge, upper class parents would send their children to private school due to the preferred prestige and elite status they were associated with. More recently however, the decision to enroll children in private educational institutions reflects the decline the educational quality provided by public schools.

The government have turned to ‘economic rationalism’ where their focus is no longer on committing to maximizing general elf through the development of public resources but by operating on economic efficiency (Furze,2008:255). For this reason, private schools have been advantaged and public schools left behind. What is most significant about this change is that it generates socioeconomic inequality; parents with lower incomes cannot afford to send their children to private school and this subsequently reproduces the stratification system.

Socioeconomic status has further implications within the education system; this is particularly evident within the low socioeconomic groups and indigenous community. Education attrition rates for these groups are as low as 14. 5%; this is significantly low compared to a 76. 4% obtained by higher socioeconomic groups (Furze, 2008:252). Students are sorted by ability and performance indicators through standardized testing; these tests routinely consign Aboriginals to a hard competition for Jobs, income and social mobility (Furze, 2008:261).

Aboriginal children concentrated in rural areas suffer inequitable access to education, particularly as schools in remote areas have low achievement levels and staffing problems. In 2004 only 39. 5% of Aboriginals progressed to year 12 whilst 6. 8% of non indigenous students did (Furze, 2008: 263). Social inequalities and class implications are reproduced academically as wealthy schools continue to be subsidized and children of lower socioeconomic status remain disadvantaged.

Substantial evidence of class related inequality also exists within the political sphere, lower socioeconomic groups and minorities possess limitations to accessing and actively participating in this sphere in comparison to upper class citizens who are able to actively participate. Great controversy surrounds the overrepresented of Indigenous and lower class citizens in Australia; discriminatory attitudes are prevalent toward these groups due to their higher rates of unemployment.

Low levels disenfranchisement and a lack of knowledge (McGregor, 1997; 76) Relative poverty, poor health standards and a lack of educational and social opportunities have underpinned greater Aboriginal representation amongst criminal offenders. “Aborigines, it is said, make up one per cent of the general population, but nearly 30 per cent of prison in mates,” (Wolcott & Dowse, 2004: 253). This statement is echoed by statements of the Australian Law Reform Commission which claims the Aborigines re 29 times more likely to be imprisoned that non Aborigines. Wolcott & Dowse, 2004: 256) As laws of a society are connected with the dominant cultural attitudes of society, it seems the inherent bias of Australian Judicial system is ethnocentric. The ALARM have also alluded to the, ‘many instances [that] exist when Aboriginals have been imprisoned, fined or otherwise sentenced without having understood their rights,’ (Wolcott & Dowse, 2004: 259). This can be attributed again to the lack of education available to this community and the lack of access to legal aid due to financial constraints.

For Australia to be committed to a fair go’ all citizens should possess the same standard of access and equity in the legal system, however, the implications of class inequality prevent this from occurring. We can be certain that class divisions do exist in Australian society, and that these divisions limit one’s entitlement to a fair go. ‘ Myths of equality aside, the evidence is quite clear that in Australia, as in every other capitalist system, success depends very strongly on one’s socioeconomic status (Hillier, 1981 :214); it plays a pivotal role in determining access to political, social and economic resources .

Concerning the government, very powerful people have a tendency to abuse their power. This affects the citizens greatly by not having a fair system of equality. The corrupted are only out for personal gain, therefore, they manage to not do their job properly. The infamous President Nixon, as just one of many great examples. Despite the corruption, there are many figures of society that do great things for the people, but not enough to make a lasting impact.

The growing issues of murder, robbery, abuse of illegal absences, and violence, have infected the streets of our country. With the idea that such things exist, why have there not been more successful tactics to stop it? It seems as though the government Is much more concerned with stuffing their pockets than Improving lower class society. Regarding the government, they say that they are going to take action, but there Is rarely ever truth In that statement. Above the destitute are people that have more money than they could ever spend away.

In addition, there are people struggling to survive in less fortunate areas of America that could live months off the daily salary of the wealthy. They barely make enough money to have a place to live, or food to put on their table. Children starve, end up in foster care, which is a failed system in itself, and end up homeless. Instead of focusing on other countries, maybe it would be more practical to notice the problems in our own. During the wars, people at home suffer from the extreme separation of classes. Through the nations struggles, our very own country is feeling the poverty take over.

It seems quite unfair that some people can blow thousands of dollars on a champagne bottle and at the same time, a child In a bad neighborhood Is starving. The separation of classes Is nothing knew. In fact, It has been around since man could start a fire with some sticks. After the thought process of social classes flourished in the human brain, there was no going back, and now the needy suffer. There was a time when they were slaves and now they are only slaves to money. This green paper that rules the human life could be seen as the seed of all issues.

It creates greed and social classes, which are the source of what I am truly getting at. In spite of what we like to call the 21 rest century, we have barely stepped past the threshold into something great. Technology and medicine advances through the years, but it is all for nothing if we cannot get our country together. When I say together, I mean that word literally, as there is no sense of community amongst the people. We fight against each other’s ideas and beliefs, as if there are no other ways to spend our precious time and energy.

I am not saying that we should erase our differences all together, but Instead, understand that there are more Important things to fight for and It Is not with each other. Student Statement In the space below, write a statement in which you describe how well you think you did on this assignment. How well did you fulfill the requirements of the rubric and the special instructions? I feel as though I wrote a fluent, organized, and well pieced together paper. It might feel a bit personal, but that is most of my writing. I am under the impression that the truth is your most powerful tool when writing.

Your own personal paradigm of the truth will make your writing so much more riveting. First Submission Comments, Grade, and Instructions for Revision In my opinion, the points were not sewn together well, they were sprinkled throughout the first and second portion of the report. I think there needs to be a clear introduction to what I m about to read, then the body. I think the conclusion had a much better transition and the points were much more precise. Overall, I think that with a very opinionated topic there needs to be better transitions between the government, war, poverty and rich.

Final Draft: America is more corrupt than some would like to admit. It is overrun by greed, poverty, and a growing separation of social classes. Concerning the government, very powerful people have a tendency to abuse their power. This affects the citizens personal gain, therefore, they manage to not do their Job properly. The infamous President Nixon is Just one of many great examples. Despite the corruption, there are many figures of society that do great things for the people, but not enough to make a lasting impact.

The growing issues of murder, robbery, abuse of illegal substances, and violence, have infected the streets of our country. With the idea that such things exist, why have there not been more successful tactics to stop it? It seems as though the government is much more concerned with stuffing their pockets than improving lower class society. Regarding the government, they say that they are going to take action, but there is rarely ever truth in that statement. Above the destitute are people that have more money than they could ever spend away.

