Sod the poor - a history of social exclusion

23 September 2013

Devolving power to city authorities has always been problematic.

Following the 1835 Municipal Corporations Act, in Victorian Britain, towns and cities enjoyed an ever increasing amount of autonomy. They could create their own bye-laws. In 1844, this allowed a city (still town) like Manchester to pass their own Police Act to prevent the future building of the notorious back-to-back houses. This was a progressive reaction by a local authority to a local problem. Later, Birmingham council under Joseph Chamberlain (inspired by the 'Civic Gospel'), introduced a series of reforms that helped transform the city centre and public health.

Growth of slums

The problem was that not every local authority was willing to pass progressive policies or legislation. Others were dominated by rate payers associations that wanted to control public spending. Reforms were, generally, limited both in time and place. Local authorities were controlled by either local elites or the lower middle classes. Grand town halls were built at considerable costs. They were a form of symbolic power, a reflection of the status of the city and of the people with local economic, social and political power. In the meantime, the slums continued to grow to unprecedented levels.

The structure of power meant that local autonomy was still concentrated in the hands of the few. There was a type of postcode lottery, with some towns introducing social reforms at different periods, whilst others had, at best, limited improvements.

State intervention

In the twentieth century, with a widened franchise and the rise of the Labour movement, improvements were gradually introduced. Yet it was the state that often passed legislation that was no longer permissive but which compelled local authorities to take action. In effect, the state had to intervene to ensure that reforms such as slum clearance were effective across the whole country. The government became the means by which the postcode lottery was avoided. As the welfare state expanded, and as local government also increased in size and scope, central government increasingly controlled policy and finances. Autonomy was eroded.

Voluntary groups dominated by the middle classes

In Britain, the role of local government had always been defined by the state. Yet they were not the only institution responsible for shaping urban policy. The rise of civil society was vital to the healthy functioning of democracy.

Again, the Victorian period saw an unprecedented rise in the number of local organisations. Urban governance was characterised not only by public bodies like the council but also by the large number of voluntary groups formed by local citizens concerned with any number of social, political and economic causes.

These included a range of hospitals, missionary societies, shelters and rescue homes, schools, temperance groups and cultural societies. Once more, they were dominated by the middle classes, by the people with the time and money to spend on the causes with which they were most interested.

The poor and the working classes were generally excluded because they did not have the time, resources or skills and confidence to engage. That said, mutual aid organisations were formed by members of the working classes. Some were very successful, including the cooperatives, burial clubs and friendly societies. These were democratic organisations that gave their working class members some relief from sickness and vital support for families suffering bereavement.

Yet even these (like the trade unions) excluded the poorest members of urban communities.

Negative sterotypes designed to exclude

Since the emergence of urban Britain, one group has always been portrayed as a dangerous threat to the moral fabric of the nation. They have had various tags over the last two centuries, including the undeserving poor, the submerged tenth, the residuum, the lumpenproletariat, the slum dweller, the problem families and the underclass.

Whilst participation in the democratic processes across the twentieth century has at very least included working class movements and representation through the council or the board of local hospitals (pre-welfare state), the slum dweller (as opposed to people who live in slums) has always been marginalised.

To be fair, even the inclusion of the working classes has been limited to representation largely through trade unions and the Labour Party.

The planning system and participation

The notion of participation began to emerge in the 1960s, though it had its origins in planning from the 1940s. Some leading planners like Max Lock saw it as a means of including people in the decision-making process. In reality, it proved very limited.

Nevertheless, some politicians began to see participation as a way of extending democracy. Some members of the Labour government in the 1960s promoted participation as a vehicle for social inclusion, particularly in planning. In 1968, Arthur Skeffington was appointed chair of a government committee to look at developing participation in the planning system.

In 1969 they published People and Planning. The problem was that 'participation' was ill defined. It was actually interpreted by Skeffington and planners as an educational tool, a means of informing people about the planning process. Participation forums were generally avoided. The underlying danger with any form of participation was that it would prove to be little more than tokenism.

Since the Skeffington Report, outcomes have been either top-down local authority controlled or bottom-up attempts at power sharing. There is still concern that while planning protest against some decisions can attract a great deal of attention, publicity and sympathy, others, such as the poor, unemployed, homeless and ethnic minorities remain passive voices.

The problem of social and political exclusion remains. However, if participation is to be an effective means of expanding democracy then exclusion must still be addressed. Despite the criticisms, the fundamental values of the Skeffington Report have become accepted normative principles in the language of planning. Recent studies have pointed ways forward. The perceived importance of the 'stakeholder' is claimed to be of central importance.

A fair society cannot push aside the vulnerable

Meaningful change has to engage all members of society. The 'excluded' have to be given the opportunities to acquire the skills that will give them the confidence and skills needed to participate. Political structures must allow and encourage them to get involved. This would require considerable social and cultural changes. Negative stereotypes still abound that sustain social barriers.

For example, areas like the old slumland or the more recent inner city or sink estates have all too often been demonised. The residents were, and remain, associated with the physical space they inhabit and with largely imagined and generalised moral-laden values.

This process of marginalisation is linked to the growth a market-led economy. It has always pushed the weak and vulnerable to the edges, the only places they can afford to exist. It is a process that shows little sign of dissipating.

Since the 1970s, the pace of globalisation and competition has increased. Cities compete for limited resources and investment on a global level. The pressure to secure investment and, thereby, jobs and greater wealth has increased. Even within a country, cities are competing for the same resources. Global economics drives national and urban policy. This is the most fundamental issue.

If fair and effective distributions of the earth's dwindling resources are to be used in developing all cities, then the primacy of the market in the decision-making process has to be challenged. 'Sharing' demands a global response.

Dr Peter Shapely
Head of School
School of History, Welsh History & Archaeology