In addition, there are people struggling to survive in less fortunate areas of America that could live months off the daily salary of the wealthy. They barely make enough money to have a place to live, or food to put on their table. Children starve, end up in foster care, which is a failed system in itself, and end up homeless. Instead of focusing on other countries, maybe it would be more practical to notice the problems in our own. During the wars, people at home suffer from the extreme separation of classes. Through the nations trudges, our very own country is feeling the poverty take over.

It seems quite unfair that some people can blow thousands of dollars on a champagne bottle and at the nothing knew. In fact, it has been around since man could start a fire with some sticks. After the thought process of social classes flourished in the human brain, there was no going back, and now the needy suffer. There was a time when they were slaves and now they are only slaves to money. This green paper that rules the human life could be seen as the seed of all issues. It creates greed and social classes, which is the source of what I am truly getting at.

In spite of what we like to call the 21 rest century, we have barely stepped past the threshold into something great. Technology and medicine advances through the years, but it is all for nothing if we cannot get our country together. When I say together, I mean that word literally, as there is no sense of community amongst the people. We fight against each other’s ideas and beliefs, as if there are no other ways to spend our precious time and energy. I am not saying that we should erase our differences all together, but instead, understand that there are more important things to fight for and it is not with each other.

Q. Describe and write a critique of any ‘personal trouble’ and illustrate how the key theoretical concepts raised in this class can help you explain it as a ‘public issue’. This assignment will examine issues around social exclusion and teenage pregnancy. It will explore the links between teenage pregnancy, poverty, and how it links into the underclass theory. This assignment will look at the trends in teenage pregnancy in the United Kingdom. It will focus on issues based around assumptions that teenage pregnancy is and a public issue and why teenage pregnancy is a problem and whom it is a problem for.

I will be looking at what the government expectations of young people are and how they hope to raise the aspirations of these young people through education and training. It will examine the government policies and practices in relation to teenage pregnancy whilst critically analysing the implications that these have on teenage pregnancy. Teenage pregnancy according to figures published in S. E. U (1999) are rising dramatically and despite the introduction of compulsory sex education there doesn’t seem to be anyway of stopping these figures from further rising.

In England alone there are approximately 90,000 young people getting pregnant, girls under 16 account for about 7,700 of these pregnancies, and approximately 2,200 of these being under 14 years of age. Out of these pregnancies around 3/5,s go to full term and result in live births. If you explore this further the figures show that around 56,00 babies are born each year to teenage mothers. The figures suggest that there are 87,000 children living with teenage mothers in England alone. These statistics are frighteningly high and the government is aiming to halve the rate of teenage pregnancies in nder 18 year olds by the year 2010. Teenage pregnancy occurs in all classes of society but the figures show definite links between teenage pregnancy, being more prevalent in the poorer underclass, and those daughters of single mothers who themselves may have been teenage mothers. These links according to S. E. U (1999) state that ‘ socialisation and deprivation are two of the main causes of teenage pregnancy.

‘ They also state that ‘overall teenage parenthood is more common in areas of deprivation and poverty… teenage pregnancy is often a cause and a consequence of social exclusion. Information collated and analysed by the S. E. U enabes us to see how they have reached their theories surrounding teenage pregnancy. It shows how they identified and linked the risk factors to teenage pregnancy and how all of these seem to have an association with the poorest category of society the `underclass`.

The report by the S. E. U (1999) also shows how these risk factors can be seen in geographical concentrations, thus the teenage pregnancy map, ‘ resembles the distribution of local authorities identified as the most deprived in the unit’s report on neighbourhood enewal. ‘ The map shows that the poorest areas of England have up to more than six times a higher rate of teenage pregnancies than the more affluent areas. The areas outside of London which have been identified has having the highest rates of conception amongst young people are industrial cities which are going through economic recession and ports which are suffering from loss of jobs due to the recent collapse of ship building industries. How does this then prove the government’s theory that teenage pregnancy is linked to social exclusion?

A list of factors relating to women in their mid-thirties who had become teenage mothers, the evidence confirms that the vast majority are low achiever’s, do not work, single with many being reliant on long term benefits. As a result of this they have not had the opportunity to progress in life and has a result of this are trapped in the cycle of poverty, deprivation and social exclusion. Hence the S. E. U report say ‘teenage pregnancy is often the cause and a consequence of social exclusion … overall teenage parenthood is more common in areas of deprivation and poverty’.

Thus adding weight to the governments argument about teenage pregnancy being a public issue. The figures show that teenage pregnancy is a public issue; the facts show that the UK has the highest rate of teenage pregnancy in Western Europe. This is three times higher than France and nearly six times higher than Holland. Could this be down to our lack of morals? The fact remains that in Holland if you have a child in your teenage years and out of wedlock the local communities still shun you and there is a lot of social stigma attached to this.

Whilst in the UK teenage pregnancy along with cohabiting has become the `norm` and are more easily accepted, with very little stigma attached to it. The law states that sex under sixteen is unlawful and young women cannot give consent for sexual intercourse to take place. Yet in 2000 there were more than 7,000 young people under sixteen, who had conceived, with over 54% ending in legal abortions. That is a lot of young people participating in an illegal sexual intercourse. Where have all the traditional family values gone? Traditionally people meet, fall in love, get married, have children and become a loving secure family unit.

With the changing trends and loss of family values more than 90% of teenage births are outside of marriage. Thus changing family life has it was and creating a new trend towards single young mothers, children being brought up without permanent father figures, who are dependent upon the state to provide for them unless some changes can be made. The government states that it costs tax payers over i??10 billion each year, the S. E. U reports say that this money could be better spent else where, and that unless we get this phenomena under control we can not support this rising tide of young teenage mothers.

The government has been looking at the Netherlands and the United States for inspiration on how to deal with these issues. The Netherlands have one of the lowest teenage birthrate, they educate young people from a young age and take a more realistic approach to sex education. Compare this to the United States who do not provide support for teenage mothers and have used controversial measures such as forced sterilisation of certain ethnic groups and the family of these young people have to support them financially and emotionally in order for them to survive.

Do young people see it as a problem? Is it an issue for young people? After looking at facts there seems to be no evidence that states it is a problem for the young people themselves, thus it is no big issue for them. Maybe it is just another way for the government to control the lives of young people? The government seems to be saying that teenage mothers are not equipped with the skills and knowledge to become competent parents, but who decides what makes a good parent, how can age be a deciding factor in good and bad parenting.

So is it just an assumption that teenage pregnancy is a problem, functionalists would argue that it is just a process of socialisation and that if the young people aspirations could be raised then they would be able to break the cycle. Durkheim’s anomie theory (1951: 273) seems to suggest ‘that a condition of normalness arises when a disruption of the social order occurs… so that they are no longer controlled by the collective social order. ‘ Compare this to Merton’s anomie (1938:53) ‘ the roots of which lie in a structural strain, generated by differential access to opportunity structures.

Currently young girls who have little or no education and very few plans for the future are 30% more likely to get pregnant than those who aspire to gain qualifications and are well educated. Not being educated, in training or work are factors that are seen as being a negative influence on young girls and thus the risk of them becoming pregnant rises. Teenagers from socially deprived, poor families are less likely to have abortions compared to the young girls from more affluent families has they have higher aspirations in life and also have the funds to pay for private abortions.

The lack of aspirations in the poorer young girls life, can lead them to believe that they can do nothing else and also if it was not a personal trouble for their mother then why should they expect anything else in life. Evidence seems to support the socialisation theory, with young girls often having no prospects due to lack of education, family support to break the cycle, believing that this is the way life is that this is all that life has to offer them and seeing that this is the way their life has been apped out for them.

The lack of knowledge and confidence can also stop young girls from accessing services, which are available to them, and this just reinforces the negativity within their lives. As a result of finding themselves pregnant many young girls from poorer backgrounds, are less likely to continue with their education, compared to the young girls from more affluent homes who are expected to succeed in education and already have a prosperous career mapped out for them by their parents and peers.

As a result of this young mothers from poor areas, start to become trapped in the cycle of poverty, with no way of supporting themselves and child they find themselves in the benefit trap. If they wait until the child is old enough to start school, returning to education is extremely hard and most training and apprenticeships are only open to school leavers. So with no experience, qualifications, expensive childcare and limited employment options due to most young mothers only being able to afford to work during the school time hours which are usually the lowest paid jobs the poverty trap begins a down ward spiral of debt and depravation.

Therefore becoming a single teenage mother is a stigma and figures show them to be a burden on society hence a public issue. Are teenage mothers to blame for the creation of the emerging underclass in society? Teenage young mothers are often referred to as being a contributing factor in creating the underclass. The underclass theory (Murray 1980) describes this as ` people who are at the bottom of the social ladder, structurally separate and culturally distinguishable from the `decent` working class `.

Murray (1980) discovered this new class of people in the 80’s and he labelled them as the new underclass in Britain. He blames this emerging underclass on the over zealous welfare state system, which was set up to provide relief from poverty, not provide people with an alternative way of life. Where has Marx (1951) suggests that` we are born into a social class… which are modified locally by region and neighbourhood`. Thus the teenage mothers cannot be to blame for the creation of the underclass, which adds viability to the theory put forward by Murray.

The result of this theory is that there are now younger single parent families due to the ability to support themselves through the benefit system. Murray (1980) goes on to say that before the welfare system started to increase the level of provision there were few single parent families because they were not economically viable. He states `that the more generous benefits have made it possible for women to have children outside of marriage… therefore the welfare state is to blame for this phenomenon.

Thus he argues that the benefit system is to blame for single parents and they are a contributing factor of the underclass theory. Charles Murray (1980) goes on to say that we are creating a culture of dependency and if the benefits were taken away from single parents, it would discourage young people from becoming pregnant and is a possible solution to stop further development of the underclass. Many other people believe that young girls get pregnant on purpose in order to gain priority in the housing and benefits system.

There are many flaws in Murray’s (1980) theory the main one being that single teenage parents is seen in all class stratification and is not exclusive to the underclass element of society. Statistics show that young people do not start to enquire about benefits and housing prior to getting pregnant therefore these facts are not a forethought to getting pregnant. Research shows that most teenage pregnancies are not planned and young people seem to rarely plan for the future until after they are pregnant so they are very unlikely to have become pregnant in order to obtain benefits.

Liberal thinking social theorists argues that the idea of an underclass diverts attention away from what the real issues are and the disadvantages experienced by certain groups of people in society especially young people from working class backgrounds. The conservatives denied poverty existed, so why is there a need for a welfare state and where is the emerging underclass. Labour said that it is just a lack of means to work that causes poverty, thus justifying the need for a welfare state and acknowledging the `underclass` exists.

Other political groups outside these seem to blame poor education, bad housing unemployment, and family breakdown has main reasons why people become dependent on benefits and thus the underclass theory serves a purpose to hide the real causes of teenage pregnancy and social exclusion. Teenage pregnancy is a cause of and consequence of social exclusion, these young people share the values as everyone else unfortunately they have limited opportunities and are therefore restricted in plans for their future.

These young people are deemed to be suffering from inequalities in life and are victims of an unjust society, which fails to ensure a fairer distribution of opportunities and resources. Poverty and social exclusion has a direct affect on the choices young women make about abortion and sex education, and if all young people had the same opportunities and options open to them when they find themselves pregnant or prior to having sex then maybe the rate of teenage pregnancies would fall.

If young women have a clear vision about their future, their options in life explained clearly through education and training then they will have nothing to gain by choosing early parenthood. Whereas young people with no job prospects, poor education, who expects to be on benefits anyway might see that having a baby is going to provide them with a better future. The government are under pressure to cut the rate of teenage pregnancies as currently the UK has the highest rate in the western world.

So what can the government do when the media seems to undermine all the initiatives that the labour government have come up with? All the media misrepresentation has altered the public’s perception of teenage pregnancy and how the sex education program is delivered. The general consensus seems to be that Pregnancy advice is right, just the tactics used to deliver it are wrong. The media has highlighted this issue, alongside figures pointing out the amount of money currently being spent to deliver these services. It implies that all the time and money is being wasted has teenage pregnancy rates continue to ise.

The media seems to be blaming the government for wasting money and accusing them of being dictators to young people The Daily Mail newspaper reports “60 million to tell girls that it is okay to be a virgin” how can this reduce the rate of teenage pregnancy, this nanny government is wasting money telling young people how to their lives. Whilst the girls are being advised to stay virgins they are not being told about sex and how it could affect them in their future and the message to boys is that sex is okay just wear a condom so the gap between the genders just keeps getting reinforced.

The government have responded to this positively by bringing out new policies and are changing ways of delivering this service to youngpeople these include: Compulsory sex education: Sex education in schools is to become compulsory part of the national curriculum and will be taught alongside reading, writing, maths and science. The fact that it is compulsory seems to indicate that all children are being taught sex education but this is not so as parents can opt to remove their children if they so wish to. So were is the compulsory part? Should it be given to all children regardless to what a parent may feel?

It is a civil right for every young person to be educated, so why is the choices to learn about sex being taken away from the young person, Why does a parent have the right to dictate to the young person what they need to learn to become a responsible adult later in life? Without sex education how can a child make the transition through adolescence from a child to a teenager who has a need to experiment sexually safely? To conclude, teenage pregnancy is a personal personal and a public issue. Many adoloscents I think fell trapped in a viscious circle.

However I think that social exclusion and teenage pregnance are inextricably linked and these terms cannot be separated. The government have reccomended that young people should have better access to sex advice and other issues based around sex education. This is good practice but these clinics are not available countrywide, it is up to individual schools and parents to decide whether or not this service is should be available. On the other hand would these clinics encourage young people to have sex which would create an even bigger public issue?

The criticism of microcircuit programs of Nags in Bangladesh A research paper exercised by M. Hoses suicide MS Roll no. 09122453 session: 2012-13 Department of Economics Satiny Kabuki Kaki Unusual Islam University. Email address: hosensiddiquee@gmail. Com Rant Johan Roll no. 09122444 Email address: Acknowledgement It is a great honor for us to work on the assigned topic and we feel glad to accomplish our task. Along with our sincerity and interest, there are few people, who really helped us to make this endeavor to be a successful one.

At first, we would like to pass our appreciation, gratitude and thanks to our honorable teacher MD. Backchat Duding. His valuable suggestions and ideas in every step of our work helped us a lot to prepare this paper. Special thanks are due to the people of Trials Apical for helping us in collecting the required data for the work. Finally, we acknowledge the profound blessings and kindness of the almighty. Abstract The present study explores the criticism of the microcircuit programs of Nags in the Trials Apical under Enmeshing district. Here, we use primary data which we collect through field survey.

And we found out that there has some problem of microcircuit program of Nags. This paper also examines empirically the impact of credited on the study area and found out that the interest rate of Nags is very high. This study also discusses and suggests ways to overcome the problem. So we structured this paper as follows. The first two sections of the paper provide the introduction, objective and explain the research methodology. Section three outlines the literature review. Section four explains the overall condition of the microcircuit program of Nags in the study area and also in case of Bangladesh.

And section finally provides recommendation and concluding remarks. Key words: Nags, Microcircuit, interest rate, efficiency of credit, socioeconomic notation. Background of the study: Bangladesh, a country located in the south-east Asian region, inhabits above 160 million people in 55. 598 sq. Mile. And Bangladesh is one of the least developed countries, remains a poor, overpopulated, and inefficiently governed national. And poverty is the main problem of this country. Now a large number of Nags (Non Governmental Organization) are working to alleviate the poverty of the masses.

They have played a very significant role in opening up access to credit for the poor people in distant areas. During the last three decades the idea of microcircuit helps poor people to build businesses, increase their income and also fight against poverty. Microcircuit has been introduced to rural communities in Bangladesh as a means of economic and social development. But in some cases microcircuit programs of Nags was not so satisfactory. We study about the negative impact of Nags of Trials Apical under Enmeshing district.

The total population of this area is 372498 where a total area is 338. 98 sq. Km and 43. 30 percent (2005, World Bank) people live under poverty line. The study reveals the socio economic condition, microcircuit problem and also the positive and negative attitude of Nags in the study area. Objective of the study: The core purpose of the study is to identify the criticism of Nags operation. The specific objectives area To understanding the nature of the problem. 0 To identify the microcircuit problem of the study area. 0 To examine the effects of MONGO sector in the study area.

Methodology of the study: The study is an exploratory by nature and is based on both primary and secondary data. We have collected primary data through questionnaire method. To determine the major problems of microcircuit program of Nags and socio economic condition of Trials Apical primary data was collected through field survey. And secondary data are collected from research reports, relevant published documents including books, different Journals, newspapers, magazines, website, etc that are relevant to the study. Limitation of the study: There are a number of limitations in this study.

That area The respondents are limited (100 respondents or samples) in terms of size and composition. So the result may not be interpreting the overall situation of the study area. 0 The data collection was restricted only within the Trials Apical in Enmeshing district of Bangladesh which may fail to represent the actual scenario of the whole country. Sometimes respondents are biased so we cannot get appropriate data. 0 Some of the respondents are reluctant to give interview because of their experience with previous research works in the area which, according to them, bore no benefit for them.

Literature review: Literature review refers the examination of other works that have done by other researchers on the criticism of microcircuit program of Nags in Bangladesh. Eave found that, in our country very few studies have been done by archduchesses Froze Begum, Salt Holmic Zamia and MD. Shania Khan(2004) studied about,”Role of Nags in Rural Poverty Eradication: A Bangladesh Observation”. In this paper he explores the role of Nags in poverty eradication especially in rural area of Bangladesh. He examines that how the Nags of this country are playing a positive and also negative role to the poor people.

GAP, Donor Brief (No. 18, may 2004), examines about, “The Impact of Interest Rate Ceilings on Magnificence”. Here they explore that, interest rate is higher in MONGO than normal Commercial Bank rates and explain that interest rate ceilings almost always hurt the poor people. Sheikh Kabuki Duding Header, studied on “Impact of the Nags on socioeconomic conditions in Bangladesh: A study on Rajahs District”. He identify that poor people’s are benefited who are engaged with MONGO. He also observed some limitations of the MONGO programs.

The daily star (Dacha, Deck, 12, 2008) highlighted that, magnificence is not a panacea for poverty reduction. And here explained the serious problem faced by microcircuit borrowers. David Helm and Paul Mostly (1996) also studied about the impacts of microcircuit programs of Nags. They found that, poor households does not benefited from magnificence. More troubling is the findings that a vast majority of those with starting incomes below the poverty line actually ended up with sees incremental income after getting micro loans. Overview of the study: Bangladesh is one of the poorest countries in the world.

Here women are deprived by men. Many women are the victims of violence, their occupational choices are narrower and their earnings lower than men and the major portion of the women in rural Bangladesh living in abject poverty. But only a few of them get opportunity to access various types of rural enterprises that can help them to improve their economic condition. This situation has fostered the emergence of Non-Governmental Organizations (Nags). They help poor women by giving microcircuit. Now we have to discuss about microcircuit programs of Nags in Bangladesh perspective. Present scenario of microcircuit program of Nags in Bangladesh: In Bangladesh there are several institutions which is involved in magnificence activities. Nags started credit program in mid-eighties and their activities increased noticeable higher after 1990 (CDC, 2000). There are several Nosh which giving credit to the poor people, such as- Grahame Bank, BARACK, AS, SPADE, Burro Bangladesh, ASS, Rural Reconstruction, Poppy, etc. This magnificence sector is mature now and its assets constitute around 3 percent of GAP in 2011. Total outstanding loan of this sector (only licensed Miff) has increased by 20 percent from BAT 145. Billion in June 2010 to BAT 173. 8 billion in June, 2011 disburse among 20. 7 million poor people, helping them to be sleepyhead and accelerating overall economic development process of the country. The overall trend of magnificence statistics in Bangladesh can be shown by a table- Table: Basic statistics of MONGO-Miffs in Bangladesh (As of 30 June 2011) June’2010 No of Licensed INCOMING 516 June’2011 576 Total clients(million) Borrowers(million) 25. 28 19. 21 Amount Amount of of loan savings(TX million) 145022. 6 51362. 93 26. 08 20. 65 173797. 60 63304. 4 source: MR.-MIS Database-2011 The table shows that, at the end of June’2011, the sector had outstanding loans of BAT 173. 8 billion disbursed to 20. 7 million borrowers and had accumulated BAT 63. 3 billion as savings from around 26. 10 million clients over 93 percent of them are women. Here we see that, the credit amount is more than savings amount. 0 Role of microcircuit programs of Nags in Bangladesh: Bangladesh is a member of the worlds least developed countries, having increased population density, unemployment, illiteracy, socio-communal unrest and many more.

Now-a-days Nags have been playing supportive roles with the government. The role played by the Nags in Bangladesh is very good. They help poor people by giving credit facilities to alleviate poverty among the rural poor population. Generally, the Nags help women to empowering them. If women are empowered then their living standard also improved. We know that most of the rural peoples fight against the poverty and to get employment. And the Nags help these people by creating awareness among them, inspiring them and give credit facilities to self-employed. By these ways the Nags help for sustainable development of Bangladesh.

Discussion and findings: Our study is to find out the criticism of microcircuit program of Nags in the study area. The study reveals activities about microcircuit programs of Nags in Trials Apical. The total population of this area is 372498 where a total area is 338. 98 sq. Km. But we take only 100 samples to investigate the activities of microcircuit program of Nags of the study area. The overall investigation can be expressed by following way- Table: Gender, age and educational status of the respondents Total Respondents Age group Male Female >26 8 92 Percentage 8% 92% 13 Educational status 2650

Abstract: Each year thousands of people die while waiting for a kidney transplant. A market for kidney sales is currently illegal in nearly every country. This paper addresses the legal and ethical issues, as well as the economic effects that a legal market would create. The following aspects of such a market were explored: the ethical pros and cons; the current price ceiling for a legal kidney; the current supply and demand of donor’s kidneys; the fair market price; and the effect on supply and demand in a legalized market. The conclusion is that if paying a living donor can be made legal and as ethically acceptable as other medical practices, kidney sales would be economically sound.

Keywords: Market for Organs, Health Market Reform, Sales of Organs 1 Introduction Should organ sales be legalized in the United States? In today’s society, many people are suffering from diseases and conditions that require an organ transplant in order to survive. The transplant list for those in need of a new organ such as a kidney seems endless.

Every day, nearly 74 people receive an organ transplant, while each day another 17 people die waiting for their transplant due to the lack of donated organs. Why is the demand so large? Why are there not enough? Should someone be able to sell his organ to a person in need? Is it legal, ethical, or even economically sound to create a market for the sale of a kidney? What economic effects might there be if kidney sales were legalized? In the past few decades, immunosuppressive therapy and improved organ transplant expertise have increased the survival rate of kidney transplant patients. For end-stage renal disease (ESRD), transplantation, not kidney dialysis, has become the preferred treatment, because it provides the patient with an improved survival rate and a better quality of life. In turn, the number of patients with ESRD being treated by dialysis and waiting for transplantation continues to outstrip the donor pool of kidneys. The donor pool consists primarily of deceased donors and some live donors. Statistics show that only about 30% of Americans register to donate their organs after death.

Over the past ten years, the number of deceased donor kidneys has not increased despite efforts by the National Kidney Foundation, State Drivers License promotions, and celebrity ad campaigns. In the First World and middle-income countries, the demand for donor’s kidneys has increased. The populations of these countries live longer and typically develop ailments such as hypertension and diabetes caused by obesity which contributes to kidney failure. Fewer deaths from strokes, heart attacks, and motor vehicle accidents have reduced the supply of cadaver donors. Each year, the waitlist grows longer. Figure 1 illustrates that the demand for kidney transplants has grown faster than the actual supply of kidneys. As of January 2007, there were nearly 95,000 people waiting for an organ transplant. In a one year period, 7,000 people died waiting. Of those 7,000, approximately 4,000 were waiting for a kidney. The United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) predicts that by 2010, there will be nearly 100,000 people who will have to wait an average of ten years for a renal transplant.

If this trend continues, the supply of kidneys will never come close to meeting the demand. Given this dilemma, it is necessary to at least consider other options to procuring the needed kidneys. 2 Legalizing Kidney Sales? A controversial solution is to lift the ban on purchasing kidneys from live donors, or permitting some type of compensation to the families of cadaver donors. Currently, the National Organ Transplant Act of 1984 (NOTA) deems the sale of organs unlawful, and those who are found guilty of this act could be fined or sentenced to prison. This ban on kidney sales in effect makes the maximum legal price for a kidney $0. This is called a price ceiling. Figure 2 demonstrates that only 20,000 kidneys would be supplied through donation when the price is $0. However, 80,000 are demanded. This leaves a shortage of 60,000 kidneys which is the difference between the quantity demanded and the quantity supplied when the price is $0.

Whether or not to reverse or amend this act has been a subject of great debate. There are numerous legal, ethical, and economic questions that are being argued by an array of experts. The arguments against legalization Opponents of kidney sales argue that this type of market would exploit the poor population. According to Nancy Scheper-Hughes, who is an anthropologist at the University of California, Berkeley, the demand for human organs would feed off the desperation of the poor who she believes would supply the majority of the organs (Hall, n. d. ). Scheper-Hughes states, “The organs are going one way. They’re going from poor people to rich people, from Third World to First World or too rich people in the Third World” (Hall, n. . ). Those who make this point believe it would be morally wrong for the wealthy to exploit the poverty of those who would supply the organs in a legalized market (Hall, n. d. ). A study of paid kidney donors in India showed that selling a kidney initially bettered their economic situation, but did not lead to a lifetime of economic benefit. A second argument against legalizing kidney sales has been that the buying and selling of organs violate the dignity of the human person, and it treats the kidney like a commodity.

Critics claim that the dignity of a human being is denied when his basic parts, such as kidneys, are sold even after he has died and no longer needs them. With respect to treating kidneys as a commodity, Scheper-Hughes who strongly objects to the legalization of kidney sales states, “It’s a question of whether you want to turn the body into a factory of spare parts that becomes simply commodified” (Hall, n. d. ). Although there are a variety of other opinions for not legalizing kidney sales, the two previously mentioned are the ones that are most frequently argued. The arguments in favor of legalization Setting aside the major criticisms, some arguments in favor of kidney sales can be discussed. First, people have the autonomy or right to self-govern and make their own decisions about what is moral or ethical. Supporters of this opinion feel that it is not only ethical to sell a kidney, but a right because it is their body and their life. In his article, “Biotechnology, Ethics, and Free Markets,” (2008) Julian Savulescu poses an interesting thought.

He states, “But if you own anything, have a natural right to anything, it is surely your own body. Indeed the fact that we can give organs and parts of our body away implies that we own them. Giving implies ownership – if we can give, we can sell”. People take all kinds of risks, including some for money. Some may choose risky jobs because they have determined that the money outweighs the risk. Others risk damaging their body for pleasure by participating in activities such as smoking or skydiving. Their activities would not be banned or judged. Friedman sums up the autonomy argument for permitting kidney sales. He states, “The case for legalizing kidney purchase hinges on the key premise that individuals are entitled to control of their own body parts even to the point of inducing the risk of life”. A second reason that supports the legalization of kidney sales is financial incentives would lead to more donations, which in turn would save more lives. Dr. Arthur Matas proposes a plan in which donors would be able to sell a kidney.

The government would set a price and the expenses would be paid for by the recipient’s health insurance, which would usually be Medicare. The sellers would be screened both medically and psychologically prior to the transplant. They would then be followed to determine the impact the sale had on their lives as well as their health. Mark J. Perry, a professor of economics and finance at the University of Michigan, uses economics to show how a proposal such as Matas could increase the number of organs available for transplant. He explained that whenever there are shortages, market pricing is absent. Market pricing will reduce or eliminate shortages. Therefore, market pricing for kidneys would eliminate or reduce the shortage and save thousands of lives every year. A fair market minimum price, much like a minimum wage for labor, would prevent the poor from being taken advantage of, and give buyers a chance at life. A fair market price of $45,000 was suggested by the Nobel laureate (in economics) Becker. He based this fair market price on an average annual salary of $40,000, which would be a lifetime income of 3 million.

He calculated the risk of death at 1%, and a 5% decrease in the quality of life during the recovery period, which equaled $7,000. He adjusted the price of the fair market after calculating the true risk of death at about 1/300. This made the final fair market price of $20,000. Figure 3 illustrates what would happen if the ban on kidney sales was lifted. The graph indicates that at $30,000, the number of kidneys supplied would meet the number of kidneys demanded. Also, as the amount of money paid per kidney rises, the number of kidneys supplied would increase. Therefore, the equilibrium would be reached at $30,000 thus eliminating the shortage. In short, payment for kidneys equals lives saved. The third reason to permit the sale of kidneys is that it would be a financial benefit for an insurance company or Medicare (University of Maryland Medical Center, 2006). Researchers at the University of Maryland School of Medicine determined that a kidney transplant not only improved the quality of life for their patients, but it also saved money.

They found that it was cheaper to have a transplant than to stay on kidney dialysis for years until a donor match was found. In fact, the researchers discovered the break-even point was 2. 7 years, which saved the hospital about $27, 000 per year, per patient. Perhaps, even more, significant was the finding that the use of living donor kidneys decreased costs because they functioned better than cadaver kidneys right after transplant.  A review of both sides of this issue leads to the conclusion that selling a kidney should be legal and ethical, and it would be economically favorable because it would benefit thousands of people. The first opposing view was that a market for kidney sales would exploit the poor population. This argument is faulty because being poor does not make a person incapable of making a rational decision. They are certainly able to weigh the risks of this choice. According to Savulescu (2008), “If the altruistic donation is safe enough, then commercial donation should be just as safe if it is legalized. Also, keeping the poor population from being donors prevents them from improving their financial situation. Finally, the gap between supply and demand for a kidney also concerns the poor because it creates a situation where someone could take advantage of them. If a legal market was regulated, there would be less possibility for black market activities because there would be no direct sales or purchases. Therefore, there would be no exploitation of the poor in other countries.

The second argument against legalizing kidney sales is that the buying and selling of organs violates the dignity of the human person, and it treats the kidney like a commodity. This position is also flawed. Savulescu (2008) states, “Where a fair price is set, sellers are making judgments about how to promote their own well-being and other values. This is the expression of human dignity: to be autonomous. ” Treating the kidney as a commodity is no different than the sale of hair, eggs, blood, or semen. Currently, the sale of these bodily materials is legal and ethically accepted despite the fact that they are sold by an unequally large portion of people who are poor. 4 Conclusion If paying a living donor can be made legal and as ethically acceptable as other medical practices, kidney sales would be economically sound. Establishing a fair market price for a kidney would address concerns about equity and prevent exploitation by those in an illegal market. A fair market price would also likely entice more people to sell a kidney. This in turn would increase the supply, decrease the demand, and eliminate the shortage.

References

1. The gap between supply and demand. Retrieved November 27, 2008, from The Economist. com Web site: http://www.economist.com/world/international/displaystory.cfm? story_id=12380981 Autonomy. (2008).
2. In Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary. Retrieved November 28, 2008, from http://www.merriam-webster. com/dictionary/autonomy Bramstedt, K (2007).
3. Checklist: Passport, plane ticket, organ transplant. American Journal of Transplantation. 7(7), 1698-1701.  Castro, L. D. 2003).
4. Commodification and exploitation: Arguments in favor of compensated organ donation. Journal of Medical Ethics. 29, 142-146. Doucet, B (2008).
5. Kidney kingpin’s case highlights practical & ethical arguments for free markets. Retrieved November 25, 2008, from Quebecois Libre Web site: http://www.quebecoislibre.org/08/080210-4.htm Erin, C. A., & Harris, J (2003).
6. An ethical market in human organs. Journal of Medical Ethics. 29, 137-138. Friedman, A. L (2006).
7. Payment for living organ donation should be legalized. BMJ. 333, 746-748. Friedman, E. A., & Friedman, A. L. , (2006).
8. Payment for donor’s kidneys: Pros and cons. Kidney International, 69, 960-962. Ghods, A. J. , & Savaj, S (2006).
9. Live kidney organ donation: Is it time for a different approach?. Clinical Journal of American Society of Nephrology. 1, 1136-1145. Goyal, M, Mehta, R. L, Schneiderman, L. J, & Sehgal, A. R. (2002).
10. Knapp, T (2005, April 4).
11. http://www.freemarketnews.com/Analysis/118/1275/April-4 2005. asp? nid=1275=118 9|Page Mayes, G (2003).
12. Buying and selling organs for transplantation in the United States. Medscape Transplantation, 4(2), Retrieved November 23, 2008.
13. http://www. medscape.com/viewarticle/465200_print Perry, M (2007, December 13).
14. Markets in everything: Organ sales. Retrieved November 24, 2008.
15. : http://mjperry. blogspot. com/2007/11/ markets-everything-organ-sales.tml Savulescu, Julian (2008, September 8).
16. http://www.practicalethicsnews. com/practicalethics/2008/06/setting-a-minim.html Savulescu, Julian (2008, June 19).

In the subsequent pages I will explain the failures and successes of the New Deal. I will show how statistics do not show the true accomplishment of the New Deal. I will look at the criticisms Roosevelt faced and how he had come to power when America was on her last leg. When Franklin D. Roosevelt came to power in March 1933 he had America dazzled by his magnetic personality and captivating charisma. He embraced America and held it closely to his heart. He loved it and could see that Herbert Hoover’s reign over America had destroyed her. His New Deal was a fresh and exciting way of repairing the once great America.

His popularity was undeniable and showed the support he was getting for the New Deal among the Americans. He gave assurance and hope to those who lived in ‘Hoovervilles’ to those who queued up for ‘Hoover Stew’. These nicknames were given to the food handouts and shanty towns to demonstrate what Hoover had done to them. Roosevelt’s aims were simple and tackled all that was wrong with America; Get the unemployed back to work, protect their savings and property, provide aid for the sick, old and unemployed, get the industry and agriculture back to it’s norm and finally restore confidence in the banks.

He set up many Alphabet Agencies and passed many Acts to try and conquer the evil that was Hoover’s pandemonium. First of all I shall explain the successes. Roosevelt stopped the depression getting any worse. When he came to power in 1933 America had a much greater confidence in her economy. His own poise helped development in Wall Street. The GDP increased by sixty percent between 1933 and 1939, in six years private investment in industry increased by five times and consumer products bought increased by forty percent. People queuing up for food a was just another image of the past.

Millions of people got relief, food, clothes and shelter, and it was this emergency relief that prevented them from starving. Many ordinary people were helped with government social security and welfare schemes. This wasn’t just for emergency either, it continued in the future. The most affected by the depression were farmers and Roosevelt made sure they were looked after in the New Deal. By the mid 1930s farmer’s incomes were rising, especially those with larger farms. Farmers definitely benefited. The New Deal assisted in letting farmers and home owners to stay in their homes.

The HOLC was set up and low interest loans were given to home owners. This helped them to cope with mortgage repayments, that were previously out of control, when out of employment. For farmers they were given help through the Farm Credit Administration. For the old, sick and unemployed they had no security, financially or socially. In 1935 the Social Security Act set up a system of national insurance. The elderly were given old age pensions, the unemployed had benefits and the handicapped had financial support. The government, employers and workers paid contributions that funded it.

The unemployed were a priority so the Federal Emergency Relief Administration (FERA) gave grants to state and local governments to stabilise the jobless. The projects the New Deal provided helped to build the foundations for future affluence. The schools, roads, dams and many more buildings rekindled America. The Public Works Administration (PWA) constructed many public buildings of the USA such as hospitals and city halls. The ‘Dustbowl’ regions were seriously affected by the depression and over-farming had led to the ruin of the land and serious lack of interest from business.

But the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) restored the valley in seven states. It built several major dams to generate cheap electricity for those ninety eight percent who hadn’t got it. It also offered leisure activities on recently built lakes. The Tennessee river developed into being navigable and brought great business interest to the valley. The land was poor so the Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) completed useful schemes like strengthening river banks, fighting forest fires and combating malaria by controlling the mosquitoes.

Mainly to help the land though they planted approximately two hundred million trees, which significantly reduced soil erosion and supplied the crops with shelter belts. Not only did it help the environment but the members benefited. For the three million men under twenty five, who were members of the CCC, it gave them a first involvement in work. Hoover’s laissez-faire attitude had made people get used to the fact that federal government had no concern for singular states. But the TVA changed the relationship that was acknowledged by America.

State and federal government now were a lot closer and in some cases federal government cut through the powers of state governments. The weaker sections of American society needed central government to get them out of despair. The homeless, old and poor were most desperate and state government couldn’t give all the help that was required. The Tennessee Valley was in such a dire condition that one state could not deal with all the difficulties that the valley was suffering with and the seven states were finding it problematic to liaise with each other.

Consequently the TVA was made and did in some instances cut through the powers of the state governments. However it did help the area substantially – electricity and irrigation was provided through the building of the dams in addition to employment. Finally, and most importantly, it gave much appreciated and needed hope to America at her nadir and, in some opinions, saved American democracy. The 1930s were looking bleak at the end of the twenties but Roosevelt came in as a superhero, to save those who were despondent and long suffering.

Those, once omitted by the depression and unfair politics, black people and farmers, were now involved. Why certain people supported the New deal is apparent but others are uncertain. Farmers and white unemployed people obviously wanted to support the New Deal because they would prosper from the policies. They gained financial support and the economy boosted meaning that the ‘Roaring Twenties’ looked achievable once again. But what really stumps many historians is why so many black people supported Roosevelt and voted democratic (the largest number of black people to vote democratic since the American Civil war of 1861-65).

Many of the New Deal agencies and acts discriminated against black people, even resulting in the NRA being commonly renamed the ‘Negro Removal Agency’ as they were pushed out when levels of wage were regulated. Roosevelt did not take actions to get black people equal rights for fear of losing his majority of voters, white southerners. However he did sign an anti-lynching bill. Directly the president showed little concern for them but on the contrary did have people who worked for him that did care and even employed some black people. Even his wife Eleanor showed her care for their welfare.

Overall the New Deal mainly reduced employment from 1933 to 1937 (1933 – fifteen million unemployed, 1937 – under eight and a half million unemployed) and millions of jobs were created. Despite his critics few turned to extremism in the form of communism or fascism unlike his European counterparts. Nonetheless the New Deal did have some failures and it’s own opposition. One of the problems was not with the New Deal but in fact Roosevelt himself, in that he was paradoxicaland kept changing what he wanted to do. The laws he set were changed so quickly that the American people didn’t know where they stood.

Some felt that he was dictator like and had too much control. Because of this his critics spoke out more confidently and made some reconsider their opinion of him. The Supreme Court was wholly against the New Deal and declared some acts like the PWA and AAA as unlawful. This caused parts of the New Deal to be overruled by Congress. Another problem was that big businesses still continued to be powerful and emasculated Roosevelt’s policies. Hoover’s laissez-faire attitude was appreciated by employers and because of this many begrudged the New Deal.

They didn’t want government prying into business and economy and as a result larger companies hired thugs to assault union leaders and terrorize workers on strike for better working conditions and increased pay. In 1937 ten demonstrators were shot dead by police and ninety wounded during a steelworkers strike in Chicago. This discouraged employees to ask for pay and was potentially a threat to the economy. The New Deal helped the poor, sick and unemployed financially. But the very poorest were left out in the cold.

The Social Security Act came to power to help monetarily but it excluded twenty percent of the workforce as well as five million farm workers and domestics in anguish. There was no source for state-paid medical care. In 1941 the poorest twenty percent were earning only four percent of the national income while the richest twenty percent were contributing forty nine percent to it. There were many poor people who could barely afford food at the price it was but when the AAA helped rise prices to increase farmer’s salaries this caused an even bigger problem for the millions of jobless Americans.

Farmers with big farms profited from the New Deal but the small time farmers felt it hindered them along with farm labourers and sharecroppers, who were mainly black. These sufferers tended to live in rural America where poverty was rife, specifically southern America. An enduring drought in 1934-5 hit these already destitute states and turned the soil to dust. There was no rain and desert was spreading like wild fire. Texas, Kansas, Oklahoma and Colorado were known as ‘Dustbowl’. The ‘Okies’ set off to find work in California but instead experienced adversity.

Another huge group who suffered at the hands of the New Deal were black people. There was attempts in the New Deal to tackle their civil rights but they did not go far enough. Unfortunately Roosevelt put his ego first and knew that by giving black people rights he would lose his support from the southern democratic who were deadly against giving black people equality. The emergency relief was essential for the thirty percent of black people who depended on it but there was no specific laws to combat their own distress from the depression.

The 1920s were the high point of American history and industry. Everyone was confident and had no worries. Spending was high and investment was soaring. But when the crash hit everyone became disheartened. The Americans put up with Hoover’s pathetic excuse for a presidency and there seemed to be no future. When Roosevelt came there was hope again that the ‘Roaring Twenties’ would be resurrected but America was far from it. Despite Roosevelt’s best efforts by 1937 Americans were only spending and investing about seventy five percent of what they had in 1929.

The most considerable and, in my opinion, the most reputation ruining encumbrance of the New Deal was that unemployment remained high for a majority of Roosevelt’s years as President. Up to 1937 the figures were decreasing from a 1933 figure of fifteen million to eight million, three hundred thousand in 1937. But because of the rising national debt of two hundred and fifty million dollars (big compared to the Hoover debt of nineteen billion dollars) Roosevelt had to cut back on government spending.

This was calamitous and accordingly the economy plunged. Unemployment rose to ten and a half million as a direct result of industrial production falling by a third. By 1938 Roosevelt saw his faux pas and increased government spending in the hope to recover from this fiasco but by 1940 the 1937 level was still not met. Agencies like the CCC and PWA were labelled as forced labour because of the low pay and creating work for the sake of it. The government money funded all this so in effect by lowering the money spent by government you stopped all the jobs.

Others critics said that yes America gained from the schools, hospitals and courthouses courtesy of the PWA and WPA but it was pointless work created to make Roosevelt look good. The New Deal was viciously attacked by economists who complained that the New Deal policies were short term affairs and the future of America was still dubious. They believed that those who counted on the New Deal were being conned as all the evidence clearly showed that in the near future their jobs would be gone. Also the government could reduce unemployment but could never stop it fully.

They endeavoured to contain it but it was not enough. William Leuchtenburg thought that World War two got America out of the depression. Finally the last failure was that the cost was too great and a lot was wasted. For the WPA millions of dollars were spent on wages and money was given out like sweets. There was all the loans to banks, money for farmers, money to soup kitchens for necessities like blankets. All of this was seen as vital but some felt that money was being literally thrown away because Roosevelt couldn’t hope to spend the real amount needed on solving unemployment.

The rich and Republicans were bitter because of the taxes increasing. They felt that government should maintain a laissez faire attitude and stop controlling their traditional freedoms. They had liked Hoover’s way of thinking. They liked his idea that people should be individually strong, help themselves and that the wealthy should be left alone to make money and not reprimanded for it. Their opinion differed greatly from the average American and so Roosevelt could not oblige everyone. These rich republicans tried to say that Roosevelt, the saviour of America, was setting up a dictatorship.

Their evidence was when in 1936 he had tried to fill the Supreme Court with his loyal democrats so that his policies and ideas would not be overruled. They also said he had socialist ideas as all his policies were aimed at working class, the unemployed and the poor. My opinion is this. Franklin D. Roosevelt was a great man who defended those who were in inexplicable poverty. At some points he did change his mind but I think that he thought he didn’t need a plan b or something to resort to.

When he set up the New Deal agencies and acts he thought he could appeal to America as someone who takes action. When some acts were declared unlawful I think he was shocked. After the depression everybody was like zombies, dead to their surroundings because there was no one to help. Yet here is someone who is trying to help and he is criticised and made out to be a dictator. Personally I find this shameful. Repairing the broken situation was the clear way forward. But Herbert Hoover had chosen to leave America to lick her own wounds and only took action when it was too late.

Hoover had given big businesses the foot up they needed and they were more powerful that the government itself. Roosevelt cannot be blamed for larger companies’ power. Money equalled power and the wealthy were always going to come out on top. He set up all these acts and agencies and successfully saved many farmers from inevitable mountains of debt and stopped starvation for millions. There were some who were left out of this but these were the people that every society has, even today. They are the ones who are destined to fail, never seize an opportunity and lack a killer instinct.

There is no desire to get out of their situation and therefore Roosevelt could not help these people. Black people did suffer and those who lived in rural areas and Roosevelt did neglect the rights of black people but he did show his support in subtle mannerisms. For instance his wife cared deeply for their wellbeing, he employed black people to work on major projects like Mary McLeod Bethune who was in charge of the National Youth Administration and he also signed an anti-lynching bill. If he was to declare his undying support for them he would be outcast himself and lose his voters.

He did put his own self-importance above them but Hoover did far worse and Roosevelt had done so much good he could be forgiven for being restrained in his approach to black people. To help the rural areas he greatly increased business through the TVA and dams. His ideas were fresh and the valley took advantage of the waterways. Unemployment was the biggest issue but there is an explanation. Using the 1928 figures as a comparison Roosevelt didn’t get the figures back but after such a profitable economical peak and then an immense misfortune it would be absurd to expect him to get them back, in fact impossible.

But the main issue I have is that the critics were usually the people who were not affected by the crash. The wealthy had a small dent in their bank accounts and nothing that couldn’t be fixed with some expensive wine and caviar. The Americans that really suffered valued his unexplainable care for them. He himself was from a wealthy background and could easily have just ignored the poor and get on with helping himself to profits in big companies. But something was so charismatic that it was hard to hate someone who spoke such sense, such vision and concern.

Care was like a swear word to Hoover who had no regard for his country’s opinion of him. “I ask you to judge me by the enemies I have made. ” Wise words from Roosevelt, and true. Wealthy economists disliked him because he cared. They wanted a laissez-faire, stone-hearted President who didn’t give a damn. But Roosevelt took a stand against the Republicans and thank God he did. Regarding the statement I agree to the extent that nothing can be perfect as things have to go back to the drawing board. But I think that considering the circumstances in which Roosevelt was handed America, he did extremely well.

He completed his aims. Unemployment was it’s lowest since 1933 by 1940, with fluctuations obviously, property was saved thanks to low interest loans and savings were protected, industry and agriculture bounced back, pensions were provided for the old and benefits given to the unemployed and handicapped. Finally America was confident again. The great country America was back and the world was beckoning her to call out her glory once more. And so she did, with Roosevelt firmly behind her all the way.